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 a few 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. There are simply some things that women are on average better at than men, and some things that men are on average better at than women.
After observing that exhausting female competency 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.
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 reject men applying for academic positions and prefer women to the point that today a woman in science and technology areas is twice as likely to be accepted as a man with equivalent qualifications and track record, and overall since the end of the 1990s women need half the number of publications as men to gain the same position (while facing no unique bias in peer-review of publications that might justify such a privilege), that is, the thousands of men who are better qualified than the female candidates but are not twice as qualified, are systematically rejected due to their sex despite being the better candidate; 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 over three-to-two decades 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, or an advantage in another kind of game also played by both; 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, to justify publicly the discrimination that denying any differences between the sexes would necessarily require, and make that discrimination seem moral, men have been described as evil, inevitably leading to the rise of the idea that “identical numbers” is anything but a moral goal – should you strive for numerical equivalence with evil? Following which feminism has become a supremacist ideology with hundreds of thousands of feminists extending the “identical 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”.
Does a term standing for such views represent 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 – a depiction that becomes inevitable when one needs to justify immoral discrimination as moral – 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 and violent against other women, 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 abandoned by society because of the feminist demand to idealize females through deletion of any wrongdoing by them so that men remain the sole source of any human suffering and demonized, for justifying publicly an entire set of discriminatory practices installed to circumvent the fact that the sexes are simply not entirely identical. 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 for 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 rights – becoming a chauvinistic movement that champions discrimination and has generated it. More often than not, feminism doesn’t even pretend to strive for equality. More and more feminism-sympathizers regress to the rationalization that society can afford not to use its best human capabilities, seeing a moral imperative in disabling men’s competencies by discrimination – the “imperative” of rectifying faceless numbers on a dehumanized chart as if men and women are not human beings but stripes on the bars of a histogram. There is a chauvinistic strata of society, so deeply immersed in privilege, that it truly believes that humanity is as disconnected from needs and reality as they are, so that 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 crippling masses of individuals to color bars. Almost all those who reject feminism do this because they support equality, feminism in the West standing for anything but equality.
Continue reading in Lovism: A Humanist Alternative to Feminism, available on amazon.