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.
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.