Why We Should Not Celebrate “International Women’s Day” (March 8)

Why We Should Not Celebrate “International Women’s Day” (March 8)

Feminism is a mean-spirited, small-minded, and oppressive philosophy that can poison relations between the sexes—relations which, for most of us, provide some of life’s deepest pleasures and consolations.

Feminism has attempted to bully us all into accepting an obvious lie: the lie that men and women have the same powers, talents, proclivities, and desires and that, consequently, any discrepancy in their professional paths is due to bigotry and must be corrected by force of culture and law. By shoving that lie down our throats, feminism has made both men and women less happy and less free….

Feminism denigrates masculinity in men by relentlessly calling us “toxic” for our flaws rather than appreciating our natural qualities of energy, risk-taking and leadership. But it also denigrates femininity in women, working to replace most women’s commitment to relationship and child-rearing with male obsessions such as career status and strength.

Andrew Klavan

As we approach March 8, touted by leftist ideologues as International Women’s Day, we are bombarded by progressive establishments’ appeals to celebrate not only the day but the entire month as honoring working women around the world.

Globalist corporations promote virtual backgrounds for their video calls featuring this fake communist celebration. They wax lyrical about the virtues of the modern woman as a fearless warrior or pilot. She is the powerful CEO who revels in attending mind-numbing Board meetings and enacting woke policies day after day as her sole raison d’être. She despises old-fashioned sources of existential meaning such as being a mother and a homemaker.

Of course, there is nothing wrong if a woman holds an important job. But there is plenty wrong with indoctrinating young girls that they must reject their nature and demonize men.

March 8 is a communist holiday, established by Vladimir Lenin in the Soviet Union. It rejects femininity but glorifies feminism as part of the Marxist obsession with eradicating traditional values related to marriage and family. Hopefully, a brief historical excursion would dampen the enthusiasm of even the most ardent and devoted International Women’s Day celebrants.

Shortly after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917, several decrees were published in a few Russian cities. These decrees proclaimed that women between the ages of about 17 and 30, except those with five or more children, would be nationalized and used as public sexual property by working-class or other underprivileged men.

Non-working-class men would pay a steep fee for access to the nationalized women. The accidental offspring of this practice would belong to the state and remanded to orphanages. Women were to receive a government payment for their civil service.

As noted in History of Russia. 20^th Century, written by a team of academic experts and edited by the authoritative Russian historian Andrey Zubov:

In various regions of Russia, which were under Bolshevik rule, in 1918–1919 decrees were issued and entered into effect, announcing that women were “national property.”… One can imagine to what horrors the attempts to enforce these decrees led. [Volume 1, location 2032, translation mine]

Two of these decrees were translated and printed in The New York Times on February 18, 1919, as part of a United States government investigation into Bolshevik practices.

Responsibility for these decrees has been denied and passed around between the Bolsheviks and their allies, such as various anarchist organizations, which were pro-Marxists and helped the Russian communists during and after the Revolution.

The Saratov decree, issued in 1918 by the Gubernatorial Council of the People’s Commissaries and currently kept in the Oryol archives with Inventory No. 15554-П, caused widespread outrage and subsequent attempts by communist sympathizers to discredit its authenticity. It became the subject of heated debates as to what extent it represented an official document or a provocative act against the local anarchist club by a man named Mikhail Uvarov, who was subsequently brutally murdered.

Similar decrees were issued in cities such as Vladimir and Ekaterinodar, and some were published in city newspapers, notably the Vladimir Vesti, as official municipal documents. In Moscow, a notorious lawsuit took place in June 1918 against Martyn Hvatov, who reportedly authored an earlier decree about the “nationalization of women,” right after the revolution in 1917, on behalf of the Moscow anarchists.

Hvatov declared his home to be a “Palace of Free Love for Communards” and effectively turned it into a house of ill repute. He hosted any women who needed a place to stay free of charge. He then decided to exercise his entrepreneurial spirit and began to collect a fee from male visitors. This “capitalist” practice was a major issue during his lawsuit. With the help of testimony by Alexandra Kollontay, a famous Russian feminist and member of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party, Hvatov was acquitted, and the Palace of Free Love, as well as the proceeds collected by Hvatov, were confiscated by the government. He was murdered the following day.

Fortunately, issuing such decrees did not last as an accepted and enforced practice. Nevertheless, this illustrates the dangerous extremes that resulted from attempts to realize the anarcho-communist vision of a society without individual rights to marriage, property, personal autonomy, and freedom.

The problem with the feminist doctrine, as well as any other example of intersectionality and collectivism, is that it extols certain social groups while demonizing others. It denies the unique worth and innate rights of both women and men as individuals. It purports to protect and empower women, while it destroys the mysterious beauty and magical allure of femininity and masculinity. It vilifies masculinity as “toxic” and men as patriarchal predators, but it also devalues women’s dignity by encouraging them to engage in mindless and promiscuous relationships, which hurts them much more than it does men and makes them easier prey for disrespectful and abusive treatment.

While it is true that civic life and most professions throughout history have been a traditionally male domain, while women largely stayed at home, this was mostly due to commonsense practicalities and economic reasons. These ranged from obvious differences such as men being physically stronger and better suited as providers, hunters, warriors, and protectors, and women being naturally better as caregivers and nurturers. Other reasons included societal structures and norms. As private property, laws of inheritance, and the importance of creating a family and continuing one’s name became an essential part of Western mores, it was necessary to establish paternity and protect women’s virtue.

When industrial progress and free enterprise engendered unparalleled prosperity in the modern world, it became easier for women to practice various professions if they so desired. Interestingly enough, in Eastern Europe, starting as early as the first half of the 20^th century, numerous women became doctors, writers, lawyers, and influential public figures, while remaining dedicated wives and mothers. We see the same fascinating phenomenon today, with many conservative women in the United States holding high-level positions but also being proudly devoted to their often rather large families.

The times we live in necessitate that we reaffirm an old commonsense truth—that both men and women are inherently valuable, intelligent, and talented—but in different ways. These differences do not signify weakness and oppression but are a magnificently exciting and emotionally rewarding part of life. While one should treat human beings with kindness and respect regardless of their sexual orientation, this need not mean that men and women are identical or interchangeable and that masculinity and femininity are to be abolished as obsolete and meaningless notions.

Men and women do need each other—they make each other better, and their synergies produce a splendid multi-dimensional result that is much greater than the sum of its parts. John Gray famously wrote in Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus: “When men and women are able to respect and accept their differences, then love has a chance to blossom.”

Nora D. Clinton is a Research Scholar at the Legal Insurrection Foundation. She was born and raised in Sofia, Bulgaria. She holds a PhD in Classics and has published extensively on ancient documents on stone. In 2020, she authored the popular memoir Quarantine Reflections Across Two Worlds. Nora is a co-founder of two partner charities dedicated to academic cooperation and American values. She lives in Northern Virginia with her husband and son. 

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.