Thoughts on the absurd claims of feminists

Just recently, I heard of a number of claims from feminists that were absurd and appalling.  It seems that absurd and appalling are typical of many feminist claims . . . they practically define it.  In my life, I have never heard such non-sensical, ridiculous, fantastical, unbelievable, asinine, absurd, appalling, and outrageous things as what has come out of the feminists mouth.  When I began to hear such statements I was completely bewildered and baffled, to say the least.  In fact, I don’t think I have ever been so bewildered by anything else.  They did stuff like accuse us (the male) of “enslaving” and “oppressing” them because they had to do what females were doing all over the world since the beginning of time.  They behaved as if we guys had hurt and damaged them in some way, and were deliberately plotting against them.  They often got upset and claimed “abuse” for simple everyday things and statements.  What was even more bewildering is that they seemed to think I was supposed to believe what they were saying.  They talked like their absurd claims were ‘obvious’.  Often, this was said with tremendous anger and violence that was out-of-place, unprovoked, and unnecessary.  It gave the feminists this quality of being ‘insane’, a perspective that many males, and some females, also felt.

I first confronted this oddball mentality in about 1976 or 1977.  I was in grade school.  As an act of kindness I opened a door for a girl and she suddenly got mad at me and called me a “male chauvinist pig”.  She acted like I was going to kill her or something.  I found myself responding in a unique way, one which I would confront many more times in the future.  Basically, you sort of jump back and go “what the crap was that?”  As I’d learn, this was almost a typical male response to feminists claims, even down to today.

I saw this mentality here and there in the next 10 years but I didn’t really start to see feminist ‘madness’ til I went to college in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s.  That’s when it got bad . . . and ridiculous . . . and almost daily.  That is when I became bewildered by it and began to wonder what was going on.  It made me inquire about it.

It was during this time that I heard some of the best, and most ridiculous, feminists claims I have ever heard.  In fact, by the late 1980’s, they were so unbelievable that I began to start to write them down.  Unfortunately, I only filled one side of a page and quit . . . there was just too much and too often.  I couldn’t keep up.  I’ve always regretted not writing them down because I knew that only by standing back and listening to their claims can one see the “madness” in this. 

Inspired by some recent statements from feminists I have tried to see if I can recall some of the things I heard and record them here.  I found it hard to remember many of the ridiculous claims.  They were so unbelievable that what I remember is the ‘unbelievableness’ of them and not necessarily what they said.  It’s like they become a ‘blur’ of absurd statements, one after the other.  When I look at the ones I have recalled below they do not give the real ‘flavor’ of the absurdity of it.  They just barely touch the surface.  I also think that having a person say this sort of stuff in front of you makes a difference (versus reading it).  There you can see how they make this so personal and become very accusatory.  In addition to recording what I have heard in the past, I also want to record some things I have heard recently.  I should also point out that I have written other feminists responses I’ve heard in various articles in this blog as well.

I recall that I said, many times, that the gist of what they are saying amounts to saying that they are oppressed and victimized for common or everyday things.  Its sort of like saying “I’m oppressed and a victim because I am forced to talk with a high voice”.  That, really, is somewhat accurate.  Much of what I have heard recently is just a continuation of that.

Many of their statements falls into groups reflecting certain patterns of thought. They seem to reflect certain ‘currents’ of thought in feminists mentality.  I found that many feminists tend to stick to a one or a few themes in their interpretation of things and stick to it.  In some cases, once you know how they think, you could almost predict how they will interpret things.  This made being around some feminists almost a monotony of hearing the same “abuse” or claim over and over again.  I recall even avoiding doing or saying certain things around some girls so I wouldn’t “get them started”.

Much of the statements below are not word-for-word, of course, but describe the gist of it.  Not only that, there were many ways to say the basic idea.  In some cases, I only describe the general idea of what I heard.  It wasn’t uncommon to hear the same idea expressed a multitude of different ways.  Often, statements reflect several different themes, so some of the statements below could go in different themes as well.

HOW TO LOOK AT THESE STATEMENTS

I found that most people tend to trivialize much of these statements or “pass them off” as nothing.  As far as I know I’m the only one to look at them seriously and with an intent of “what’s behind it”.  I know that many males found them so absurd that they rolled their eyes and walked away.  But one must stand back and take a closer look . . . there’s a lot behind these statements.

A good example is the statement that has become a symbol for this whole absurdity (which was said to me in the late 1980’s):

“We are oppressed because we are forced to wear high heel shoes”. 

Right off that sounds silly and ridiculous . . . absurd.  The immediate tendency is to roll your eyes, walk away, and forget it.  But we must look at it closer.  We must remember that many of these girls are taking this seriously!  Don’t just walk away from it.  It doesn’t take a genius to see that there is something behind statements such as these . . . there’s something more (I’ll discuss more about this at the end of this article).

When looking at these statements stand back and think about it and consider these things:

  • Note the absurdity of it, and how ridiculous it is.
  • Note how they expect us to believe it.
  • They generally assume that it is a legitimate argument.
  • Remember that this is supposed to be a statement from a person with a normal state of mind.
  • Notice how they use political and legal points of view (“oppressed”) as a way to make it sound legitimate.
  • Notice how they make themselves a “victim”.
  • Notice the “hint” that someone is at fault for this problem (their “forced” to wear high heeled shoes).
  • Notice how it is THEY who are ridiculing something female or feminine.
  • Then consider:  What are they really saying behind this statement?

As I’ll discuss later in this article, my many decades of looking at this has shown these statements seem to show that they have a contempt of the female appearing as a problem with being female and a poor view of the female in general.  As a result, they tend to see everything female as bad and then usually try to find someone to blame for it (usually the male).  The statement above is a good example.  To me, it is more or less saying something to this effect: “I’ll blame someone else for my own insecurity at being female”.  Unfortunately, this technique doesn’t work.  Because of this, girls who cater to this thinking never resolve this problem and the dilemma goes on and on and on.  This makes them see victimizing around every corner, abuse coming out of the woodwork, and threats materializing out of thin air.  In effect, these statements, and the beliefs that support them, become like a “temporary fix” (like taking aspirin) that only works for a while . . . but the problem keeps reappearing.

COMMON THEMES

Much of their statements, I found, tended to follow a pattern that was quite revealing (which I will discuss at the end of this article).  If one just looked at them one by one they seemed like a bunch of oddball, weird, and asinine statements that didn’t make any sense.  By standing back, and looking at all of them at a distance, it became clear that there was an order behind it all and that all these different themes referred to a greater theme.  Some common themes I saw are:

The females are oppressed theme:  the females is enslaved, subjegated, and forced to do things

Feminists seem to think that they are “oppressed”.  They continually complain that they are “enslaved”, “subjugated”, and “forced” to do things.  Many feminists have made a life out of this belief, styling themselves as the “oppressed”.  I often jokingly call this mentality as being a “victim-of-the-world” as that’s basically what they’re saying.  It didn’t take a genius to see that this belief somehow satisfied them deep down inside, even though they complained about it overtly.  Many feminists embraced this belief almost as if it were a religion.

Many feminists also seem to think that they are being “forced” to do things.  I often chuckled at this as it was often over simple everyday female things, sort of like a male saying “I’m forced to shave every morning” and then saying that this fact proved that they were “oppressed”.  These absurd claims made the feminists appear ‘out-of-touch’ with things, as I believe many of them are.

I was often offended by statements like these because they were basically saying that we (the males) was deliberately trying to mistreat and “force” the female to do things.  In fact, I have often said that “no male should take that insult” and I don’t believe we should, sitting there listening to how we guys are supposed to be these mean tyrants trying to oppress, enslave, and victimize the female.  That’s ridiculous!  In my life, I saw no real evidence of these claims, of how they are “oppressed”, and a lot of the other feminists claims.

Some statements I have heard:

“Females are slaves since the beginning of time.”  . . . and we know who enslaved them, too . . . the male.  Listening to feminists, over the years, I couldn’t help but say, “god, we guys are horrible people”.

Some feminists say that the female has never been “free” at all in history . . . They’ve made a whole life view of being “enslaved” and “oppressed”.

“The history of the female is the history of enslavement.”  What a poor way to look at the female.  To me, it’s these types of views that reveal that many feminists have a problem with female identity.  Many feminists have a poor view of the female in general.  This is why they look at it in such a bad light, seeing it as enslavement and oppression.  It’s also why many feminists seek to be like men.  In fact, if one looks at many feminists claims you often see the pattern of ‘despising the feminine and trying to emulate the masculine’ as a common theme.  This reveals that we are really looking at a female sexual identity problem. 

“We are forced to cook and clean the house.  This is nothing but an oppression.”  What a way to look at a timeless, necessary, and important activity in life.  Many feminists saw oppression and slavery in ANY act a female did:  cleaning the house, cooking, doing the laundry, etc.  No matter what it was, if females did it then it was automatically oppression and slavery.  Not once did I see a feminist say that there are many things males do that could also be construed as oppression and slavery as well.  Many seemed to think that whatever the male did was a ‘freedom’.

“The kitchen is no different than a prison.”  Couldn’t we guys say that work is a prison too?  The fact is that we guys could complain about things just as much, if not more so, than the feminists.

“Marriage is nothing but the enslavement of women.”  I needn’t tell you that this mentality does not lead to a good marriage.  Another example of their poor view of the female position.  Not only that, marriage is an institution that has existed since the beginning of time all over the world.  In saying this, they are refuting and undermining a significant part of human society.  In effect, they are defying humanity and human society.  This shows how much of feminism is anti-society and is actually undermining to human society.

I will never forget an incidence that took place in school.  After class me and this guy sat talking about stuff.  Some chairs away a female continued to sit.  When we were about to leave the female came up and accused us of oppressing the female and enslaving them.  We were dumbfounded . . . we didn’t even talk about females.  For the rest of the day I sat and rehearsed our conversation in my head.  I couldn’t find anything referring to females in our conversation.  Finally, about when I was going to go to be, I just about gave up and said, “I don’t know . . . the only reference to a female is when so and so mentioned that his wife made dinner”.  I then perked up and knew enough about things to know what was going on:  the ‘oppression’ and ‘enslavement’ she was referring must be the simple remark that his wife made dinner!  God help us all, the abuse females endure at the hands of the tyrannical male!!!

“When a man does something for us, it degrades us by forcing us to be subjugated.”  Many of them thought that if you did something for them you were deliberately trying to ‘degrade’ them.  This logic used to stun me.  It’s like seeing someone fall, and helping them up, having them say to you, “you’re helping me just shows how you think I’m not able to take care of myself”.  What???  More than once have I wanted to say, “why do you ASSUME I’m trying to degrade you?  Not only that, WHY would I degrade you?  If I deliberately wanted to degrade you I’d find a much better way to do it than this.”

Many feminists refused to take the title of “Miss.” and “Mrs.” because they felt it subjugated them to the male.  As one feminist told me, “these terms show that we are subjugated by the male”.  It does???  Because of this, they come up with a generic term, “Ms.”, to replace them.  I guess that’s supposed to mean they are not oppressed by the evil tyrannical male anymore???

Recently, I heard a feminist say something unbelievable after a recent shooting that took place.  Some of the guys put themselves on top of their girlfriends to protect them.  She stated that this was “degrading to the female because it does not allow her to defend herself”.  What??? This is a good example of how many feminists have no gratitude at all.  They also tend to have no appreciation as well.  I believe the guys she was talking about were killed protecting their girlfriends but that doesn’t matter . . . the ‘rights’ of the female is everything!

“We are forced to have and raise children.”  I’ve heard this stated many times in many different waysI was often stunned how many feminists turned one of the most important functions of the female into a form of oppression.  This, to me, shows one of the most damaging and destructive sides to feminism as it is belittling a basic female functions, roles, and purpose.  With this mentality how can they ever feel good about being female?

The female is a victim, is degraded, and made to be inferior theme

Many feminists seem to almost wallow in the idea that they are “victims” or are being degraded in some way.

“Having children is nothing but the abuse and victimizing of the female body.”  What???  To me, this is another example of how feminists don’t appreciate or respect basic female functions.  This absence of appreciating female functions is a common theme with feminism.  I also believe that this mentality also reveals a hatred of the female that many of them have.

“Because females are the only ones that have children, which victimizes our bodies, it shows that nature is sexist.”  What???  Here is a good example of how many feminists seem to think that their philosophy is more important than nature.  Maybe nature should change to fit feminist viewpoints?  Over the years I’ve seen many feminists criticize nature because it doesn’t fit their point of view.  This shows how many feminists seem to think that their point of view is the ‘ultimate truth’, overriding even nature.  They also act as if everything should change to fit it as well.  Of course, if it doesn’t change then it shows ‘discrimination’ and ‘oppression’.

I’ve heard feminists claim that “motherhood is a violation of their Constitutional rights”!   The child, during pregnancy, not only ‘damages’ them, and hurts their bodies, as well as make them ugly, but ‘enslaves’ and ‘oppresses’ them as they are ‘forced’ to raise it.  You can’t tell me that a person who says that is ‘secure’ in who they are.  This is a good example of how these girls have ‘issues’ with being a female and a mother.

Recently, I saw a female holding a sign that said something to this effect, “We need feminism because men can still rape without laying a hand on a woman.”  What???  I must have misunderstood.  I thought rape was a forceful violent bodily act . . . I guess not.  What is this new form of ‘rape’ she’s speaking of I wonder?  My experience dealing with feminism is that it could be just about anything from a glance to touching them in some way, even accidentally.  But, more importantly, it shows a modification of a legal concept and turning it into something it is not.  They turned something physical into something non-physical . . . where will it end?  Since they consider rape as no longer being a physical act what, then, is going to be considered rape?  A statement, a glance, an expression . . . maybe we can say that if a male has certain thoughts about a female he’s ‘raping her’.  When will this end?  This shows a common pattern of thought in feminism where they take an imagined ‘abuse’ and see it in everything.  Just as I said above, some feminists have made nature ‘sexist’ and ‘oppressive’ and something that ‘victimizes’ them, some consider that the whole female life is nothing but an ‘enslavement’, and so on.  What’s next is to make out “life” and “living” as one big ‘rape’.  What all this shows is that behind many feminists viewpoints is a feeling that life is ‘horrible’ in some way.  They feel threatened by life.  They feel hurt by it.  They feel damaged.  As a result, they see this in everything and everywhere . . . in statements, in glances, etc.  Everywhere there is something threatening them and trying to hurt them in some way.  Many have made a life out of this stance and point of view.  In other words, behind a lot of feminism is a basic fear of life and a feeling of being threatened by it . . . in actuality, its a philosophy of fear.

“The books always say ‘male and female’ and never ‘female and male’ . . . the male always comes before the female.  This shows how we are subjugated and oppressed.”  I recall that many feminists refused to write the male before the female.  I seem to recall an argument over this in a class I had.  Interestingly, a female teacher said something to this effect, “There’s nothing degrading in this.  This is the way it’s always been written.  If it degrades the female by saying it that way then it degrades the male by saying it the other way around.  Which one do you use then?  If you look at it as a form of degradation then there’s no getting around that someone is going to be degraded no matter which way you say it.”  If I recall right, the girl suggested that we should use both versions in our conversation . . . as long as its done EQUALLY.  We don’t want anyone to get degraded now do we?  The teacher said that this was too hard to do ” . . . you try speaking like that.  No one is going to remember to do that equally.”

Many feminists would not say things like “workMAN”.  They would say “workperson” or, better yet, “workwoman”.  They often acted like saying “workMAN” was going to kill them.  I’ve seen some feminists who refuse to say “mankind” but must replace it with “humankind“.  Some even replaced it with “womankind”.  Its like any reference to the male was bad.

In the 1980’s the singer Tom Petty made a music video of the song “Don’t come around here no more”.  The video used the theme of Alice in Wonderland.  At the end they had a cake of Alice which they were all eating.  I recall an interview with him where he said that feminists had complained that their eating of the cake of Alice at the end was ‘degrading’ to the female or something (I can’t recall the exact words).  He made the statement that went to this effect, “take a closer look, there are girls there eating the cake too”, which there were.  Feminists see abuse everywhere!

I heard one feminist say something to this effect, “everything about the female life, all through history, is nothing but one big act of brainwashing of the female to be inferior”.  She then went on to say that “feminism was the undoing of this brainwashing to be inferior”.  This is a good example of the poor view of the female that the feminists have . . . they see the female life as a brainwashing.  Do you think that reflects a healthy and realistic viewpoint?

I once observed a conversation where a male refuted the claim of a feminist that females were victims.  The female jumped up and down, with clenched fists, something like a temper tantrum, and said, “No!  We’re victims!  We’re victims!  We’re victims!”.  I wish I had film of that.  My reaction to that was, ” . . . you girls sure are committed to being victims, aren’t you?”  This is a good example of how they WANT to be victims and, as a result, SEE everything as victimizing.

I would often hear feminists claim that toys specifically directed toward females were degrading and ‘sexist’.  When I was a kid they used to have toys for girls such as little vacuum cleaners, kitchen sets, ironing boards, and things like that.  Generally, they were all toys related to the female role . . . God help us, the abuse!  Its interesting that it wasn’t uncommon for some feminists to try to promote girls playing with boy toys.  This is nothing but an avoidance of being female and, of course, its bad because its female.  Its just another example of how feminists tend to have a problem with being female.  As a result, they see everything that reminds them of being female, such as female toys, in a bad light.

The ‘bathroom situation’ theme

I recall hearing many feminists complain about various ‘bathroom situations’.  This was, at one time, quite common.

Once, a feminist said that “it was sexist that there are more places for the male to go to the bathroom than what the females have.”  What she was referring to was the fact that, because the urinals were small, they could put more of them in the same space that toilets would take, making more places for the male to go.  I seem to recall a discussion that followed.  A guy pointed out that both bathrooms have the same square footage.  She then said that women should get more square footage than the male so they have the same number of places.  He then replied that this was unfair for the guys as the females get to have a larger bathrooms.  The same number of places to go or the same square footage . . . the dilemma of equality!

I recall a feminist saying, “It is discriminatory and sexist that they have a ‘women’ bathroom that is separate from the ‘men’ bathrooms.”  She was more or less saying that we should all use the same bathroom . . . equality remember!  But, more importantly, note how she said that it was the ‘women’ bathroom that was discriminatory and sexist . . . noting that her “sex” bothered her.  In other words, the females should use the male bathroom.  I’ve always felt that a lot of these ‘bathroom issues’ revolved around females problems with the female identity as the bathroom has this tendency to “bring” sexual identity out.

Once I was in a building, near the bathrooms, when I heard a feminist say that “it was discriminatory because the female bathrooms were further away than the males.”  If I recall right, it was only 15 or 20 feet further down the hall!  I’ve heard variations of this several times over the years.  Even after all these years, it’s still a joke for me to say things like, “it’s a violation of my Constitutional rights that the male bathrooms are around the corner and the females are up close.  It shows how sexist this society is”.

In a factory, they did not have any female bathrooms in the work area and a feminist said “not having female bathrooms in the factory is discriminatory and sexist”.  A guy remarked to me that there never are females out here to use it, as no female wants to work out here.  Some time later I heard that some plant had to put in a female bathroom “for legal reasons” even though there was no one there to use it.

Clothes and concern for how they look is a form of oppression theme

I was often stunned how many feminists claimed that clothes and the concern for how they look, which is a part of female life the world over, is oppressive to them.  In many cases they claimed that the male forced it onto them.

This theme is not all that surprising.  The female tends to view her clothes and her looks as a significant part of her identity and who she is.  Many females see clothing as an extension of their bodies.  When they have identity and ‘being female’ problems it carries over to their clothes and looks.  As a result, they often perceive that they are forced to be concerned about these things.

Here are some remarks I’ve heard:

“A dress is a prison outfit.”  This is one of my most favorite statements.  My reaction to this has always been, “do you girls view the female that bad . . . girls have been wearing dresses worldwide since the beginning of time?”

“Females are oppressed because we are forced to wear nylons.  This is meant to reinforce our inferiority.  Males get to wear pants, which are durable and strong, but we have to wear nylons, which are weak and frail, to remind us of our inferiority.”    I’ve heard variations of this a number of times. It uses a phrase I used to hear a lot:  reinforcing our inferiority.  Basically, this means that females are required to do specific things so that they are “taught” to be inferior.  Many feminists felt that they were taught to be inferior by the customs, and such, of the female.  In other words, they made this equation:   female life = inferiority.  In actuality, this viewing of the female life as inferior is more reflective of their own bad view of the female which so dominates the feminist perspective.  They then blamed their bad view of the female on the “obviously” oppressive and tyrannical male which is part of their accusation and blame which, of course, made them innocent victims . . . there’s the victim theme again which so permeates feminist philosophy.  This shows a common perspective they take, and in which they often view the world, which amounts to this:  “I’m a VICTIM of YOU”.   This perspective can become so dominating that it often creates a particular perspective which I call the “female-as-victim-of-the-world” (see my article “Thoughts on the ‘female-as-victim-of-the-world’: “feminism”, a poor way to look at things“).  Another aspect of the above statement is that it implies a conspiracy theory, which is seen a lot in feminism (see entry below).  Basically, it states this idea that the male is conspiring against the female, usually to try to degrade and damage them in some way.  In many cases, they believe that it is a concerted organized effort on the part of the male, as this statement suggests  Think of it:  that males are deliberately “forcing” girls to wear nylons, because its weaker, to make them feel inferior!  Yeah, that’s exactly what’s going on.  The truth is out of the bag:  guys have a club, with special meetings, to learn how to do this.  There’s even a merit badge for it!  These ideas of conspiracy theories are almost always ridiculous, as this is.  More often than not, they reflect, in fact, a paranoia, which is a common theme in feminism.

“We are forced to wear nylons.”  I’ve heard many feminists say that they are forced to wear many articles of clothes.  Being a historian I’ve looked a lot at the history of fashion and I am unaware of males forcing girls to wear specific clothes.  In fact, it generally seems that many males, and many mothers, are always trying to keep the girls covered up!  This is because the girls generally want to show more of their body.

I’ve heard feminists say that the reason why many females clothes have zippers up the back is to force them to be “dependent”.  Because they cannot reach the zipper, they “need” someone to help them zip it up.  This prevents them from “being independent”.  Because of this, it makes them “dependent” and reinforces their inferiority (see above).  This, of course, implies another conspiracy theory, as if the males “forced” this type of clothing onto them (which they didn’t . . . one reason why girls like that type of clothes is because it makes their clothes more ‘skintight’, to show their shape more).  This is another example of how they could make just about anything into an “abuse”, even simple everyday insignificant things.  Because of this, they would see “abuse” in everything, which is part of why their claims were often so absurd.  What’s next?

“The fact that we must do our hair is because it is to please the male, showing our subjugation.”  I was always stunned by this because, in all I’ve seen, the girls did their hair because they want to.  Statements like this were also said about wearing makeup and such.  Everything subjugates them.

“Males forced the female to wear crinolines and the bustle.”  Certain clothes were often targets of feminists villainizing.  Two of these are the crinoline and bustle.  I’ve heard these many times.  I guess, because they look so awkward and cumbersome, they figured that it must be a result of “male oppression”.  I even saw a cartoon, from the 1860’s, which showed the designer of the crinoline under the wire framework of the crinoline.  He was as if imprisoned under the wire framework and was trying to get out.  There was a statement that this is what all the females wanted to do to the designer of the crinoline.  The problems is all that they had to do is not wear them!  My inquiry shows that the majority of girls voluntarily wore these things because it was the ‘styles’, much as they do today, even though it may have been inconvenient.  No male “forced” them to wear it that I’m aware of.

The feminists have done nothing but piss and moan the tradition of girls wearing veils in the Middle East.  It’s interesting that they ASSUME it is the male who FORCED them to wear it . . . everything is the males fault with these people!  I’ve never seen a group of people blamed so much as the feminists blaming of the male.  The tradition of the veil has a lot of religious and cultural significance and has been there for centuries.  I’ve talked with a number of Middle Eastern guys and asked them if the girls were ‘forced’ to wear it.  As one said to me, “no, their mothers teach it to them”.  Another guy said, “we don’t have anything to do with that because that is female stuff . . . this is stuff their mother tells them how to do, sort of like how we (the males) are told stuff only by our fathers”.   We must remember that when radical Muslim groups require the females to wear the veil its because of religious reasons.  The female is not targeted and singled out for ‘oppression’!  Generally, with these groups, religious custom is enforced over the whole population, both male and female.

The idea of equality taken to absurd lengths theme

Many feminists would take the idea of equality to unbelievable and absurd lengths.  In fact, from what I have seen they have basically misinterpreted what “equality” means and distorted it.  In actuality, “equality” amounts to saying “no one is above the law”.  In other words, its a statement of law and that’s all.  Feminists have taken it another light . . . they have taken it personally.  In this way, it has gone way beyond the legal concept of what it was intended.  In so doing, they have basically created a whole new beast which is totally different in form, outlook, and intent.  Some traits of this “equality-as-a-personal-issue” include:

  • Their treatment as individuals.  In other words, the male and female should be treated exactly the same with no reference of their differences.
  • In how one relates and associates with them.  There cannot be any distinction between male or female nor any roles.
  • In how they are referred to.  In many cases they don’t want to be referred to in a female way.

As one can see, these have nothing to do with “equality-as-a-law”.  It doesn’t take a genius to see that there are other motives behind this thinking . . . and it has nothing to do with law.  Its probably no surprise that the reason why “equality” is personal is because it reflects personal problems.  These problems tend to revolve around their difficulty in being female and their poor view of the female.  This is why many feminists, in preaching “equality”, seem like they were trying to destroy the differences between the sexes (see examples below).  This fact reveals a number of things, such as:

  • How a lot of feminism is a denial of reality.  It’s like they are trying to change the natural order of things, making the female as a male and vice-versa.  As a result of this, feminism is actually destructive and undermines things.
  • It reveals the female own insecurity in being female (see the entry on the feminist low view of the female below).  This is, from my observation, at the base of a lot of feminist views.

In this way, “equality-as-a-personal-issue” really amounts to saying “I want to be the same as a man because I’m insecure in being female”.  In other words, it has nothing to do with “equality-as-a-law” nor with law at all.

Here are some statement I’ve heard:

“Making any distinctions or difference between the male and female is sexist”.  This is a good example of how feminism denies reality.  A lot of feminism is a complete denial of how things are in the real world.  Here is an article where two books were described as “sexist” and removed from the shelf because one was directed toward boys, emphasizing boy interests, and the other was directed toward girls, emphasizing girl interests:  http://www.today.com/moms/8-year-old-gets-sexist-book-removed-bookstore-8C11327618.  It’s like they are saying that we can’t have books denoting the difference interests between the male and female.  Not only that, to do so is treated as if were horribly bad (what???).  It states how the girl was so upset over the books that the bookstore employee noticed.  You got to be kidding me?

I’ve heard feminists say that “every college and every job should have a 50/50 ratio of male and female” They often talked as if EVERYTHING was supposed to be EXACTLY equal.  As I’d find out, this was only an issue when there were more males than females.  But when there are more females than males then it’s suddenly not an issue.  It’s also another example of their unrealistic viewpoints.  To be exactly equal would mean that there is equal interest, equal ability, and equal inclination to do everything.  This is not the case in the real world.  Many feminists talked as if the government should actually make laws or policies to guarantee this too!

I seem to recall hearing feminists say that we need to get rid of ‘he’ and ‘she’ and call everyone by some new term.  It seems that one feminist I knew came up with a term but I can’t recall what it was.  If I recall right, she used it in everyday speech and people always had this perplexed look on their faces when she said it.

I’ve heard feminists state that the term masculine and feminine should be used interchangeably, as if they meant the same thing.  I’ve actually seen feminists say, in everyday speech, that when someone acts ‘assertive’ that they were being “feminine” and if someone is nurturing then they are “masculine”.  It seemed, to me, that they were really trying to reverse the names, making masculine feminine and feminine masculine, rather than make them interchangeable.

“Sexism”

I’ve always been mystified by what feminists claim as “sexist”.  The very term “sexism” has always made me chuckle.  To me, its another one of those post civil rights era attempt at using the political/legal system to “legitimate” a cause.  In that way, its really nothing more than “using the political/legal system”.  On similar thinking I always joke that we should start speaking of things like a “hate-ist” or “intra-racist” or “personalist” (see my article “Thoughts on ‘intra-racism’ and also being a ‘personalist’“).  Because it uses the political/legal system, to say something is “sexist” is like drumming up the authority of the political/legal system thereby making it appear seemingly “right” (to be frank, I initially believed their claims for that reason).  The problem is that, most of time, its not what it seems.  In fact, from my observation, “sexism” is generally more of an abuse of the political/legal system more than a statement of something “bad” (see the entry on the manipulation and abuse of politics and law below).  This is no surprise as the abuse of the political/legal system permeates feminism and, in a way, is one of its defining traits.  Because of this, they are always continually misusing and abusing it.  In other words, you don’t immediately believe it.  In fact, I’ve found that whenever they quote the political/legal system you question it (such as using words like “equality”, “sexism”, “rights”, etc.).  In almost all cases that I’ve seen, in the past 30 years, its been abused and misused.  The political/legal system has become one of their “weapons” because it has the ting of authority with it.

Many of the things considered “sexist” are of everyday things, often things that have been going on worldwide for centuries.  Oftentimes, what they call “sexist” is not viewed that way by the rest of the world, revealing that its “their interpretation” . . . another reason why you do not immediately believe it.  Some common themes of what is considered “sexist”, but really isn’t, include:

  • The fact that females do “female things”.  Practically everything a female does is viewed as “sexist”, particularly if they did it in the past.  As always, the assumption is that everything female is automatically bad and, as a result, is someone else’s fault, usually the males.  Oftentimes, this includes things associated with housewives or wives in general (see the ad examples below).  And God help us if a female does something for her husband!  Do you think that it might be the females own bad view of herself, and what a female is ,that makes her think like this?
  • Any statement defining what a “female” is.  And so, even to call a female a “mother” or “wife” is sexist???  For some feminists, its “sexist” to make a distinction between male and female at all . . . utterly ridiculous.  As a result, you can’t say a female does this and a male does that.   It sounds more, to me, of a female who is unstable in who she is. 
  • That there are some things females can’t do or don’t do very well.  Golly, do you think that might be because its true?  For some things this is TRUE, whether they like it or not.  This is as true for the male as the female.  I have heard of many guys being told that they can’t do something, or don’t do something very well, and they never made a big deal out it like the feminists do, and they certainly never made a political/legal issue out of it.

Some good examples are some ads that were considered “sexist”.  Some examples include:

  • An ad which shows a husband holding his wife in his arms.  It says, “Don’t worry darling, you didn’t burn the beer.”  (That’s sexist???  I don’t see it, nor do I see any “bad intent”.)
  • A lady holding a ketchup bottle and it says, “You mean a woman can open it!” (Do you think that this might revolve around how females often have difficulty opening bottles? . . . that’s still a problem, I still often have to do it at home for crying out loud).
  • An add that shows a housewife with all these dishes around her.  It says, “Get out of the kitchen sooner!”  It advertises a dish detergent.   (That’s sexist???  I don’t see it, nor do I see any “bad intent”.  My God, that’s part of what housewives do!  To say there is some sort of an abuse in that is utterly absurd.)
  • An ad which shows a female holding a cup of coffee.  It says, “Husband pleasing coffee.”   (That’s sexist???  I don’t see it, nor do I see any “bad intent”.)
  • An ad that says, “Are you woman enough to buy a man’s mustard?”   (That’s sexist???  I don’t see it, nor do I see any “bad intent”.)
  • A picture of an airline stewardess and it says, “Think of her as your mother”.   (That’s sexist???  I don’t see it, nor do I see any “bad intent”.)
  • A picture of a lady cleaning a window and it says, “Keep up with the house while you keep down your weight.”   (That’s sexist???  I don’t see it, nor do I see any “bad intent”.)
  • A picture of a lady leaning against a cooking range and oven.  It says, “Its a wifesaver!”.   (That’s sexist???  I don’t see it, nor do I see any “bad intent”.   Again, cooking is part of what housewives do.  That’s unbelievable!   What’s next?)

One can see that many of these are “attacks” upon the image of the female of the past (namely, the housewife) by the feminists themselves (I’ve written an article involving the feminists attacks on the female of the past called “Thoughts on appreciation – how the feminists taught me to respect the male, the female, and myself”).  It is THEY that see it as bad.  Society did not make them say it.  The male did not make them say it.  This is a reflection of THEM, reflecting THEIR point of view.  This is another good example of how THEY are the ones with the bad views about the female . . . they are the ones doing the attacking!   It shows, then, that this is a female problem. 

To me, these are good examples how feminists do things such as:

  • They see “bad” in things that aren’t there.
  • They misuse and abuse the political/legal system.
  • They hide their own poor view of the female and themselves (see the entry on the feminist low view of the female below).

Because of things like this the term “sexist” has become to take on the context of of more or less saying I have problems being female” to me.  Every time that word is used it almost always leads to a female who has a problem being female and is “upset” about being reminded of it.  In fact, in many cases, the term “sexist” is used when insecure females are reminded that they are female.  This unleashes a lot of inner rage which comes out as an “attack” by calling things “sexist”.  This term drums up the authority of the political/legal system making it seem relevant and real and giving them authority.  In actuality, though, its really an attack upon themselves projected onto other people.  Often, as we’ve seen, the male becomes an innocent victim of this inner rage.

The we must fight theme

Many feminists believe that are in a ‘fight’.  In other words, feminism is a big ‘fight’ for something.  This belief makes it so that many feminists “make” it a fight.  That is to say, they turn things into a ‘fight’ when there’s no fight at all.  Because of this, many feminists are creating an illusionary ‘fight’ that only THEY are fighting In my experience with them, this is quite obvious and a defining trait of the feminist mentality.  In fact, a lot of the ‘insanity’ of feminism is because they are trying to drag everyone else into their illusionary ‘fight’.  In so doing, they pulled everyone into their ‘personal drama’ which most of us can’t relate to or even see as happening.  This is why a common reaction to feminists behavior, I’ve found, is to sort of roll your eyes as if to say, “whatever” or “yeah, right”.

It does seem, to me, that they are fighting a ‘unwinnable fight’ because many of the ideals of feminism are unrealistic, unnatural, and go against the patterns of human society and human nature.  In effect, feminism preaches an unnatural condition and is trying to force an unnatural condition.  As a result, much of feminism is really nothing but a ‘forcing things to be’.  I’ve often said that feminism is like “a cat trying to be a dog”.  If you stand back and listen to what they say you’ll find that many feminists are often asking for an impossible situation.  Some of the things they are saying include:

  • The destruction of sexual identity.
  • The destruction of sexual roles.
  • The destruction of the mother and father.
  • Forcing the male and female to be the same.
  • Trying to destroy or change centuries old traditions and ways.
  • The enforcing of new situations and conditions that have never existed before.
  • Expecting things to follow their way of thinking.

You see here a pattern of destroying the existing society in order to bring about some new society that they have in mind.  In other words, they’re trying to “re-create” society!  Apparently, we’re all supposed to ‘conform’ to it, otherwise they get mad.  If we don’t conform to their ways we are called ‘sexists’, ‘oppressors’, and such.  Many feminists have used the law or political system to get their way to try to enforce this change.  In actuality, that’s the only way they could enforce a change. The fact that they have had to resort to such methods show how unnatural these conditions are.  In actuality, practically all of the techniques the feminists have used to enforce their change have failed!

When many feminists see a situation they don’t like (such as males being dominate in a certain profession) they will say things like “this MUST change” or “this SHOULD not be like this” or “this had BETTER change” and so on.  They talk as if things are supposed to change to fit their philosophy and point of view, almost as if it’s automatically supposed to happen.  And if it doesn’t change, its bad.  They’d hurl accusations like it was nothing.  Often, this change is for some thing or condition that has been there for centuries.  This used to always mystify me.  I felt like saying, “why must things change to fit your point of view . . . they don’t change for mine?”

Many feminists think feminism is a ‘righteous cause’, like a crusade.   They often treat it like a religious war, good versus evil.  And just like a religious war, anyone that opposes them is ‘evil’, though they use words like ‘sexist’, ‘oppressor’, ‘tyrant’, and such.  Being self-righteous, they think they are right in everything and that they’re point of view is right.  Typically, feminists have displayed some of the worst narrow-mindedness I’ve seen as they only see things from their perspective, disregarding any other points of view.

The not being a man is oppression theme

Many feminists see that being a man as a way to escape the problems of their female identity, as if it is going to solve all their problems.  In fact, many feminists whole life is spent in trying to be a man, in one way or the other.  A lot of feminists complaints is because they are not permitted to be a man.  Some feminists have a belief that they are ‘entitled’ to be a man, like it’s some right of theirs.  Any hindrance or resistance to this was viewed as oppression, discriminatory, sexist, etc.

An all male club is discriminatory and sexist.”  Basically, anything that is all-male is discriminatory, no matter what it is.  This even includes hobbies.  I once heard a guy, who sold things for a specific hobby, say thata feminist complained to him because there weren’t “enough” females doing that hobby.  He told her that it was probably because this hobby didn’t interest girls.  It’s a good example of the endless ‘blame game’ they play, blaming people (especially the male) because things aren’t the way they want them to be.  It’s also another example of ‘equality’ taken to extreme lengths, as if every hobby should have equal male and female interest.

There have been many cases where females tried to join male groups, such as the Boy Scouts and male clubs.  If they weren’t accepted they claimed discrimination or something.  Why would a female even consider that?  Because they couldn’t join, of course, they stated discrimination and all that.  In some cases, they took it to court.  To me, this is like an invasion of our privacy, that we are not permitted to have our own place.  As I heard one guy say, “it’s like we have to have mother-hen over us all the time”.  To me, this shows the feminists lack of consideration for other people . . . and the other sex.  I’ve found that feminists sit and complain about their ‘oppression’ but they don’t give a thought about ‘oppressing’ other people.  If one looks at the basic result of many feminist policies and logic, one will find that it does not lead to ‘freedom’ or ‘equality’ but to ‘control’ and restriction of people . . . basically, a new form of oppression.  This fact used to stun me as they’d sit and lecture us on ‘equality’ and ‘freedom’ but their solution was for more control of what people do (to the point we have to be careful of the words we say), that we cannot do things that have been done for centuries, that we’re not permitted to have our own place, that we’re supposed to destroy basic human institutions, that we’re supposed to rearrange our lives to fit their philosophy, and so on.  At times, I’ve even joked that they were preaching a ‘tyrannical police state’.  Personally, I think there’s a lot of truth in that.

I’ve heard many feminists claim that the ‘addition’ of letters at the end of a male name to create a female name (such as George and Georgette) is a form of degradation and an attempt to make the female inferior.  This logic used to mystify me.  Why would the addition of letters degrade a person and make them inferior?  Notice how the female version is viewed as bad and not the male!  Again we see that pattern of thought where they see femalish things as bad.

The I’m-a-man-now theme

A recurrent theme in feminist thinking is the attempt, in some way, at being a man.  This hints at the fact that they have problems with their female identity.  This ‘I can’t face the fact I’m female and should be a man’ is so common it, to me, is one of the defining traits of feminism.

More than once have I heard feminists claim that they were the “real men”.  This is even seen in statements you often hear such as “the best man for the job is a women” or “behind every strong man is a stronger women”.  Even to this day I want to go up to some feminists and say “so . . . are you men yet?”

Many feminists seek to take the male and female role in society.  Many glorify the ‘working single mother’ (who is, basically, mother/father and wife/husband).  In fact, many feminists seemed to preach a ‘hermaphrodismOf course, this only applied to females, that the female is both male and female.  I know that many teach this point of view to their daughters and to younger females.

There is a manufacturer of a deodorant who used to say “strong enough for a man but made for a woman.”  This is what I used to hear when I was a kid.  They’ve changed it over the years.  Now I think they say “strong, like a woman”.  I recall hearing some feminist say that they NEEDED to take the reference to a man out of their slogan as it degraded the female by implying that females are subjugated by the male.  Regardless of how its said I have always interpreted it as saying, “I can’t handle the fact I’m a female” or “I want to be a man”.  This statement shows that the ‘campaign’ to try to turn the female into a male, showing male traits (such as strength), is even done by industry. 

Many feminists seem to ‘jump the gun’ with how great they are.  This is particularly the case in their great cause to be a man.  I can recall a number of cases when they hired several females to do a job that men usually did (such a welding or carpentry) then the feminists would claim that the female was going to ‘dominate and take over the field’ because they were so much better (so far I’ve never heard of this happening).  They seem overly eager to claim the superiority of the female over the male in work and even in money matters.  I’ve even seen a number of feminists who were claiming that the female is making more money than the male and that the female is better at being a breadwinner than the male is.  Closer inquiry showed that they were referring to how females are just making more money than they used to, primarily a result of education.  They ‘jumped the gun’ and claimed the female is, overall, making more money, and is better at it than the male, who has been doing it for centuries!

I’ve seen a number of instances where, if a female does happen to do good at something males do (such as archery or racing), then they claim that this ‘proves’ the female is better than the male.  The logic of this used to make me chuckle:  one female does something good and now all the females are better than the guys!   

Many feminists look at everything from a male point of view, as if they were men.  That is, if they are not doing what a male is doing, or being treated EXACTLY the same as a man, then they are ‘oppressed’.  In other words, they seemed to go by the assumption that they are supposed to be treated and looked at as if they were men.  Since they are naturally not treated this way, many of these girls who think this way see ‘abuse’, ‘sexism’, and ‘oppression’ everywhere.  The problem is not in society, or the male, but in how they view themselves.  It’s like me getting upset because I’m not treated like a female!  The other side of this is that many feminists don’t see the female contribution because they don’t look at things from the female point of view, as they don’t see themselves as females.  As a result, they see the female as ‘nothing’ and develop a poor view of the female.

I recall, a number of times, that I heard a feminist go up to another feminist and say something to this effect, “I just can’t believe how strong women are.  They are so assertive and aggressive and active.  Women are warriors, willing to fight.”  The problem is that they are describing male traits (and they know it)!  In fact, I’ve heard a few end it with ” . . . unlike men, who are weak“.  Where’s the feminine traits in their description of themselves . . . notice how its missing?  Feminists have done an extensive campaign to ‘masculinize’ the female, to give her male traits.  That’s the goal of many feminists.

When females display male traits feminists often put her on a pedestal and rant how great she is.  To this day I still jokingly imitate some of the statements I heard which often went like, “she’s so assertive, aggressive, and strong . . . she is a ‘mover and a shaker’.”   I might even add, “yup, women are the real men of society”.

For many feminists, a ‘tough lady’ (who emulates male qualities) becomes their hero.  I’ve seen some feminists who seem to think that these types of girls reflect the ‘real woman’.  In other words, being feminine is really being masculine.

With all this we see a consistent lack of “being female” and in emulating female qualities.

The anti-male theme

Feminism has a lot of anti-male themes.  They perpetually blamed us and accused us of things.  For many feminists hatred of the male, I believe, was one of their prime motives and prime ‘issues’.  The hatred is so bad that the feminists, still, have displayed more hatred of a specific group of people (the male) than I have ever seen in my life.  This sense of ‘being hated’ was one of the things that really ‘unnerved’ me about them.

“Males are insecure in their masculinity.”  This statement used to be a common statement I’d hear (like every other day).  This used to make me chuckle because this is being said by a female who has problems with her identity and sees that being a man is the solution.  In reality, what they are saying is that THEY are insecure in their femininity.  This is a good example of how females projected their feelings onto the male.  In a way, they saw their problems in us and through us.

I once got a book from the public library and where it said “he or she” all the “he’s” were crossed out in the whole book!  That’s commitment there.

I’ve heard numerous feminists claim that all males should be castrated.  Often, this is taken from the point of view that male hormones make males violent and, as I heard one feminist say, “desiring to subjugate and dominate”.  One feminist said something on these lines:  “the liberation of women will only be achieved when the male sex organs are removed”.   That’s nice . . .

I’ve seen several feminists jump for joy when they heard that a female cut off a male’s penis.  I recall one instance where they become happy and joyous, almost elated.  If I recall right, the lady who did it was insane but they didn’t care.  They acted like it was some form of ‘victory’ (remember their ‘fight’).

I often was stunned how many feminists tried to take on the male and female role and then rejoiced in the idea that they had become both sexes.  This created a tendency for some of these feminists to preach that the male was useless and not needed anymore.  In other words, since they thought they were both sexes, the male was no longer needed.

I’ve even heard some feminists envision a ‘utopia’, in the future, where science will advance to the point that we can breed people in machines.  Since the male is no longer needed they will only breed females You can’t tell me that there’s something ‘sick’ behind that thinking!

The conspiracy theory theme

Many feminists beliefs are based in a conspiracy theory, that the males are plotting against the female.  This can reach paranoia proportions.  When it reached this stage the feminist saw conspiracy and plotting in everything:  a look, a gesture, a custom, a tradition, etc.  In this way, they behaved much like many paranoid people.  In fact, many feminist claims seem to reflect this paranoia, of seeing a plot in everything.  I was often stunned how simple everyday things would be moulded into some ‘attempted abuse’ of the female.

Basically, many of us guys learned that you don’t do anything for a feminist, and many females in general.  If you do, then they will accuse you of something.  Remember, we guys are trying to enslave and subjugate them by all this . . .

“Males have, all through the centuries, led a campaign to subjugate and enslave the female.”  Many feminists talked like this, as if it was a planned, organized, and deliberate affair.

“The witch hunt was nothing but male dominated society oppressing the female.”  I’ve heard variations of this statement many times.  This uses a term I used to hear all the time:  male dominated society.  This was, really, just a variation of saying ‘oppressed by the males’.  They talked like the witch hunt was this deliberate attempt at oppression of the females by the males, as if we were targeting them.  My investigation of the witch hunt, though, seems to show that it was generally the younger females who fingered the older females as witches.  In other words, it was usually the females who determined who the witch was, not the male . . . there appears to be no conspiracy against the female by the ‘male dominated society’ in the witch hunt.

“The controlled lives of nuns is a result of the Catholic male dominated society.”  They seem to forget that male monks lived this ‘controlled’ life too.  It seems I pointed this out once but it went through one ear and out the other.  The nuns do have a different type of ‘controlled’ life than the monks.  Since the nuns live predominately on their own, it was the Abbess, or the nun in charge, who determined their life, and it was done to suit the female character.  In my investigations (as I wanted to be a monk at one time) I see little direct male influence in the lives of nuns, nor any attempt to ‘control’ them.  In many cases, the only time a male is even there is the priest during Mass.  Most orders are actually very much on their own, controlled by the traditions the nunnery has created over the years.

I was once discussing how, all over the world, females tended to remove themselves from society, while they were going through their menstrual period, often living in a special hut or place for that purpose.  A female made a statement to this effect:  “that shows you what it was like when men controlled things.”  In other words, the “tyrant male”, in his great quest to subjugate and oppress the female, forced girls out of society while they were going through their menstrual period.  That is to say, the males conspired to force females to live this way.  In actuality, the males had nothing to do with it . . . the females did this on their own accord.  Traces of this tendency to “hide menstruation” is seen in how females don’t like to discuss it and hide things associated with it.  In addition, this line of thought caters to the female-as-victim line, making the female out as a victim of the male.

The don’t talk about the female theme

I was once told by a female that I made “a case against women”.  What was she referring to?  I was discussing nothing but the problem of low self-esteem in females nowadays.  Because I was discussing a ‘female problem’ this meant I was ‘against women’.  This is not new to me.  Often, any talk about the female is perceived as a threat by them.  This is one of the problems with female psychology and why it never develops.  You say anything and they get upset.   To even mention such things would get many feminists mad.  As a result, you cannot do things such as:

  • Discuss female issues.
  • Discuss female problems.

In so doing, they created a wall around themselves or a shell.  You could not say anything about them.  Often, to try to discuss these things would make some feminists violent.

Generally, you have to be careful of what you say around feminists.  A wrong word, a wrong statement . . . and the accusations would fly.  When a feminist was around, many guys would not speak that much and often wouldn’t even speak to her.  I, myself, did that.  As a result, feminists had this quality that you had to walk on tip-toes around them.  This, we must remember, is not because of what we did but how THEY interpreted everything.  This caused many problems for many of us guys and I have heard a lot of discussion about it.  One of the things seldom mentioned is the effort many guys have had to do to avoid offending a feminist.  I know I’ve made effort to avoid getting them upset.  This gave the feminists even more of a quality of people with ‘mental problems’ and this is actually how many guys viewed it too.

The entitlement theme

Many feminists think that they should be entitled to special treatment.

I’ve heard of some feminists say that they should be given things for free.  This is because they have been victims all through the centuries and deserve it.  Again, they style themselves as the ‘oppressed’.

Many feminists try to enact law and policy to favor the female.  Often, this implies that they should just receive things, often without justification.  Many will use the “we are victims” line to justify it.

Feminism as hypocrisy theme

There is a lot of hypocrisy in feminism.

I’ve heard of several instances where males wanted to create a group and feminists came in and tried to prevent it, even though the females have their own group. The females get to have it but not the males . . . the new feminist equality!

There have been a number of instances where males have demonstrated for male-related things and feminists came and tried to break it up, often violently.  In one instance, I heard a feminist say that “males aren’t entitled to good treatment because males are oppressors”.  In some cases, the feminists got violent, hitting people and even police officers!

I’ve seen many feminists say things such as “the men should go mow the lawn and trim the trees” (men’s work) but they refused to fix a lunch or make drinks because it “oppressed” them (women’s work).  They can sit and tell the men what to do but if they have to do any ‘female work’ they claim they are oppressed in doing it and don’t need to do it.  I recall one guy who told me that, once, the males had to do all the yard work AND had to fix their lunch while the ‘liberated females’ sat on the porch talking and refused to help with ‘mans work’!  What hypocrisy!

I used to hear, a lot, about ‘male dominated society’.  This, really, is nothing but saying that we guys are ‘oppressing’ them.  What I noticed, though, is that many feminists who used this expression tended to want to create a ‘female dominated society’, where the female was in control of everything.  I was stunned to find that many feminists dreamed of a world where the female had complete control.  Many would speak of equality, then preach female domination.

The female is superior theme

Some feminists preached the superiority of the female.  In fact, this was often so prevalent that I consider it a different type of feminism.  This is because its line of thought tends to run counter to the ‘female-as-victim’ line.  It was like the opposite end of the spectrum.  Often, when they preached this line, they preached it dominantly, only occasionally referring to the ‘female-as-victim’ line.

I was often stunned how they seemed ‘fixated’ on this idea of inferior/superior.  For many feminists this idea seemed to dominate their whole viewpoint of things.  Behind all their talk of ‘superiority’ I found that it only hid a feeling of inferiority, a deep-rooted inferiority complex.  Many feminists used the idea of their ‘superiority’ to as if offset their feelings of inferiority.  Because of this, anytime a feminist says that they are ‘superior’ it usually means that they feel inferior deep down.  As a general rule, anything femalish was perceived as inferior, but to offset this, they made it so that anything femalish was superior, often to ridiculous proportions.  This created a weird oddball logic on the superiority of the female.

Some of the statements I recall are:

“Females are going to take over the world.”   A bunch of us guys were told this by a feminist while I was in college, after a dissertation on how superior the female is.  Later, one of the guys said, “if females are so superior, and can take over the world, then why haven’t they done it . . . they’ve had 10,000 years to do it”.

“I am a women AND powerful.”   I actually heard this statement recently.  Lately, I have been seeing a growing arrogance in many females and feminists.  Many of these girls think they are all-powerful and superior and actually believe it.

“Females are superior to the male.”  I found it interesting that many females who claim this are generally trying to be a man!

“The word ‘man’ is IN ‘woman’.  This proves that the man is inferior to the woman and that the woman is superior.”  What???  I heard this same logic with ‘he’ and ‘she’.

I always remember hearing the phrase, “the power of women” like it was some sort of god-like thing.  I can recall feminists speaking of “the power of women” as if we guys would tremble at its very name, which used to make me chuckle.

I recall hearing, numerous times, feminists telling me that “men are no match for the power of a woman”.  A lot of times, this point of view was taken from the point of view that it was some sort of competition, that the male and female were in competition, trying to outdo and dominate each other!  Because of this, some feminists acted ,and behaved, like they were trying to outdo and dominate me.  In fact, I couldn’t stand to be around some feminists because of this.  And if they thought they ‘won’ they’d pound you to death with it.  This shows how many feminists saw the relationship between male and female as one of domination, of who dominates who.  Some feminists, it seemed, had an obsession over domination.  In fact, I’ve never heard so much talk of domination than from the feminists.  Interestingly, the feminists accused the male of trying to dominate the female, as if that was our goal in life. But in all my years I’ve never seen a male speak of dominating the female.  Even in my historical investigations, I don’t ever recall hearing of a male speaking of the domination of the female.  The feminists seem like they were the only ones who were trying to dominate.  Many feminists even preached female domination of the world!

One feminist once told me something to this effect, “I don’t want to be around you because I’ll dominate you too easily, you’re not strong enough for me”.   What???

I recall another feminist saying, “I can’t stand being around these weak males.  They’re no match for the power of the woman.”  What???  It’s like they fancied themselves so strong compared to us guys.

One logic I used to hear was that males forcibly subjugated and enslaved females because the males knew the females were more powerful and would overpower them easily. What???

Many feminists fabricated a whole philosophy on how powerful the female was.  I know that some, even, claimed that females were really goddesses.

I can recall that when some feminists said the word “women” it was said as if was sacred or a holy relic or the name of god.  Some even would have this weird gaze as if their mind was off imagining the greatness of what the word meant.  At one time, I used to joke that they should have an altar with the word “women” over it . . . then they could worship it.

Many feminists reflected a very strong conceitedness, vanity, and self-glorification, often claiming they were the ones who reflected the best in life, as seen below:

“The female is the embodiment of all that is good in life.” Many feminists seem to think they reflect nothing but the good qualities in life, almost angelic or godlike.  This is often seen in the context that the male is the embodiment of all the bad qualities in life, which I have heard them say.

I’ve seen many feminists think that being a feminist is the pinnacle of refinement, development, and evolution, as if they are representative of the height of humanity.  As a result of this, some feminists think feminism is the ‘cutting edge’ of human thinking.  I recall hearing one say that “feminism is the natural result of billions of years of evolutionary development”.  Naturally, she went on to say that the female was going to dominate everything.  I was often stunned how feminists so complained how they were ‘subjugated’ and dominated but ended up preaching a philosophy of utter female domination of everything. 

“Only women can love.” Many feminists seemed to think that males could not love or feel love.  I heard that I don’t know how many times.

“Only women can feel.”  I used to chuckle how many feminists talked like males couldn’t feel at all.  They seemed to think that males were unfeeling and “incapable of expressing emotion”.  I used to hear this all the time.

“If the female ruled the world it would be a happy peaceful place and there would be no problems.”  I’ve heard this many times.  This, of course, implies that males are warlike, hateful, and cause problems.  I’ve even heard some feminists say, “men are the cause for all the worlds problems”.

There was something like a movement, mostly coming from the hippy movement, where the females seemed to think that god was female and actually tried to create a ‘goddess religion’.  Typically, though, they made no mention of male gods or devalued them.  I recall hearing some feminists say that all the male gods are nothing but for war, death, and destruction.  But the ‘goddess’ mentality tended to make any female goddess, and the female in general, a symbol of love, peace, and purity.  Naturally, they are the fount of all that is good in life.

“God was originally female.”  I’ve seen some feminists try to turn god into a female even going so far as to speak of god as a ‘she’.

“The Old Testament god is male because it is an angry wrathful god.  The New Testament god is female but it is a god of love.”  This assumes the familiar ‘male=hate, female-love’ point of view.

“If god is a god of love then god must be a female.”  Of course . . .

I’ve seen some feminists actually claim that Jesus was actually a femaleOne went on to say that Jesus is portrayed as a male because the male dominated society didn’t want to admit the truth that the chosen of god was a female I also heard one feminist say that Mary is worshipped more than Jesus, so she said, because she was a woman and, accordingly, superior.  It was she that was chosen, not Jesus.  It’s like they were trying to rewrite the Bible to place the female first.

Contradictory themes

Often, feminists would contradict themselves.  I recall hearing one feminist say that they are “oppressed and victimized” because they have to give birth to children.  Then, a few minutes later, they’d say that they are “superior” to the male because they give birth.  So which is it?

Take a look at this article:  http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/hillary-clinton-addresses-the-women%e2%80%99s-march-the-future-is-female/ar-AAmGHHf?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp.  Here Hillary Clinton says that the “future is female”.  This is the “female as superior” line of thought, as if the world is going to be dominated by females.  But then look at what she’s says later, “We need strong women to step up and speak out. We need you to dare greatly and lead boldly. So please, set an example for every women and girl out there who’s worried about what the future holds and wonders whether our rights, opportunities and values will endure.”  This is a reference to the “female-as-victim” . . . she’s assuming, and portraying, the female as a victim in the world (which they aren’t).  So she went from “superior” to “victim” in a flash.  Also, we can see several references of the “female-as-a man” theme:  “strong women”, “dare greatly”, and “lead boldly”.  These reflect values the male created, not the female (they are particularly, American male values).  So we can see that, behind this, is an uncertainty about the female, the taking refuge in the image of the male, and the portraying of the female as superior to the point that she will dominate the world.   These are all common themes found in feminist thinking

I found that many feminist changed their story from time to time.  Basically, they seem to use the theme that was required at the moment, even if it contradicted what they said a little while ago.  This, in a way, shows how many of these themes are things that they used to deal with a specific situation.

Weird claims and behavior

The feminist beliefs and mentality has caused many weird claims and behaviour.

I knew a man from England who told me that he heard feminists say that the female has a ‘secret penis’ that was superior to the males.  It was hidden within them but, with the males, it was exposed which showed that the male penis was inferior.  I’ve heard variations of this before.  One feminist said that the female sexual organs were superior and ‘more precious’ than the males, which is why it is inside the female 

I’ve noticed that people do things so as to not entice the “wrath of feminists”.  Not only is this true of males but of females, probably more so.  I’ve heard a number of females express this fear.  I feel that the fear of the “wrath of feminists” is one reason why no one disputes them.  They don’t want to deal with the ‘insanity’ of feminists.  Often, this takes the form of ‘fearing a lawsuit’, as well, because feminists have a history of using the legal system to get their way.  I’ve also seem them have something like a ‘tantrum’ as well.  To me, fearing the ‘wrath of feminists’ is primarily a myth.  I tend to emphasize that they need to be opposed openly and disputed.  My experience is that when many feminists are opposed, and given an alternate explanation, they often are speechless and don’t know how to reactThis is because their whole point of view is on how they are right.  They don’t know how to deal with any other situation.

Many feminists have a problem with anger and would fly into rages over small things.  In fact, I felt that many needed counseling to control their anger.  A simple word, a look, or just about anything for that matter, would fly them into a rage.  As I said above, this tendency to fly into a rage made it so that many people, including females, had to walk on tippy-toes around them and avoided ‘getting them going’.

Many feminists seem to assume that things that they feel ‘oppress’ them are done for deep dark reasons.  If I say, “a woman’s place is in the kitchen” they see that as reflective of a deep dark mysterious almost satanic ‘hatred’, which it really isn’t.  Personally, that statement is no different than saying, “a man needs to work and earn a living”.

THE FEMINIST ‘INSANITY’ BEHIND IT ALL

Once one stands back and really listens to what they are claiming it becomes clear that this has nothing to do with rights, or law, or politics.  It doesn’t take a genius to see that many of these girls had psychological problems.  In fact, I feel that feminism attracts girls with specific psychological problems.  It’s almost like a club where they all go.  In the end, it was all became centered on their personal feelings or conflicts.  Anyone can see that, much of what I wrote above, is over personal things and problems.  Very little revolve around ‘rights’ and such, as they claim.  They just used them to get their way.  This shows that feminism has became an ‘avenue’ for female personal problems.  This became so apparent that, by the early 1990’s, I nearly told several feminists that they should go seek psychological help.  After a quarter century I still feel this is legitimate . . . in fact, more so.  Many have problems such as:

  • Problems with the female identity and in being female.
  • Problems with the image of the female . . . many had poor images of what a female is.
  • Problems with self-esteem and how they view themselves.
  • Problems with gross feelings of inferiority (an inferiority complex).
  • Problems with the blind accusation of people, especially the male.
  • Problems with male hatred.
  • Problems seeing the worst in things, even little statements and traditions.
  • Problems with manipulation to get their way, particularly of the legal/political system.
  • Problems with anger.
  • Problems with various ‘personal issues’.
  • Problems with vanity, conceitedness, and feelings of grandeur.

What I began to see is that, behind all their talk, is deeper issues of a psychological nature.  Even to this day, the very word “feminist” has a connotation of a “neurotic” or someone with a mental problem.  Often, for a female to say that they are a feminist is like saying things like, “I can’t accept the fact I’m female” or “I’m going to blame you for my problems” or “I’m a man” (in short, they have psychological issues).  I associate it so much with psychological problems that I still jokingly say that “feminism” should be written as a legitimate illness in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders).  To be frank, I think it should.

I should also note that in the ‘feminism’ category of this blog I have written various articles describing some of the reasons why I believed they said and believed these things.

The feminist low view of the female

My observation has shown (as can be seen in the examples above) that behind a lot of their statements is a poor view of the female in general.  In fact, many feminists have a deep inner contempt of the female.  Much of their views is in direct response to this inner contempt that they feel.  Many have ‘issues’ with being female and the female image which are revealed in these statements above.  One can also see that a lot of what they are doing is trying to come to terms with being female, which they are having trouble with and are struggling against.  In fact, the problem is that they aren’t coming to terms with it.

After listening to them for many years I was stunned at how they endlessly saw bad in everything female.  Just about everything the female did in the past was viewed as something bad and viewed as things like ‘enslavement’ or ‘oppression’.  They endlessly saw nothing but bad in things that females did (having children, a housewife, concern over clothing, etc.).  Every time I was around them it was nothing but an endless knocking of the female.  I’ve never saw a group of people who had such a poor view of themselves . . . and, the thing is, most of them were unaware of this fact!  In other words, most feminists are not aware that the poor view of the female comes from themselves.  In actuality, they were the ones who degraded the female, not anyone else.  In other words, I began to see that feminism described a ‘female problem’, not a ‘male problem’ or a ‘social problem’, as they claimed.   It became clear that this is how they ‘avoided’ the “problem of being female”.  I could see a common pattern:

  1. They have a poor view of the female.  This is a personal problem that they have deep down.  This is unconscious and unknown to them.  As a result, it remains “hidden”.
  2. They struggle with this low view of themselves and can find no solutions. 
  3. This poor view of the female, that THEY have, makes them see themselves as “hurt” in some way.  They begin to see themselves as a “victim”.
  4. They find others to blame for this “hurt”, such as the male and society.  With this blame they “washed their hands” of the affair, and made it out as if they were ‘innocent’ of the whole problem and that it had nothing to do with them.
  5. They use the political and legal system to give their “hurt” and blame a legitimacy.   . . . they fancy themselves as oppressed, enslaved, etc.
  6. With their new ‘innocence’ they try to ‘recreate’ a new image of the female without the problem.   This is seen in the three forms of feminism:  of being a victim, a man, or as superior (see below).
  7. Despite this, the problem continues to exist and they struggle with it.  In fact, even with all their effort they did they never even addressed the problem at all.

This, though, actually describes an inability to deal with ones problems and avoidance of that fact. But in their attempted ‘solutions’ (blame and ‘recreating’) they deceive themselves into thinking that it works.  Deep down, though, the problem continues to exist, and they continue to struggle with it.  In effect, this shows that feminism is really an attempt at solving a personal problem (struggling with being female) and one which gives the illusion that it works but, in reality, it doesn’t.  In other words, its a delusion.

Because this revolves around females struggling with having a low view of the female it shows that it entails problems with things like:

  • Identity problems.
  • Self-esteem problems.
  • Social image problems.

All these are demonstrated in many of the remarks above.  These all describe a general psychological problem, in my opinion.  Its as if these girls have lost hold of themselves, what it means to be female, and their dignity.  Its for this reason I generally consider feminism as a symptom of a psychological problem, as I described above.

It also became clear, to me, that feminism hid a deeper dilemma within the female hood in this society.  In act, many feminists seem to use feminism as a way to hide from this crisis, almost as a defense.  I’ve written a number of articles on this crisis such as “Thoughts on the ‘failed sex’ – how many female traits have failed – a hidden crisis of the American female“.

Sadly, the feminists degradation of the female got to the point that I had to start defending the female in general, particularly the females of the past (remember, they were ‘oppressed’ and ‘enslaved’).  Interestingly, this defending of the female had an unexpected effect:  it made me grow to respect the female, which made me grow to respect the male and myself and our specific contributions to society.  I wrote an article on this called “Thoughts on appreciation – how the feminists taught me to respect the male, the female, and myself“.  I should point out that what ‘defending the female against the feminists’ made me respect is the female-as-female and male-as-male, of each sex acting who they are, displaying their naturally appearing traits, with a self-respect and a dignity . . . traits not seen with feminists.

The manipulation and abuse of politics and law

I once had a female reply to one of my articles in which she said that not all feminists believe in stupid feminists claims.  Many, she said, sincerely believe in the political/legal principles of equality and so on.  I just about replied back to her that I will believe that when I see it.  In the thirty or so years observing feminists I never once saw a feminist stick to the political/legal themes they are claiming.  What happens is that they start off citing all these fancy political/legal themes making it sound convincing.  In fact, many people (including myself originally) have been duped by it.  But what quickly happens is that they quickly stray off the path and start going into this weird oddball logic and start bringing in all these personal issues creating all these absurd claims (see the examples above).  They make things oppressive that aren’t oppressive, they make things rights violation when they are not rights violation, and so on.  In other words, they use politics and law as a starting point for their “issues” and to make it sound legitimate.  They do this because they’ve found that politics and law makes people listen and makes them believe what they say.  Once they stray off, though, they no longer address the political/legal issues they are claiming to represent.  The emphasis quickly turns to their personal “issues”.  It starts off as “equality before the law” and ends with “I’m oppressed because I’m forced to have children”.  More than once have I said that “feminism is when they make a political issue out of their bad feelings about themselves” (as behind this is an inner contempt at being female . . .  see above).

It’s not uncommon for them to contradict the principles that they are professing to represent, such as is seen in many of the statements above (such as the female will dominate the world).  When one looks at the history of feminism one will see that this runs rampant in feminism.  This is why I always have said that “if a feminists wants to talk about political/legal themes then they need to stick with the subject and quit straying off the path to all these ridiculous “issues” of theirs”.

What all this shows is that feminism now has a history of manipulating and abusing politics and law for their own personal reasons.  Note the word “personal”, for it is usually over personal “issues” and dilemmas.  They have twisted and distorted political and legal theory all out of shape, all to suit their own ends.  In fact, it’s worked so well that it’s not uncommon for feminists to whip out political and legal theory like a weapon.  Because of this, whenever one deals with feminism you need to be cautious of a number of things:

  • You cannot blindly accept whatever they say in the name of political and legal principles (such as equality).
  • You must be careful of how they justify things and how they make things sound legitimate.
  • Despite what they say one must watch where they are going, such as are they really talking about the issues they claim to represent or are they bringing in personal “issues” into it?

The manipulation and abuse of political and legal theory is so bad by the feminists that I associate the very word “feminism” with it.  Because of this, I expect it from them.

Much of their political/legal points of view actually originate from a point of view coming the French Revolution, which cast a dark cloud over Victorian society (where it originated).  It created a point of view that became prevalent in the 1800’s in England and which I call ‘secular oppression’ (see my article “Thoughts on ‘secular oppression’“).  In this point of view people explained social problems as a result of people being “oppressed” by other people.  It was used to explain many problems in England . . . the females were no different.  They fashioned themselves as “oppressed” by the “tyrant male” to fit this ideology.  The result . . . feminism.

The creation of a “society of apprehension” and the “victim culture”

One of the effects of feminism, and their abuse of law and politics, is that it has created a “society of apprehension”.  In other words, feminism has turned society, and the relationship between the sexes, into an environment of apprehension where apprehension is around every corner and in every little thing.  The examples above show how ‘nit-picking’ they can be, seeing abuse in the smallest thing (for example, we must remember that it was the tyrant oppressive male who ‘forced’ girls to wear high heeled shoes!).  As a result of this, they’ve caused a cloud to hang over society that, in my opinion, has caused great damage. Its done damage to society as a whole, to relationships between people (particularly male and female), and to cultural beliefs.  Its caused this in a number of ways:

  • Creating apprehension:  the feminists see everything (particularly the male) as a threat.  This is shown by the examples above, which see just about everything as threatening to them.  The feminist attitude, in general, is one of apprehension and seeing the world apprehensively. 
  • Finger pointing:  the use of accusation, blame, and hate toward society, certain people, institutions, beliefs, etc. These as if transfer their apprehension to society and people.  By doing this they also as if “drag people and society” into their apprehension.  In many ways, one of the greatest successes of feminism is that it so well dragged people and society down into its apprehension.   But, at the same time, we must remember that this same success has also has done the greatest damage to people and society.
  • Causing apprehension:  its caused people (particularly the male) to become apprehensive because of feminist viewsBecause of all the finger pointing, accusation, and blame it has created an apprehension in many people (though I don’t think many people are consciously aware of it).  You must watch everything you do or say for fear of making a feminist apprehensive and beginning the blame game . . . and you don’t want them to make a political or legal issue out of anything!  The damaging effect of this fact has largely been ‘overlooked’ by most people, as they are helpless against it:  they look the other way.  But the effect of these apprehensive feminist views is that it has has caused a great hole in society, of apprehension that can border on fear, what can be called a “silent unspoken fear”.  I’ve spoken to many males who are “scared to talk to a female”, particularly in the work environment, for fear that they may see it apprehensively (the extent of this reality, as far as I know, has never been fully acknowledged but my observation is that it is very extensive).  In actuality, it has caused a great chasm, particularly between the male and female, a great gap that, in my opinion, has greatly deteriorated male and female relationships (even in marriages and intimate relations).  In effect, it has caused a great “gap of apprehension” that has infiltrated everyday life from the work environment to intimate association.  I, myself, will often not talk to a new female at work until I know what type of person she is (and I know many males who do the same . . . ).  If she does take feminist views I’ve found its best to not speak to her or have anything to do with her.  That’s sad . . .

In short, its caused an apprehension that ranges from social apprehension to personal apprehension.  Its infiltrated an unneeded and uncalled for element in our lives.

I should also point out that feminism, by its mentality, is a creator of apprehension . . . it has no solution to the apprehension it creates.  In other words, the inevitable result of feminism is an apprehensive world view . . . nothing more.  By taking these viewpoints apprehension is the natural and only result.   Because of this, if a person benefits from this philosophy depends on where one stands.  This is because apprehension requires two conditions:

  1. The “threat”.
  2. The “victim”.

The only person who benefits from this philosophy is the one who takes the condition of the “victim”.  In other words, feminism is a “victim” philosophy, that basically “wallows” in their “victimhood”.  This tendency to “victimhood” is seen in many of the remarks above.  I’ve seen many feminists who have made a life out of being a victim (its still a joke of mine to jokingly say “. . . the female – the poor abused oppressed victims of the world . . . ” whenever I see a feminist).  In many ways, a feminist is really someone who takes a particular style of “victim life view”.  This “victimhood” has become so extensive that it has created what can be described as a “victim culture” in many females, a way of life that caters to this idea of female-as-victim-of-everything.  In this culture they see the female as ‘beginning as victimhood’, that the female is first and foremost a victim.  From there it goes in a number of directions:

  • The glorification of their victimhood.
  • Trying to be something else to escape victimhood.
  • Going in the opposite direction . . . that is, glorifying the female to counter react their victimhood.

These are actually the basis for the three forms of feminism (see entry below).

On the flip side of this is that feminism, being a philosophy of apprehension, requires someone, or something, to be the “threat”.  In other words, they must have a “threat” and condemn it.  If there is no “threat” they must create it . . . their philosophy demands it!  This has created a number of conditions with feminism:

  • The tendency to create false threats.  They create threats in everything they could find, often bordering on the ridiculous, as many of the examples above show.
  • The tendency to create false blame.  They accused, blamed, and hated anybody they could associate with the threat.  I, myself, witnessed and was the victim, of the ridiculous asinine false blame they layed out toward people for the most ridiculous of reasons, as many of the examples above show.  I will also say that I found the false blame and accusations as offensive, degrading, uncalled for, and unacceptable . . . something no one should have to take!!!  No one should have to sit and listen to ridiculous accusations such as that they are an ‘oppressive tyrant’ because a female has to raise children.

These, I think, are some of the greatest abuses caused by feminism.  In fact, one of the main reasons why I turned against it is because of the endless false threats and the endless false blame.  Many people, even girls, could see the absurdity of their false threats and false blame but no one spoke out against it (as far as I know, I’m the only one who has said it outright).  In fact, one of the problems with feminism, and why it as got so out of control, is because no one would speak out against it.  As a result, this apprehensive philosophy has now infected the society with apprehension causing a “society of apprehension”.  Unfortunately, over the years, this condition has been largely accepted.  Because of this, we now live with feminist apprehension in our day-to-day lives.

THE THREE FORMS OF FEMINISM

When one looks at it all from a distance one can see that feminism tends to group itself into certain patterns of thought.  I’ve found that there are three patterns of thought which create three forms of feminism:

  1. The ‘female-as-victim’ feminism.   This emphasizes that the female is a victim of everything.
  2. The ‘female-as-a-man’ feminism.  This emphasizes that females are men and should be treated like men.
  3. The ‘female-as-superior’ feminism.  This emphasizes that females are the ‘superior sex’.

I have found that most feminists tend to get into one form and stay in it, only venturing off into the other forms from time to time.  This shows that the three forms of feminism reflects a specific type of character with a specific conflict.  Once they find their form of feminism, which caters to their character, it becomes the dominating line of thought they take and they create a whole world view based on it.

It seems, to me, that the different forms reflected specific traits:

  1. The ‘female-as-victim’ feminist generally had problems with self-esteem.  They are, in a sense, a victim of their own poor views of themselves.  What they do is sort of “wallow” in their low self-esteem, seeing victimhood everywhere, as low self-esteem=victimhood.  This often has a quality of masochism.
  2. The ‘female-as-a-man’ feminist had low self-esteem but tends to think that becoming a man is the solution.  By becoming like a man they think they will ‘escape’ their low self-esteem.  This has a quality of escapism.
  3. The ‘female-as-superior’ feminist generally had serious problems with vanity.  Behind this vanity, though, is a low self-esteem.  It’s as if their feelings of superiority are attempts at trying to compensate for their poor feelings of themselves.  Instead of saying, “I hate myself” they say, “I’m a goddess”.   This has a quality of denial and fantasy land thinking.

In all cases I found that the low esteem is a dominant theme.  Since the ‘female-as-victim’ feminism is rooted in the experience of low self-esteem it, really, is the ‘base’ of feminism, the beginning, so to speak.  The other two forms sprout off of it and are an attempt at avoiding the experience of low self-esteem.  This makes them a form of avoidance, of avoiding having to feel ones poor view of oneself which is found in the first ‘female-as-victim’ feminism.

From my experience the most prevalent form I saw was the ‘female-as-victim’ feminism.  After that I saw the ‘female-as-superior’ feminism and the ‘female-as-a-man’ feminism about equally.

FEMINISM AS A NEUROTIC SYMPTOM THAT BECAME A WAY OF LIFE

In a recent article I mentioned that feminism had signs of a neurotic symptom that has become a way of life (see my article “Thoughts on some aspects of female identity problems“).  Some of the examples I gave include:

  • Nothing “solves” the basic problem, despite what they do.
  • It creates many absurd and weird claims and points of view.
  • Some females become “obsessed” with the philosophy to the point that it becomes a world view and almost religious in proportion.
  • Some females use the philosophy as a weapon to defend themselves against conflicts in life.
  • Behind the basic philosophy there are too many “other issues” that have nothing to do with it.
  • There is a “deep inner pain” or “deep inner conflict” that seems out-of-place or exaggerated.
  • They never take the blame for their problems.

We can add a few more:

  • Paranoia and conspiracy theories (they make it out as if the male, for example, is “plotting” or “conspiring” to degrade them in some way . . . there are a number of examples above)
  • Fabricated abuses.
  • Fabricated blame.

To be frank, what has most appalled me about these people are the fabricated abuses and blame.  I have sat and listened, year after year, about all these supposed abuses that are supposed to be done to them (“forced to cook and clean”, etc.).  These are so absurdly ridiculous that its unreal.  I have sat, year after year, and listened to them blame innocent people (mostly the male, or society) for things that they haven’t done.  I have never seen a group of peope who have fabricated so many false abuses and falsely accused so many people than the feminists.  It was the feminists who taught me what a “neurotic” was.  And being around some feminists was like being around a schizophrenic, a person living in a false self-made world of their own creation.

I tend to feel that there is a relationship between feminism and the neurotic Victorian female . . . they both appeared as the same time (1800’s) . . . that’s no coincidence.  I have spoken about this in various articles in this blog (for example, see the article referenced at the beginning of this section).  There’s many aspects of this, but a big influence is how the Victorian mother tried to be turn her daughters into noble ladies.  This basically detached the female from her femininity and made her make a life out of trying to fit an image.  Over time it eroded their identity predisposing them to neurotic problems and creating the neurotic Victorian female.  This neurotic tendency went in a number of directions and affected females differently, such as:

  • Developing “classical” neurotic symptoms (obsessive/compulsive, depressive, etc.).
  • Being “overly feminine”.
  • Becoming a slave to social trend and society.
  • Rebelling against Victoran morals (smoking, doing “unlady”-like things, etc.)
  • Trying to be like a man.
  • Masochism and a desire to be hurt.
  • Feminism.

So we see that feminism was only one avenue of this Victorian neurotic tendency.

Because this problem is rooted in the destruction of the female identity and replacing it with a noble lady it had a “way of life” quality.  That is to say, it changed the females whole way of life.  It affected how they acted, how they viewed themselves, how they dressed, and how they lived.  This was far greater of a change that I think people realize.  But, since it was all that was being offered to them its all that they had.  When it began to fail, and the neurotic problems appeared, much of the reactions reflected this “way of life” quality.  In other words, the reactions often became a “way of life” which they saw as affecting their whole life and identity (for example, being a slave to social trend became a lifestyle, acting like a man became “who they are”, etc.).  The reactions were not just “symptoms” but more, a “life issue”.  In this way, many neurotic Victorian female tendencies became more than a symptom but something that affected their whole life and identity.  Its for this reason that feminism became a neurotic symptom that became a way of life.

This is one reason why many feminists cannot “let it go” as they’ve made it too much a “life issue” that defines who they are.  In addition, there is nothing to replace it.  In order to “let it go” they need to have another identity to take its place . . . its a question of identity.  This is another example that shows that the female identity issue is behind all this.

But in maintaining feminism as a “life issue” feminists maintain the neurotic and identity problems that lie behind it.  In other words, by maintaining feminists viewpoints and identity, which is based in identity problems and a neurosis, they remain with these problems.  This is true whether they are neurotic or not.  In this way, some females actually “make themselves neurotic” by taking feminist viewpoints.

REVERSING FEMINIST LOGIC ON THE MALE

I’ve always wondered what we guys would say if we used feminist logic.  I started to wonder this in the late 1980’s.  It didn’t take a genius to see that we guys could make just as many complaints, if not more so, than the female can.  Why can’t we make similar claims?

We could say things like these (some of these are jokes I used to say in response to feminists claims):

“We are forced to work and support the family.  This is oppression and slavery of the male.”

“I’m oppressed by the fact that the weight of the family is on my shoulders.”

“It is sexist and discriminatory that we guys have to go to war when the female stays home safe and secure.”

“The fact that males have to deal with the ordeal of war, and are killed, shows how we have been degraded and made to be inferior.”

“It’s a form of oppression that I have to take time out of every day and shave and the female doesn’t.”

“It’s not fair that females get to have children and take care of them while I got to work everyday and slave away.”

“I am oppressed because I am forced to mow the lawn and fix the car.”

“Our wearing of pants shows that we are subjugated by the female.  It shows that I have to support her.”

“We are all victimized because we are forced to go out hunting in the cold of winter.”

“It’s not fair that girls get to fuss with their clothes and hair while we guys must wear boring clothes and have boring hairdo’s. . . that’s sexist!”

“It is discrimination and sexist that I have to stand to go to the bathroom but the girls get to sit down and relax.”

“We guys are forced to do violent sports, where we may hurt ourselves, to teach us of our inferiority, because our bodies are looked on as expendable.”

“Because my sex organs are exposed, and able to get damaged, proves that nature is sexist.”

“How we guys have had to learn all these trades and knowledge all these centuries, and the female doesn’t, shows how we have been made into slaves.”

. . . and it goes on and on to absurdity.


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

This entry was posted in Feminism: a destructive philosophy, Modern life and society, Psychology and psychoanalysis, The male and female and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

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