How Large is your Penis?

Friday, April 16, 2010

Feminism Sucks Part 1: Philosophy

I happen to think that feminism is a wrong and evil philosophy (not to mention a stupid philosophy, that I am uncomfortable by even calling it a "philosophy"). I will try to explain why I think this way about feminism in several posts. A difficultly with this discussion is that "feminism" can mean differently to different women. There are many different kinds of feminists, so I will try to be focusing on general feminism, something that is usually present in every modern feminist movement. I will then talk about different kinds of feminism that focus on special goals that are not necessarily part of the general feminist movement. I hope that the reader after reading this will finally understand why I am an anti-feminist.

The first and most important thing which needs to be done in such a discussion is to define what "feminism" means. Using a dictionary definition here is not very helpful. The reason being is that a feminist can mean by "feminism" one definition and a dictionary can mean by "feminism" a different definition. A dictionary definition would say that feminism is "Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes". However, feminists themselves can define feminism differently. Searching some forums online I have found feminists describe feminism as "The belief that men and women should have equal rights". Another one I found said, "The belief that women are equal human beings". The problem with a dictionary definition is that it does not matter how the dictionary defines it, what matters is how the feminists themselves define it. I will concentrate on how feminists define feminism.

There is a very big difference between saying, "men and women are equal" and saying "men and women should be equal". The dictionary definition says that feminism is a movement to gain equality for men and women, many feminists would define feminism in the same way, however there are feminists who define feminism as basically "a belief that men and women are equal". The statement "men and women are equal" is a descriptive statement, the statement "men and women should be equal" is a prescriptive statement. That is to say, the first statement is a statement of truth, while the second statement is a statement for what ought to be. Saying that men and women are equal is a truth claim. However, saying that men and women should be equal is not a truth claim, it is rather a statement that says what ought to be. Let me give an example. The statement, "stabbing a person in the head will kill that person" is a descriptive statement, it is a statement of truth, if I stab someone he dies. However, the statement, "stabbling should not be done" is not a statement of truth, it is rather a statement of how we ought to behave with one another. Therefore, there is a big difference between a feminism who says "feminism is the belief that men and women are equal" and the feminist who says "feminism is the belief that men and women should be equal". The first kind of feminist is making a claim on truth, the second kind of feminism is saying how the world ought to be. We will examine these two in detail.

We also need to understand what "equality" means. Equality can refer to actual equality, that is, men and women are the same. No thinking person possibly can believe in this, of course they are different, even little kids can see the difference. One has to go to college to believe in something so stupid. Not only men and women are different but every person is different. Every person has his own positives and negatives. Some people are great with business but terrible with computers. Other people can be great with computers but terrible with business. Everyone has advantages and disadvantages. For one thing men and women have different bodies, so right there we have a difference. One can object to me and say that is a trivial observation, of course men and women have different bodies however as far as their skills and abilities go they are the same. So for example, one who says that men and women are equal in their abilities implies that when it comes to work men and women do it just as well. But how do we know this? It is the responsibility of one who makes a case for actual equality to demonstrate this fact to me. Women and men suffer different psychological diseases, we can imply from there that their brains must be actually different. If so then why should we not think that women and men are identical in their mental abilities? Remember the Natural Laws do not care about men or women, why should we assume then that men and women have developed with equal abilities? Everything points to the conclusion that men and women cannot be equal in their abilities, nor in their mental abilities. Anyone who says that I am wrong about this point must present an argument to why women and men are actually the same in their abilities. If a person was to say on TV, "I believe that women and men are equal", will be applauded for saying that, we would call him "tolerant", however, my demand is still open, I demand to see justification for this statement. It does not matter how pleasant a statement sounds, what matters is the justification of the statement. Thus, I ask thee, if you mean by "equality" actual equality in their abilities and talents then it is your responsibility to demonstrate this statement, if you fail to demonstrate this, then we must reject it and take the default position that men and women are not actually equal in their abilities.

Not all feminists do believe that men and women are actual equal in what they are able to do. But plently of feminists do! I read this article by K C Cole, not sure if she is a feminist or not, but she wrote about that there are few women in science because they are uncomfortable being unique among men (the question should be asked of why did the gap between women and men ever come to be in science if they are actually equal?, this is the question that is never asked or considered). This suggests to me that Cole believes that when it comes to science, such as physics, women are naturally just as good as men are. Because if that is not what she believed then she would not write about how women are uncomfortable being unique among men. Thus, it must be the case that she does indeed believe that women and men are naturally able to contribute to science, therefore she seeks an explanation to for the gap between female and male scientists. Within that article she said that boys play with electrical toys while girls are encouraged to play with dolls and so this creates a divison between the sexes. Thus, she believes that the difference between the personality of boys and girls is learned by their enviroment rather than being the way their nature is. So this is an example of one women (I guess she is a feminist) who actually accepts this view of equality. One can object to me and say that she is only one person, I cannot condemn the entire feminist movement on one person alone there has to be a signifigant number of feminists who subscribe to this view of equality. Indeed, that is true, however there is a movement within feminism known as "gender feminism" which asserts the differences between males and females are socially constructed and are not innate to males or females. This is a rejection of science! But these feminists still continue to deny it by stating the case of David Reimer confirms their pseudo-science. They forgot that Riemer committed suicide, he was not normal, so he cannot be used for "evidence".

There are other kinds of definitions for the world "equality". There can be equality of opportunity and equality of results. Equality of opportunity means that women have the same opportunity as men do in the world, this does not mean that what they seek will be provided for them but it does mean that they have an ability to go for what they want to. Equality of oppurtunity implies that women have "economic equality". There can also be political equality, that is, women can vote and run for office. And finally there can be legal equality, that is the law treats women fairly, unlike the Talmud which says women cannot be witnesses or non-sense like that. An alternate meaning to "equality" is not that men and women are really alike but rather they should be both treated equally with regard to economic, political, and legal equality. This is certainly something I agree with, with these kinds of equalities I think women and men should be equal. Now there is one last kind of equality and that is equality of results. Equality of results means that we make men and women equal in what they achieve in life. For example, wealth redistribution is an example of equality of results. We take ("steal" is more appropriate word) from one group of people and give that money to another group of people. Forms of Socialism amd Marxism are based on equality of results. This is done in hopes of making people financially equal to one another. Another example would be to have quotas on the number of male and females students to make university attentance at 50% for both, that would be "equality of results".

Now we will examine how each of the views of "equality" applies to feminism. Equality of opportunity which includes economic, legal and political equality cannot be the only kind of equality part of the feminist movement. If it was, then there would be no feminist movement, for women already have equality of opportunity. The early feminist movement actually focused on equality of opportunity, modern feminist movements has been perverted and now are focused on different issues. It follows from basic reason that the modern feminist movement, whatever it is, cannot be only based on equality of opportunity. In these upcoming posts I will make the case that feminism today includes equality of results and sometimes actual equality between men and women.

Let us finally return back to the feminist who defines "feminism" as, "the belief in the equality of men and women" and the feminist who defines "feminism" as, "the belief in attaining equality for women". The first kind of feminist must be the feminist who beliefs in actual equality between men and women. The reason is simple, the first kind of feminist is making a descriptive statement, therefore her understanding of "equality" must be descriptive, that is, actual equality between men and women. The second kind of feminist might reject the pseudo-scientific idea of the actual equality between men and women and focus on different kinds of "eqaulities". In particular, as we will see, equality of results.

One last thing to mention. What does the word "sexism" mean? One can read the proper definition of "racism" of what I wrote here. Everything that was said with regard to racism can be generalized to "sexism". It is the same exact definition. The reason why the word "sexism" will have to be properly understood is because it is a word that is used very commonly in feminism, so it is important to understand its proper meaning.


  1. The original intent of feminism was to provide equal opportunity for women to participate in society, like voting, working in any area they pleased, etc.
    Generally in that regard there is little that can be opposed in feminism. It is just to allow any person, regardless of gender, to be given opportunities that they are fit for. It is also beneficial for society to have the best people in the most important jobs, regardless of gender.

    However, all that was pretty much accomplished a couple of generations ago. The feminism fell into the trap most socially useful movements do when they've accomplished their goals. Instead of announcing "Okay everyone, we did it, now we can disband!" the leadership came up with new ideas.

    Instead of equality of opportunity, we were told it was about equality of result. If women don't have the upper body strength needed to become firefighters, let's lower the standards so more women can become firefighter.

    They also developed the double standard: 50% of a class should be women. And if it isn't we disqualify men so women can be brought in. And if it's more than 50% women, well that's okay because it's rectifying historical inequity.

    Feminism has been coopted by the radical left and now espouses its looney ideas under the wholesome banner of equality. That's what makes it so dangerous.

  2. Very good post, I see there is no reason for me to convince you about the evils of feminism. In fact, I was going to use the example about female firefighters in my future post. Feminism is always very much connected with Marxism, maybe I talk about it in the future or not, this alone makes it quite dangerous.

    Feminism, women studies, black studies, queer studies (yes there is actually such a thing), literary criticism, sociology, are all alike to one another. Non-sense college courses that are part of the radical left movement. They all implicity or explicitly condemn the market, praise the state, and aspire to achieve egalitarianism.

  3. The question of how much of human behavior is predetermined by biological or social factors is a complicated one and it is far from resolved. About the most anyone can do is point to biological trait X or social trait Y has having a tendency to produce a certain result. (Note that even purely biological results, for example who will get cancer, can not be predicted with certainty.)

    To use your example of Cole's hypothesis: Cole points to a number of social facts, such as prescribed early childhood activities, as well as women's feelings at being unique among men. She then makes a very logical hypothesis on what the consequences of these social factors would be.

    You propose an alternate hypothesis although most of yours are not backed by facts. But assuming that they were, for the sake of argument, the presence of multiple hypotheses doesn't mean that one disproves the other.

  4. "The question of how much of human behavior is predetermined by biological or social factors is a complicated one and it is far from resolved. About the most anyone can do is point to biological trait X or social trait Y has having a tendency to produce a certain result.":

    The default position, if there is no evidence, is to assume that men and women are very different on a psychological level. There is no reason to assume that this is not the case, anyone who claims otherwise must supply the argument.

    It is not my responsibility to show that men and women are very different psychologically.

    Anyone who believes that the differences between men and women are socially constructed is a complete retard. A pure retard that cannot accept reality. This is an insult to what we know in genetics. Some differences are socially constructed, but a very big portion of them are from birth. A lot of feminists refuse to accept that some things are the result of birth and not social upbringings, for that reason they are retards on that particular issue.

    I hope you are smarter than that and realize that there are differences in the psychology of males and females.

    My point is that some differences are not the result of society. Do you accept that? If you then you are in agreement with me and I do not have to defend anything here. If not then you have to explain how you can possibly believe that men and women have the same identical psychology despite the conflict it would have with genetics and neuroscience.