Feminism’s issues with men.

With the patriarchy theory, feminists have pinpointed men and masculinity as problematic elements in society. Realizing that most societies operate under a patriarchy, they’ve reached the conclusion that if women experience sexism, it’s because men have build a system meant to benefit them, where the oppression women is rampant due to men’s inherent desire to dominate women. For feminists, this isn’t just a mere theory, it’s fact, it’s how the world works. For the rest of us, it’s evidence of the sexism against men that feminism has always been built upon.

In an effort to engineer a gender egalitarian society, feminists have realized that men and masculinity must be dismantle on account of men being raised from birth to become a version of their gender that’s toxic for them and society at large. They believe most men are taught to be aggressive, dominant, misogynistic, and violent in order to fit a tightly defined version of masculinity. Toxic masculinity is the term invented that encapsulate all that is seen as wrong with men. Feminists will use murder statistics to force attention to the naturally violent predisposition of men, and suicide statistics to point to the facts that men are so out of touch with their emotions, it causes them to terminate their own life. In a nutshell, men are wrong on multiple dimensions. They need to be steered toward a better path.

Since men hold all the power and are responsible for the patriarchy, modern feminism demands they fix this unfair status quo. To do so, men must change, according to the guidelines of feminism, and they must also hold all other men accountable for their behaviours. What becomes apparent is that such responsibilities are never put on the shoulders of women. Women are not told to be better either for the betterment of society or their own self-betterment. After all, women are victims in this patriarchy, it’s not their responsibility to change society since they aren’t the one who created it. Asking women to change is either labelled as misogyny or viewed as detrimental to women’s liberation. Men are at fault so men must work at correcting their faults, for the sake of women, while they rake in the benefits.

This shaming of an entire gender comes from feminism trying to appropriate the philosophical concept of moral good. They have made of women the baseline of morality and ethical righteousness. Women become faultless creations and men, dysfunctional people who have been guided astray, who have been socialized into maintaining the patriarchy instead of building an inclusive, diverse and egalitarian society (the feminist utopia) because they lack either empathy or an inherent sense of morality. Like some hateful groups of the past have done with race, they are trying to establish women as the superior gender. But they hide their true nature behind terms like equality, which is used as a public relation term, and a red herring, to cover up the fact that what they really want is the power they think men possess. They think men are the issue yet, through the imposition of their belief on an unsuspecting public, they are getting closer and closer near the realm of fascism. Worse, they remain unaware of this due to the conviction in the superiority of their position, and the infallibility of their actions.

The absurdity and lack of intellectual rigour of feminist theory doesn’t even stop at men. Feminists also reduce the roles of women as infantile bystanders unable to create change in any other way than by weaponizing nagging and using men’s desire to help and protect women against them. All the while believing that gender stereotypes are bad and damaging to women, even though they’ll gladly stereotype all men to reinforces their belief in toxic masculinity. Painting women as victims becomes a useful way to keep insisting on the defencelessness and innocence of women.

The patriarchy theory becomes a testament to feminist’s desire to control both gender, by using sexist stereotypes to socially engineering people in order for feminism to bring about their utopia. They might believe men are all powerful creatures, but the way they are trying to appropriate the concept of morality shows the arrogance and lack of intellectualism of their position. Further doubt is cast considering their use of sexism, and the fact they excuse in women what they condemn in men. If the patriarchy truly existed, men would have never allowed feminism to flourish and retain such power over them in the first place. Men aren’t the problem, modern feminism is.

Hierarchies, competence and gender.

By believing in equality, feminists think we should have all the same value. Like any religious ideologues, they came to believe in the superiority of their ideas and that if everyone thought like them, they could bring about a perfect world, a utopia that could only exist if the elements standing in its way were done away with. To a theist, violence stand in the way of peace. To feminists, three things must be dismantled: hierarchies, competence and gender.

Modern feminist’s dislike of hierarchies can be seen in their motto “smash the patriarchy”, a popular maxim encapsulating their belief in an oppressive hierarchy of men that is detrimental to progress and harmful to women. But beyond this obvious manifestation of the idea that the male gender is problematic, exist the idea that hierarchies themselves should be torn down. Their opposition to hierarchies exist simply because hierarchies are systems of values where people rank above one another. Hierarchies are evidences that we aren’t equals and that some us, in a way, relish the idea that we are better than others. Hierarchies are an attack on their core belief in equality. Never mind that hierarchies are natural and a fundamental way humans, as social animals, relate to each others. But feminists don’t think of hierarchies as natural. They think the patriarchy, especially, is supported by domination of the powerful and the subjugation of the weak. It is mainly due to their refusal to accept the role of competence in the creation of hierarchies.

Their dislike of competency follow a similar reasoning: competency is bad because it gives people different values in society due to our skills and abilities which grants us different position in the hierarchy. Competence maintain hierarchies while equality wish to abolish them. Because they have competence that women generally don’t, (like superior upper body strength, personality traits) men came to represent what stands in the way of equality. Because they believe we are all equal, the competencies of men are erased and replace by the idea that it’s their need for domination that gives them control in society. Men don’t have qualities that women don’t possess (or vice versa), just a natural oppressive tendency to dominate others. Men’s flaws lie in their relation to their gender.

Many feminists think genders are socially constructed by the desire of men to subjugate women into becoming good servants. Like competency and hierarchies, they don’t really exist and are inventions of the patriarchy. Feminists don’t dislike the idea of gender as much as they dislike men for having abilities that elevate them above women. They know femininity isn’t enough to beat men at their own game. Equality of gender becomes what they turn to to level the playing field and nurtured their bruised ego. If they truly disliked the idea of gender, female feminists would reject anything feminine. They would discourage self objectification and sexualization since they know men like looking at sexualized women. But they don’t for the same reason men don’t want to throw away their masculinity: because genders helps with self actualization and understanding our identity. It helps them identify what their strength and weaknesses are and how those can be put to serve them and society. What this means is that gender isn’t really the issue, men and masculinity is. To help them tackle the problem of masculinity that causes men to want to dominate women, thus preventing equality, they try to masculinize women, and feminize men. They tell women that wanting a family and a husband is bad, that they should have careers. They tell men that their masculinity is toxic and that they should cry more (a feminine expression of emotions) in order to be better people.

Due to their rejection of the scientific understandings of hierarchies, competence and gender, they highlight their own dislike of men and masculinity. Their goal, by attacking those three concepts, is to force equality in the political and social realms. Smashing the patriarchy becomes an act of rebellion against a world build by the competency of men, where men elevated themselves at the top of the hierarchy through the reliance on the superiority of their gender. Through their beliefs, feminists act like middle age villagers holding up inside their lord’s fort during a siege, undermining his effort to keep them alive because they think the siege is his fault. Hierarchy, competence and gender become interlinked concepts they oppose out of bitterness and resentment that the idea of equality isn’t powerful and perfect enough to bring about a utopia.

Feminism and the stay at home mom.

Many feminists promote the idea that women throughout history were not allowed to work, have jobs or careers; that a patriarchal system composed of sexist men prevented them from being something other than mothers and dutiful wives. This is nothing but a misconstrued idea brought on by ideologues trying to sell the philosophy of feminism. There were discrimination, yes, and they were denied some jobs based on their gender (something politicians rectified and made unlawful) but it wasn’t illegal for a woman to work, there were no laws forcing women to be homemakers and housewives. When feminists say women couldn’t work, they mean it was seen as unusual behaviour that went against conventional social norms. Which meant it wasn’t easy for women to hold careers, there were obstacle in their ways that men didn’t have to contend with.

This issue stems from feminists having a very 1950’s, suburban housewive, view of gendered relations. They also speak from a point of modern privilege where they take present day quality of life for granted. We live relatively easy lives, full of comforts and commodities that simplifies our existence. Since the dawn of time, life has been difficult, full of hardship and suffering. We’ve always been at the mercy of either nature or each others. Grouping together lessen that burden by helping each other out to make life easier. Pairing up as couple does the same things, especially considering that we are a binary animal specie looking to reproduce and pass on our genes. Men and women need each other, they are complimentary. In the past, they have established a division of labour that helped them survive and thrive while allowing them to reproduce and raise children. And it worked! The woman took care of the household and the children, the man went out into the world to afford them a roof over their heads and food to eat. But to feminist, a woman is only free if she can live the same exact kind of a life a man can. If she has to stay home and care for the children, but a man doesn’t have to do that, then she’s being forced into submission by a patriarchal system.

There was a balance to this system. But to feminist, freedom and quality of life is measured by the amounts of rights and opportunities you have (which, to be fair, most men had few of). First wave feminists didn’t like this system because they could see the disadvantages it brought for a woman looking for something else than a domestic life. No system is perfect after all. While both genders had their realms of activities and influences, men acted in the financial and political world, which women weren’t welcome in. It meant women couldn’t hold as much influence as men could. Wanting to be recognized as full independent being on par with men was the goal. Thus began the feminist movement’s for power and control.

Women have always needed to work. They worked in the fields in agricultural setting or in workhouses and factories in the cities. They weren’t cooped up all day chained to a stove. And women in poor families, especially, needed the extra income to survive. So if poor women had to have a job, what that means for women who didn’t have to work is that they were quite fortunate. Being a stay at home mom was actually a status symbol. It means that your husband made enough money to allow you a privileged lifestyle that many weren’t lucky enough to afford. Men have always been the one who are supposed to toil away for hours on end, in dangerous conditions for low pay. Staying home benefited women, they were protected and sheltered from such back breaking labour. They were exempted from such hardship because they already had a preordained purpose of absolute necessity, a role that no men could take up: bearing children. And men were willing to make women a priority in their life to ensure a woman would see them fit enough to bear his children.

Feminists never considered how oppressive to men it is to be the one who must provide for women and children, to be expected to throw your health and life away for the women’s benefit, to be responsible of their well being and happiness. (Happy wive, happy life anyone?) These efforts are not valued by feminists, it’s not within their purview to see men as good benevolent protector. To them, they will always be the domineering patriarch who wanted their women home by preventing them from working.

Now, modern feminists have taken on the role of those oppressive patriarchs who wished to control women’s life for their own benefit. They shame women for wanting to be wives and stay at home moms. They tell women that working and having careers is what will benefit them, when in fact this only benefit feminism. The see having children as an impediment to their desire to show men up at their own game (which is an act of overcompensation for their sense of inferiority).

Never mind all the good men who cherished the women in their lives. They are of no consequence in a philosophy that relies on highlighting only the worst that men have to offer. Saying women couldn’t work is just one more lie meant to establish the idea of the oppression on women by pretending that the actions of a few were representative of a majority.

The hatred in feminism.

When I say feminists hate men, I don’t just mean those who flat out admit to it. Those who’s hatred is a source of pride and power.

 

 

I also mean those who excuse the hatred of feminist women and see it as an acceptable response to “oppression”.

 

 

For decades now, the words of many radical feminists has permeated feminist ideology. Such as those of Robin Morgan:

“I feel that man hating is a viable and political act, that the oppressed have a right to class hatred against the class who is oppressing them.”

Such quotes exist because hate isn’t condemned by feminism, it’s encouraged, tolerated and excused as being a necessary political tool against the ongoing war against women. Hatred of men has been acceptable for feminists for so long that I wonder if their theory of gendered class division (stolen right out of Marxism) has been created to allow hateful people to freely express their toxic sexist view of men.

Hate isn’t a good thing. Wise men from Epictetus to M.L.King understood the destructive power of hate. They knew that to evolve, we need to get rid of it. But our society isn’t so fond of that message. I once knew a white man who used to be a big deal in his youth. He was a high calibre athlete who became a bit full of himself as a result. He told me how he used to be racist of black people because they were so obviously different than him, who he had a high esteem of, that he saw them as lesser people. Eventually, he realized that discriminating black people was wrong, but he never learned that hating was wrong. He learned what many other people have learned, that there are certain people whom it is ok to hate. Hate will continue to be a huge issue because it is still socially acceptable to hate on certain people. Feminism, despite trying to establish itself as a beacon of moral good, knows perfectly well it is acceptable for them to hate on straight white males. And instead of trying to elevate themselves above such behaviours (which only a minority of them do), they fully and consciously partake in it.

Why be morally better when you’ve been convinced that men are out to get you and that hating them is acceptable and even necessary to fight back?

Feminism is full of hate, one more reason the be wary of it.

 

The state of civility in the modern world

Social graces and good manners have been in decline in our modern society. They have been rejected as being harmful traditional construct and a problematic stance against progress and modernity. Feminist theory will even pile on to call it oppressive for people, especially women, to conduct themselves properly. Combined, this gave rise to a modern society where insulting people has been normalized and being poorly behaved became brave actions of rebellions against a traditionally patriarchal and oppressive system.

Telling women how to behave is now misogynistic, for example. This sort of socially accepted rhetoric might have been a tool to help dismantle the sexism faced by women but it also helped degrade interpersonal relationships altogether. Feminism has created a generation of poorly socialized people who’d rather tell you off than speak of your merits. You can observe this in people who’ll complaint about how they are often surrounded by toxic people who make their life worst. One need only to ride the rivers of social media to witness the worst behaviours offered by people.

Traditions exists because they serve us. Off course, blindly following them without ever questioning them or assessing their validity is no better then rejecting them altogether. Balance is needed. We need our social observers and our creative type to get along so they can put forth better ways of doing things. Good manners exist because they benefit people. None is so quick to realize this as someone looking to gain the attention or affection of another. We catch more flies with sugar than vinegar, after all.

We made it a cool idea not to care about what people think of us, as if it would bring us some peace and tranquility, without realizing how thinking poorly of others might affect them. Being good and well behaved has fallen out of style. In the 50’s, videos were still produced about good manners and proper etiquette. People were reminded by society that behaving properly was expected. The necessity of this seems to have been forgotten has lots of people now follow their own rules of conducts, at the detriment of social cohesion and harmony.

Cooperation and collaboration are not popular concepts anymore because they get in the way of various groups from accessing resources. Why share with others when you could fight them to keep everything for yourself? We are quick to devalue others, which prompt us to see no problem in antagonizing and rejecting them in, sometime, cruel and unusual ways. As people treat us, we treat others, which create a downward spiral toward less and less civility. Very few people decide to break free of this pattern of justified resentment to rise above social conducts that hurt us all. It takes a desire to do good that most people consider of lesser importance than vindicating their own self important feelings and showing of their superior minds and moral standing. It is no surprise that in a postmodern world, where everyone feel they are owed something, battles should be fought over who is more deserving, creating endless conflicts among individual and a refusal to get along.

Sadly, there is a push among the postmodernists to silence discourse that do not align with their own principles. And they make constant demands that their views of the world should be the only one disseminated at the expense of all other narratives. Those who now teach the new generation (mostly in universities) exacerbate the problem by telling their students that the proper way to act is to disrupt the system, that causing mayhem is a political necessity for change in an unjust world where they aren’t given everything they feel they are owed. Like parents enabling egotism and the demanding nature in their children by constantly caving to their requests, they embolden people to be as disruptive and poorly behaved as possible. Making noise and throwing insults become acceptable means of rebellion, while appreciation for the wonders of the modern world are pushed aside, not to be considered.

If people moderated themselves for the sake of others, there wouldn’t be call to outlaw hate speech; feminists wouldn’t be asking for words to be banned because they might hurt peoples feeling. That’s why there is such a push toward censorship: so many, more people than there should be, feel offended. Something that wouldn’t happen at such high rates if people knew how to express themselves without shocking. Like Isaac Newton said, “Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy”. But tact isn’t popular, shock value is, owning to the fact that shock sells. An outrageous comment will draw crowds. And in the era of clickbait “journalism” crowds means revenues. Greed prevails yet again.

People have no incentive to be nice in a world where human relationship are viewed as commodities, material goods to be consume. You don’t like this person? Toss them aside and get a new one. We are in an age of entitled consumerism, where people feel they are owed to feel certain ways, even in their relationship to others, and when their needs aren’t met, they move on to the next person. There is a near infinite amount of human connections to be made, so being nice to someone to ensure they will like you back, isn’t necessary. There is someone out there who will like you for you, so you don’t have to work at being affable or friendly.

The worst part is that so many people have grown to the idea that being rude and telling people off are personality traits to be proud of, that it shows resilience in the face of adversity. They confuse being polite with being weak and submissive and being mean and unruly with being strong and spirited. Balance is one of the hardest thing to achieve and in our attempts at creating a more equal world, we have swung the pendulum way to far on the opposite side. If a person from the 1950 were to step forward through time, i think they would be appalled by the state of social relationships and see in it a frightening degeneracy. But postmodern thinkers and feminists theorists have done a lot to pollute the minds of many with ideas of entitlement without merits and rewards despite a lack of competence. We could be so much more than what we are if only we wished for more responsibilities and valued self betterment above shouting about what we think we are owed and thinking that being polite and civil are problems to get over. After all, treating people with respect says a lot more about you than it says about them.

For the sake of responsibility

Realizing that one might hold some responsibility for the situation they are in is not a popular notion nowadays. Some people seem to have a difficulty in (if not lack the desire to) make a distinction between owning responsibility for the situation they are in and blaming the victim for the pain they are experiencing. This distinction might be small but it is none the less a very important one. While some people would rather blame factors external then themselves to explain their situation, those who value personal responsibility understand the power it grants.

If you are in an abusive relationship you would probably want the abuse to stop. You’d want better for yourself than be abused. And that is where the power of personal responsibility comes in. Responsibility is a power to harness, that will lead you to better things. Without it, you are dependant and at the mercy of others. This can leave you open to abuse; people are more likely to use you and do with you what they see fit if you are too reliant on them. Abusers seek those who are vulnerable, after all. Being responsible means that you can be in control of your life to a much larger extant than you are now.

Personal responsibility might feel like a burden to bear but it is also a source of freedom. The more you decide what works for you, the less others will decide it for you. When you are in a situation of abuse, you are not in charge anymore, you are not as free as you’d like to be. The only venue left for you to explore lies in understanding where your accountability is in the situation you are subjected too. Do you stay where there is abuse or do you do something to avoid being abused in the future? Many chose to stay because it is easier to work with a situation you have experience in than go out into the unknown where you’ll have to face greater fears than the abuse itself. The abuse might be terrible, but for some, going out into the world is even scarier. The most efficient abuser would have completely striped away in sense of confidence and power in you, to make you as dependant as possible to them. Making it even harder to make to right choice for yourself. Their pleasure come from controlling you. They don’t want you to be responsible because rejecting responsibility means rejecting your own ability to find solutions for your own problems. In effect, being responsible is a practice of strength and wisdom. It is recognizing that your experiences are a product of the decisions you make. It’s an implement that will not only make you discover what your goals are, but help you achieve them.

In this day and age, postmodernist’s attitudes would rather cuddle those who suffer than empower them. Comforting people, which by extent is the validation of someone’s feelings, has become the main way to deal with suffering. When we suffer, one of the first thing we do is try to lessen the suffering by sharing it with others, who then proceed to offer us comfort. Comfort is a tool meant to satiate us in the face of dissatisfaction. What we sometime forget is that comfort should be a momentary process to relief and appease sudden suffering. It is not meant to be an ongoing, perpetual process to help us deal with the inevitability of pain. Unless you’re a cancer patient who is slowly dying, then comfort is the only thing to be done. If this isn’t the case, than other venues will need to be explored.

What has become common nowadays in our PC culture, is to overvalue any and every feelings of dissatisfaction experienced by people. They expect others to cater to any feelings of weakness they have, and demand to be comforted. This doesn’t help them. It maintains people in an underdeveloped state. Instead of wanting to build themselves up to a point where they can take responsibility for their circumstance, they want to be told it is ok to be weak, and dysfunctional, and that they shouldn’t have to make any effort to improve their situation if they think that might be too hard to do. Worst, they’ll even pretend that those who do not want to validate your feelings are toxic to you for refusing to validate your experiences. Catering to people’s weaknesses and whims should never be put before helping them grow and better themselves. Otherwise we will create a generation of emotionally weak individuals who can’t perform basic task without needing assistance or instant reward.

Feminist’s ideology is doing a great job in wanting to keep people from understanding the role of personal responsibility and I think it is especially hypocritical coming from a movement who claim to advocate for female empowerment. In lieu of offering a way to help people better and develop themselves, they offer half baked “truth” about how the world at large is conspiring against you. That the only way for things to change is not to improve yourself so you will be better prepared to face the world, but to attack and dismantle the institutions they claim are attacking you and keeping you down. This is the appeal of modern feminism: women are never wrong, they are oppressed victims and they shouldn’t have to change because it is anyone else that need to change. Sadly, this is the “power” offered by feminism: that imposing your rule over others, becoming the source of authority and power, is the right thing to do to set the world in an order that will be beneficial to you. Which is a pretty dictatorial philosophy that can only be impose through tyranny. The world isn’t perfect, that’s for sure, but claiming your imperfect self stand any chance of perfecting things is quite irresponsible and arrogant. It is naïve to think you can set the world in such order as to avoid any and all pain.

By realizing you hold some responsibility in the events of your life, you allow yourself to gain control over them, to change and to manipulate them in ways that will benefit you. Without it, others become responsible for you, which leaves you at the mercy of those who might not have your best interests at heart. Women can be so much more than the weak, pathetic and powerless creature feminism paint them out to be. For the sake of responsibility, and the value it inherently holds, I wish more women would reject the easy, overly simplistic notions promoted by feminism. Seeing yourself as a victim means you are constantly weak and in need. Being responsible means you can be strong, and that you are enough to change your own standing in the world without having to rely too much on others. For me, that is what true empowerment is.

The forgotten power of modesty

I am not interested at being looked at as a sexualized person. As a woman, I don’t want to arouse people in any way because I want you to pay attention to what I have to say, not what I look like. Being attractive can distract and modesty is the tool, the power women have to control how they are perceived by others.

Being attractive and appealing is a game women play. The goal is to reach the top of the female dominance hierarchy. Those who reach the top are the one who compete with their peers at looking better and more attractive. Women engage in such competition with each other because that is how their status as alpha female is on full display. It makes them stand out amongst their contemporary as being the better prospect, which has the added benefit of attracting the best possible mates. Men are especially enticed by women’s physicality, women know this pretty well and it does motivate their behaviors. Just like competing with each other motivate their desire to elevate their own status by using their appearance.

In the 40’s and 50’s, it used to be that women who use their own body and attractiveness to get attention were shamed and devalued. “Sluts” were women of low morals and social standings who acted against the social norms of what a good woman ought to be. Shaming these women helped cast away what was deemed to be poor and unwanted behaviors. While this was also used to keep women in narrow socially defined gendered roles (mothers and virgins), it also helped to view them as being smart and capable people. The good girl was an educated lady, while the bad girl smoked and hung around with boys. Those constrictive views of women did help highlight their better qualities by shaming in them any display of poorer qualities. With the efforts of modern feminists’ mentality, such as pretending that anything a woman does is brave and empowering, they have tried to redefine the meaning of what it is to be a “slut”. They now walk proudly and half naked in so called Slut Walks in an attempt to displace the shame from being put onto women by putting it unto those who are doing the shamming. They are trying to claim as positive a term that has been used to highlight the negative. All of that so women can be free from being criticised when they chose to act poorly. Modern feminism as made it a big no-no to criticize women in any way, even if it is to help quell toxic and problematic behaviors. Violent and abusive women now being regularly supported in feminists circles.

The 60’s and the 70’s were times of sexual revolutions, where the younger generation seek to rebel against the rigid social construct of their parents by engaging in free love. It helped shape a new perspective of sexuality. It moved from a taboo topic rarely discussed in polite discussions to a more mainstream and popular subjet. The commercialization of the contraceptive pill played a huge role in liberating women from old social standards. Sexuality became to be understood as a natural act of human behavior rather than something to be ashamed of. Shaming women for acting out sexually became a judgmental habit to be curbed.

It’s in the 80’s and 90’s that corporations popularized the idea that “sex sells”. Putting images of pretty sexualized women in ads and commercials became normalized. To the point where people questioned such methods and wondered what the impact on society would be. Those who opposed the use of women’s bodies to sell products worried that objectifying women like that would be detrimental in trying to value women as more than just object of desire.

The social media age we now live in didn’t see women walk away from ideas of objectification. Instead, they have embraced it when they realized the power there is to be gained by sexualizing and objectifying themselves. Fame and fortune is what there is to be found when women raise their status enough to reach the top of the female dominance hierarchy. Contrary to second wave feminists, third and fourth wave feminists see nothing wrong in self objectification. All they see is the power to be gained. They’ve twisted the idea that objectification is wrong unto viewing that anything a woman does to gain power is good and should be encouraged. Because after all, a desire for more power is at the core of modern feminism. The entertainment industry and Instagram culture are the best examples. Pretty much any women on the internet knows that the easiest way to attract people to you, men or women, is to sexualize yourself in some way. The more you follow modern beauty standards, and the less clothes you wear, the bigger your audience can be. Exposing themselves in such a manner, is the simplest and easiest way for women to gain status.

This is peek toxic femininity and there is no business where it is more exploited than the beauty industry. Corporations sell a seemingly limitless array of products design to make women look better. From clothes, to shoes, handbags, jewelry, cosmetics and hair products, there isn’t an inch of your body that they don’t have a product for you to use to beautify yourself with. This is the exploitation of female vanity and narcissism. This reminds women that their value isn’t just in their appearance but in putting effort in modifying their appearance by consuming goods. Feminists’ attitudes are encouraging such behaviours because deep down, women not only like to look pretty and feel beautiful but they know that winning this game raises their status and power.

The feminism I was raised with told women that they are worth more than just their looks. Modern feminism tell women they don’t have any power so anything she does, including sexualizing and objectifying herself, is in fact an act of defiance, empowerment and bravery. This encourage toxic and irresponsible behaviors; it promotes women as objects of attraction. This is such a huge setback in the promotion of women as being on equal standing with men. Modern feminists have sold out their ideals and principles for the sake of beauty and power. This is corruption in its truest form.

Modesty thus became the enemy of feminism. It became to be viewed as an oppressive restriction on their ability to fully express who they are as women. They started to shame, not the women who acted poorly, but those who dared criticize a woman for using their power of attraction for selfish gains. They disguised this idea that any display a woman makes of her body as a valid and even necessary tool to boost their self-esteem and build their confidence. In our ongoing era of feminist self-exposure, the woman who expose her body become a rebel, a hero, a brave soldier in the front line against female oppression. In actuality, they are teaching an entire generation of women that their looks, their desire to be viewed as beautiful is what their goal should be as women, that being celebrated by others for their aptitude to achieve standards of beauty validate their femininity. Many, including myself, do no recognized themselves in such narrow superficial definition of womanhood. It is limiting and repressive of the full spectrum of femininity (and humanity).

Conservative countries and societies, where women are less likely to use their looks to gain status, women comprise are larger portion of the students and employees in the fields sciences, technologies, engineering and mathematics. When women can’t make a living of their looks, (in those societies, constrictive traditional views of women being the cause) they start embodying the smart capable ideals that more women should strive for. The feminists of the west, despite their relentless campaigns to recruit more women into STEMs, hold on to ideas that systemic sexism against women is what keeps them from wanting to study and work in those fields, when in fact, it’s their insistence in encouraging women to seek validation with their looks and appearance that keeps women away from such demanding fields. Taking selfies instantly validate the ego and that is way more appealing for many women than long arduous academic studies. Why become a doctor when you can just marry one? Why make your own way in life when you can use your look to attract someone who will pay your way for you? The American trophy wife is a good example of the type of position western women aspire to.

Feminism as instilled this idea that women can “have it all”, and that they should expect no less. That no matter how they behave, they should expect to be treated with respect and fairness. The problem is that, if you display your breast, you’re going to have a hard time being perceived as intelligent. If you don’t display your attributes, then people won’t be distracted by them so they are less likely to perceive you according to that. This seems harsh and unfair, and in a sense it certainly is. Utopic ideals of gender equality often clash with our own evolutionary biology, which lead the hardest of postmodernists to then reject the science of evolutionary biology altogether. It goes without saying that this isn’t the right position to adopt. We are more than just our mere appearance. Many contestants of popular beauty pageant are also intelligent, well educated women. But it is not their brains they are being judged on after all. People judge each other on their appearances every day. Even when we know it is unfair to do so, we still make snap judgments about other people. We judge women especially hard because they are the one who mostly possess the power to easily influence and attract people to them. Depending on what a woman chose to wear, they will be perceive in ways by others that they might not have intended. And this where the feminists mentality have created a disconnect between intentions and results. You can’t dress like a prostitute and expect to be treated like a lady. You can’t post picture of your butt and then complain that people don’t show interest in your personality. It’s immature, unrealistic and spoiled behavior to think that you can put forth a specific image of yourself and then get offended by the consequences of your own choices. With great power comes great responsibilities, as nerdy and clichéd as it sounds. It might not be right of others to judge you so harshly, but it isn’t right either to expect too much out of people. The image you project is under your control. If you want to be valued for your intelligence, you have to display that quality to others.

While modesty as become a taboo topic in the west that springs about ideas of controlling patriarchal attitudes, in some part of the world, those same attitude prevail with a cruel intensity. This behaviour by men to want to cover up their women from head to toe under law and threats of violence (a human right violation in my book), highlight how much of a true form of power beauty and attractiveness really is. It is such a strong tool in the female arsenal that men of power decided to strip it completely away from women. You have to be able to recognize the power someone has over you to feel threaten by it and it is usually people who thirst for power who wish to take it away from others. It takes someone mean spirited (emasculated?) to make someone else responsible for the way one feels to the point of passing laws that restrict their freedom but leave yours intact.

Wherever there is power to be had by one group or the other, a balance is necessary so one group doesn’t exert too much of it over the other. Interestingly enough, in both scenarios, women loose. Freedom when men rule too much over them, and a sense of meaning and satisfaction when they impose their rule over others. Modesty is an act of responsible behavior. It is childish to want to do whatever we want, whenever we want without having to face the consequences of our choices. Modesty is about understanding how your appearance effect others and being able to control how the rest of the world will perceive you. It’s a tool of great power, a weapon. Modern feminists have decided to hide that fact from people because of their desire to cast women as an oppressed powerless class. They have also smeared the concept of modesty, corrupted it by claiming it do be a patriarchal tool of oppression meant to keep women in specific roles. It is cheap manipulation on their part to make sure women will have to turn to feminism for empowerment. It’s a shameful behavior that is detrimental to women’s growth as individual.

If women want to be taken more seriously, if they want to be valued for their intelligences and aptitudes, they have to stop looking at modesty as a straightjacket that stifles their femininity. This sort of misguided cynicism only contribute to the toxic infighting between women, where the other woman become the completion to displace. When we forget the value of modesty, we start overvaluing women’s look as the true standard of feminine worth. Women are smart intelligent people when they chose to be, but those are skills that take works and dedication to develop and maintain. Taking the perfect selfie takes work, yes, but is working toward displaying an image of beauty and perfection for Instagram likes really all that women are capable of? Am I the only one who wish for more from and for women?

Consciouness, the death of God, and what is needed to save ourselves.

The propaganda meant to keep God at the top of the dominance hierarchy as being the true source of all knowledge and moral guidance take the form of the creation myth. This myth tells us that consciousness is an evil that makes us like God: seeing and knowing of the world around us. A conscious God is a perfect God, while a conscious human is a flawed human, aware of his own vulnerabilities and possessing an inclination toward evil. God represents perfection and embodies utopic ideals. God is the ultimate destination in the journey toward human betterment. Driving away from God is the opposite of what we want to do. Bettering ourselves is the first step toward bettering all of mankind, which in turn favors, if not guaranties, our survival. So mastering nature (our own and mother nature at large) seems to be the appropriate response if we want to ensure our own survival. We do so by trying to elevate ourselves above God, which is not our place to do so. That, is the snake in the garden of Eden.

During the Enlightenment area, scientists were trying to understand the nature of the world on its own merit, without the concept of God polluting this understanding. It is, as Nietzsche puts it, the death of God. Where humanity goes wrong, is not rejecting God, which is perfectly acceptable given theism is an archaic concept, but rejecting what God represented: our reverence of nature. By trying to understand the world through objective and cold scientific means, we have detached ourselves, our emotional subjective self, from being able to understand nature from a level that is fundamentally necessary to stay in tune to it. We pride ourselves over our scientific and technological prowess without considering its disastrous consequences. We have polluted the world in a literal sense, through our ability to be so detached from nature that we are closer to machine than man. Machines do not feel, they collect, process and display data. Not unlike the Enlightenment thinkers, they produce, neutral and detached from nature.

The Postmodernists, in this sense, highlight the flaws of the Enlightenment. The death of God seemed to have been necessary for us to have a better understanding of the practical world. In doing so, we have displaced the divinity of God unto ourselves. It’s this displacement of authority from the conceptual to the actual that allowed us, in our hubris, to think ourselves superior to nature. This lead us to reject the role we have as animals functioning within a well-balanced ecosystem. Eating the Apple from the tree of knowledge has made us arrogant. It created a part in us willing, while still somewhat unaware, that we are causing our own destruction.

We need to realign humanity with its inherent natural state; reintegrate ourselves, not as beings toping the hierarchy, but as an integral functioning element of said hierarchy. We need to bring God back to life to ensure our own survival. We have used our consciousness to reject nature for far too long. Although it has been necessary to do so to understand nature, we now need to relearn how to go with the flow instead of stopping the flow to study its current. Like true romantic, we need to see the world more for its beauty and less for its scientific and systematic values. Postmodernist, as a reactionary force to the Enlightenment, have now pushed the scale back way too far on the opposite side. That isn’t any better. A balance is needed between the two.

Our search to understand the world has silenced our instinct to live in accordance with nature. It has made nature a thing outside of ourselves, a thing to understand so we wouldn’t succumbed too easily by it. A thing to control instead of embrace. The Bible, being a tool for men of power to keep others under their power, understood one thing right: God must remain at the top. According to the creation myth, consciousness is a plight, but that notion might have just been a trick to keep us away from worst things. While I think postmodernism might offer some much needed understanding of our own subjective self, it certainly doesn’t offer solution to rectify our trajectory away from nature. Nietzsche knew the death of God would lead us all down a path of nihilism, a path of self-destruction. Now, we are faced with these conundrums: how to bring God back from the dead. Is it even possible to save ourselves from our own consciousness?

 

Replacing the masculine: a counter reaction to the female sense of powerlessness

If the main appeal that attracts people to the doctrines of feminism is a desire for more gender equality, there is no denying that a search for more power is also a strong component sought by its advocates. They have pinpointed where the problems for women come from: a poor and unfair distribution of power. With the “patriarchy theory”, they have set and defined a way to view the world: it is a power struggle, a war between those who are at the top, the men, and those at the bottom, the women. The theory dictate that men have all the power, because male power and dominance is a lot more obvious than feminine power. A western lifestyle, mixed with feminist theory, has left women to notice the constrictive nature of their gender role while viewing men to be free of constrictions of any kind.

So women see men going out there into the world, making their marks, building and creating things, getting rich and liked by others. They work toward gaining status within society and create positions of power for themselves and women get envious and jealous. When you consider the feminist ideology of viewing the world through the lens of the patriarchy theory, in which men hold all the power and how they use it to oppress, it isn’t surprising to see them want a piece of that pie. Think of the suffragettes, who were after more political (societal) power for themselves through the obtainment of the right to vote. Fast forward to the Second World War, when women joined the war effort by taking job in factories, performing hard manual labor that were traditionally masculine endeavors. The unintended consequence was women getting accustomed to a new way of life that most were held back from holding due to gendered social conventions that would rather see them at home fulfilling their womanly duties as housewives and mothers. It’s the nature of their biology and the enforcement of gender roles that prevented women from understanding that life outside the home, a life as an individual who transcend limitations was not only possible, but a way to assert more power and control over their own destiny. It took men dying by the millions to create new ventures for women.

Then, in the 60’s, a new product was commercialized which influenced and revolutionized even further the world into taking the shape it has now: the contraceptive pill. The pill gave women a new found freedom and a power they never had before: a reliable and easily accessible way to control their own reproductive abilities. That gave them a tool to compete with men on their own battlefield. Gone were the days of pregnancies acting has a handicap holding women back. Men, not being impeded by pregnancies and the social convention that sees them as the one primarily responsible for child rearing, coupled with their conscientious and industrious nature, allowed them what some could see as a form of freedom that distinguished them (unfairly, feminist would say), and gave them advantages over women. While, certainly, there were always women distinguishing themselves amongst men (gladiator, Viking warriors, to name a few) only a small portion of them possessed the physical and psychological temperament necessary to compete with men successfully. And this is where we can see how the notion of possessing masculine traits as an advantage and a tool that lead to success.

One of the half-truth feminism has put forth for women to believe in is that it is recommended for them to reject motherhood and housewife duties for the sake of a career. They were told, as G. K. Chesterton put it best, that feminists think “that women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands.” It’s propaganda geared toward a social reengineering of gendered social dynamics, aimed at taking down and dismantling the patriarchy. This happened so quickly, only 5 or 6 decades, that men have been left scurrying to adjust. Their positions and their roles in society has been devalued to unprecedented level. Although they have always been the disposable gender, due to the nature of their biology and reproductive capabilities, even when they were shipped off to die in wars, they knew they served some useful purpose: fighting for a just cause. Now, with women competing against them, they are not only very aware that they’ve lost this uniqueness that traditionally separated them from women, but that their disposability serve no purpose anymore. Men are made to become obsolete. Men are made to feel unwanted and purposeless.

Interestingly enough, the consequences for women have also been negative as many women feel dissatisfied with their new freedoms and positions. A strong argument can be made that it’s women rejecting their true nature has life givers, for a more masculine way of life, that lead them to this. They were lead to believe that fulfilment and satisfaction could be achieved through masculine aspirations. By seeing men accomplishing themselves out into the world, they thought that copying those behaviors would grant them the same sense accomplishment. Instead of thinking that their womanhood was an advantage within society, they saw it has an impediment. So many decide to delay reproduction for a career, nowadays. Until they hit their 30’s and realise if they do want a family, it’s now or never. And many who do reject having children live to regret it later, wishing they hadn’t bought the lie of choosing an employer over a relationship. The women who decided to have it all, family and career, are glorified above all in our modern culture. Terms like “super mom” are used to describe them. It is not a secret that these women live incredibly busy lives and it is so common for women to hold such lifestyles that “being busy” has now become an indicator for success and prestige.

In this sense, women have also lost their uniqueness. To the point that any women who decide to become stay at home wives and mothers are reviled in some feminist circles. They are looked at with contempt as an impediment to progress and women’s liberation. Sending women to work is one way feminism is trying to take down the patriarchy, by making sure that the traditionally masculine positions of power, such as political positions within a government, are taken away from men to establish a more equitable distribution of said power. It’s an active seizing of power by taking it from one source to give it to another. This is what feminism has always been about. But this seizing of traditional masculine power comes at the rejection of feminine power. Women only experience limited draw backs from this attempt, as they can always go back to what works for them, what nature as designed them for. It’s a win-win for them, they have nothing to lose, while men are left with nothing to hold on to and nothing to fall back on. So they either fight their way out by attacking feminism, which then in turn breeds more dislikes of men or they check out of social convention altogether (like marriage and fatherhood) since those institutions puts them at a disadvantage anyway.

While the intentions of fighting the patriarchy are good in theory, they are ill designed and misguided due to the fact that the patriarchy is more a theoretical concept than anything else. The concept can only be granted validity through the rejection of some dimensions of gendered relations, such as men’s willingness to help and protect women and by focusing solely on women’s perceived lack of privileges. The feminist stance of equality of outcome is a good example of misguidance made into social policies. Implemented to bring about a more egalitarian and gender neutral world, the real life repercussions are opposite of their intended purposed. Instead of diminishing the differences within the workplace, by making it easier for women to access domains traditionally reserved to men, it reinforced them. This is evident in the Scandinavian countries. The more people are helped and pushed to go outside their preferred gendered choice of careers, the more they went to them. And this happens because of a fundamental flaw in the concept of equality of outcome: a denial of gender imperative within the human body. The binary nature of the human specie has created distinctions between men and women that goes beyond the system of reproduction. They are physical and psychological. Those distinctions are ignored and rejected for the sake of the implementation of an ideology, through social reengineering. And I used the word “reengineering” because we already had a working system, though an imperfect one, that feminism saw fit to reorganise because they believe it to be geared toward advantaging men while disadvantaging women. Which, in some sense, is true but feminists see this structure as being a problem by looking only at the bad experiences they face at the hands of men, while conveniently ignoring their own toxic behaviors. They also ignore their own unique feminine power, having been told they don’t have any and that masculine power is the only true form of power one can possess.

The road to the top of the hierarchy has been facilitated for the sake of creating a more gendered balanced world that is compose of 50/50 man and women in as many jobs and domains has possible. The consequence of this is that men are left behind, not being physically design to compete with women on the feminine battlefield. Men have always had to rely on women to pass on their genes through reproductions and it’s always been within women’s own power to decide which men get chosen to reproduce with her. While yes, men have always used their strength and desire to and for dominance to keep others down by force (not just women), they’ve also understood and been in awe of women’s divine capabilities to give life. This is evident in the celebration of the female form since the arts has come about early in human’s history. Men also used to be celebrated for their unique abilities, which doesn’t really happens anymore since men are labelled the agents of an oppressive regime. Their used to be a collaboration between men and women, but the feminist’s insistence of reorganizing society has put an end to the celebration of men and instead replaced it with distrust, hatred and conflict. . The ironic part is that, in a feminized and gynocentrict world they have created, confident and appealing men, from a female perspective, have become a somewhat dying breed. Which leave women asking “where are all the good men gone?”

For many decades, feminists goals hasn’t been to achieve more good and fairness but to take what they never had, male power and to replace it with the feminine, which men, by their nature, are incapable of competing with. Women need to realise that having it all is a well-constructed illusion made to steer them in directions that might not even work for them and that it has more to do with being recruited into fighting for a misguided ideology than obtaining them rights and freedom, which they already own anyway. Third wave western feminism want to replace masculine power, not share it, because it has deemed men unworthy of wielding it. And this is due to an unfair characterization of all men being judged by the worst examples of their gender. I am not advocating for a return to traditional gender roles but for understanding and compassion for men. We need to work together toward creating solutions that will work for everyone. Compromise is necessary. And it cannot be possible as long as any groups has a lust for power and dominance. We need to restore cooperation and reject a harmful ideology that sees men and women as enemies of each other. Let the focus not be on the differences that divide us but on our common humanity.