The Problem with Modern Feminism

If any vitriol can be felt within the words of this article, it is only because I have reached my limit when it comes to this subject. I have had it with modern feminism.

I am admittedly not the typical female. I’ve never been completely in touch with my feminine side. I feel awkward in dresses and heels, but completely at home in a heavy metal T shirt and a pair of mens’ cargo shorts. What I lack in emotional understanding, I compensate for in my desire to hit things. Perhaps the reason I am at odds with feminism is that I lack the estrogen levels needed to understand it. Forgive me for being sexist, but I don’t think you should need hormones that make you bleed from your genitals to understand a political and social movement. Therefore, I have elected to channel my rage into an analysis and deconstruction of modern feminism, making the case for why it is not only dangerous for women, but for everyone.

I live on the east coast of America, where standing in opposition to feminism is typically met with criticism, if not full-on outrage. Here, and in other such metropolitan eras, feminism is considered synonymous with equality, and has its ideals promoted by most popular media outlets. However, no matter how accepted the need for feminism is, that still does not change the reality that the movement has strayed far from its original goals. What was once a movement for women’s equality now portrays the entire female gender as a monolith, and any dissent from the common opinion is met with vehement outrage from feminists. Defy them, and you’re complicit in sexism.

I was recently involved in yet another tiring “women in the music industry” discussion, where my assertion that the music industry isn’t sexist was met with outrage from a swarm of white knights furiously trying to prove to me how hard my life is as a female musician. Their word salad of butchered statistics and unwarranted attacks on my political stance proved to me once again that an idea as irrational as modern feminism can only be defended by an emotionally-charged mob. After a long-suffering relationship with feminism’s role in society, I have finally snapped. I won’t comply with any more reality-denying feminists who claim to represent all women, whether those women want them to or not. It’s not voluntary, and you can probably infer from the title of this blog how I feel about things that aren’t voluntary. I’m not having it. How did feminism evolve from movement of freedom to the madness we see today? The answer is the same as that of any other failed political agenda; It lies in the justification of falsehoods and authoritarian force “for the greater good.”

Just like the fallen libertarians who eventually find fascism to be a more effective political stance for enforcing their values, modern feminists are believers in the fallacy that certain opinions are so good, they must be forced upon society as a whole. These feminists are so devoted to their ideals that they are willing to pursue them by any means necessary. If it means they must silence dissenters and appeal to government powers, so be it. Because of this belief, feminism in the modern day has finally come full circle, and now suppresses the voices of dissenting women much like the patriarchy of old would have. These days, a woman like myself, looking to dispel lies about how society treats us, is shouted down by the feminist hate gang in the spirit of letting women’s voices be heard. Countless times, I have seen that feminists are perfectly fine with using female figureheads as their mouthpieces, but turn on them instantly as soon as they begin questioning the movement. (See also: Laci Green) Peculiar, for a movement that claims to be against manipulating women.

In order to examine feminism’s fall from a reasonable platform to something that could plausibly be called a cult, we must examine the history of the movement. The first wave of feminism began in the 19th century, when women truly did face negative discrimination from men. Women were generally believed to be nothing but homemakers, and were not allowed the right to vote or work. Notwithstanding the fact that many of these societal norms were enacted to allow women the privilege of not having to endure hard labor, many early feminists correctly recognized that it was not the business of law or society to dictate their roles in life. Women of the early feminist movement were instrumental in granting women equal privilege to men under the law, ensuring that traditional gender roles were phased out in the name of individual freedom.

These early feminists were focused on the type of sexism that truly violated human rights; womens’ inability to own property, vote, or work, and unjust family laws that gave husbands power over their wives. They condemned marital rape and intimate partner abuse, and insisted that society view the sexes as equals. I would argue that these causes were noble, and necessary at a time in history where women were commonly seen as inferior to men.

Even though western society prior to the mid-20th century supported institutionalized sexism, being female also came with its own privileges. At the time of feminism’s birth in the 1800s, women received special treatment that men did not. For example, they were guaranteed safety before men in emergencies with ‘women and children first’ policies, and socially, they were treated with more grace and kindness. Since men were traditionally the only ones expected to work, they were also expected to make any sacrifice necessary to provide for their wives and families, even if it came at their own expense. Though restrictions on womens’ involvement in society have long since disappeared, these courtesies provided by men have remained. This is what feminists call benevolent sexism, though it could more accurately be referred to as female privilege.

As a society, we retain an instinctual desire to prioritize women, and even after feminist initiatives granted women the same property and work rights as men, this instinct remained. Consequently, we have evolved into a society where men are much more accepting of women than women are of them. This is what allows modern feminism to continue fighting any form of male power, claiming it as a vestige of former oppression. The irony of the situation is, modern feminism, with its constant cries of injustice against women, could only exist in a society where females have privilege. If women really were systematically oppressed today, the movement for their liberation would receive as little sympathy as it did at the very beginning. No society that truly devalues women would allow them nearly the degree of material success that they enjoy in the western world, or would promote feminist agendas from its most popular news outlets.

Though feminism may claim to have a monopoly on the concept of equality, this has not stopped many people from speaking out against it, usually to the detriment of their social lives and careers. Anti-feminists on YouTube have been slandered and falsely associated with the alt-right movement, while the poor man who served up a dose of realism in the Google Diversity Manifesto was canned by the company despite his carefully-worded statements. It takes an exhausting amount of effort to disagree with feminists, and doing so might cost you your job or reputation. Male anti-feminists are dismissed purely on the basis of their gender, while female anti-feminists continually have their experiences disregarded because they dare to stray from the hivemind. The feminist horseshoe effect is in full force.

Feminism insulates itself from criticism by attaching labels to its critics. Opposing any feminist ideal makes you a woman-hater, and claiming this diagnosis is inaccurate makes you a liar. So the sane portion of humanity is forced to sit by the sidelines while feminism continues to set up once-hopeful women for an oppositional relationship with society and a lifelong hatred of men. The only way feminists can perpetuate doctrine so far removed from reality is to use fear as their tool. They seize their victims from a young age, fill their heads with exaggerated statistics and dramatic accounts of rape, and turn them into petulant, neurotic activists who end up embodying stereotypical female characteristics. If a parent treated their child this way, it would be considered abuse.

The fatal flaws of feminism fall into two main categories, both of which I plan on thoroughly dismantling:

  1. Justifications of the suppression of facts that disprove feminist arguments
  2. Justifications of the use of state power to enforce feminist ideals.

We will begin with the first category of feminist offenses, those which stem from feminism’s war against reality. Modern feminism must often cover its tracks because the entire movement is based on the fallacy that men and women are equally matched in every way. However, a look at biology reveals that this is not true. Though there is overlap between the sexes, as a general rule, men tend to be physically stronger than women, and are generally more individualistic and willing to take risks. Women typically have higher pain tolerance, and tend to be more socially oriented and naturally disposed to caregiving. Though there is undoubtedly a social element involved, these differences can be seen even in early childhood, before social factors begin to have an effect. These natural traits do not mean one sex is superior to the other, but that both have their individual strengths. Nearly every current feminist argument seeks to provide an alternate explanation from this as to why there are inequalities between men and women in our society.

Take, for example, the feminist complaint that there is not nearly enough female representation in STEM fields. It would be detrimental to the feminist movement to apply Occam’s razor, and acknowledge that the gender disparity in such fields is most likely the result of personal choice due to women’s natural tendencies. Feminists reject this, and surmise that the reason women aren’t as represented in STEM must be because men in the field treat them with disrespect and do not allow them opportunities. This requires a much more complicated explanation, but one that is more convenient for feminists because they can blame the problem on an outside source. They disregard the fact that this hypothesis can be disproven easily by the amount of women who lead successful careers in male-dominated fields. In fact, as a woman operating within the 95% male field of music recording and production, I find it rather insulting that feminists think a few mean words from a man is enough to discourage me from following my passion.

Feminists take a similar stance when it comes to their accusation that the west is a rape culture. Nowhere is this displayed more prominently than in the case of Emma Sulkowicz, otherwise known as Mattress Girl. Sulkowicz garnered much attention for a performance art piece she began in September of 2014. The art piece involved Sulkowicz carrying her mattress around Columbia University as a protest against a man named Paul Nungesser, whom she claimed had raped her. Though the rape allegations against Nungesser were later proven untrue, Sulkowicz’s mattress piece, and her subsequent anti-rape porn video (figure that one out) were still hailed as brave criticism and the peak of feminist art. She was even invited to speak on her experience at the State of the Union address in 2015. Meanwhile, though Nungesser provided extensive evidence that all sex between himself and Sulkowicz had been consensual, his side of the story was ignored. Luckily for him, he was proven innocent in court and was not punished by the university, but the toll on his social and professional life was devastating. People were far more likely to believe Sulkowicz than any defense from him. Anyone who came to his defense was branded a rape apologist by the feminist harpies. Rather than accept the reality that Emma Sulkowicz was lying, feminists conveniently ignored the evidence provided by Nungesser and insisted that the fact that people demanded evidence at all proved that rape culture was still alive and well.

All modern feminist ideals contain this denial of reality, and like any other lie, feminists must continually build upon it in order to defend their position. The inequalities seen in society are not the fault of nature, nor of personal choice, but the fault of men as a collective. The reality is, if the patriarchy exists, feminists don’t want to destroy it. As a group that abhors the concept of personal responsibility, they need a scapegoat, and the patriarchy is just that. I am continually amazed at how feminists can attribute basically anything to male privilege. They look at the effect of some disparity between men and women, and find some way to imply that patriarchy is the cause, no matter how much denial it puts them in. Anyone who says otherwise may as well be a heretic.

Now, on to my second issue with modern feminism: its appeals to state power for solutions to its nonexistent issues. To paraphrase conservative comedian Steven Crowder, by insisting that the government pay for their healthcare and birth control, feminists essentially make the taxpayer their pimp. Could there be anything weaker than a woman who claims to be empowered, yet believes that the government must wait on her hand and foot? Are feminists not powerful enough to make “equality” a reality for themselves, or must they appeal to the old white men in the government to do it for them?

Take Planned Parenthood for example, an organization started by a eugenicist who wanted to exterminate black Americans. This government-funded agency has understandably been under scrutiny from Americans. Some taxpayers, shockingly enough, don’t want their money going to an organization that they believe kills babies disproportionately based on race. However, feminists believe the only people who could possibly oppose such a thing are far-right religious nuts. To them, defunding Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with the fact that many people believe their procedures are murder, or don’t believe that a private organization that profited $70 million last year doesn’t need government funding. No. Anyone who wants to defund Planned Parenthood must have a deep-seeded hatred of women. Feminists are so determined to keep the organization government-funded that they are willing to slander their opposition and purposely misunderstand their arguments. Why they would allow to the organization that runs the DMV to oversee their healthcare services is beyond me.

Feminists continue to promote legislation as the solution to their problems. They support affirmative action laws that would force employers to discriminate in favor of women. They insist that tampons, healthcare, and birth control, things that cost skill and resources to provide, should be free. In the UK, they push to ban advertisements that might depict supposedly harmful gender stereotypes. It is not enough for them to personally support feminism; all of society must also conform to their values, and pay for those values out of their own pockets. Feminism is cultural Marxism that puts the desires of the collective before the needs of the individual. If the individual won’t comply, government can surely step in and fix the problem. They cannot see how society can overcome oppression until it meets to their standards, and are blissfully unaware that forcing those standards on all of society is oppression. Feminists are drawn to authoritarian power in the same way Marxists are; when nature does not provide equality, they must create it, and in their minds, the inherent nobility of creating such equality makes it right for them to use force.

The final nail in the coffin of feminism is that despite its ubiquitous presence in the media and lawmaking, it has ultimately failed at everything it has tried to achieve. Both men and women who subscribe to feminism do so at the ultimate expense of their happiness. Feminist men are taught to hate themselves and disparage their natural masculine tendencies, and will ultimately end up cuckolded in an open relationship, because expecting fidelity from a woman would be simply too much to ask. Feminist women do not fare much better. Even those who stick it to the man and achieve success in spite of their belief in the patriarchy will still find themselves feeling unfulfilled. Feminism’s emphasis on materialism encourages them to value corporate success over human relationships. Plus, having a paranoid belief in a constant, all-present force of sexism can’t be good for anyone’s mental health. Feminism is not only unnecessary in the first world, but it has now become detrimental to the people it seeks to protect. Supporting feminism ultimately harms women and society as a whole.

I want to make it perfectly clear that while I denounce feminism, I would never betray my libertarian principles by supporting anti-feminist legislation. As much as I disagree with feminists, I believe they ought to have the same rights to free speech as I do. I would never follow their example in attempting to silence opinions that are different than mine, or to make those opinions illegal to have. I simply seek to be a purveyor of truth. As long as I have a platform, I will use it to dispel the myths society has constructed. I, nor any other woman in the western world, is oppressed. Claiming we are is the real display of privilege.

Is Anarcho-Capitalism a Paradox?

Promoting the two tenets of anarcho-capitalist philosophy can be a difficult balancing act considering the attitudes of most people. Those who believe in capitalism typically despise anarchism for failing to protect big business, and those who believe in anarchism typically revile capitalism. That leaves anarcho-capitalists in the unfortunate situation of having to defend both of their main principles to the other side. It is the anarchist criticism that I would like to take issue with today, the claim that anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists at all.

The argument typically goes something like this, usually spewed from the mouth of an enraged AnCom filming a video in his parents’ basement: “Those filthy anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists because they believe in hierarchy. While AnCaps misinterpret anarchism as solely an opposition to government, it was historically a left-wing philosophy that included opposition to all forms of hierarchy, including capitalism. AnCaps stole our word!”

Aside from the hilarious contradiction of communists treating the word “anarchism” as if it were their private property, there are a few other problems with this argument, the main one being that even the most staunch believers in a horizontal society still participate in hierarchy.

Most anarchist philosophies act like hierarchy is inherently wrong, but provide little evidence as to why. In reality, hierarchy, cannot be avoided. Even the most radical anti-hierarchal anarchist would not want to do away with such relationships as parent and child, or teacher and apprentice. These basic relationships are predicated on the fact that one party, the teacher or parent, has more experience, and therefore has some claim to respect from the other party if they provide them with valuable information they will need in the future. It goes without saying that humans need these things. Children begin life helpless without their parents, and a student’s skills can improve rapidly with the influence of a good teacher. In these situations, an acknowledgement of the hierarchal nature of these relationships is not only harmless, but beneficial. If these hierarchies are beneficial, what differentiates them from the voluntary contract between an employer and employee?

Anti-hierarchal anarchist views resist this reality, and deny it in two main ways. First, they falsely equate every hierarchy to a master-and-slave relationship. Such views pretend that the positive forms of hierarchy shown above are just as bad as the oppressive systems of the state. However, a truly realistic system would only regard hierarchies that achieve their power through threats and violence as oppressive. This would rule out anything voluntary, leaving only slavery, the state, and any organization that sanctions authoritarian power as unacceptable.

Secondly, a truly anti-hierarchal society would insist that you esteem a newborn and an elderly person as the same in experience, and judge the world’s best brain surgeon and the barista who forgets your coffee order as having the same value to society. Without hierarchy, one man could work twice as hard at his job as another, and contribute several times more value to the company, and the two would still be paid the same and be seen as equals. Denying any semblance of hierarchy would mean forcing the naturally unequal masses of humanity to adapt to the lowest common denominator. It would be like pretending it’s perfectly fair to allow Dream Theater to enter a high school battle of the bands, and then accusing the voters of being unfair when they win.

That is the mistake these critics of anarcho-capitalism make. The voluntary hierarchies seen in an anarcho-capitalist system do not exist to oppress those on the lower rungs, they only exist to ensure that those who improve society are paid their worth. Unlike any other anarchist philosophy, anarcho-capitalism accounts for life’s natural tendency towards hierarchy, but holds as one of its key tenets that any use of force to maintain that hierarchy is unjustified. It safeguards against the forced equality that kills work ethic, and provides the natural societal structure that allows any individual to better themselves on their own terms. If anything destroys a society, it is neither capitalism nor anarchism, but a devotion to the false idea that equality is maintained by force.