When equality was reached between the 1970s and the 1990s in the West, it did not generate equal numbers of men and women in each and every domain. The failure to reach identical numbers through equal opportunity and equal cultivation, was a result of men and women having different aspirations in various aspects of life, and, of men and women having different competencies in certain domains. Simply put, given absolute equality, on average, men and women will not finish in each and every realm in equal numbers. While in most matters the sexes will be rather similar, women will have an advantage in some areas and men in others, not because of any bias, but simply because of innate traits. Even when attempting to provide unequal advantages to compensate for differences (a practice termed Equity, which pertains, for example, to encouraging girls more than boys in certain ways), the reality remained one of differences in outcomes in some areas. There are simply some things that women are on average better at than men, and things that men are on average better at than women.
After observing that exhausting female competence under equal terms did not yield equal numbers in each and every domain, and because feminism forcefully adheres to the thesis that men and women are identical, feminists decided to reach the identical numbers by different means – oppressing male competence. Much like a short basketball player who, when failing to jump high enough to dunk equally well as his opponent, decides instead to break the opponent’s legs to reach an equal number of dunks, feminism turned to a new strategy for creating the equal numbers: disabling men.
Feminists have defined human rights and equal opportunity as “privileges” when given to men equally, so these could be denied. Consequently, the feminist vision was that women will reach equal numbers in all domains through handicapping the men. Since the 1990s, feminists have been deliberately educating boys to feel incompetent and faulty; dozens of studies have shown that female teachers in feminist societies would give lower grades to boys for same performances as girls; in universities feminist women have aspired to create a violent atmosphere against men through internal tribunals and indoctrination; feminists in academy have pressured institutions to systematically prefer women with half the accomplishments of men with equivalent qualifications for academic positions; in workplaces feminists have generated a new organizational culture that defines male direct communication as violence and used the new culture to discontinue men’s employment or promotion. This was all dubbed “empowering women”, while in fact it increasingly became the active handicapping of men, so that women could match them in those domains were competencies are simply not identical – “breaking the opponent’s legs to match his dunks” (the shorter player in this analogy might have advantages that the taller one doesn’t, such as swiftness; yet he wants the other player to have no equivalent assets, since for him the goal is inflicting a defeat, upon a rival, not reaching equality with a friend). Predictably, these practices created inequality, and currently men are a fading minority in an ever-expanding list of domains with the gap continuously growing. This was achieved through systematic discrimination, bias and denial of equal opportunity and equal human rights of individuals based on their sex. This is the definition of chauvinism.
Feminism, is chauvinism. Feminism is not a statement of equality but of discrimination. Feminist chauvinism is so wide-spread in Westernized societies that by now more often than not it doesn’t even pretend to strive for equality, but rather, more and more feminism-sympathizers adhere to the idea that society can afford not to use its best human capabilities, and that therefore disabling men’s competencies by discrimination is a moral imperative. There is a detached, chauvinistic strata of society, so deeply immersed in privilege that it truly believes that in the West, the human endeavor to use all of humanity’s best competencies to survive, to reach The Good and reduce The Bad, can be replaced with a deliberate crippling of individuals by their oppression, to glimpse at a chart showing “equal numbers”. All this, while these could not even be equal numbers in the first place, if they were to be attained by systematic discrimination and bias, could they?
To justify the discrimination publicly and make it seem moral, men have been described as evil, which inevitably led to the rise of the idea that “equal numbers” is anything but a moral goal – should you strive for numeric equivalence with evil? Following which, feminism has become a supremacist ideology, with hundreds of thousands of feminists extending the “equal numbers” objective to supporting complete exclusion of men, or utter annihilation, either of men or of manhood, as this would be cleansing humanity of “evil”.
Is a term standing for such views representing equality? Is rejecting a term representing such a stance is the rejection of equality? Equality means that no individual will be treated differently based on qualities that are irrelevant to the subject matter, such as his or her sex, either favorably or unfavorably, and that all will be treated solely according to their qualities. The reluctance in feminism to acknowledge that the sexes are not identical, made it attempt to enforce identical numbers by systematically treating individuals differently based on their sex – the very opposite of equality. This is not an abstract notion. Maintaining the supremacist image of women as perfect beings to depict men as the source of all evil, required denying that boys can be raped by female teachers or that husbands can suffer violent abuse by wives; that female managers may sexually harass male employees or that children, men and women may be murdered by women; that women can be sexist against men or that laws with a female-centric viewpoint may be so radically discriminatory that they will cause a pandemic of suicides. These are millions of human lives being abandoned by society because of the feminist demand to idealize females and demonize males, as a means for justifying an entire set of discriminatory practices installed to rectify faceless numbers on a dehumanized chart. The demand to be a feminist, as if this is merely a basic statement of support in equality, reflects at best deep ignorance and detachment, and at worst manipulative, violent hypocrisy.
There is a term for supporting equality to all, and that term is Humanism. The objection to feminism is almost always a humanist one, and is the moral response to the dismissal of universal equality. Feminism’s inability to acknowledge that the essence of equality is equal opportunity and equal cultivation, and not identical numbers, caused it to respond to a reality in which under equal terms there will be a difference in numbers in a few domains simply because the sexes are not identical, with a methodical violation of the very essence of equality – equal opportunity and equal cultivation – becoming a chauvinist movement that champions discrimination and has generated it. Almost all those who reject feminism, do this because they support equality, feminism standing for anything but equality.
This site and blog require your support to keep running. Please consider favorably purchasing the book Lovism: A Humanist Alternative to Feminism, where you can read more about the subject, and support the website by the purchase. You can click the Amazon link for a free preview. Thank you!