What’s wrong with feminism #2

The Joke

Is it that serious? Is it just a joke? Can it be both? Let’s see:

Feminism clearly encourages women to leave their husbands. 70% of divorce proceedings are initiated by women. Gloria Steinem formulated the attitude best when she said: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” As a result, marriage rates are down, especially in the lower socioeconomic strata.
We may think it is a joke, but it does represent the zeitgeist of a whole generation.
Killing their children? Roe vs. Wade was the defining cause of second wave feminism. There is something perverse watching the celebration after the Irish abortion law referendum.
I couldn’t take witchcraft seriously, but some feminists apparently can.

Feminists never tried to hide their goal of destroying capitalism. Socialism has always been the ultimate goal of feminism. Women are consistently voting on the left, for more government services, for an ever-bigger state bureaucracy.
Obama’s “The life of Julia” was the perfect example of what feminists want. A world in which women are married to the state that will take care of them from cradle to grave. No men are needed, except, of course, to finance the socialist/feminist dream world.

What else is left? Lesbians? While feminism will not turn women into lesbians, the movement has been clearly highjacked by them. The faces of third wave feminism are the likes of Rosie O’Donell and Rachel Maddow.

So much for the joke. Like any good joke, there is more than just a kernel of truth in it.
But feminism is no joke. In my previous post I pointed to some of the conceptual problems, the denial of reality, the rewriting of history and the self-destructive nature of the movement, but those are not the only problems. Here are some more gender issues and the problems they represent/manifest:

Hypergamy, appreciation and the dating scene

Hypergamy is the natural expression of the most central of the female reproductive strategies.
A study comparing genetic mitochondrial DNA variability concluded that through human history 80% of women were able to procreate versus only 40% of men. Women will seek out the alpha males and dismiss the rest. On Tinder, 80% of women will rate 80% of men to be below average in attractiveness while men’s evaluation of women is evenly distributed.

Civilization can only exist when the sexual proclivities of both sexes are controlled by cultural customs.
This dangerous imbalance in women’s attitude created a world with sexual freedom for some and frustration for most. As feminism liberated women to choose freely, their natural drives were laid bare as shown by this statistic. The result is  Incels and MGTOW on one hand and a lot of frustrated women who have no problem finding sex but have a very hard time to find partners.

As BPS puts it in this video:

“If women’s sexual preferences are liberated and go unchecked they destroy civilizations.
If women are allowed to choose harems form.
If women are allowed a voice in matters that pertain to the safety of a nation then that nation will die”

This isn’t something to celebrate.

Reproductive freedom

…..is a gross misnomer, a classic expression of newspeak, meaning its very opposite: the freedom of NOT reproducing, the freedom from the responsibilities and the consequences of sexual licentiousness. In this conversation about the UBI, (@08:50) Joe Rogan caught my attention using the expression ‘single moms’ as an argument for the UBI. Why was he using that particular expression, I had to ask. Why did he chose ‘single moms’ as opposed to ‘single mothers’? Could it be because ‘moms’ sound more warm, cuddly and fuzzy wuzzy ? Don’t we pay them enough already for making really bad choices? The guy whose comments prompted this post was talking about ‘sexual mistakes.’ In the world of freely available contraception and taxpayer supported abortion, there is absolutely no excuse for ‘sexual mistakes’.
We could also ask: is being a ‘single mom’ a sexual mistake or a conscious choice? Charles Murray analyzes the perverse incentives in “Losing Ground.” He clearly demonstrates that the welfare policies directed to women create incentives whereby making the wrong decision for the long run is a perfectly rational decision for the short term. Still, I must question that deference that we show to single mothers. Why do we call them ‘moms’ and not the stupid, short-sighted, selfish and violent abusers that statistics clearly show them to be?

    • 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
    • 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
    • 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
    • 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
    • 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
    • 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)
    • 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
    • 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)

(Source: fallen fathers)

Single ‘moms’ clearly do a lousy job raising children.

Again, I am not blaming women for responding to perverse incentives and ideological manipulation, but nobody can say that feminism, glorifying single motherhood and advocating for the surrogate fatherhood of the state is blameless. It provides moral justification for disastrous life choices. Of course, there are many women doing a wonderful job raising children alone, but they are not the ones whom we would describe as someone who made a ‘sexual mistake’. They are the widows and the kind of divorcees who were abandoned by their husbands. They are NOT the career single mothers, the ones who became single mothers by choice. The worship of single motherhood is a crime against their children, a crime against society and the feminists championing their cause are doing so for purely selfish reasons: to gain more political power.

Domestic violence and rape

Domestic violence is generally in decline. Except, of course, in single mother households. It appears that single ‘moms’ are twice as likely to abuse their children than married ones.
Rape, according to crime statistics is down 80% since 1973. Let that sink in: the number of rape cases reported in 2003 were one fifth of the cases reported in 1973.

The only things that are up, are fraudulent reporting and the ever more creative interpretations of what is considered rape. The #metoo movement and ‘campus rape epidemics’ are politically motivated witch hunts doing enormous harm to gender relations.

The war on men

When the feminist Casey Jay released her documentary The Red Pill, she was vehemently attacked.
The movie and the reactions to it expose the hypocrisy of the feminist movement. Accusations of ‘toxic masculinity’ (never properly defined) are just tools in the political fight to replace masculine values with feminine ones in our culture. We could also say that masculinity is fought with ‘toxic femininity’ until we end up with an oppressive matriarchy. (I could argue that the name of that is communism, but that would take us too far off course from this topic.) What best exposes this war on masculine values is the war on boys, but before I get to it, let’s state what those are:
Male values are hierarchy building, rule making, risk taking, individualism, competitiveness, curiosity; while female values are community building, consensus creating, risk aversion, cooperation, nurturing and conformity.
The educational system is on the war-path to eradicate male values and to replace them with female ones.

 The war on boys

The link in this heading is to the book of Christina Hoff Sommer with the same title. This is an interview with her about the book.  The Boy Crisis is another book highlighting different aspects of the problem.
The entire educational system, teachers and administrators, have been taken over by the madness of feminist ideology. Its base is the delusion of the blank slate, nurture over nature, the belief that our nature is freely malleable. The second pillar of the Marxist edifice is oppressor vs. the oppressed dichotomy which, in this case, posits that the patriarchy is not only responsible for keeping women down, but for all wrongs of human history and therefore must be eliminated. The first battlefields are the elementary schools, the second the universities.  Normal behavior of boys is scorned, suppressed and regulated. Schoolyard games are banned, athletics cut back, whatever remains, scores are not kept.  The number of boys who are drugged for being boys have seen an alarming growth.

The ADHD diagnosis was practically unknown before the nineties. Today, three times as many boys are diagnosed with the condition as girls.

The war is not simply on boys, but anything masculine. Biology, behavior, values.
With a gross misrepresentation of women in the teaching profession (77%) and their concentrated effort to eradicate masculinity, it’s no wonder that our boys are falling behind.

The wage gap

….. argument is baloney. There is no evidence for its existence, anything presented as such is just ideologically distorted bad statistics. When it comes to fairness, nothing can beat the invisible hand of the market. For a short exposure to the numbers, watch this Ben Shapiro video, for a more comprehensive explanation on the same subject watch this slightly longer lecture of Walter Block.
Unfortunately, no argument can ever stop this scam, and make no mistake about it, it is a scam. Just look at this article in Time magazine: the title talks about the ‘pay gap’ then ‘proves’ it by comparing lifetime earning statistics. The economic illiteracy and the manipulative sleaze behind the argument is beyond belief.
Feminists and politicians are shamelessly lying about the subject and the media does everything it can to present it as a crisis.


Hypocrisy is what I find the most unappealing about feminism. How shamelessly they are trying to have their cake and eat it to. Women don’t want to compete with men, because they cannot. In the vast majority of endeavors, they would just lose. The transgender movement in recent years brought this point to light. Transgender athletes are dominating any sport they enter.

Hypocrisy #1 – sports

About two years ago there was a ‘scandal’ when Jim McEnroe pointed out that if she had to compete with men, Serena Williams’ ranking would be around 700.
The actual number may have been a slightly inflated, but it is an indisputable fact that both of the Williams sisters have been handily beaten by Karsten Braasch in 1998. He ranked 203rd at the time.
The Australian national female soccer team lost to an under 15 boys team 7-0.
The same happened to the US national team. They lost 5-2.
But it does not end there.  Female soccer players around the world (US, Australia, Denmark, etc.) are suing their employers for pay equity. Just watch this CBS special on that crisis.
Now here are the only numbers that matter (strangely enough, from the same network):

There is a big difference in the revenue available to pay the teams:

This year’s figures have not been released, but four years ago the Women’s World Cup brought in almost $73 million. The 2010 Men’s World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion. Those players got $348 million, or 9 percent of the total revenue. The women’s team got a higher percentage with 13 percent, but the bottom line was still much less, $10 million.

So, as you can see, there is unfairness here — but it’s toward the men. Women got a higher percentage of the revenue than men did! In many pro sports with salary caps, percentage of gross revenues is the major determination of player salaries. It’s how the whole thing works.

The same goes for any other sport with gender divisions. In most sports, nothing stops women from competing with men. Feminists believing in equality could easily demand the elimination of the separate divisions. Not asking for that is pure hypocrisy. Crying discrimination when you are already paid at a 44% higher rate for your performance is disgusting hypocrisy. Yet, with the help of the media, women get away with it.

Hypocrisy #2 – the job market.

Let’s get back for a second to the wage gap argument. Some things are easy to measure. If you work in an industry that is paying purely for performance, gender differences could be easily measured. Commissioned salesmen, real estate agents, lawyers, prescription drug pushers are all paid for performance. How are women doing in those jobs? As it turns out, not any better than in others, but just like in sports, that will not stop feminist from bitching about it. In an industry which women already dominate and where compensation comes closest to reflecting performance, women are ‘victims’ of a 23% ‘wage gap’. Read the article, just don’t look for logic in it.

Women dominate several occupations. Nursing (91), teaching (76%), social work (88%).
Men dominate every industry that is hard, dangerous or dirty. Resource extraction, commercial fishing and plumbing. We don’t see feminists demanding gender equity in those professions. Not in the ones where they dominate nor in the ones that are not very pleasant to do. Pure hypocrisy.

No matter how many times is proven that the wage/pay gap does not exist, the claim will come back as if no argument has ever been made against it. No matter how many times it is proven that the differences are the result of the choices individuals make, the generalized argument will come back to torment us like a brain eating zombie. No argument, no evidence will ever kill the pay gap, the glass-ceiling and the oppressive patriarchy theories.

Hypocrisy #3 – the oppressed women around the world

Feminist can talk the talk about oppression, domestic violence, rape culture in the Western world but they wouldn’t walk the talk when it comes to real oppression in the Muslim world. No feminists ever protest genital mutilation, child marriages, honor killings or the stoning of rape victims.
In some strange perverted way, the women of the Western world seem to be fascinated by the toxic masculinity of the Muslims. Remember Elin Ersson and her fifteen minutes of fame preventing the deportation of a convicted domestic abuser asylum seeker? Not only do they NOT speak up against it, Western feminists are defending rapists and wife abusers as long as they are Muslims. Just compare the way feminists are handling the Asia Bibi asylum application versus the case of the ISIS bride Shamima Begum.

The British government refused to grant asylum to Asia Bibi, the Christian woman who spent nine years on death row before she was acquitted of a blasphemy charge, while allowing the unrepentant terrorist bride back to the UK “…. Is A Feminist Issue”. It is more than that. It is a cause. It even has the full support of Jeremy Corbin.

Feminism is bad for women.

Feminism did not, overall, make women happier than they were before. On the contrary.

As Christina Hoff Sommers points out in this conversation with Ben Shapiro, about 20% of women do want a career, do want to compete with men and do not care much for having children. 20% wants to stay home with children, the remaining 60% want balance tilted toward motherhood. The feminist agenda is driven by the first 20%, cheered on by the media and supported by the political classes and the educational establishment. Unfortunately, the agenda setters are very successful in implementing radical changes in society.

The sexual revolution was all great, but the freedom it gave to women was (and is) an illusion. Biology does not allow women to adapt male reproductive strategies. Giving birth to a child and caring for it requires time and effort. It also helps if one can secure the help of a partner to do it with. Feminism didn’t improve the chances of women to help with this biological imperative.

On the contrary, women were told that they do not need to compromise, so they did not. Women were told that they can do anything men can. So they tried. When it didn’t work, they cheated (see hypocrisy above).  The constant was the treatment of men. Feminists spent the past 50 years attacking, insulting, ridiculing and denigrating men and every value they represent. Now they are complaining that they cannot find men they can look up to. Women marry later and down, have fewer children and struggle to find a balance between work and family.
I would not call that a victory. Feminism created a world that is not conducive to women’s happiness. The result is not liberation, just a more elaborate form of slavery.

Feminism is bad for cultural survival

The abysmal birth rates of Western democracies do not bode well for the future of Western civilization. The wholesale importation of a different civilization will not solve the problem. When the chaos comes, feminists, along with the socialists, can take credit for it.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This is one of my longest post yet I feel I just scratched the surface of the problem. Still, I have one more to go, which, I promise will be much shorter.

What’s wrong with feminism #1

As I was following a discussion on abortion that morphed into a debate about feminism, I could not resist chiming in with my standard mantra about the evils of cultural Marxism.

Naturally, I was asked: What’s wrong with feminism? It started with this statement:

“In our society, we have accepted the role of women in the workplace. That role/lifestyle/set of opportunities in life is/are made more possible by the woman having the same sexual freedom as men. Sexual mistakes happen. In order to “level the life playing field”, our society has provided ways for a woman to do just that. This does not mean she must/will never have children – just on her terms and in concert with a life partner of mutual choice. That’s an equal relationship. That is a cornerstone of our modern society.”

That was a challenge that needed an answer. My short answer was pointing out that there was never to be a level playing field, that we will never be on equal footing.
Women were sold on the stupid Marxist idea of equal outcomes which is killing the family, destroying reproduction rates and in the end will bring down Western civilization itself.
Here is my full answer, part one.

As I said, the conversation started with abortion, so it is no wonder that feminism got into it via the issues of “reproductive rights”. The comments in the discussion represented perfectly the generic view of feminism: A call to men to be nicer to women. That we should wash the dishes and change the diapers more often, let them try to be like us when it comes to promiscuity and if a “sexual mistake happens”, let them just kill that baby. If they want to keep it, men will collectively finance it. If they want ‘equality’, let’s give it to them. It’s only fair.

Men’s attitude towards feminism is a mix of chivalry, complacency and a ton of virtue signaling. We should be nice, we can afford it and it makes us look good on the top of it.
It is just like the tacit support for the welfare state. Sing along: ||: we should be nice, we can afford it…..:||

So here we are. What’s wrong with feminism? In one word: Marxism. And I am not the only one saying this.
The essence of Marxism is the quote on his grave:

The essence of feminism is best formulated by Catherine MacKinnon:

The essence of ANY cause the leftists embrace is a drive toward the same goal. Environmentalism?
Naomi Klein wrote a book explaining why and how communism is the only answer to its problems.
But I digress. Let’s focus on Marxism.

The point of the Marx quote above is the idea that the world is not what it is, but what we want it to be. The belief that reality is irrelevant, truth and history are irrelevant because we can subject anything to our will. The only thing that matters is what we want and the political power required to get it.

Another central thesis of Marxism is that everything in this world is a zero-sum game.
That in every human interaction there must be a winner and a loser. An oppressor and an oppressed. An exploiter and an exploited. Since these relationships are predicated on coercion, the only way they can be changed is through political violence.

The aim of Marxism anywhere it is practiced is the creation of a world of its vision through the destruction of everything that does not conform to it. The vision may be fuzzy, but the destruction is very real. Marxists are unbeatable when it comes to destroying things, not so much when it comes to creating them. Marxism is all about politics and power and so are all the movements it inspires.

First wave feminism was mostly about civil rights, but second and third wave or post feminism are all about gaining political power for its own sake, where actual women, just like the ‘proletariat’ for the communists, are seldom more than brainwashed pawns of a power-hungry ideological elite.

But let’s be a little more specific. The insanity of feminist claims and demands are discussed widely, so I will not spend too much time on them. I will, however, spend a little more time on the aspects I do not see discussed much: the reasons for the Marxist misrepresentation of history and the statist encouragement of feminism.

The denial of reality

Feminism starts with the denial of reality, science, biology, psychology, logic, and even the concept of evolution. Let me be blunt: men and women are different. They have different biological functions and their bodies, their brains, their personalities adapted to the requirements of those different biological functions.

Men and women have different abilities, attitudes, desires, and proclivities. They have fundamentally different reproductive strategies: men want to spread their seed far and wide, while women want to find the best possible male to share genes with. These differences did not appear out of nowhere, they are the results of millions of years of evolution. Gestating and nursing females are more vulnerable than the males who are supposed to protect and to provide for them. Dismissing our evolutionary history is wrong.
Pretending that the differences have no consequences is wrong.
The things feminists are fighting against are not oppression and the patriarchy, but the competitive disadvantages of their feminine nature. Just like all other communists, feminists are fighting reality itself.
It is a battle they cannot win, but they can easily destroy the societies that are willing to accommodate their demands.

The distortion of history

Marx and his followers believe that human interactions are zero sum games. One person’s gain always has to come at the expense of another. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” There is no such thing as peaceful cooperation or mutually beneficial exchanges.
While Marx did not have much to say about feminism as such, his ideas were adapted by the cultural Marxists. What was left out of the age-old struggle against the oppressive patriarchy? Just the facts of life.

Existence in primitive and agricultural societies has always been a cooperation between the sexes. Women spent most of their adult lives being pregnant, nursing and taking care of toddlers. Human societies evolved to institutionally protect the more vulnerable half of society. Pregnant women were not only weaker and slower than men, they were also the custodians of the survival of the tribe. If anything, men were worse off than women. For most of history, women were seen as an essential resource to society, while men were disposable. This sociobiological fact also explains a number of differences between men and women. All the differences on all the bell-curves. IQ is just one of them. Mostly men claim the prizes and mostly men pay the cost of failure. Nature can afford to gamble with men, because (let me repeat it): men are disposable.

The burden imposed by nature on women has not been lightened up until the later stages of industrialization. The material wealth created improved living conditions and introduced a slew of technologies that drastically reduced child mortality and the overall burden that reality placed upon women in “all hitherto existing society”.

Strangely, women did not even realize that they were oppressed until the cultural Marxists explained it to them. All throughout history, different cultures found different arrangements to maintain themselves and to grow. Gender relations were an important part of any of these arrangements, which weren’t any better or worse than other social arrangements within those societies. Kings fought wars for the protection, queens were producing heirs for the continuity of the kingdom. And so did the common men and women.

It could be argued, and in fact it is in Is There Anything Good About Men, that men are the exploited sex.
It could also be argued, that as a consequence, controlling the natural reproductive strategies of women is absolutely necessary for the existence of civilization. Feminist societies self-destruct. Challenge anybody to point you to one that does not, or has, not.

The state trap

Let’s go back to the quote that I was reacting to.

“Sexual mistakes happen. In order to “level the life playing field”, our society has provided ways for a woman to do just that. […] That is a cornerstone of our modern society.”

We created a world where women are freed from the consequences of their “sexual mistakes”. Is that a good thing? Freeing people from the consequences of their mistakes? How about subsidizing and compounding their mistakes? I am not talking about taxpayer funded abortion, but about glorified and taxpayer supported single motherhood. There are countless studies to show that it is bad for children.
But it was not ‘society’ that did that. It was the state.

As the inventions of men liberated women from many a chore of housework, as life expectancy and overall health improved, women suddenly found themselves with some free time on their hand. As people moved away from the farms, women were able to enter the industrial labor market. With the right to vote they gained the power to influence politics.

The state trap has two aspects: the growth of the state requires more taxpayers and the state needs more voters who will vote for a bigger state. This can be achieved by creating ever increasing dependence.

The state has an ever-increasing dependence on the votes of the dependent classes: women, ethnic minorities and government bureaucrats. If only unmarried women voted in the 2016 US elections, Hillary Clinton would have won the electoral votes 514 to 18. See some more interesting numbers in my post about it.

Socialist redistributive states invariably end up in an inescapable death spiral. For the most recent examples, see Zimbabwe or Venezuela.
At this point, one of the strongest drivers pushing most developed countries into that spiral is the female vote. I do not blame women for this, they are just acting on their nature mixed with self-destructive, perverse incentives of the state and toxic feminist ideology.

I will talk about some particular issues in my next post.

Tacit Knowledge

After siting on this idea for well over a year, I got the push today to talk about it. But le me get back to that.

I have always been fascinated by the notion of tacit knowledge.
When the image above popped up on my monitor after watching something on Youtube, I got so vehemently disgusted by one of the faces that I just had to ask myself why.
Can you find the face? The face of the self-congratulating, cocky, smug, leftist [expletive deleted]? Continue reading →

The social contract

France is not the only place with protests. The Hungarians are protesting too. These protests are very different, but bring up similar questions about the nature of democracy.

I encountered the question, the one that is called a ‘scandal’ by the local media, in a Facebook post of a liberal friend.

“I am saying since 2010 that an anti-democratic, anti-republican and anti-parliamentarian legislative assembly must not be legitimated by the presence of the representatives of the democratic, republican, parliamentarian parties.
Let’s start building parallel institutions for a new historical starting point”

Continue reading →

Tying the threads together

I had my Sunday morning coffee with two videos. The first one was the latest from Black Pigeon Speaks about the vote in South Africa on a constitutional amendment that would allow the government to seize land from white people without compensation.

The second was a new Vertigo Politix video titled “The Alt-Right Reformation Against Liberal Theocracy”. It is outspoken, disturbing white supremacist propaganda. The worst I have seen so far on this channel. (And just to avoid misunderstandings, I plucked the above picture from the Vertigo Politix video. It is not a representation of my beliefs but an illustration of what’s to come: neo-fascist iconography and memes)  Continue reading →

Israel, for what it’s worth

I went to Israel thinking that I am a hardliner. I got out as a much-hardened hardliner. I cannot possibly claim that I have full understanding of its very complex problems after spending only two weeks there, but I can say that the visit either confirmed my preconceptions or changed them in a way pushing it further in the direction of supporting the Jewish state and WHATEVER measure they choose to take against the Arabs. Continue reading →

Heineken on the rocks

Another weekend on the Bruce peninsula, another cultural experience. In some of the busier parts of the peninsula, about 80% of the people I met were clearly first-generation immigrants. Indians, Arabs, Sikhs, Africans, Russians, Chinese and whatever else was not obvious to identify. I was there with my Mexican relatives. I am an immigrant myself, it is just not obvious from the way I look.
Continue reading →

Artificial Intelligence vs. Programmed Stupidity

Popular culture is awash with images of a dystopian future brought about by artificial intelligence. Dozens of TV series, movies and books are discussing the dangers of artificial intelligence. How robots will take our jobs and rule our lives. The more promising AI becomes, the darker the perceived threat. On the one hand we embrace the good things AI can do for us while on the other we fear losing our humanity, our position on the top of the dominance hierarchy.

Continue reading →

The real liars


Are these people liars? Without a doubt. Are they real liars or just puppets with the long nose telling us what we want to hear?

I went to two debates in my riding and I tried to watch the leaders’ debate. I honestly tried but could not take it for more than 20 minutes. I don’t think I missed anything.

In the second local debate I went to there were six candidates present: The BORG, of course, (Blue, Orange, Red, Green) but also a Communist and a Libertarian. The conservative and the libertarian candidates were completely overwhelmed by the four statists. Continue reading →