why feminism is fundamentally wrong

In the light of the discussion that my previous post, the myth of moderate feminism, kicked off I feel I should clarify my views on feminism.
Feminism is not like political ideologies such as communism or fascism or even liberalism, all of which are based on ideas that have some merit. Those ideologies do not work in practice but they are not inherently unreasonable. It is possible to engage with such ideologies on rational grounds. Feminism is not like that.
Feminism is based on ideas that are entirely false, mistaken and inherently unworkable and unreasonable. Thinking that it’s possible to engage with feminism in a rational manner is like thinking that it’s possible to engage in a rational manner with Flat Earthers.
Feminism is based on a belief that the differences between men and women are so insignificant that they can, and should, be made to disappear. This is entirely false. The differences between men and women are fundamental and profound. Men and women do not see the world the same way. Male intelligence and female intelligence are different. The emotional differences between the sexes are profound. Women are ruled by their emotions to a much greater degree than men. These are not weaknesses. If men and women stick to their traditional sex roles these differences are assets, not liabilities. 
Men and women differ in their experience of sex and their approach to sex. Men can to a large degree separate sex from emotion. Women in general cannot. For a man a one night stand is about sex. For a woman it is not purely about sex. 
The demands that feminists originally made sounded reasonable, but they were not reasonable because they were based on a complete misunderstanding of both men and women. The demand for equal pay was absurd. Women do not do the same work as men. This is partly because there are jobs that are suitable for men and other jobs that are suitable for women, and women have no desire to do many of the highly paid jobs that men do. Many of these jobs are highly paid because they are dangerous and unpleasant. Women do not want to do jobs that are dangerous and unpleasant.
Women should not receive the same pay as men because it is the duty of men to provide for their wives and children. A man needs to be paid enough to enable him to support a family. This is not the role of women.
Feminist wanted women to have equal access to higher education. Higher education is very expensive and it is not efficient to spend a fortune educating a woman for a profession that she will most probably practise on a part-time basis and with lengthy gaps for child-rearing. Women in general do not require expensive higher education.
A woman’s role is mainly to be a wife and mother. Feminists have managed to devalue these roles, which has been tragic for women.
The feminist demand for an end to the sexual “double standard” was equally wrong-headed. The double standard was there to protect women. Women face more serious consequences from living a promiscuous lifestyle. The idea that those consequences cannot be evaded by means of contraception and abortion is false – the contraceptive pill has severe health consequences and abortion has serious emotional consequences. Promiscuity is harmful for both men and women, but it is more harmful to women. The sexual double standard was simply a recognition of reality.
Feminism is also based on a deep hostility to femaleness. Feminists worship masculinity. They believe that women are worthless unless they turn themselves into pretend men.
Traditional sex roles existed because everyone used to understand that men and women were different. The things that make men happy are not the things that make women happy.
Feminism is an ideology that is based entirely on false premises. There is nothing reasonable about it. It’s wrong all the way through. It’s wrong for women. It has made women angry, dissatisfied and miserable. It needs to be rejected in its entirety.
Advertisements

7 comments on “why feminism is fundamentally wrong

  1. Autumn Cote says:

    Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to WriterBeat.com? There is no fee, I'm simply trying to add more content diversity for our community and I liked what you wrote. I'll be sure to give you complete credit as the author. If “OK” please let me know via emaizl.

    Autumn
    AutumnCote@WriterBeat.com

  2. @DoD I appreciate (because I was the same until a decade ago) that you are doing the best you can in a utilitarian/ hedonic/ materialist framework; and in the absence of Christianity.

    But it just isn't good enough – at best it is a slight delay/ detour on the exact same path to damnation (and destruction) being trodden by the mainstream Progressivist Leftists.

  3. dfordoom says:

    you are doing the best you can in a utilitarian/ hedonic/ materialist framework; and in the absence of Christianity.

    But it just isn't good enough – at best it is a slight delay/ detour on the exact same path to damnation (and destruction) being trodden by the mainstream Progressivist Leftists.

    Actually I agree with you on the point. I don't think it's possible to defeat feminism and other social ills in the absence of a strong moral framework and I don't see how you can have that strong moral framework without religion.

    I'm just not convinced that Christianity is up to the job. There are too many Christians who have embraced these social diseases, and there seem to be very very few Christians prepared to offer any resistance.

    But if Christians return to actual Christian morality I'll be there with them.

  4. Amfortas says:

    One could write about and add quite a lot here but let me just mention one. The Higher Education issue. Admittedly it was arguably ridiculous that women could not be awarded degrees for such a long time, but the early feminists did not focus on this. Their beef was the different numbers of men and woman in universities. Numbers however were small to tiny for both men and woman.

    In the UK for example in 1910 only about 1.5% of the population attended university. 98.5% did not. Most attended schooling only until 14. Men composed 1 of the 1.5 (99% did not get Uni education) and women composed the 0.5.(99.5% did not get a Uni education) So the difference was half of one percent of the population. Statistically insignificant.

    There was another factor however. Only the 'better-off' went to Uni and before the turn of the 20C ladies did not attend without a chaperone – usually a ladies' maid. So while only so many ladies studied, as many again attended the lectures. The overall male-female difference disappeared altogether.

    There were many well educated ladies around and in quite powerful positions, and for whom the lack of a parchment mattered little. An example – in the USA – would be the President of the Supreme Court in Seattle in 1909. A woman.

    The Higher Education fracas was more arse than frac.

  5. dfordoom says:

    In the UK for example in 1910 only about 1.5% of the population attended university. 98.5% did not.

    Which is roughly how it should be. Maybe the numbers need to be a little higher than that, but not much. Perhaps 5% of men need a university education. Most would be better off going to trade schools or something similar. And there's no need for any but a handful of women to receive higher education. 1% at most.

    Most “professions” do not actually require university education. Engineers, doctors, lawyers (although we need far fewer lawyers the we have these days), scientists need a university education. It's hard to think of any other examples. A very small number of academics (probably about one-twentieth of the present numbers).

    Most attended schooling only until 14.

    Which is sensible. Education became a fetish in the 20th century. Education beyond the basics does not make people happier and beyond the basics it does not benefit society. Most jobs are better learnt on the job. After I left school I got a job as a skilled tradesman and I was trained on the job so I learnt the skills that were actually needed in the real world.

  6. DoD – Just read over your response above. It is either confused or lacks courage. If you can distinguish real-Christianity from the modern mainstream (self-identified-) 'Christian' Churches; and you approve of real Christianity, then you either are or should be identifying yourself explicitly as a real Christian.

    (Unless you have compelling reason to believe that it is utterly impossible to be a Christian outside of membership of and support of the mainstream 'Christian' churches – but how could you decide this unless you were already a Christian?)

    If not, why not?

    If you are merely saying that Christian Churches ought to favour your chosen *political* agenda, or else you won't support Christianity, then you don't believe that Christianity has any independent truth.

    The question is whether Christianity is true – and only after that can you decide what is politically expedient, and what you personally ought to do about it.

    If you have not decided whether Christianity is true, then that should be your number one priority – since nothing could be more important.

    Surely you need to seek out, in whatever way is compelling to you personally, the truth of the nature of your situation in the context of ultimate reality?

    If you make a genuine effort to do this, you will discover an answer. But at present you are evading the question.

  7. dfordoom says:

    If you are merely saying that Christian Churches ought to favour your chosen *political* agenda, or else you won't support Christianity, then you don't believe that Christianity has any independent truth.

    I don't see it as a political agenda. It's a moral agenda. If religion doesn't provide a clear moral framework what use is it? For example believing that homosexuality is wrong, that it's a sin, is not a political stance. It's a moral stance. Christianity forbids homosexuality. It makes no difference what your political views are. If a Christian church compromises on that then it has ceased to be a Christian church.

    Christianity lays down a framework for the relations between the sexes. Women cannot be priests. Women are too obey their husbands. It makes zero difference where you stand politically, if you abandon those principles then you've abandoned Christianity.

    As for my political agenda, I'm not sure I have one. I lean left on some issues and right on others. Overall I'm probably moderate centre-left but I honestly don't care much about politics. I see the problems facing our society as moral problems rather than political problems.

    I see religion as a social thing rather than an individual thing. If you're only interested in individual spirituality you might as well be a Buddhist or a Hindu or a devotee of a New Age cult. I'm more interested in societal salvation than individual salvation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s