In my country, in the last five years, 56.6% of literary prize winners were women, specifically 150 women compared to 115 men. If we look at the percentages of women by year we see an advantage in all five years, until in 2019 it reaches 63%. In the most prestigious award in the country, 80% of winners in those five years were women. I guess there are other countries in a similar situation. Despite this clear advantage for women, a large, new prize which is open solely for women was recently announced. It was described as designed to balance discrimination. The award joins other awards that are closed for men. Yet, while an existing gap that favors women is widened by new discriminatory awards (to understand why the new awards constitute discrimination, imagine announcing a major literary award closed for women), feminist articles and posts fiercely claim that literary awards discriminate against women. How is this possible?
It seems that the only way to explain feminist critique in the face of an existing advantage for women, is if feminism defines equality not as we all thought it does – equal numbers of men and women in each field (a definition that in the first place ignores differences between the sexes in tendencies and aspirations) – but in a different way: as numerical equality in the cumulative sum of women and men, throughout history. If this is how feminist women define equality, it can have only one meaning: that feminists now aspire to create a new period by the end of which, ostensibly the summation of the future and the past will yield identical numbers.
But according to feminism, what created gaps throughout that past, was chauvinism. This means that to create a period of say, one-thousand years of inverted numbers, that when added to the past yield identical numbers (e.g., in literature, science, medicine, etc.), feminism will have to produce another millennium of what feminism called chauvinism, this time in the opposite direction.
It is very clear that feminists’ aspiration is to never declare that their goal had been reached when arriving there, and instead to continue striving for imbalance past the identical-numbers point, and then maintain the same pressure thus always widening the resulting gap.
Feminism continues to present itself as producing equality for every human being, or at least as striving to reach this. This self-image is reflected, for example, in how the UN regards feminism as an equality-driven, universalist and humanist agenda and sets feminism as a primary goal based on an interpretation of feminism as egalitarianism. In reality, as shown above for literature and below for many other areas, feminism vigorously strives to generate male inferiority in a given area and then to perpetually deepen the discrimination once created. It does so while explaining that “this only balances”, but for several years now the word “balances” evidently did not refer to the present, as most would have assumed.
Meaning discrimination by the word equality is not something taken out of obscure Facebook posts. It is implemented by the cultural establishments of the society we live in. A study published in 2015 found that women in the US were twice as likely to be accepted for an academic position in the science and technology professions (STEM) compared to men with the same background, which would clearly be chauvinism if the sexes were reversed (a feminist may want to justify this discrimination by arguing that it’s more difficult for women to get a research published and to accumulate a track record, but a study from last month revealed that women face no unique difficulty in passing peer review). Similarly, a study published in England that same year reported that women in their twenties earn on average over a thousand pounds more than men of the same age, which would again be regarded by feminism as pointing to chauvinism if the sexes were reversed. That last figure is not surprising, given the state of education: women are the majority of undergraduate and doctoral students, and there are elite institutions in the U.S. where 80% of all students are women. Given a disturbing statistic that appeared in a complaint filed in the U.S. about a particular institution that offers 300 scholarships for women and not one similar scholarship for men, the male inferiority in education may come as no surprise. The fact that feminism not only refrains from criticizing such discrimination, but is the one creating it, is explicable only if feminism is aspiring to create a period that when summed with some past (regarded in feminism as chauvinistic), would produce identical numbers. But according to feminism itself, the only way to produce such a period is if feminism sets out to create a new chauvinism.
This consistent attitude is what created discrimination in dozens of areas, and on top of it aggressive calls to promote women there. Such calls create in the public the impression that women are indeed discriminated in those domains, which then recruits public opinion to support making an existing discrimination even more severe, while regarding it as “supporting equality”.
The transition into a new chauvinism is seen in countless feminist actions of the past decade or two. For example, while feminism has always seen the clinical label of Hysteria as a chauvinistic measure of control toward women, and the diagnosis has not been in use for seventy years, today feminist thinking in psychology has created such labels for men, as the label Normative Alexithymia in Men, that defines men’s attitude to emotions as an impairment, instead of yet another and no less humane way than women’s to treat emotions. And while feminism treated the description of women in late 19th-century psychology as demeaning, in new guidelines from the American Psychological Association in the U.S. masculinity is now described by the word “harmful”, a term reserved in medical professions to describing risk factors for diseases, thus masculinity is described as a disease. Accordingly, the psychological milieu does not treat men as human beings to whom it must provide treatment according to their independent needs and expectations, but, as a product, to be built (the verb “build” comes directly from these references). Thus, a mirror-image of the society portrayed in the feminist narrative, one of social tracking of women, was created, only this time the social tracking does not exist merely in a feminist hypothesis about society but as an explicit and blunt statement by society. If one wishes to understand by which plan the product should be built, he should turn to women, not to the men themselves, again mirroring what feminism criticized, of men explaining to women what’s good for them which it dubbed “mansplaining”, this time with feminism doing just that to men. In particular, for the blueprint of the correct product one must turn to feminist women, who write in countless articles and posts how men should be “designed” for the needs of women (imagine a popular men’s movement openly dictating to women in 2021 how women should be designed to conform to men’s needs and whims with across-the-board institutional endorsement and implementation steps).
All these transitions in psychology toward a new chauvinism are again not surprising, considering that after psychology was a male field in the early 20th century and a similar number of men and women was generated by the 1990s, today a doctorate in psychology is given to women three times more than to men and 74% of new active psychologists are women, many of whom identify as feminists and frequently as radical ones (this expelling of men out of Psychology caused difficulty for patients who prefer a male therapist; in both sexes there is an equal number of people who prefer a therapist of their own sex, similarly to how some women prefer a female gynecologist – therapy is likewise a very intimate situation). And, as in literature, in psychology too the chauvinistic practice is repeated. After feminism has reached a proportion of women that in a reversed situation would have been regarded by feminism as discrimination, the call is to promote women in psychology.
The same pattern is observed in the media, where women have been a majority for a decade or more. Here too the call is to promote women, by finding micro-fields in which there is not yet a female majority, as sports broadcasts. Across Europe, women are a majority in technology and science positions; for example, in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania they are 69.2%, 65.5% and 65.6%, and women are also most of the scientists and engineers there. In the Middle East women are the majority of technology entrepreneurs. Yet the constant feminist call is to promote women in STEM professions.
When feminism finds a field in which the state of affairs fits it’s previous definitions for equality – identical numbers – as in the percentage of women in the workforce in the U.S., or in the workforce with a bachelor’s degree or higher, or among medical school students in the U.S. or among Swedish clergy, the headlines that report this always end with a “but”. An illuminating example is a recommendation given recently regarding the sex balance in boards that supervise dental care in the UK. While the findings were almost absolute numerical sameness when all boards in the country are taken together, the recommendation focused on those boards with sporadic male majority, ignoring those with the same sporadic female majority (which in a staggering number of cases reached no men at all, while no board had no women at all), and came out with a strict call to change what was defined as an imbalance and, appoint more women to boards. This is an instructive example of how feminism reaches it’s declared goal of identical numbers and then ignores it, to knowingly progress into continued discrimination. This consistent attitude is what created discrimination in dozens of areas, and on top of it aggressive calls to promote women there. Such calls create in the public the impression that women are indeed discriminated in those domains, which then recruits public opinion to support making an existing discrimination even more severe, while regarding it as “supporting equality”. Due to this feminist mode of operation, areas in which numerical similarity is currently observed as in medical students or the workforce with an academic degree, are expected to progress like the others into ever-growing, never-criticized discrimination.
It is very clear that feminists’ aspiration is to never declare that their goal had been reached when arriving there, and instead to continue striving for imbalance past the identical-numbers point, and then maintain the same pressure thus always widening the resulting gap. Aspiring to achieve such a reality – and after reading the figures there can be little doubt that this is the aspiration – is chauvinism.
In our present-day societies, feminism is chauvinism. Due to the lack of critical monitoring, the discrimination it creates is attenuated by nothing – this process is currently forming one of the most chauvinistic societies on record, this time of feminist chauvinism.
The only response in feminism to these alarming data is an argument by which men have most of the money and therefore most of the power. This argument stems from treating the difference between the total earned by all men in a country, and the total earned collectively by women, as a pay gap. This response ignores the fact that between unmarried men and women there is no gap – showing that the employment world does not discriminate in pay by sex; the fact that in the new generation there is a gap in favor of women in certain countries; and the fact that men’s earnings in married couples are part of women’s income and are under their control too (they are responsible for most financial expenditure). Feminists repeatedly present what is in fact an earnings gap, between two sum-totals, as a pay gap between individuals caused by society, to argue that nothing but anti-women discrimination could have generated the earnings difference, as a justification for the feminist relentless discrimination described above. This ignores the demonstrated fact that the difference in total earnings “per sex” is determined in western and westernized societies not by a different pay for the same job (which is illegal, extremely rare, and done to both sexes in the same rare frequency), but by the women themselves when making personal occupational choices, and through a preference of many, that their husband will earn for them a considerable part of their income and sometimes all of it, which is a perfectly legitimate choice, but most importantly – a choice, in a world that does not prevent any other choice, if anything it tries to push into making the other choice (while men have little to no influence on the decision and expectation of many women of all ages in the west, not to work or to work part-time and to expect the husband to provide income). More gravely, the earnings gap is presented to argue that men have more wealth and hence more power, however, the figures are that in the U.S. women control 60% of all wealth. At least for the country where this argument is given most frequently, the point feminists wish to make with it is not true in the first place – men do not control most of the wealth in that country.
In very few areas, occupied in each society by no more than a few thousands of individuals – such as the top ranks of politics, the very top of the business world, and the most basic scientific fields – there is a male majority. However, this is formed by differences between the sexes expressed in a tiny minority of the population, and by mild average differences in preferences, both factors coming into play only in rare circumstances. When we speak of differences between the sexes that manifest only in a tiny minority, we are referring to the fact that for a given human capacity there is a distribution in each sex of that ability (that is, we visualize a horizontal ruler with marks running from 1 to 100, and above each mark the number of individuals who have that level of the quality; a few would cluster above the lower levels, most somewhere in the middle, and a few at the top, forming together the famous bell curve). While the distribution of men overlaps with that of women almost entirely (same mean), the male distribution tends to be slightly wider than women’s. That is, between men, as in males of other species, there’s slightly more variability – imagine men and women as dogs and cats, cats tend to be more or less the same size, while dogs come in a very wide range of sizes – dogs have more variability, their size distribution is flatter and wider than cats’. This means, for example, that on the distribution of mathematical abilities, if we ignore the top 1%, then among the remaining 99% of humanity there will be little difference between the sexes (most men and women will be not that good at it, a more or less equal number of men and women will do okay, and some will be terrible and again in this group the number of men and women will be similar). But, within the top 1%, the vast majority will be male. Why? Because of the larger variability in the male population. Women are more “packed” around the average of the entire population, while the population of men is a little more spread to the edges – just a tiny bit more, which means that on the very edges of a distribution of a human capacity there will be more men – the furthest we’ll go to the edge, the higher the proportion of men we’ll find, and this has been shown to be true for both edges, that is, in the stupidest tip of the distribution you will have the same male majority.
Leaving aside politics for a moment (we will come back to that immediately), this means that the male majority in a tiny number of positions (such as physics, computer science or, say, philosophy), originates from innate differences expressed only on the furthest and thinnest edges of the male and female distributions (and in both sexes, the individuals on those margins may come from any background, impoverished or disadvantageous or entirely underprivileged; most of the time, they are not receiving nor developing their unique abilities through a “privilege”, but are simply born with it, and in societies that provide equal opportunity work their way up). It is thus not the result of lack of opportunity or some discrimination. The upshot is that the male majority within no more than a few thousands of positions mentioned above, cannot be changed by equal opportunity – truly equal opportunity will lead to a large male majority because there are simply more males on the very edges of the distribution of the relevant ability. The differences in those fields do not attest to discrimination and are not caused by it, they are caused by innate qualities of the human species – differences between distributions on the far end of capacities. The 99% are rather similar, but the top 1% has a composition of mostly males.
This state of affairs has pushed feminists in the past two decades to try and change the balance on the slimmest edges of the human distribution by crippling this incredibly small fraction of men, through an aspiration to holistically prevent this ridiculously small fraction of the male sex from realizing some personal talent by the marginalization of their entire sex, so that in tiny realms men’s numbers would be forcefully reduced, yielding an arbitrary “numerical balance”. This entire mindset is anti-humanistic. Marginalizing an entire sex is the very opposite of any notion of equality. The vision and practice of holistic marginalization is revealed as especially cruel and arbitrary, when one considers that most of those tiny areas where merely a few thousands men out of all men constitute a majority, lack any substantial influence – such as mathematics, or theoretical physics or chess. Just as gravely, aiming to deliberately cripple the talented simply because he is male, could never be justified as humanistic or egalitarian, certainly not by any movement that claims to advocate for and protect equal treatment regardless of sex.
In politics, which is indeed impactful, sex-balance is crucial. But the feminist approach of holistically marginalizing all men while showing women they will be preferred as “compensation” for inherent victim-hood (and based on what many if not most feminists perceive as a birth-given privilege due to innate female supremacy), has all but reduced women’s participation. After the 1970s, when India, England, Israel and other countries, had women leaders (who received their education before the term “feminism” was coined, with some speaking out against the term), since the 1990s women’s share in political leadership declined. The reason might be feminism’s banner – “prioritize yourself”, which may have instilled in women a self-centered perspective, the inverse of the mindset that sends people to politics – prioritizing society, wanting to make personal sacrifices for others. It’s possible that simply educating women for self-sacrifice for the benefit of all – which is what men are being taught (and, very likely, triggers an innate drive of males for self-sacrifice) – could create the much-needed balance in politics, rather than feminists trying to cripple all men to target a minuscule fraction of them while telling women they are “superior victims”, which had the opposite effect.
This leaves the feminist enthusiastic discrimination of men with no justification at all, unless one is a chauvinist, in which case she doesn’t require justifications – she is acting out of disregard for human equality. This, unfortunately, seems to be the case with feminists who attempt to defend the discrimination they have been vigorously promoting.
Feminists seem incapable of realizing this, but the only meaning of striving to balance historical differences with future inverted differences, is deliberate discrimination. When feminism tried to recreate a past that it claimed to criticize, it created chauvinism. This is not an assertion taken out of an abstract, philosophical debate. This is our reality. In our present-day societies, feminism is chauvinism. Due to the lack of critical monitoring, the discrimination it creates is attenuated by nothing – this process is currently forming one of the most chauvinistic societies on record in the West, this time of feminist chauvinism. Today when you are supporting feminism you are not supporting equality, you are supporting chauvinism. The support of human equality to all is called Humanism, not feminism. Humanism – equality for all – of both sexes and with any other personal trait – is what creates equality. Feminism had long retracted from universal humanism to become a chauvinistic movement.
When feminism was adopted as a universal theory of equality as the UN was made to regard it, it became chauvinism, as exemplified here, because men were never included in feminism as human beings, only as a “force” to be defeated.
Today’s society is in an internal struggle and in a period of transition: there are ancient islands of old male chauvinism, usually in traditional religious enclaves; and there are new vast territories of female chauvinism. There is no island, where a domain of human equality for every human being has been established, with the aim of expanding this domain to other parts of society. An egalitarian society is a society that provides to all its members equal rights and protections in all areas of life. And there is no such a society today, only two chauvinisms.
The reason is that there has never been an equality movement for the relations and relationships between the two sexes that belongs to both equally and is meant for both the same way. Humanism was created for everyone and includes everyone, but, it rarely referred to the relationship between the sexes, since in its formative years in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it articulated the relationship between the individual and the state, and less so between individuals. Feminism did refer to relations between individuals, but, it does not include everyone – it is created for women, it is worded from women’s point of view and does not include men. When feminism was adopted as a universal theory of equality as the UN was made to regard it, it became chauvinism, as exemplified here, because men were never included in feminism as human beings, only as a “force” to be defeated. Men were never seen in feminism as humans. These humans, were only “the patriarchy”. Their humanity and human needs are not part of the framework now seen as “the universal theory of equality for every human”, except for the womansplaining of men by radical feminists, who are concerned only with shaping men as a product to satisfy women’s needs and whims (and at that, as radical feminists describe them).
I have described in the book Lovism a perception of equality of both sexes intended for both sexes. Only such a common, shared, mutual and reciprocal perception can create a new domain in society that does not exist in it yet: the equality domain.
I don’t believe there is such a thing as men’s rights, nor do I believe in the existence of women’s rights – there are only human rights, that every human has and should be able to realize, including both women and men. Some societies and parts of societies bar individuals – sometimes according to innate traits – from realizing their rights, this is a form of chauvinism. Every human being should stand up for human rights and resist chauvinism, whether the chauvinism is of men or of women, and regardless of what excuses the chauvinists may give for their chauvinism, as all chauvinisms come only from the release of violent urges; there are no “justified” chauvinisms.
This website is not sponsored by any business or authority, and operates only thanks to the support of people like you. To help it continue publishing articles like this one, download the book Lovism by clicking the link to Amazon (the preview is for free), or add a token of appreciation through Patreon via the link below. Thank you!
Download the book Lovism: A Humanist Alternative to Feminism
Support this website via Pateron at www.patreon.com/henryblair