I get constantly claimed that feminism is the same as egalitarianism. I then end up having to spend the next 10 minutes of my life explaining why feminism is the opposite of egalitarianism. To save myself time in future conversations, here’s why, chopped down to a four simple cases in point.
As a short introduction to the topic I’m stating my own conclusion to get it over with: feminism has never, ever acted for the purpose of increasing gender equality. Feminists have, occasionally, and mostly for the short term, acted for the benefit of gender equality, but as often against it. The only common denominator for their activity is that they behold the world from a feminine viewpoint, and try to create change in society that fits their point of view.
1. Men’s Duties
Finland is one of the world’s most feminist countries, so it makes an excellent exhibit in our case number one.
There hasn’t, in the last 20 years or so, been a single law or practice as strongly against gender equality as the National Defence Duty. For those not familiar with the law in question, it states that if and only if a person is male, he is sentenced to a servitude in the army for 6 to 12 months.
Now, how high up has this outrage been ranked in the feminists’ figurative lists of “things that need fixing for the sake of gender equality”? The answer gives us also the answer of how much feminsts’ values have to do with gender equality: if it’d be on the place number one, they’d likely be strongly for equality; if it’d be placed in the middle of their lists, they would not care about equality much at all, or if it’d be so low it hasn’t even been worth mentioning on the list, it is a strong hint that feminists’ values are strongly against gender equality.
Personal observations: I’ve never heard a single feminist even mention the topic. When someone else has mentioned it, most feminists refuse to see the this punish-males-for-being-males law as being anything else than a fair way of “balancing” the gender equality.
2. Who would benefit from the proposed change?
Whenever a feminist proposes a change regarding gender equality, does it benefit men or women? How often do you hear of ideas to grant women powerful and well-paid positions on the basis of their gender? And how often do you hear of ideas to force women to undesired positions, such as being sentenced to a prison, in equal amounts compared as men?
Personal observations: The only changes feminists propose benefit women. The argument they state that your individual abilities and choices shouldn’t weight as much as your gender when it’s about a person getting to a favorable position doesn’t in their mind apply at all when it’s about a person getting to an unfavorable position.
Being good enough for a corporate board or bad enough for a prison are the two sides of one and the same coin, that coin being called Personal Choices and Capabilites.
3. Do the same arguments apply to other groups?
When a feminist proposes a change be made regarding equality in order to benefit women, does she disregard equal or stronger arguments to make similar changes to benefit other groups? For example, there’s a vast underrepresentation of blind people, of those who didn’t attend high school, and of short people in the boards of directors of publicly traded companies. However, no “egalitarian” feminist has ever proposed that the arguments that apply to forcing those seats to be handed to females on the basis of gender would apply to handing seats for example to short people.
Personal observations: Feminists’ proposals ignore all other groups except women. The arguments would equally strong (or weak) for hundreds of other groups. In other words, feminism is only a political agenda which has been more successful in its lying, or if you prefer a different term, lobbying, than other similar groups.
4. How does a feminist interpret reality?
Whenever a feminist interprets reality and statistics, which way does she typically interpret it? When regarding genders, do feminists’ interpretations divide in 50/50, as often in favor of men as for women? Mind you, here “in favor of men/women” is to be translated as “based on this interpretation, we should make a change that benefits men/women”.
Personal observations: Feminists, in other words people who have at some point started to believe the propaganda of previous feminists, are always looking for a way to see, and to persuade others to see, things in favor of women. I present to you the case of Erin Pizzey, who nearly paid with the life of her own and her children for disputing the feminist truth with her research:
In 1971, Pizzey opened the first battered wives shelter in England, which she ran until 1982. … Pizzey’s book “Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear” (1974, out of print) was one of the first to explore and expose wife battering.
Today, the shelter Pizzey founded denies her entry; her name does not appear in its official history.
Pizzey’s ‘mistake’ was to diverge from the theory of domestic violence that feminists at the time insisted dominate all discussion. She believed that men could also be the victims of domestic violence, and that women could be as violent toward their partners as men.
“Because of my opposition to the hijacking of the refuge movement, I was a target for abuse. Anywhere I spoke there was a contingent of screaming, heckling feminists waiting for me,” Pizzey wrote. “Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad, asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters.”
One night, the family dog was killed.
The full article sheds further light on the lengths to which feminists have gone to decide what we should consider the truth.