27 April 2012

Who Does Feminism Represent?

It sounds like an obvious question. According to the dictionary definition feminism is defined as “the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.” You wouldn’t be the first one to believe that through this definition, and the impression advanced within society, that feminism represents women. The next assumption would be that feminism is beneficial to all women, since all women are supposed to have better lives due to the policies advocated by this movement.

Feminism is perpetuated upon the notion that all women are oppressed, and have been kept down throughout human history. In this vain women are entitled to more social and political justice to correct these errors. There is a problem with this theory, and it is multiple in its consistency. Until the latter part of the 20th century men were men and women were women. Obvious I know, but not to feminists. A woman’s job in history was not based on oppression, but on biological reality. Even this however is denied by feminist claims that men and women are equal. Equal in what way, one may ask? That is the question.

Men and women are born unto this world in the same manner, pushed forth from the womb of a woman, be it male or female. They are not born into servitude, and in this regard all people are instilled with unalienable rights. How could it be any other way, since there is no absolute creed to claim that we belong to anyone? On this basis all people are free, and no person has a right to claim otherwise, since no matter how affluent your background, you are still a human being, just like everyone else.

There is the practical reality that comes along with this, and this is where the picture becomes more complex. Being free does not mean that you are entitled to anything other than what you can achieve with your own merit. Therefore you are entitled to benefit from your own labour, or to claim something as your own if it is based upon the fruits of your labour. By no means are you able to claim that you are entitled to the labour of another though.

What then if you are unable to achieve something? Is it fair to state that you are entitled to something because you are incapable? On what basis could you claim such a thing? Is it not fallacious to state that you have a right to the labour of another? Such a claim is vague at best, and tyrannical at worst. It is therefore by the grace of another that they may grant you with the fruits of their labour. Fortunately nature has an answer for this.

Human beings are social animals that not only enjoy company, but also thrive in a cooperative environment. This brings people together, and nature has a way of fulfilling certain roles. Men and women compliment each other in ways that make them work perfectly as a team. While men hunted, built, and reasoned their way to success, women nurtured, communicated, and provided stable domestic settings that have always benefited the fabric of human existence.

Whether it was a cave, a mud hut, a cottage, a suburban home, or a metropolitan apartment, women are known for their ability to nest. Likewise, men protected and provided for women and children throughout eras like the neolithic period and other early human civilisations, and into the modern sprawling culture we have today.

Let’s go back in time to the stone-age. Imagine that feminism came about in this period. Would ancient women have complained that they were unable to go out and hunt, stuck at the camp with the other women all day, collecting berries and looking after one another’s young? I highly doubt it. Women evolved to carry out their role with precision, and their contribution to the species via childbirth was a great one, which came with serious risk of death. Conversely, women were not so adapted to hunt, while men, particularly through male oriented hormones like testosterone, were perfectly crafted to use focussed vision and increased strength to home in on a target and throw a spear, killing a wilder beast and bringing it home to roast on an open fire.

Therefore feminism was not practical in the past. As we travel through the ages we see that men and women did adapt and change their roles, but as a rule they stuck to what they felt comfortable with, since the biological qualities that make men men, and women women, made them gravitate towards certain roles. This wasn’t perfect, but then again human beings aren’t perfect. When we objectively examine the evidence we realise that all human beings have ever done is try to survive. Sadly though the struggle to survive can lead to less desirable outcomes, like a culture of violence through tribal warfare, where collectives fight over scarce resources, or fear sparked by superstition in a world of uncertainty.

In spite of all this human beings are the most successful species on the planet. Every problem they faced they overcame, and with this came modernity; technology, science, philosophy, engineering, economics, and a plethora of advancements that made life easier for everyone. Feminism would have us believe otherwise. It would have us believe that men and women never cooperated, and that the innovations of men somehow popped out of nowhere.

To feminists the very breakthroughs that provided the contraceptive pill, medicine, automation, supermarkets, indoor working environments, and all the things that make the modern female’s life possible, are not testament of male support for women. Feminists instead talk about patriarchy theory, the idea that the world is beset with oppressive males who held women back and hurt them. But truthfully this is nothing short of exaggeration at best, and a lie at worst.

Men simply did their best to survive, just as women did. Through their ignorance, as humble creatures traversing the landscape of time, they made mistakes. Men have suffered for those mistakes, and so have women. Women also benefited from the productivity of men in an era where it was completely impractical for women to live as they do today. But in all likelihood they would not have felt the need to mimic men, much like the manner in which women simply do not wish to carry out certain male dominated roles today, like jobs based on manual labour. Human beings are wired to act a certain way, but this is not fatally deterministic. As a result men and women can change. This transformation though cannot occur until the time is right. Sometimes this change is hard to enact, since human beings are also creatures of familiarity, and with this familiarity comes comfort.

Fast-forward to the first-wave of feminism. The first-wave was largely based upon what people call de facto rights. Women wanted the ability to own property and desired more employment freedom, and the world had moved on enough in the 19th century for many of these rights to be instilled, in spite of opposition from those in society who feared change, a natural reaction from many human beings. Then came the second-wave in the 60’s. The second-wave feminists were interested in de jure rights, and this movement was dominated by radicals. Second wave feminists actually called themselves radical feminists, but this was far more than a title – it was literal.

The rhetoric of second-wave feminists goes hand-in-hand with Marxian driven critique. It is for this reason social science and humanities departments in universities are the breeding ground of feminists on campus. Second-wave feminists, in all their guises were ultimately separatist female Marxists wishing to create their own movement. Well, that is what they got. Rudimentary to Marxist theory, and that is influenced by it, is class warfare. A more accurate analogy for this is social warfare, since any demographic of society is a potential battleground for the conflict that Marxists seek.

By fanning the flames of conflict, with whatever group might listen, Marxists seek to supplant authority with their own ideology. It is a sad fact that feminism, like much of the civil rights movement, was radicalised by this Marxist critique. That is not to say that some of the civil rights era was not necessary or productive, but Marxist ideologues are the reason why this era has resulted in undesirable consequences, as the pendulum swung too far.

When second-wave feminists protested for change they used tactics that were far from honourable. They accused men of being fundamentally flawed, hurting women socially, domestically, economically, and other abuses regularly cited as aspects of patriarchal oppression. While men are not perfect, they most certainly are not the demons that feminist hyperbole suggests. The stats and theories that feminists cite to are mired in conjecture at best, but at worst it has no basis in objectivity.

Women were not inherently oppressed in history. Men had a difficult time being a provider and protector, while female nurturing was a valuable role that came with its own risks through pregnancy and childbirth. When men failed women suffered, and women could not have done without male support anymore than men could have reproduced without female aid. Feminists disregarded all of this when they manufactured feminist theory. Even the innovations of men that allowed women to move away from their generic biological roles were ignored.

To feminists, men were predominantly oppressors, and the narrative of feminist theory was contrived entirely around this premise. Combined with claims of glass ceilings in the workplace, epidemics of rape, domestic violence mendacity, and a myriad of other accusations, feminists succeeding in infuriating, indoctrinating and radicalising a whole generation of women, as well as their male supporters. This is why feminism is a dominant ideology today.

Who benefits from this? Women? They only benefit in as far as they are led to believe they have emancipation, but what they really have is obligations akin to men. Today women have no choice but to join men at work, merely to sustain a standard of living the baby boomers enjoyed. Since divorce rates are now so high and single people are more common, resources are spread more thinly than ever. This leads to prices going up in markets like property. Jobs are also scarcer since more people than ever compete, whereas previously men and women worked as teams in stable nuclear families, raising well-rounded children for the next generation. In this setting mothers and fathers would be part of their children’s lives.

So who truly benefits from feminism? Socialists for one. They are the group dreaming of a naïve proletariat’s paradise, where everyone works, and the nuclear family is marginalized, since it is purportedly a product of property rights. But above all it is the state that benefits the most, since more people now pay taxes, and the breakdown of the nuclear family leads to a dependence on welfare programs, which spurs on an expansion of the state. Women regularly vote for the left, since socialism is what women need when society is not etched in mutually beneficial interaction between men and women.

Feminism does not represent all women. All women might superficially benefit from feminism, but this is all a façade, and this façade will come crashing down once unsustainable social programs cease. The state will make use of any group that gives it more power, and it is this that robs us of our liberty.


  1. A bit crude in the description of men and women and their gender roles. Seemed less about actually pointing out the biological tendency and more about stating some essentialism. I mean overall the conclusion is dead on but the description of why men are men and women are women seems far to focused on physical strengths and hunting rather then the totality of male disposablity.

    For example primitive man didn't just hunt he also had to bear the risk of the most dangerous task because it was necessary to protect women so that way they could survive through child birth or more likely deliver a baby. This baby was necessary to keep humans alive because then they had more people to take care of them when they got old. While this dynamic favored those who more genetically inclined to exploit it. This is also a product of the rational brain which is ultimately human's fundamental nature.

    Why should examine this from a rational egotist perspective. Instead of assuming that our primitive instincts drive us. Let us assume that our rational instincts drive us more and that it is naturally inclined towards the self interested direction granted our instincts do drive us to be social but even so it's more rational to be social. Now both men and women are rational beings. They use reason as a means of organizing and interacting with the world around them. Now this reason is perceived through the sense which themselves have there own object reality. The body of the perciever also has it's own objective reality. For a man their general object reality is one of strength and a lack of being in a state of need when reproducing. As well the brain comes wired with a strong drive to mate with those that take one pregnancy. This means that men's necessities to stay alive as individuals is less and thier needs to be selective during sexual intercourse also very little. Women on the other hand have a different self interest reality to deal with. Pregnancy is debilitating and painful in a body that is less strong then the male counter part. Women also have to navigate male sexuality to end up towards their rational self interest. which is going to look a lot different then a man's rational self interest.

    1. "A bit crude in the description of men and women and their gender roles."

      Perhaps, but your explanation is no better. It reads like New Age jibber-jabber from Oprah's Reading List for Sophisticated Sophists.

      How are we to take seriously a supposed description of reality that, in and of itself, proposes the idea that people have their own "objective realities"?

      Your post has no logical flow and no concern for disciplined argumentation. It is unconvincing.

    2. People do have there own objective realities that are more immediate to there reality perception. For example the reality of my body is that I have a penis. This makes it easy for me to stand up and pee. I don't have to worry about squatting to keep my legs dry. I share this reality with other males but I don't with females. I also have a brain which is an organ of rationalization and instinct that is bound to physics and biology. Since I am biological male I am wired with a sex drive that expresses itself, as a trend, differently then those with female biology. As well my male brain may come with differences in cognition as certain centers are different in males as they are in females. I'll give some examples: The Medial Preoptic Area of the Brain is 2.5 times bigger in males and this part of the brain is associated with sexual pursuit and erections. The Temporal Parietal Junction is the part of the brain that seeks solutions in interpersonal conflict by motivating fix it fast while rapidly taking other people's perspectives in account. This is more active and quicker to respond in males then females. The Dorsal Premammillary Nucleus is a part that is associated with a defend your turf instincts such as oneupmanship, it's larger in males and contains circuits that detects territorial challenges by other males. The Amygdala the part that alarms us of threats, feardanger and impulses this area is also larger in men then women.

      The list goes on but the point being that even the brain has it's own objective reality and as a organ of cognition IE: and organ that detects and processes outside realities it is going to be colored by it's own reality. While this has been used to argue that there is no objective reality and that everything is subjective. (Which is a popular idea held by feminist) That conclusion is hog wash. There is indeed an objective reality that all individuals share; however, all individuals are an expression of that said reality and have consciousness separate from one another and limited by the private expression of their cognitive reality. Which means individuals must work logically through their brain's reality to get to having correct ideas about the world around them. As well they will also have to work with their body's reality because the needs of their body plus the environment around them plus the added experience of the environment will help determine how the person interacts with the environment to fulfill their bodily needs. If their bodies are different then that's going to change how they approach this problem. If their brains are different that may also change how they interact with reality.

      Ultimately recognizing this allows us to see a much broader picture and realize that the ideas we hold about the world is partially determine by perspective which means that all people have a unique way of looking at the world and thus need liberty to express their interaction with the world. But at the same time much of our reality is shared so the basics are all the same with every human being IE that we rationalize about the world. And therefore we can make determination of the world that are universal and thus fall under correct and incorrect categorization. This gives us an ability to roughly see where biological determinism ends and social conditioning begins. This gives us the ability to assign responsibility to those who have failed to fully cognition the world around them and then when they have a perspective that personal to them and private to there own brain reality.

  2. I agree that there is certainly room for expansion regarding the gender roles of men and women. Remember that that this post is around 2000 words long, and I could have still said more, so it is a topic in itself to go over these variations in more detail. I have done that in the past on many occasions though.

    The point with this post was to state that ultimately men and women had to survive. Victim mentality that feminism pereptuates is biased and divisive, and as such I am showing here that women had limits in the past. There was some unfair oppression, but much of it was out of fear of losing women and children, a sort of mollycoddling.

    It is no coincidence that as humans adapted and modernised, so did the roles of women. These are the things that femininism totally ignores. As a rule men had no intention of hurting women, in spite of some backwards cultures that are full of superstition and violence, often due to a struggle to survive that wont let go, due to rampant irrational traditionalism and dominance of amygdala anxiety.

    in the end though we are human beings, for better or worse. We need to create a sustainable tomorrow, and that is also a very important problem with feminism, since it is mired in socialism.

  3. I think of feminists as a specific group of specific people who are currently engaging in one of the biggest political hoaxes of all time.

    Everyone, from businesses, authors, film directors, to politicians - everyone - believes that it is necessary to please feminists to please the people they're actually concerned with: women. Feminists have taken up a middle man position (forgive me...) between these organizations and women at large.

    For evidence that speaks toward the correctness of my claims, I point to former Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum. He was the only candidate who has specifically spoken against the feminist movement. His objections aren't MRA-type issues, but it's still challenging them. Not even my preferred man for the job, Ron Paul, can claim this.

    By the fable that feminists push of being the only thing between women and rape/oppression/slavery at the hands of men, we should have expected almost zero support for Santorum from women. But, he had plenty of female support.

    Politicians continue to believe that going against feminists loses them women, but not necessarily. Feminists absolutely want female politicians, but regular women refuse to comply. They continue to vote for the famous, rich, and powerful alpha males who promise to use the power of the state to provide for her and her children.