The Philosophical Void of Modern Feminism

Submitted by Patrick Bryant:

The feminist movement, which initially was based on the desire to achieve equality and dignity for women, has been hijacked by a core of mostly-lesbian misandrists who have turned it into a doctrine of hate, blame, and imagined superiority. Those three elements make it remarkably similar to Nazi doctrine.

This would all be of little consequence, and the movement would have been disregarded long ago along with the mindless blame and hateful mutterings of other extremist groups like the KKK and the Neo-Nazis, were it not for the fact that feminism has become an institution in American politics.

Click "Read more..." for the rest.As someone who has traveled the world, I've found that activist feminism is an almost exclusively American phenomenon, and it can be further defined as being comprised almost exclusively of the white middle-class to upper class bourgeoisie women. It is rare, for example, to find a black woman who claims to be a "feminist". It should come as no surprise that this division among women also defines the social group most affected by the narcissistic consumer economy. The real root cause for allegiance to feminism is probably best defined by Carl Jung's definition of the Electra Complex: if there is a perversion in the development of females or if their aggression is somehow stifled, resentment can be displaced towards the dominant male (the father) or patriarchal cultures in general. This explains both lesbianism and its closely related manifestation: feminism.

Rather than seeking equality and parity with men, the popular feminist seeks superiority. Consequently, the popular feminist movement can be viewed as a sexist partisan force; and yet this partisan force has been treated as though it were a gender-neutral humanist movement that has been afforded an invalid yet powerful position in modern American society.

Of its core values, the most prominent is the overthrow of the "white male 'good-old-boy'" network (known in the 60s and 70 by the more gender-neutral term: "The Establishment"). What the movement tends to neglect is that this 'good-old-boy network' is based on class, not on gender, and that the average working class white male is no more welcomed into that network than are working class females. The methods used to overthrow this network come straight from classical Marxism: wherein Marx stated that it is appropriate for the "under class" to use any means necessary, however brutal, to wrest power away from the "upper class." The history and eventual collapse of the USSR is a classic example of the failure of this doctrine: eventually, EVERYONE comes to see themselves as being in the "underclass," and what results is a kleptocracy where everyone feels justified in stealing from everyone else. However, Marx suggested that the primary social division was between a "ruling class (the class of people exerting power or authority) and a laboring class. Since most white men fall into Marx's definition of the laboring class, I am sure even Marx would be appalled at the rationally vacant concept of women in the "proletariat" attacking their own men!

Unfortunately, since the popular feminist movement has defined the "enemy" as being males, rather than the upper ruling class, they have irrationally converted the issue from a class struggle into a gender struggle. By drawing the battle lines between genders instead of between classes, the movement does real and significant harm to its own sons, brothers, husbands and fathers, who invariably get caught in the "friendly fire". The net effect over time is to corrode and undermine the feminist movement's own interests by:

1) marginalizing struggling working class males by erecting hurdles to effectively supporting their families

2) increasing the number of single parent families supported by the mother alone, and

3) deactivating what is historically the most powerful weapon in any class struggle: the family

The hurdles to working class men come in the forms of special entitlements reserved exclusively for female students. If the current trend continues there will be no more males graduating from college by the middle of this century. This vicious cycle threatens to marginalize men to such an extent that women will be hard pressed to find a man who is capable of supporting a family. And in the future, fewer men will be able to afford to attend college without the tuition subsidies and entitlements reserved exclusively for women. Due to this redistribution of education that progressively excludes men, an oppressive and evil class system built along gender lines - as currently imagined by the feminists - will eventually become a reality, with the women in the upper ruling classes and the men in the lower labor class! This, whether consciously or unconsciously, appears to be the final end goal of the American Feminist movement. Such a matriarchal society is not without historical precedent. And when such societies existed in the past, they were among the most oppressive, unjust, warlike and bloodthirsty in human history.

An example of the blamefulness practiced by popular feminism is their common reaction to economic compromise. The desire to seek a career, for example, instead of nurturing a family involves a significant compromise. All compromises involve giving something up. However, true to form, the feminist movement even goes so far as to blame men for what is surrendered by choice when making this compromise. Here is an example of that type of blame: "Our oppressive male-dominated American society has forced women into a 'cruel trade-off': if they focus on their careers in their youth, it's extremely difficult to get pregnant after age 40." (The Phyllis Schlafly Report, VOL. 35, NO. 12, JULY 2002). No one is FORCED to follow a career rather than have children. Having children is a personal choice. The basic premise of the argument expressed by Ms. Schafly is transparently bogus.

When confronted by the injustices of American feminism, a common argument heard from feminists is that the injustices produced by their movement, the repression of working class males, and their selection of men as victims regardless of their social class, is a case of the "pendulum swinging too far the other way," and that in any social revolution there are bound to be innocent victims. I am sure those were the rationalizations on the lips of many Germans while their Jewish neighbors were being carted away to Auschwitz. The rationalization is clearly specious for anyone who claims their goal is social justice. "An Eye for an Eye" leaves everyone blind, and two wrongs never make a right.

The most alarming rhetoric of the movement is more than vaguely reminiscent of Nazi propaganda. This comes in the form of statements like: "the Y Chromosome is defective" (Valerie Solanas, considered by many to be the first modern radical feminist). The feminist rhetoric that ascribes destructive attributes to all who have the genetic code that defines the male gender could have come straight out of Hitler's Mein Kampf! Then there is the rhetoric that men are exclusively responsible for destructive acts such as war. In fact, some of the most warlike leaders have been women. From Cleopatra in ancient history, to Indra Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, and Golda Mier in modern times, women have lead societies into battle at least as often as have men. War isn't caused by "testosterone poisoning," and depriving men of their testosterone making parts won't cure it - as the feminists would have you believe - but rather war is caused by greed and the desire to increase one's prestige - both characteristics that are evenly distributed between the sexes. If an enemy of peace were to be defined - a mindset likely to produce widespread death, atrocities and genocide - it is the very mindset of the American Feminist: blame, hate, and imagined superiority. This is the core lesson learned from the Holocaust: that blaming another group for your economic woes, hating another group because they are different and are imagined to be engaged in a secret conspiracy to keep you down, and thinking yourself superior and possessed of the manifest destiny to improve the world - are all of the essential ingredients for genocide. Or perhaps, in this instance, I could coin the term "gendercide." Be it the purges of Stalin or the Holocaust imposed on the Jews, all of these atrocities were justified by the belief that they were necessary for "the greater good" and that the victims were somehow inferior to the perpetrators. Tthe main impetrative that comes down to us from the Holocaust is that this type of destructive behavior MUST be called out and exposed to the light of day at its earliest inception. This must be done early, vigorously, and fearlessly because the particular form of psychosis that this type of thinking represents soon takes on a mob mentality of its own. I'm afraid that we are now several decades into this feminist psychosis, and in all likelihood, only a generational change will now reverse its impact. Fortunately, that seems to be coming to pass, as younger women are beginning to complain about the passive-aggressive character of the men that the "feminist age" has produced - men who were pummeled into feeling guilt over their own masculinity.

Since the popular feminist movement has no philosophical defense, since its underpinnings are based on a set of false premises, and since it is eventually bound to bring about harm to women as well as men, the two antidotes to its fallacies are time, and men and women of courage who are not afraid to call its lies out into the light of day. Time is on our side, and as anyone who has ever debated a feminist will attest, their fragile doctrine cannot tolerate the light of logic any more than Count Dracula could stand the light of day. Popular feminism is based on frail and broken precepts that cannot withstand even a trivial assault by logic and rationality. But a word of caution: don't expect to change the feminist. Psychologically, the outlook of a feminist can best be viewed as a psychotic delusion, classically described as: "false, inaccurate beliefs the person holds onto even when he/she is presented with accurate information." Anyone who has argued with a feminist will find that definition fits well with their circular logic and their bending of reality to fit their distorted world view founded mostly on half-truths, myths and urban legends. They won't change their opinion because if they did, they would be forced to confront the atrocious injustices that they have supported. Just like the Nazi Julius Streicher who incited hatred and murder against the Jews, and whose last words shouted at the gallows of the Nuremberg Trials were: "Heil Hitler!" they refuse to see the blatant failure of their own doctrine. In a free society we all have a duty to confront dangerous lies that affect public policy, and you may help dissuade those around them from the corrosive effects of their falsely-held beliefs while helping to roll back some of the injustices already perpetrated on others.

The best course for men is to not be afraid to act like men, to not give up their principles and sense of honor that make them men and reject the angst and self-loathing about your masculinity that you have been force-fed since birth. Unfortunately, since manhood is a learned set of traits, it takes only one break in generations to have its teachings lost to history, and in far too many cases, boys are raised by only mothers who are naturally unequipped to teach them manhood. In cases such as these, it behooves a man to either find a suitable mentor, or to live for some time outside the confines of the effects of the feminist psychosis that is generally defined by the borders of the United States. After living in Europe for several years, I can personally attest to the fact that women there will reward and nurture whatever remnants of masculinity an American male has managed to retain.

Each generation has its challenges, and among those for this generation is rolling back the distorted realities of feminism. Were I to call myself a masculinist, you would have every right to call me a sexist. I am instead a humanist, who believes that everyone - regardless of factors like race and gender - should have the right to choose their own path in life. I am a man, and I object to the accusations assailed upon me by feminist rhetoric that - owning only to my gender - that I am an oppressor and a destroyer. As a father of two sons, I hope that this yoke of blame will someday be lifted from their shoulders, and that the feminists will learn to put down their arms and embrace what is good in men, rather than focusing on or imagining their flaws. Until then, I'll settle for people just seeing the truth.

NOTICE: This story was migrated from the old software that used to run Mensactivism.org. Unfortunately, user comments did not get included in the migration. However, you may view a copy of the original story, with comments, at the following link:

http://news.mensactivism.org/articles/06/04/22/1556240.shtml