Is Feminism An Extremist Ideology?

Kiran Gandhi’s recent stunt is the latest in a long list of feminist attention whoring shenanigans. My personal theory is that she knew she couldn’t win the marathon and hence resorted to pulling such a cheap stunt. Despite the various shocking behaviours that feminists resort to from time to time, seldom do we hear the word feminism associated with the word extremism. The mainstream media fawns upon the gimmicks of femen and the Emma Sulkowiczs of this world. While we do hear the phrase “radical feminism” bandied about occasionally, we must bear in mind that the term “radical” does not have the same negative connotation as the word “extremist.” Extremists are dangerous in the eyes of society whereas radicals are either misunderstood at best, or fruity at worst. In this post I wish to make the case that feminism is an extremist ideology by comparing its character to that of radical Islam.

False rape accusations and attention seeking stunts will make you a messiah in the eyes of the mainstream media.

False rape accusations and attention seeking stunts will make you a messiah in the eyes of the leftist mainstream media.

What separates an extremist from a moderate? The key word in answering this question is equilibrium. Moderates are able to situate their ideology within a social environment without attempting to dominate it. The moderate’s goal is to harmonize his ideology with the surrounding environment even if it results in diluting the ideology. Moderate Muslims, for example, will argue for the full and equal rights of their non Muslim neighbours even if it means practicing a diluted Islam and making their society technically less Islamic. Islamists, on the other hand, are unable to attain this equilibrium. Where the moderate Muslim will draw a line and say that beyond this point Islam becomes ugly, the Islamist/Wahabi sincerely believes that a society can never get enough Islam.

Many Muslims will admit (loathe as they are to do so) that beyond a certain point, Islam becomes regressive and dangerous. Islamic extremists see no such line because to their eyes, Islam is intrinsically good. How can you get enough of something that is intrinsically good? Of the three Abrahamic faiths, Islam lends itself to extremism more readily than do Christianity and Judaism. Christianity is concerned with the afterlife while Judaism is concerned with tribal self interest. Islam’s shariah is focused on a utopian vision here on Earth. I believe this is why Islamic extremists are so fervent in their fanaticism. How could anybody not want Utopia? Many of us do not see extremists as idealists that have gone off the rails but that is precisely what they are. We in the West see idealists as gentle and naive thinkers but seldom acknowledge that idealism is often the path to extremism.

What does all of this have to do with feminism? Like Islamists, feminists are unable to achieve the equilibrium I’ve described above. I have not met a single feminist (online and offline) that has admitted that beyond a certain point, feminism becomes very ugly. Since feminists are also chasing a utopian delusion like their Islamist counterparts, they believe that a society can never get enough feminism. I’ve often heard many feminists complain that radical feminists are giving feminism a “bad name.” This is merely a defense mechanism to lull society into a state of complacency since women still require the participation of men in undermining the latter’s social and legal rights. This clever damage control maneuver in no way invalidates the observation that there is little ideological incompatibility between feminism and its radical counterpart.

The second hallmark of an extremist ideology is that it is impossible to parody – possibly because the ideology itself is a parody to begin with. Thus if somebody attempts to parody an extremist ideology, it is impossible to tell the parody apart from the real thing. This was beautifully demonstrated by the folks at 4-chan who set the internet on fire with their “End father’s day” twitter hashtag. They flawlessly mimicked feminist rhetoric while making a series of disparaging remarks against fathers. After the hoax was revealed for what it was, feminists went into damage control mode claiming that the hoax barely fooled anybody. They have yet to explain how this hoax went viral if that were truly the case. Feminism is a parody of a social movement and end father’s day was a parody of a parody; this is why so many were fooled.

I must briefly address one other point before I conclude this post. Leftists often say that feminism isn’t a violent ideology where the underlying implication is that feminism isn’t an inherently extremist ideology. I believe this merits a brief comment. Violence, in a political context, is seldom an end in itself – it is often a means to a very specific end: coercion. Feminism doesn’t need to engage in violence because feminists have the coercive power of the state at their disposal. If a woman wishes to remove a man from his house, all she needs is one fabricated domestic assault accusation before the cops show up. If she wishes to coerce her employer, the threat of a bogus sexual harassment accusation may come in handy. A wife may freely use divorce and child support as a threatpoint against her husband. Access to the state’s coercive power enables feminists to skip the violence step altogether.

If we gauge an ideology’s peaceful intent solely by the levels of violence it engages in, we are setting the bar too low. While feminists may not engage in violence, their intent is not peaceful coexistence as they work tirelessly to disadvantage men and boys using state coercion as their lever. It is about time that we in the West realized that feminism is an extremist and intolerant ideology that is at war with culture and human civilization.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Christianity, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Western Values and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Is Feminism An Extremist Ideology?

  1. euroglory says:

    Some excellent points made about the distinction between moderateness and extremism and the nature of extremism and also about Islam.

    I don’t know how much those feminist laws are abused, possibly quite a lot, but there’s also little doubt there is quite a lot of abuse of women going on by men who get away with it and the police and legal system can often be ineffectual in the face of it.

    There has to be some legal protection of women but it has to be fair to everyone and that’s the challenge. Often the law is leveraged in favour of one or the other.

    There are some serious problems with feminism in my opinion. One of the problems is that some feminists are over zealous in advancing women’s interests instead of thinking about what is balanced and fair to everyone. Another is related: the use of faulty statistics that tend to massively exaggerate problems. These are used to gain support and sympathy and often demonise men.

    The other main problem with feminism is the erroneous philosophical view that gender differences are socially constructed and the attempts at social engineering that follow from this.

    In my opinion, there should be acceptance of natural differences and women who wish to devote themselves to motherhood and have a more traditional role should be respected as much as those who want a career. It’s about everyone having the right and opportunity to make their own choice and pursue it. That is moderate according to your definition- the approach that respects everyones rights and doesn’t seek to impose what one group prefers on others.

    I believe there are moderate feminists. They would be the feminists who believe in equal rights and equal opportunity and who might hope for equal outcomes but who aren’t pushy and don’t want to engineer/exert some kind of force to achieve equal outcomes (in average pay and in terms of the percentage of women in key professions.)

    They are also the ones who attempt to be fair and balanced, who want to protect women with reasonable rules and laws. This is often just a matter of intelligence and common sense and basic fair mindedness. This is harder to define and identify objectively but some people just have these qualities more than others. Some people are trying to be fair and reasonable.

    You have argued that even the moderate feminists secretely have an extremist agenda. This reminds me of the anti Islamic arguments that say the exact same thing: there aren’t genuine moderates; even the moderates really have extremist beliefs because they are inherent to Islam; the moderates are just skillful extremists etc. No, there are genuine moderate Muslims and there are sensible and moderate feminists. They are not all radical social engineers; just a lot of them :-D. And bear in mind that fanatics are often louder and more organised.

    • euroglory says:

      To say something more concrete about moderate feminists, they would like equal average pay

      • euroglory says:

        but they aren’t being pushy- they are just kind of waiting to see if it happens but not really actively trying to engineer it or have quotas introduced or penalise companies or whatever.

        Perhaps it’s a matter of degree and perhaps moderates could be convinced to support some extremist measures (same for Islam). But the distinction is still generally meaningful.

        (Didn’t mean to press enter on first part of this messy and probably ill advised addendum).

      • euroglory says:

        ….just thinking this through…..they are probably also bringing their kids up in a fairly normal way and not trying to eradicate all gender socialisation. They are also not criticising women who choose traditional roles.

    • Dota says:

      You must understand though, that Islam is generally balanced out by culture and ethnic identity. Consider Pakistan for example. That country lacks a cultural identity to balance its religious identity and this is the main reason why Pakistan is a hellhole. With feminism, this is impossible as the ideology is internationalist, just like Marxism. Internationalism doesn’t account for ethnic differences and so an Egyptian feminist doesn’t sound very different from a Swedish feminist. Feminism imposes a universal paradigm with scant regard for the historical and cultural experiences of a very diverse world. This is far more extremist than Islam could ever hope to be. The Taj Mahal and the Alhamra were both constructed by Muslim hands, yet observe the ethnic difference in architectural styles – the former is central Asian (with South Asian motifs) whereas the latter is Arab. As I said, culture and race balance Islam out. This does not occur with feminism which universally considers all men the enemy. Also, feminism is Marxism adjusted for gender. Men are the bourgeois and women are the proletariat. Last I checked, Marxist classes do not get along and the class wars end with the proles overthrowing the bourgeois. When you translate that into gender, that’s one insane ideology.

      • euroglory says:

        I just get the impression that you are being too rigid and simplistic about feminism. Actually I think feminism IS quite diverse. There are different types of feminism, different degrees- some feminists are very moderate, some very radical and extreme. There is even disagreement about whether gender actually is socially constructed or not- they don’t all think that. Some feminists want to wear make up and high heels and be attractively feminine in presentation while others reject them etc etc.

        Furthermore, there certainly are women’s rights movements in the Muslim world which want more freedom for women, want to advance their rights, but don’t want to adopt western culture. A lot of feminists actually don’t concern themselves with the plight of Muslim women since they are too PC to criticise another culture or minority group or simply don’t take an interest in the Muslim world. This type are criticised for being insular and petty and not caring about the real oppression of women in other societies. All you can say is that internationalist feminists are internationalist.

      • Dota says:

        Steve/Euroglory

        2 points here. First, when you say that feminism itself is a diverse movement and that I’m not doing it any justice by homogenizing it, you make the false assumption that feminism is a grassroots movement owned by its ‘constituents’. Nothing could be further from the truth. The earliest gender feminists were communists who were either directly or indirectly affiliated with the CPUSA and their movement was financed by plutocratic corporate interests. If it weren’t for their money, feminism wouldn’t even have made it into the 80s. Feminism isn’t a global movement, it is an internationalist movement. Global ideologies/religions will harmonize with local culture whereas internationalist ones seek to transcend them (and thereby undermine them) by imposing their own universalist paradigm. Feminism is a classic example of what Kerry Bolton referred to as a “Revolution from above”

        Second point. You also falsely assume that any action taken with the intent of improving women’s access to healthcare, education, ect is automatically feminist. Not so. This is why a large number of feminists still do not consider Mary Wollstonecraft as one of their own. Wollstonecraft never subscribed to the dialectal narrative of history which is the core of the feminist ideology; a doctrine that posits that men are an oppressor class and women are the oppressed class. As feminist Yen Chuan Yu points out in her paper “Women Patriots” (American Studies XIX, March 1989) not all anti suffragists were anti-feminists. She also points out that in the 1920s women’s activism died down because of “the lack of common ideology.” This common ideology would eventually come in the 1960s. That is the extremist ideology that I am talking about here.

      • euroglory says:

        I really don’t think all feminists are actually thinking about men as an enemy…I know they aren’t. I know feminists who think more in terms of equality and harmony and what is good for everyone.

      • euroglory says:

        Dota, I suppose as long as you are clear about your definition of feminism is then you can make comments about it. You do run the risk of confusing people who have a view of what feminism is that is broader and messier.

        There certainly are women who identify as feminists who don’t subscribe to the feminism you have described. There certainly are women in Islamic countries who are seeking equal (or greater) rights for women and also seeking to harmonise this with Islam.

        As for religion, sure religions adapt to different societies and harmonise with them to some extent. They also change cultures. Can you imagine a population that is converted to Christianity being allowed to continue practicing polygamy? Or being allowed to continue with worhsipping their old Gods? Are these things not big cultural changes?

    • curiosetta says:

      > I believe there are moderate feminists.

      There are moderate racists too. Moderate racists believe (for example) blacks are The Problem and they pose a threat to a civilised society. But being moderate they only think that and voice that. They don’t actually advocate using force to subjugate blacks (segregation, camps, etc). Radical racists do advocate the use of force. One might say the radicals take the claims of the moderates to their logical conclusion. Radicals are just moderates with the balls to “walk the walk” as well as “talk the talk”. What tends to happen is the moderates become a widespread movement, which is not quite offensive enough to motivate people to do anything (freedom of speech etc). And this widespread movement shields the minority of radicals and nurtures them deep inside the movement, and this protection is what allows the radicals to gain power and influence and take over society. By the time anyone realises the radicals have taken over it is usually too late (classic example: Nazi Germany).

      Moderate feminists claim men are The Problem and pose a threat to civilised soicety, and radical feminists just take this premise to its most logical conclusion and call for the subjugation of men, or even the extermination of men. Radical feminists are shielded by the moderate ones and nurtured deep within feminist movement, and that is how they are able to infiltrate the media, politics, education system etc.

      Moderates (of any destructive and hateful ideology) end up acting rather like human shields, protecting the radical inner core. Criticise or condemn feminist ideology and you are generally told to stop ‘hating’ on all those lovely well meaning moderate feminists who have never spent half an hour researching the movement they support or thinking about what the implications of supporting it are.

      Therefore you could argue that moderates (of any destructive and hateful ideology) are actually far more dangerous than the radicals, precisely BECAUSE they are able to maintain a thin veneer of social acceptability. The person advocating the subjugation of men is not a threat because they are openly hateful and dangerous….. but the person advocating He for She is dangerous because they are helping to implement the same basic ideology, but they are viewed as harmless and innocent – and even well meaning.

      Radicals = “We want to subjugate men/ jews”
      Moderates = “We just want to empower women/ Germany and protect them from outside threats”

      > They would be the feminists who believe in equal rights and equal opportunity

      Men actually have LESS legal rights than women. So in order to achieve ‘gender equality’ in 2015 we need to either strip women of their extra rights, or afford those rights to men too, so that men can be equal to women.

      There are no rights that men have that women do not also have. There are many rights that women have that men have not yet been afforded (in areas such as reproduction, divorce law, child custody, health, genital integrity, criminal justice etc etc).

      Now… you give me an example of a feminist campaigning for gender equality. Ready, steady, go…..

      • Dota says:

        Some excellent points.

      • euroglory says:

        I don’t disagree with what you said about how moderates enable radicals. I have observed the same thing, although it should be noted this is not the intention of the moderates. You also don’t seem to disagree with me that there are moderate feminists. So we are not in disagreement.

      • Dota says:

        I don’t think that many “moderate” feminists intend to broaden the tax base (which benefits the government) or plummet wages (which benefits corporations) or usher in an intrusive nanny state into the lives of citizens, including even in their bedrooms. Nevertheless, that is precisely what they are doing.

      • curiosetta says:

        > You also don’t seem to disagree with me that there are moderate feminists.

        Yes but I am suggesting that if an ideology must remain moderate in order to not be (a) destructive to society (b) vindictive towards sections of society and for bonus points (c) contrary to the stated goal of said ideology (in this case ‘gender equality’) then it is a destructive, immoral, vindictive, irrational and silly ideology. Period.

        Whispering “Blacks are bad” or “Men are bad” causes no real harm, but that does not mean it is a harmless sentiment.

        Being a moderate asshole, is still being an asshole. It is not being a saint, no matter how moderate your assholery is.

        “… So we are not in disagreement…”

        Yes we are 😉

      • euroglory says:

        In the Uk, there has been strong real wage growth throughout the 20th century.

        This si the first thign I found when googling:
        “Figure 1 shows that median real wages grew consistently by around 2 per cent per year from 1980 to the early 2000s.”
        http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/real-wages-and-living-standards/

        Its a different story in America…why? I don’t know but women have entered the workforce in Europe too.

      • curiosetta says:

        > In the Uk, there has been strong real wage growth throughout the 20th century.

        Yet curiously, even a middle class man today can no longer afford to provide for his family on his wages alone. Typically both men and women are required to work flat out in order to pay the bills, even to the point of being unable to afford to parent their children properly. Instead they are now forced to abandon their children to minimum wage daycare staff and the state school system which now gets claws around children’s minds at an increasingly early age – and so is able to indoctrinate them into being good little comrades and feminist social justice warriors practically from birth, while mommy and daddy work flat out to pay taxes to fund the wars and the ever increasing Big Gov.

        Feminism is very much responsible for this, which is presumably why the ruling classes funded and promoted feminism from the outset.

        Traditionally 100% of a woman’s productivity went towards herself and her family. The fact that the work was not ‘paid’ is irrelevant. Being able to raise children, maintain the house, care for elderly relatives etc etc are all huge money savers, and increase the quality of life for all. Plus in a pinch (or just out of greed!) women could still get a job and quite easily add 50% to her husband’s income. That is 50% ON TOP of what they need to live. Not bad by today’s standards.

        These days the modern ‘independent’ and ’empowered’ post feminist woman is forced to work 2-3 days out of every week directly for the plantation owners …. just like the men do. That might represent gender equality, but it is still a step DOWN for women, and for the family as a whole.

        A lot of feminist’s complaints these days are actually the result of women achieving gender equality with men, and finding out that life as a man is actually the life of a worker drone.

        Apparently the hunting parties, horse riding, banquets, castles and balls are reserved for just a tiny fraction of privileged men (and privileged women). Who’d have thought?

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        A lot of feminist’s complaints these days are actually the result of women achieving gender equality with men, and finding out that life as a man is actually the life of a worker drone.

        Apparently the hunting parties, horse riding, banquets, castles and balls are reserved for just a tiny fraction of privileged men (and privileged women). Who’d have thought?

        Couldn’t have said it better myself.

        I suspect that the same sentiment animates most of the agitation of leftist non-white activists. The way they see it, most (if not all) whites are a monolithic privileged class. That Chris Rock line from The Longest Yard – where he says that he doesn’t understand why so many white musicians sing emo songs and that if you’re white you should just smile – exemplifies such a mentality (albeit in comedic fashion).

        It’s as if they can’t conceive of white people as actual human beings, as people who have to deal with their own shit sandwiches in life; they seem to think that being white = automatic happiness and prosperity.

        And the same goes for feminists attitudes towards men. They completely ignore the male masses who don’t wield any real power and authority, many if not most of whom live quiet lives of desperation (as Thoreau would put it). One lesbian woman, Norah Vincent, actually wrote a book about her experience passing as a man; surprise, surprise, she learned that men face many hardships in life, and apparently she was happy to go back to being a woman again.

        To be fair, you sometimes see people on the other side of the barricades doing the same thing. Manosphere netizens always complaining that hot women have it easy – while ignoring the many plain, frumpy, or downright unattractive women who don’t attract their attention – come to mind. I’m sure there are other examples.

        But this mentality seems especially pronounced among leftist identity politics types.

      • Janus says:

        There’s a difference between moderates who want to water down the tenets of their ideology and moderates who believe wholeheartedly in their movement but prefer to take moderate action to implement it.

        There is moderate action and moderate belief. Moderate actions are those that involve compromise and less-direct tactics to advance goals. Moderate beliefs either deliberately compromise on ideological points to make them more mainstream, or they are formed through only a casual interest in the ideology itself.

        You can have moderate believers who advocate extremist action, and you can have extremist believers who advocate moderate action. Of course, usually extremist believers (those who take an uncompromising view of their beliefs) advocate extremist action (the all-consuming application of those beliefs).

        I’m sure that most professing Muslims believe in every teaching of the Quran and the hadith literature but they prefer to implement or live those teachings in a patient and moderate fashion. Muslims who water down the teachings of their faith itself would rightfully be considered traitors by other Muslims.

        The lack of a single founder of feminism who set the standards makes the concept of watering-down difficult, even for the movement that Dota is talking about that coalesced in the 1960’s. What the second and third wave feminist leaders do seem to have in common is an ideological extremism.

        Based on these radical feminists, we still have the two types of moderates: those who water down feminist beliefs and those who want to achieve the goals of feminism through moderate actions.

        Euroglory seems to be talking about the moderate feminists who water down feminist ideology to be less extreme, either purposely or through their casual interest in the movement.

        Curiosetta seems to be talking about the second type, those who prefer moderate action while maintaining the extreme beliefs.

        Feminism is a radical ideology because the various movements’ recognized founders and leaders all propose radical, life-consuming departures from settled ways of life as well as usually radical means to achieve those changes.

      • Dota says:

        Interesting points Janus. Haven’t seen you in a while btw, good to have you back.

      • curiosetta says:

        Feminism, like patriarchy (the former being a modern mutation of the latter), paces women both above and below men.

        Women’s supposed status BELOW men give women entitlements which place women ABOVE men.

        That is feminism in a nutshell.

        In essence feminism is a male power fantasy… in much the same way that patriarchy is/ was. And for the same reason. It suits women’s/ feminist’s interests for men to truly believe they are powerful and strong and invulnerable and even privileged… and women are weak, and feeble, and powerless and oppressed.

        The idea that feminist ideology – even the most moderate kind – really is moderate only makes sense if you regard women as essentially weak, stupid, pathetic, child-like, precious ornaments (relative to men) … who are largely incapable of bad intent, or even self serving agendas and who are fundamentally inferior to men.

        Feminism only looks monstrous and extremist if you truly view women as men’s equals intellectually, emotionally and morally. And most people just don’t….. because society is set up to prevent women being viewed as equal to men.

        Consider a white man in his twenties, who happens to be a multi millionaire, dressed in a white linen suit stepping up to address the UN to rapturous applause and proclaiming that it is black’s moral duty to serve whites. Not only that, but it is in their interests to do so, for this will make whites in turn able to help blacks to become more ‘human’, and less barbaric and savage. By empowering whites and serving their needs and wants blacks can demonstrate their commitment to participating in a civilised (ie white) society. By serving whites blacks can earn their place in civilised white society, and that will be beneficial for them, right?

        And he says all of this with a straight face, with absolutely no fear that his words might cause offence. He even has the audacity to give his demands the snappy slogan “Blacks for Whites”, complete with logo, T-shirts and no doubt baseball caps too.

        Is this speech ‘moderate’? Are these demands ‘moderate’?

        The ONLY way we might view them as moderate is if we view the man, and the white supremacists he is representing as weak, frivolous, child-like, cute and adorable and inferior …. and therefore incapable of causing any real harm or having any real malice.

        And if a white supremacist group wanted to transmit these demands to society, they would be wise to send the most effete and puny looking white man they could find to be their ambassador. A man with big doe eyes and a thin, trembly voice. A trained actor perhaps? And as he walks to the podium they might be wise to play plinky plonky baby music (as was played when Emma Watson walked to the podium to deliver her ‘He for She’ speech).

        And as a long term strategy, they would also be wise to relentlessly reinforce the vulnerability and helplessness of whites using any news story or statistic (real or made up) to make their point… while simultaneously using every opportunity to portray blacks as powerful, privileged, invulnerable, superior, dominant and aggressive. An easy enough task given that ALL demographics have their fare share of criminals, thugs, bullies and exploiters.

        Feminism is patriarchy, on steroids, and minus the concern for children (which was the whole point of patriarchy!)

        Patriarchy: Women and children first
        Feminism: He for She

        Patriarchal gender roles (division of labour) was based on the rational justification of a lack of technology and harsh lifestyles. True gender equality would have been rather unfair to women, given that most paid work involved back breaking manual labour.

        But in the modern age most paid work involves no manual labour (and what remains we still demand men do). Most people live in urban areas and work in comfortable safe offices. Mot women (80%) accept the liberating effects of modern technology AND the responsibilities and LOSS of privileges that comes with being able to work and be financially independent.

        It is really only about 20% of women who still cling to those patriarchal privileges where men were expected to provide women with resources and protection (he for she), due to the arduous living conditions and women’s physical weakness, and the burden of reproduction (in an age of largely non existent reproductive healthcare). This 20% of women still clinging to the patriarchy are called ‘feminists’. And if you view women as equal to men their views are really not that moderate at all.

      • euroglory says:

        Curiosetta,

        “Yes but I am suggesting that if an ideology must remain moderate…”

        I agree with this paragraph. Also, I am not pro-feminist, not the type of feminism that has equal pay or equal female representation in traditionally male fields as a goal, or that denies the biological basis of gender differences. I am for giving women equal rights and equal opportunities and if that leads to equal outcomes so be it; if it doesn’t, so be that. (I doubt that it would in every way, as men and women *are* different and will make different choices).

        If you make a distinction between gender feminism and equity feminism, then I would say that equity feminism is not a harmful or silly ideology.

        If you want to know at length what I think are the problems with feminism and what the best kind of feminism would be, then I refer you to this talk by Christina Hoff Sommers. My views match hers almost to the letter; in other words, I think she is pretty much exactly right.

        And here she is with a short video on the top five feminist myths of all time:

        Lastly,I don’t think all feminists actually think ‘men are bad’. That would be a pretty simplistic sentiment. Its possible to recognize that a society is or was patriarchal, without thinking men are bad (I’m not even saying the west is currently patriarchal).

      • curiosetta says:

        > I am for giving women equal rights and equal opportunities

        Men have no rights that women do not also have. But women have many rights that men have yet to achieve (in areas such as criminal law, divorce law, reproduction, child custody, education, genital integrity etc).

        So to achieve gender equality in 2015 we have to either strip women of those extra rights, or give them to men too.

        The reason most people *assume* women have less rights than men is because for decades feminism has dominated education, media, politics and actively suppressed or demonised individuals or groups campaigning to raise awareness of men’s issues, or men’s lack of rights relative to women.

        The list of SPECIFIC legal rights which men lack but women have is very long.

        Can you name a right which men have but women do not?

        For all the talk of wanting ‘gender equality’ can you name any feminist campaign which actively raises awareness of a male issue and/ or demands men be given a legal right that women already have but men don’t yet have?

        > I refer you to this talk by Christina Hoff Sommers…

        Yes she’s great. I’m not sure why she calls herself a feminist though, given that her rational and evidence-based approach seems to make her an enemy in the eyes of most feminists activists (did you see her recent-ish video about the protests when she tried to speak at university campuses? She had to be escorted everywhere for her own safety, because of angry feminists and SJW’s).

        She either calls herself a feminist to try and redeem the movement by injecting it with rationality – a noble but hopeless task! – or maybe she’s just stubbornly calling herself a feminist to protest at what the movement has become. Anyway, I agree she’s great.

        > Lastly, I don’t think all feminists actually think ‘men are bad’. That would be a pretty simplistic sentiment.

        Yes…. and I criticise feminism for being an incredibly over simplistic ideology.

        My argument is that a cornerstone of feminist theory is patriarchy theory – the claim that men have systematically oppressed women throughout history to create a society which benefits men at women’s expense. Men form their closest relationships with women. The only way men could treat women this way is if men are sociopaths. Therefore a cornerstone of feminism is the claim that men are, as a group, sociopaths.

        This claim is often stated outright by the more radical feminists, but even amongst ‘moderate’ feminists it is still implied – through patriarchy theory.

        You cannot really divorce feminism from patriarchy theory, not without agreeing to burn 90% of the feminist books and article ever written by feminists.

        > Its possible to recognize that a society is or was patriarchal, without thinking men are bad

        One of the many crimes of gross oversimplification committed by feminism is the idea that ‘patriarchy’ (traditional gender roles and gender identity) is somehow synonymous with the oppression of women, by men.

        Traditional gender roles (division of labour) was essentially a survival strategy, not an oppression of women strategy. These roles placed women at the heart of society and gave men the role of going out in all weathers and providing resources and protection to women (and by association children too). Hence “Women and children first”.

        In a ‘patriarchy’ women were defined as occupying a role somewhere between children and adults (men). Often called being a ‘second class citizen’.

        Children were wards of their parents, and in turn women were wards of their husbands and/ or society in general.

        Being a ‘second class citizen’ was not oppression – it was protection. It was care. Children (who are also second class citizens, even today) often feel restricted by their parents, and they often feel their life is “Sooo unfair!”

        But being protected and provided for by your parents is still preferable to trying to make it on your own – if you are a child that is. Despite children’s frequent protests, most children find being cared for as ‘second class citizens’ preferable, and they expect/ demand care from their parents, rather than trying to make it in life on their own. They generally accept the lack of freedoms and rights that come with being cared for in this way. Children don;t really WANT to go and earn a living in an office or driving a bus…. just as women in the past did not really WANT to earn a living working down a coal mine, building dry stone walls, or working in the local shipyard.

        Women throughout history found being provided for and protected by men preferable, and they expected/ demanded care from men, rather than trying to make it in life on their own.

        So rather than ‘the patriarchy’ being an invention of men to oppress women, I would say that traditional ‘patriarchal’ gender roles were largely defined and enforced by women (not least mothers).

        Once children turn into teenagers and then capable young adults they usually rebel against their parents and eventually strike out into the big bad world to live independently. There is usually a door slamming, yelling phase as they make this transition!

        Feminism represents that same phase for women. Instead of being empowered by a maturing body and mind, women have been empowered by advances in technology – which have given rise to urban living and comfortable office environments which have enabled women (and most men) to earn a living without having to do back breaking manual labour. And technology has also turned housework from a full time job into a breeze, also allowing women (and men) to live and work as single professional people, rather than always as a unit of two or more.

        Now that women can easily live and work independently of men, most women accept the inevtiable LOSS of specific female privileges such as not being able to demand men provide them with extra protection and resources just because they are women. Although in many ways that still remains men’s role to whatever degree.

        So my point is……. modern feminists of the tumblr variety are women who demand men (and society in general) treat them in the traditional patriarchal way by continuing to offer them extra resources, protection and special treatment just for being female.But unlike traditional women in the past, they do NOT have the excuse of being born in a harsh environment caused by a lack of technology.

        So (unlike women in the past) these modern feminists have no justification for being treated as half way between children and adults….. so they try desperately to invent justifications for this special treatment … micro aggressions, bossy, manspreading etc …. and of course the idea that men somehow OWE them special treatment today as penance for alleged crimes against women in the past ….AKA ‘The Pariatchy!’

        But feminism is not really opposed to patriarchy, feminism IS a mutated form of patriarchy!

        Feminist women today are clinging to the special treatment that women enjoyed in the past … while not having the excuse to justify it.

        Now they are trying a new strategy of using non-gender related issues (race etc) to justify treating women as special. This is called ‘intersectional feminism’. It’s all a desperate attempt to get special treatment, just for being female.

        > (I’m not even saying the west is currently patriarchal).

        Government is a very patriarchal institution and that is why feminists seek to use it to enforce special treatment and free stuff for themselves.

        Traditional women married men. Feminists marry the government. They understand that the government is the most badass Alpha Male in society with the most guns AND the legal right to use them to steal money from the productive men and women in society, and spend it on he things feminists want ….. in return for votes.

        In this sense feminism is patriarchy on steroids.

      • euroglory says:

        note: I may reply to your other comments. I just can’t be bothered right now.

      • euroglory says:

        “For all the talk of wanting ‘gender equality’ can you name any feminist campaign which actively raises awareness of a male issue and/ or demands men be given a legal right that women already have but men don’t yet have?”

        No, I don’t pay that much attention to feminist campaigns and there probably isn’t one anyway. Its just a general principle I hold. I’m not sure if there is still any point of feminism in the west but there is in other parts of the world (the type of feminism that campaigns for equal rights and freedoms).

        “One of the many crimes of gross oversimplification committed by feminism is the idea that ‘patriarchy’ (traditional gender roles and gender identity) is somehow synonymous with the oppression of women, by men.”

        I agree that throughout history, the division of labour reflected the most sensible way to organise given that men are significantly physically stronger while women are the ones who bear and nurse children (and in my opinion have evolved to be psychologically best suited to this task).

        However, its not true that women historically didn’t work outside the home- they always did but they just did the work that was less physically demanding. In hunter-gatherer social groups (most of human history), men would have tended to do the hunting while women did the gathering. In feudal society, women did farm work such as milking cows and even sometimes did similar work to men in the fields (though in the latter case they were paid less, which no doubt was due to their lower productivity). Even in Victorian England, it was common for women to work in the factories and mills. The 1950’s ideal of people living in nuclear families and women only working in the home, was not the eternal order but a recent development. It was more of a historical blip. Its quite natural for women to work outside the home.

        It might actually be a bit misguided to see the traditional division of labour as ‘men looking after women’ rather than women striking out on their own. Women actually did do a valuable portion of the work, which tended to be the work they were most suited to. They weren’t simply being fed and looked after for free like (modern) children…they were part of the labour force. Even in instances where they did only work in the home, that itself was valuable and necessary labour and they were supported (you could say paid) by men to keep the house clean and raise the children, make the food and even make and repair clothing.

        While I don’t think that the (for want of a better word) traditional division of labour was set up to oppress women or was even generally oppressive to women (in places where physical labour was particularly difficult, like in coal mining, women could be seen as the privileged gender), patriarchy was also about…perhaps was essentially about… men holding the power, in the family and in society. I think elements of that probably were oppressive to women.

        I don’t think the husband should have the final say on all decisions- decisions can be made together. This was backed by force- men had this kind of power because they were bigger and stronger and any argument could end with the man being violent and putting the woman in her place. In the end, she would have to back down because of force. So while the division of labour came about due to practical considerations, the power of the husband probably came about historically due to men just having more brute strength and being more aggressive. That’s the original reason for it and how it was maintained but it at some point it became supported by ideology….the man is the head of the family, the wife must obey. Humans do this because we are more intelligent than chimps.

        Further, I don’t think women should be barred from the clergy or from positions of power in society. I don’t think women should be seen as mentally feeble or much less intellectually capable than men- again, this was unjust and part of an oppressive ideology.

        Will you argue that the man being the head/leader/alpha in the family is natural and women want to be dominated? Maybe it was natural at some point, in a sense, but we can evolve beyond it. Perhaps the relevant questions are:1) is it fair? 2) is it what women want or is it forced on them against their will? 3) does it promote wellbeing?

        We might also want to consider the interesting case of patriarchal chimps and matriarchal bonobos…is that difference genetic or cultural…and what does it about whether human patriarchy is natural or unchangeable?

      • curiosetta says:

        > I’m not sure if there is still any point of feminism in the west..

        There is if your agenda is to break up the family, pit men and women against each other (divide and rule), expand government power and interference in all aspects of society, expand the dependent underclass from the poor to include most women too so that they are all dependent on government hand outs which means automatic support for no matter awful government becomes etc etc

        All rather depressing, really.

        > They weren’t simply being fed and looked after for free like (modern) children…they were part of the labour force.

        Yeah sure. I was just presenting the counter argument to feminism’s ‘patriarchy theory’ where men = privileged and free and women = oppressed and downtrodden.

        I didn’t mean to suggest society was as feminists describe it, only in reverse. I don’t even accept the notion that society is composed of ‘men’ and ‘women’ as two separate monolithic groups competing against each other. Maybe feminism has made our society a bit like that today… but for most of history men and women formed very strong partnerships for mutual benefit – or simply for mutual survival.

        Generally the poorer and less technologically advanced (less productive) a culture is the more likely it is for women to work (often with baby strapped to her back), because survival simply demands it. And as technology improves and the society becomes more productive and standards of living rise, women are typically the first to be let off manual labour…. then children….. then animals…….then most men….. leaving the remaining manual labour to be done by working class men. As it is today in the west.

        I agree the 1950’s (and 20th century as a whole) was a blip in history. New technology had suddenly made housework (and to an extent motherhood) a breeze, relative to the past where housework was very labour intensive, and childbirth was a much more risky business.

        Women were suddenly free. Rather than remain free and encourage men to become as free as women, women were encouraged (by feminism which was heavily funded, promoted and controlled by the ruling establishment) to become as enslaved as men (tax cows). And this is what happened. Now most women are forced to effectively work 2-3 days a week for the state/ military industrial complex just like men are. This is slavery.

        I think a lot of women are now realising that gaining equality with men was actually a bad idea….. but a lot of women haven’t quite figured it out in those terms yet. They still think men are privileged, and that somehow they are getting a raw the deal in society. They haven’t figured out that feminism lied to them when it said men were privileged and that living like men do = achieving freedom. It obviously doesn’t! Men are worker drones.

        > It might actually be a bit misguided to see the traditional division of labour as ‘men looking after women’ rather than women striking out on their own.

        Well again, I was just countering feminism’s framing of history. We are all aware of the ways women look after men. But rarely is men’s labour portrayed in an equally beneficial (or even self sacrificing) light.

        The fact is that to progress beyond living in huts, to get to our modern society of carpeted centrally heated offices and wifi and gender studies and cars and shopping malls and electricity and stuff, SOMEBODY had to mine coal, forge steel, build railways, invent steam engines, invent combustion engines, construct power stations etc etc.

        Not only do feminists enjoy all of the modern luxuries that men have invented, and built and maintain, but feminism could not exist without them. Men have literally worked flat out for centuries to extract coal, oil and minerals buried deep underground and shape them into cars, electricity power lines, fibre optic cables, cars, trucks, ships, computers etc etc.

        On this point alone feminists seem like the most arrogant, self centred, ungrateful, hypocritical, spoiled little brats for daring to suggest men have historically oppressed women….. while enjoying (and being liberated by) electricity, cars, computers, telephones, pavements, street lighting, indoor plumbing, modern medicines and all the other wonderful inventions which allow modern women to escape traditional gender role of berry picker, housewife and child bearer.

        And I’m not criticising feminists just for the sake of it. I genuinely believe that if men’s sacrifices, and men’s immense hard work and innovation and dedication to improving society for men AND for women was openly acknowledged and celebrated (and even taught as part of history and gender studies classes!). That young men AND young women would both feel so much happier. For young women especially it would make them feel secure, safe, valued and even cherished – which is how most men actually do feel towards women.

        But instead women are literally traumatised by feminist narrative which tells them men are out to hurt women, exploit women, subjugate women and oppress women (and even rape women).

        Feminism (and the agendas that operate through it) totally relies on women being traumatised and made to feel insecure and helpless and under threat. That is what ‘rape culture’ is all about. It is traumatising women and making women feel under threat, and then telling women their only hope of protecting themselves is to form an alliance with government through feminism.

        In this way feminism and is really a form of false flag terrorism, in order to divide and rule the population (the sexes).

        > Even in instances where they did only work in the home, that itself was valuable and necessary labour …

        Sure, I absolutely agree 🙂

        > …and they were supported (you could say paid) by men to keep the house clean and raise the children, make the food and even make and repair clothing.

        Right. And also women’s work required men’s money. So they were working as a unit. Neither could really perform their tasks without the other performing theirs.

        > patriarchy was also about…perhaps was essentially about… men holding the power, in the family and in society. I think elements of that probably were oppressive to women.

        Parents have power over their children, and from the child’s perspective this is often felt as ‘oppression’. But we all understand that families basically revolve around the needs (and to an large extent the wants) of the children. Parents are ot JUST powerful, they are also RESPONSIBLE, a responsibility which is a burden and a lot of hard work!

        Society did (and to an extent still does) put men in positions of power, so that men can more effectively and efficiently provide for women and children. Which is always what men end up doing.

        Society (including government) is basically a reflection of the family. It is a reflection of the way children are raised – and that is primarily decided by women and always has been. In families women have always raised their sons to feel it is their manly duty, obligation and privilege to take charge and assume responsibility… women have always told men it was their ‘privilege’ to take charge, as an incentive to motivate men to put aside concerns for their own safety and wellbeing (and even their lives) and go off and mine those resources out the ground, build the infrastructure, discover new lands, trade across continents go to war etc etc.

        Women did not tell men their role was privileged because it was literally true! But because they wanted men to feel good about marching off to work/ war/ the unknown.

        And today feminists tell men they are privileged NOT because they genuinely think that’s true! If feminists really thought men were privileged they would be queuing up to become construction workers, plumbers, truck drivers, soldiers, factory workers, firefighters etc….. and they would be demanding to be stripped of rights in areas like divorce, reproduction, genital integrity, criminal justice etc so they could be on a par with men.

        Feminists tell men they are privileged so that men feel they have no right to complain about their lot in life, their lack of rights compared to women, their role in society. They idea of men’s privilege is designed to shame and guilt men into making even more sacrifices to women – under the belief that they somehow OWE women special treatment (penance).

        That is why feminism is patriarchy but on steroids. The traditional women of history simply ‘encouraged’ men to go out there and build a better civilisation …. modern feminists engage in a literal psychological warfare against men to manipulate men into doing their bidding. Feminism is basically a rule book for how to wage psychological warfare against men, and for that matter against women too!

        > I don’t think the husband should have the final say on all decisions- decisions can be made together.

        But men were traditionally legally and financially responsible (liable) for his wife’s crimes and her debts. The only crime he was not responsible for was treason. Therefore men had to have a degree of ‘authority’, just like parents have to, because parents are also legally responsible for their children’s behaviour too.

        These days women are legally responsible for themselves, and that is why men really have no authority in a marriage anymore.

        > This was backed by force- men had this kind of power because they were bigger and stronger and any argument could end with the man being violent and putting the woman in her place.

        And men who beat up their wives were routinely put in the stocks. And if a woman beat up her husband HE would be strapped onto a cart and paraded around the town as punishment! LOL

        > ….the power of the husband probably came about historically due to men just having more brute strength and being more aggressive.

        That is the prevailing narrative (as per the feminist version of history), but if you look at the actual laws and accounts of life in the past you find that men women were always protected both legally (laws) and practically (social conventions).

        This is all hard wired into us. Social experiments show (what we all already know from experience) that if a woman appears to be in distress – especially in the hands of a big burly man – then both women and men will side with the woman and rush to her aid (even if it turns out she is the aggressor and the man is merely defending himself).

        Our instinctive urge to protect women and children is hard wired and there is no reason to imagine that society was any less influenced by this urge in the past than it is today. And all the evidence shows that it was.

        As the saying goes “Men’s facade of strength is their greatest weakness, and women’s facade of weakness is their greatest strength”

        > I don’t think women should be seen as mentally feeble or much less intellectually capable than men- again, this was unjust and part of an oppressive ideology.

        But it was a reflection of reality. Education is a COST, which meant that it was only BOUGHT by those who were going to use it to get a career and earn money with (which would first be used to pay back the cost of education).

        It made no sense for a cash strapped women (or her parents) to pay for her to be given an education if her role was going to be to look after the household and raise the family. Paying to be an educated wife was a luxury nobody could afford.

        Also women are valued by men for being women (for being able to have children) and men are valued by women for their abilities – such as their ability to work and earn money and provide for the woman and her future family. Thus, to gain enough value in a woman’s eyes to be considered a worthy mate, he must buy himself an education so he can be of UTILITY to her. This is as true today as it always was.

        A 25 year old women today with no education is still valued by society and by men, and she can quite easily attract a husband. But how many uneducated 25 year old men are valued by society, and how many can attract a wife?

        Also some women (especially if they are particularly attractive) exploit their value as women, and are able to carve out a very comfortable living for themselves by forming partnerships with educated, productive, wealthy men. Basically prostitution in all but name. These women typically act like children, enhancing their fragility, vulnerability, lack of agency, lack of intellect, lack of worldly experience in order to compel their husbands to take ALL responsibility for them and basically act like their ‘daddy’. This is women sacrificing their own personal development and independence in return for being looked after. And this lifestyle can be very tempting. It is what gives rise to the stereotype of the dumb blonde, and the trophy wife.

        It has nothing to do with oppression. Nobody forces attractive young women to exploit their own good looks and sex appeal for an easy life. And this reflects badly on more independent minded women, that’s hardly men’s fault.

        Will you argue that the man being the head/leader/alpha in the family is natural and women want to be dominated? Maybe it was natural at some point, in a sense, but we can evolve beyond it. Perhaps the relevant questions are:1) is it fair? 2) is it what women want or is it forced on them against their will? 3) does it promote wellbeing?
        We might also want to consider the interesting case of patriarchal chimps and matriarchal bonobos…is that difference genetic or cultural…and what does it about whether human patriarchy is natural or unchangeable?

        > Will you argue that the man being the head/leader/alpha in the family is natural and women want to be dominated?

        I will argue that women are hard wired to find dominant Alpha men attractive. It’s a case of ‘swings and roundabouts’. In harsh environments where resources like food are scarce (ie most of human history) it pays to partner with a dominant, Alpha man who will be able to secure resources and protect you even while others starve around you and bandits roam the land.

        You might even want him to be aggressive and domineering because ultimately that will ensure your survival.

        But there is always the risk that he will be more likely to slap you around at home as well. And at the very least he is going to be more emotionally callous and aloof – because that is what enables him to be so successful and dominant in the big bad world.

        The idea man is a (totally impossible) composite of two opposing types of men. The aggressive, domineering, sociopathic bastard man who builds a successful business empire and stamps out all competition, or make a ton of money in the city, or (in the past) wanders around with a club beating up people and stealing their food in times of starvation…….. but when he comes home with a fat pay check, or dragging a deer for the pot (or someone else’s deer which he stole) he transforms into a sensitive, empathetic, compassionate, sophisticated man who throws the deer onto the table, nips upstairs to run you a bath, and offers to cook the food for you while you have a bath, asks about your day and then offers a foot massage before you ritire to bed where he will (if it pleases you) revert back to being the dominant Alpha if you know what I mean… or not if you have a headache.

        Basically think James Bond. A psychopathic, murdering thug (literally a contract killer), who can revert to a charming sophisticated ladies man in an instant.

        The female equivalent would be the educated, independent, intellectual woman who can hold her own in any intelligent conversation who (with the removal of a single hair pin) can revert to being a gutter whore on all fours willing to do ANYTHING to please her man… and who (after sex) will happily watch a football match on TV in bed eating pizza and not mind about her man farting and pissing on the toilet seat.

        > Perhaps the relevant questions are:1) is it fair? 2) is it what women want or is it forced on them against their will? 3) does it promote wellbeing?

        Like all things it’s a case of cost/ benefit. Swings and roundabouts. If you want a nice sensitive beta male, he’s unlikely to be massively successful (in a material sense) and you aren’t going to have an unlimited clothing allowance….. but if you go for the go getting Alpha you might get to live like a princess, but you might miss the emotional connection, and he might upgrade you for a younger model, after you hit 40.

        Swings and roundabouts. (And this is true for men choosing female partners too of course)

        > We might also want to consider the interesting case of patriarchal chimps and matriarchal bonobos…is that difference genetic or cultural…and what does it about whether human patriarchy is natural or unchangeable?

        I think the only actual consistent trait humans have is ADAPTABILITY. If a meteorite struck earth and sent us back to a medieval level of technology then we’d see a return to traditional patriarchal gender roles – and feminists would be the first (not the last) to put on long skirts and shawls and start demanding the men take care of them 🙂

  2. feelingblind says:

    I think most people automatically append the word “radical” whenever they hear someone identify themselves as a feminist. As if the very notion of feminism is a crazy idea.

  3. Aodh Mor MacRaynall says:

    Where!!!! did she get those feet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s