07 October 2011

The Feminist Agenda

Many disputes occur when the agenda of Feminism is brought up. Does Feminism have an agenda? What does it aim to achieve? Has it achieved those goals? Does it still have a way to go? The main argument that most pro-Feminists will agree with is that Feminism was about equality. It aimed to correct the perceived oppression that men have directed at women in history. The theory is that men have conspired directly, or indirectly (depending on which “brand” of Feminism you align with) to keep women down, thus meaning that women have failed to reach their full potential, also meaning that men created a patriarchal society that only benefited them.

What complete and utter bull! For starters men have had more than their fair share of “oppression” to deal with in history, not least the burden of being a provider for women and children, working in jobs that women wouldn’t dream of doing, even now that they are “emancipated.” Men always have, and still do, the most arduous jobs that women wouldn’t touch with a barge pole. Women don’t work in mines, on oil rigs, fight on the front line, work as meat packers, trash collectors, and all the unclean, unsafe jobs that result in over 90% of on-the-job fatalities being men.

Men have always sacrificed their happiness so that women could be protected and provided for, while women took a husband that was deemed of worthy stock to look after a woman. While women were historically expected to look after the family and the home, they were rewarded by marrying up the social ladder, never having to worry about financial strains or social responsibility. This phenomenon is known as hypergamy, and according to evolutionary psychologists this is a result of the female inclination to seek better genes and greater resources for themselves and their children.

When Feminism began to manifest itself in the latter part of the 19th century it immediately sought to change the dynamic of hypergamy by giving women rights equal to that of men. What feminists and liberals repeatedly ignore is that the “rights” that men previously had in so-called “patriarchal societies” always came with great responsibility. In the past a woman was not responsible for her husband’s debts, and this pattern of financial unaccountability coincided with her inability to earn any money. It was the husband who was expected to handle money, and any debts were in his name. Previously women did not go to jail for financial reasons, while men were expected to look after women in the same manner as a father looking after a daughter. Is this ideal? No. But it is false to claim that men always had the upper hand in this scenario. There was a lot of pressure that came with men being responsible to the state for a family.

The same pattern can be seen in the Middle East, and it is often women that are perceived as primarily oppressed in this region. Women have far less rights compared to men, but then, once again, men are expected to look after women in the same manner as children. The word of a woman is worth half that of a man in Sharia courts. This is not unlike children in West courts given that they are minors, and not fully responsible for their actions in the eyes of the law. Women are treated harshly for adultery, being stoned to death, and many Middle Eastern women are also harshly punished if they don’t wear burqas in public. What liberals and human rights campaigners regularly gloss over however is that men are also stoned to death for adultery.

Some may then argue that women are buried up to their necks when they are stoned, for example in Iran, while men are buried up to their waists, able to escape death if they can dig themselves free – but do you like the odds in this situation? Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? When we really examine the culture in the Middle East it is not directly sex based, but draconian and despotic rules that are drawn from statism and religion. If you want to fix this then you have to challenge this system, not demonise men as the sole oppressors.

But this is exactly what happened in the West. Wherever Feminism goes it is driven by the empowerment of the state and a hateful ideology that paints men as oppressive. One major goal of the state has always been the economy, and below we can hear ex-Minister for Women Harriet Harman state that women in the workplace “brings the widest pool of workers to employers":

Feminists and liberals struggle with any suggestion that the government has its own agenda in helping Feminism, though it is clear that the flooding of women into the workplace helped drive down wages. This is not the only reason wages have failed to keep up with inflation since the 70’s, but it is common sense to realise that dramatically increasing the workforce is going to create an advantage to the employer. In jobs women prefer to work in, such as offices and schools, it is harder to earn a higher wage when compared to outdoor jobs that women do not statistically want to partake in. Feminists and leftists fail to understand this, and wish to use affirmative action to destroy the productivity of the business world via an agenda akin to Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

We have reached a crossroad in this gender war. It is clear that Feminism has no intention of creating a world where people are rewarded based on ability, and instead wish to create an unsustinable model of society where all are identical, denying any link to reality such as sex based differences, or practicality in a free market economy. What’s worse is that Feminism has shown itself to be a hateful disease that infects women wherever it goes. As Feminism spills over to the East it is easy to see in real-time just how the Feminist agenda creates a culture of hatred:

In India men are hit by women for boarding ladies’ train carriages, even during crowded and chaotic rush hours - this reminds me of a certain situation involving black people on buses! As if that’s not enough a law is being proposed in India for the government to pay women to beat their husbands! This is a new low, but alas there are many that have fallen prey to the state exploiting any cause to coerce the masses. Combine this with a brainwashed group that actually buys into a biased view of history, and it’s clear that the Feminist agenda is not about equality.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!


  1. You said: "The same pattern can be seen in the Middle East, and it is often women that are perceived as primarily oppressed in this region. Women have far less rights compared to men,"

    I disagree with you. What rights do men have more in the Middle East? Women are not allowed to be presidents in Iran. But other than that, I don't see any "oppression."

    You said: "many Middle Eastern women are also harshly punished if they don’t wear burqas in public"

    Men are punished too if they don't dress modestly. Men, too, are required to cover themselves up.

    Muslim men also have to dress modestly; however you cannot compare the body of a woman to that of a man. A woman has curves and breasts which are very sexually attractive to. Women don't normally look at men and say oh he has a nice face, beautiful hair, or look at those breasts, so it should not be strange that a woman is asked to cover more than a man.

    Men are more visual than women, so women are expected to cover themselves up. In contrast, women are less visual, so this rule doesn't apply to men as much as to women.

    So this has nothing to do with oppression; but women usually think it is oppression.

  2. Also, it's optional for Muslim women to cover their faces... It's not legally enforced.

    Those rules applies to both Muslim men and women:

    1.The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.
    2.The clothes worn should not be transparent such that one can see through them.
    3.The clothes worn should not be so glamorous as to attract the opposite sex.
    4.The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.
    5.The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers’ religions.

    But those rules are not usually followed by both men and women. (You see Muslims of both sexes wearing T-shirts and jeans.)

  3. Who benefits from this? I mean global feminism, who benefits in the long term? Is it feminist's? No. Within a generation they will meet the same fates as the NAZI's(actually worse probably).

    Bankers? Nope.
    Rich? Not really.(both groups benefit more so from the status quo of nation states)

    Nation States? hell no.

    But who really benefits? Globalist's do.

    You see feminism acts in two ways that benefits the Globalist's:
    Firstly it breaks down cultural and ethnic lines. Racism and Culturalism is mostly a female caused phenomenon. As evidence of that, Western men had no problem with marrying into local societies when they began traveling the world. It wasn't until Western women herd of Western men shacking up did it become a "problem".

    Add into the fact that because little boy's are usually trained by their mothers to adore female affection this translates into a sense of "nationalism".

    Feminism acts as a enzyme that breaks down the cell walls and enables mixing of ethnicity's and cultures more easily. Because feminism encourages the targeted women to be hateful of "their men", causing "their men" to leave, and diminishes the inter-personnel power that women have over men.

    Secondly, it creates among men at a global level a sense of "shared suffering". Shared suffering leads to the state of emotional attachment know as comradeship. Which also over comes nationalism.

    You have to remember that Globalist's are of the evil "end's justify the mean's" school of thought.

    Because with Globalist's, every problem has but one solution: Globalism. So they intend to create a state of affairs in which us men will be lead to a "logical" solution for ending our suffering and oppression via Globalism.

    I can see it now, a quest for "Global Justice".

    Look at the Countries hardest hit by feminism:

    UK, USA, Sweden, India, SK, Japan, Australia/NZ/Canada. And other nations.

    But those nations I listed above are all nations whose citizenry wouldn't be thrilled with the prospects of Globalism.

    While Nations such as China, France, Germany, Italy, Russia etc, that don't have a problem per se with Globalism are among the least affected.

    Of course this analysis is just a theory, but it makes sense compared to the alternatives.

    1. You make some interesting points. The major problem I see here is that people in power see feminism as a useful tool for expanding the state. Some people do this with a very hateful aim in mind, while others are simply deluded individuals who believe what they are promoting is for the "greater good."

  4. Moderate feminism seeks to remove public policies and private customs that demean and degrade women. Moderate feminism has accomplished its mission and has largely faded from public awareness.

    Radical feminism is similar to other radical ideologies. It seems more thoroughgoing in its stated goals, but inevitably its unstated objectives become the seizing and retaining of raw power over other humans. The tyranny and brutality of radical ideologues raise hackles, which leads the ideologues to become ever worse. The limiting case of this state of affairs is North Korea.

    Radical feminism seeks to give women easier lives at the expense of men. It is an example of what economists call "rent seeking." "Rents" are payments to an economic agent in excess of the minimum payment the agent requires to do what they are already doing. A common form of rents is reserving jobs for those who happen to have certain ineradicable personal characteristics, such as skin colour or gender. Wishing to give the state the power to set wages based on "comparable worth" doctrines is also a form of rent seeking. Radical feminism is about creating and maintaining entitlements based on being female. Those entitlements are economic as well as political. Rents undermine a market economy, grounded in property rights and voluntary exchange.

    What radfems cannot see is that women who make a credible commitment to not bearing children (before 1970 or so, not marrying sufficed), are well treated by our market economy. Most of us cannot both raise children responsibly, and be successful players on a competitive career ladder. In the past, women accepted this because they valued very highly the mark they made on the next generation.

    1. People like you and I are perfectly aware of the issues of feminist rent seeking. Alas, many suffer from cognitive dissonance regarding the benevolence of feminism - they won't shoot the golden goose.