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The demands that feminists originally made sounded reasonable, but they were not reasonable because they were based on a complete misunderstanding of both men and women.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.

the war between the sexes: the aftermath

Ever since the evil ideology known as feminism emerged men and women have been at war. In my view there is no way the conflict between the sexes can be resolved. So what does the future hold?
This is purely a personal view, but I suspect we will see an almost complete separation of the sexes. Our society will in fact be two societies, one male and one female, with very little real contact between the two. Men and women will lead totally separate lives.
When they’re in their 20s women will use men for sex. When they hit their mid-30s they’ll hear that biological clock ticking and they’ll panic and they’ll have one child and the state will raise the child. Marriage will be out of the question. They will have left it too late, and no man is going to want to marry a bitter angry 35-year-old feminist who has spent the previous twenty years treating men like dirt.
Men will increasingly opt out. There’s no upside whatsoever to marriage from a male point of view. You’d have to be insane even to contemplate such foolishness. Men in their 20s might hook up with women for casual sex but even that will increasingly be seen as not worth the misery and the aggravation. Within twenty years or so men will get most of their sex from sex robots. That’s an idea that has been around in science fiction for decades but the technology is catching up with the science fiction.
There are animal species in which the males and females have little or nothing to do with each other. They come together briefly once a year to mate and that’s it. That’s going to be the future for humans as well, except that we probably won’t even bother with the mating part.
Eventually men will figure out that they’re paying all the bills. Women mostly don’t have productive jobs. They work in the bureaucracy or in the “service” sector, in nice comfortable air-conditioned offices where they don’t get their hands dirty and they can spend their time drinking coffee and having meetings. They don’t actually produce wealth for the country. Men do that. When men realise that they’re producing the nation’s wealth whilst women are simply consuming that wealth things could get interesting. Men will discover that if they can’t find the kinds of jobs that allow them to keep their income (in other words jobs where they are paid under the counter) then there’s not much point in working at all. Women, who increasingly control the bureaucracy, will make frantic efforts to prevent men from keeping their income.
Both men and women will face the prospect of long long years of loneliness in the second half of life. Women will have their cats. Men will have porn and beer and gaming. All will be lonely but the relations between the sexes have been so irretrievably poisoned by feminism that will all live out their lonely lives in solitude.
I don’t see any chance of fixing any of this. The damage done by feminism has been so severe that any kind of truce seems unlikely. In all probability relations between the sexes will continue to deteriorate. We’ll end up with a kind of sexual apartheid. Two mutually hostile societies existing side by side in steadily increasing incomprehension and suspicion.
Of course in western Europe things are likely to go in a different direction. Islam will sweep feminism aside as if it had never existed.

children, marriage and society

A couple of days ago I wrote a post on our looming aged care crisis and I made the point that a society that values nothing but hedonism, autonomy and freedom is not going to be capable of (or willing) to deal with the problem of caring for the elderly. It should also be noted that such a society is not going to be well equipped for the task of raising children. A society that cannot adequately rear children is hardly worth describing as a society at all.
A society that thinks that sex is purely a recreational activity is also not going to be child-friendly. A society that sees marriage as a vehicle to satisfy the selfish desires of two people rather than a basis for a family is not going to do too well raising kids. A society that thinks that homosexual marriage is normal and healthy is a very poor environment for children. 
It’s terrifying to think that we are actually allowing homosexuals to raise children. This is not going to end well.
It’s not just homosexual marriage that is a problem. Heterosexual marriage is not a satisfactory arrangement for child-rearing unless it is accepted that marriage is permanent.   If people think it’s fine to get a divorce because they’re bored, or they’ve met someone younger and hotter, or they’ve decided that marriage no longer satisfies their need for freedom and autonomy then children are going to suffer. Half a century ago people understood this. Why don’t people today understand it?
Single mothers cannot raise children successfully. It’s not just that they can’t raise sons, they can’t raise daughters either. Both girls and boys need fathers. Of course it goes without saying that single fathers cannot raise kids properly either – both girls and boys need mothers. Homosexual couples certainly cannot raise children, for this very reason.
A society awash with pornography is also a terrible environment for children.
De facto relationships cannot form a successful basis for raising children. They are by their very nature temporary arrangements. if you can’t handle the idea of making the commitment involved in marriage you have no business even contemplating children.

It should also be obvious that children need to grow up in a society that understands, accepts and celebrates the differences between men and women. And accepts that biological sex is not something that can be altered by surgery. It’s not like getting a nose job. Children need to learn to accept their biological sex and to be happy with it. If they don’t they’re just going to add to the numbers of unhappy and confused adults.
Children are a massive commitment. We have to accept that. But children are the only reason for having a society in the first place. We have accept that as well.

the real traditional family

A commenter at Oz Conservative makes some important points about marriage. What we think of as the traditional family, a husband and a wife and a couple of kids, was essentially a postwar invention. As this commenter points out 

“the definition of marriage changed in the Anglosaxon world under the influence of atheisim and liberalism from one of an intergenerational social institution to a personal relationship. It is this transformation and reduction of the primary social institution of society to a mere personal relationship which is the greatest causative factor in the collapse of Western civilisation.”

He goes on to add

“The former institutional framework was devoted to the preservation of culture, values, tradition, religion and wealth and the transmission of these to the next generation.”

I think this is quite important. The nuclear family is an aberration, and a dangerous one. The nuclear family of the 1950s was certainly better than the morass of immorality, lust and selfishness into which we have now sunk but it was fundamentally flawed. It was a device for enhancing consumption. It created more household units, and each of these household units required a house, a car, a refrigerator, a dishwasher and a host of other consumer goods. 
It was good for the economy and bad for civilisation. It reduced marriage to a formalised version of shacking up together. Marriage was no longer about duty, or responsibility, or maintaining tradition, or ensuring the future. Marriage was now a vehicle for sexual gratification and romantic Hollywood-fueled fantasies. When combined with increasingly easy access to divorce the results were catastrophic. Now you could not only have sexual gratification and romantic fantasies, you could have an endless cycle of instant sexual gratification and starry-eyed but doomed fantasies.
The reality is that neither sex nor romance can form a firm foundation on which to construct an actual family. And a family is not a transient arrangement between two autonomous individuals. It is an ongoing institution. Your family existed before you were married and it will continue to exist after you are dead. Marriage is not a pairing of two atomised individuals pursuing short-term pleasure. Happiness is, or should be, something much deeper – the sense of a life well-lived, of contributing towards something that will live on after one’s death.
And (as this commenter points out) once you accept marriage as a mere sexual arrangement then you have no basis on which to oppose homosexual marriage, polygamy, or any depraved arrangement that the mind can conjure up. On the other hand if you adhere to the idea of marriage as being part of a larger institution of family life then it immediately becomes obvious that two homosexuals living together do not in any way, shape or form constitute a family.
Easy no-fault divorce, the contraceptive pill and the misguided decision to remove the social stigma and legal disadvantages of de facto relationships combined to sound the death knell for the family but the nuclear family had already fatally undermined the actual traditional family.