When discussing who created feminism, I have heard it said that it was alpha-type men, meaning men who are highly sexually attractive to women, who were really behind it, and women were just their useful foolish stooges. Rebellion and selfishness may have been the women’s motivating forces, but they were stooges nonetheless.
Women’s Studies professor and feminist author Susan M. Hartmann credits the Ford Foundation with being a substantive force that created the feminist movement. In fact, Ford’s support of women’s studies and feminist causes is so extensive that it cannot be summarized in an article of this length. The subject is ripe for a full-length book. It is safe to say that without the Ford Foundation, feminism would not have been successful in gaining such a strong foothold in academia, and by extension, politics.
In 1971, a group of feminists approached Ford president McGeorge Bundy with a request to involve itself in the feminist movement the way it had in the Civil Rights movement, essentially, creating it out of whole cloth. The result of those early discussions was a full-fledged women’s project to fund the small number of existing women’s advocacy organizations, and also to create a whole new field within academia known as “women’s studies.” In 1972, Ford announced the first $1 million national fellowship program for “faculty and doctoral dissertation research on the role of women in society and Women’s Studies broadly construed.”
A 2005 article in City-Journal gave a number of examples of wealthy men making large contributions to feminist causes and organizations:
…Chairman of Insight Communications [Sidney R. Knafel (Harvard AB ’52, MBA ’54)], the nation’s ninth-largest cable company, with a market value of some $2.1 billion, Knafel has recently forked over a juicy $1.5 million to the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, a font of feminist grievance and left-wing posturing.
…it is of course possible that Knafel shares the institute’s belief that America still saddles its women with institutionalized sexism. But he wouldn’t say. He refused an interview about his giving…Other donors to the institute were also inaccessible, including Richard M. Cashin, Jr. (Harvard AB ’75, MBA ’80), chairman of One Equity Partners, which manages over $2 billion in investments for JPMorgan Chase & Co. Cashin gave $750,000 this year for a Radcliffe Institute fellowship.
Hugh Hefner, of course, was and is a major supporter of feminism and his Playboy Foundation donated thousands of dollars to the Ms. Foundation in the 1970s. In the early 80s, Ms. stopped accepting money from Hefner because some of their members objected, but the Playboy Foundation, along with Playboy Magazine, were essential to the creation of sex-positive feminism, which benefits a relatively small number of men. Hefner is straightforward about not only supporting feminism but also sexually objectifying women:
Hugh Hefner spoke to the Daily News about his new documentary, ‘Hugh Hefner: Playboy, Activist and Rebel,’ which explores his contributions to the civil rights and feminist movements.
“The notion that Playboy turns women into sex objects is ridiculous. Women are sex objects…What I take the greatest pride in is the fact that I’ve played a significant part in the changing of our social and sexual values. Sex outside of wedlock used to not only be forbidden, it was illegal. Playboy helped change those attitudes and laws.”
For one final example of alpha men funding the creation of feminism, consider that according to the article The History of the Women’s Studies Program, published on the University of Michigan website, the Rockefeller Foundation was also a major donor to the early feminist movement via the creation of Women’s Studies departments.
One might argue that liberalism in general – and every bizarre policy that liberal men espouse from gender “equality” to gay “marriage” to every form of sexual perversion imaginable – is really being put forth by these same alpha men in order to increase their sexual access to a larger pool of females with no commensurate increase in their responsibility toward those females. The looser the mores and the more distracted everyone is by the lack of any clearly defined authority hierarchy, the easier it is for them to establish a de facto hierarchy in which they snap up every desirable female, use them for sex, and then tell those women that they would be oppressing them if they actually took any responsibility for them as leaders, providers, or protectors.
But when it comes to alpha males espousing feminism for access to females and women being their useful foolish stooges, don’t take my word for it; real-world examples abound. For instance:
It’s among the most patriarchal domestic arrangements you can sign up for. In polygamy, husbands are king.
But one polygamist family is insisting that it’s the exception. The Williams clan, which lives outside Salt Lake City, comprises wives Paulie, Robyn, Rosemary, Nonie, and Rhonda. There are 24 children. And, one other person … oh, right, husband Brady. He’s a construction manager and philosophy major who’s currently enrolled in a feminist theory course at a local college and who refuses to accept the title “head of the household.” He doesn’t like the sexist connotation…
When asked who among them identified as a “feminist,” six hands shot up as if propelled by jack-in-the-box springs. For the wives, this brand of feminism involves sleeping with their spouse only every fifth night, consulting their husband’s other wives if they want to adopt a child, and—Rosemary puts it, fighting their own psyches to keep jealousy locked in a cage like the wild animal it is.
Brady insists that he’s about equality in his relationships. “And that can exist with more than a man and a wife. That can exist with a man and a wife and a wife and a wife and a wife and a wife.”
For the wives, this brand of feminism involves sleeping with their spouse only every fifth night and keeping jealousy locked in a cage like a wild animal.
…The Williamses teach their children that gender doesn’t determine a person’s value, that girls can be anything boys can be, and that it’s okay to be gay — or even have “multiple husbands,” Nonie noted — if that’s your jam.
“Whatever form marriage and family comes in, as long as it’s about love and commitment, that’s okay,” Brady said. “Where no one’s a victim. Where no one’s being compelled to be in it. Consenting adults who love each other should be able to express that in a family setting.”
Only, in TLC’s edit, Brady comes across as the center of everyone’s everything. [emphasis mine]
Notice how careful Brady is to say that he isn’t the “head of household” even though all the women clearly make him the center of their world. This is Brady’s way of walking back his sense of responsibility for the women in his harem:
Two of the wives work outside the home and one in the construction business. The other two are taking college courses [...] The five wives take turns fixing dinners on weeknights for 30 hungry people. (source)
He is an alpha-male player who came to the realization that having all these wives to lead and be responsible for is such a drag, so *presto* suddenly he’s a feminist. And since he is a feminist, it would be oppressive and patriarchal of him to consider himself responsible for his harem. They are, according to Brady, strong-n-independent equal fish-women who don’t need him to be their man-bicycle; they just choose to be with him, attending to his bed on his schedule and submitting to him on all issues, but he doesn’t owe them any leadership or care in return for their submission and sexuality because hey, we’re all free and equal here.
And how do Brady’s women know that they are strong-n-independent, free-n-equal women who don’t need him to be the head of the home?
Why, because Brady told them they are, of course.