A thought experiment for a feminist

Most girls and women who identify as feminists believe in good faith that feminist perceptions are meant to improve the relations between the sexes, for women or even for men. They are unaware that the principles disseminated to them are in fact formulated to bring about the cessation of sexuality. As a result of this lack of awareness, many are unable to see how feminism ends the relations between the sexes. For the benefit of the feminist reader then, the next thought experiment is offered.

We’ll sit at a bar and play a game. You will need to initiate with guys. There are two rules to the game: the first is that you’ll have to tell me in advance if a guy that you decided to approach wants you to approach him, or not. The second is that if you make a mistake, and it turns out that someone didn’t want you to talk to him, you’ll be punished: you will have to donate $50 to an organization of my choice, and with each additional rejection your donation will grow, five-fold. For the first rejection you will donate $50, for the second $250, for the third $1,250, and so on. Since it’s easier for a woman to convince a man to give her his phone number or to have a drink with her, we will try to bring the guy to exhibit a slightly more demanding gesture – you will attempt to make him go out and get you a pack of cigarettes (it could be chewing gum if that’s what you like), with his phone number on it. This will be considered non-rejection (trust me – to get someone to leave a pub and go out to find you an open kiosk, and come back, you need to be someone he likes. If you were looking for a way to know, here you go). If by the end of the evening you get that pack of cigarettes (or gum), you win.

In this game, we are reproducing for you what feminism claims would heal the relations between the sexes – fear. Your theory as a feminist is that if feminism sufficiently increases the fear and risk for men who want to initiate with a girl or a woman, men will be forced to “increase sensitivity”, until they will make no mistakes, and will initiate only with whomever wanted them to approach her. Thanks to your belief that this theory can be applied in the real world, you allow yourself to disqualify any possibility of mistake. You demand a world where a guy never initiates with a girl, or makes a romantic or sexual suggestion, or touches her sexually when the dial on the invisible clock on the wall points to a sexual moment when he looks at it, or kisses a girl when the dial points to a spontaneous or romantic moment as far as he can tell from where he’s sitting, whereby in retrospect it turns out that she didn’t want the initiative. If someone didn’t want the initiative, you immediately define this as sexual harassment or assault, and punish. According to feminist theory, you have every right to define an initiation as a sexual assault solely on the grounds of the woman or girl not wanting to be approached, even if it was done with the best intentions and in legitimate ways, and even if the guy, like most men, had immediately accepted the rejection and left. Since your theory assumes that intimidation can cause people to increase sensitivity to a point of never being wrong, in your mind it is a realistic expectation for the relations between the sexes that there will be no unwanted approaches of any kind.

We’ll start the game. In line with the first rule, in each round, you’ll tell me who do you think wants you to approach him – you will place your bet – and approach the guy to get his phone number. We’ll sit there all evening, so you’ll get a chance to approach at least a dozen guys, and if necessary we’ll move to another bar. With each rejection, the sums you will lose will increase, exponentially. To illustrate, the fifth guy who rejects you will leave you with a debt of $31,250. By increasing the risk that you take with each attempt, we will try to develop in you enough sensitivity so that eventually you will have no mistakes. According to your theory, when your risk will be severe enough, you will be scared enough, so that finally at some fear-level, whenever you’ll see a guy sitting in the dark at the back of a room you’ll know in advance without ever talking to him whether he is to say yes or no. This is your theory – the feminist theory.

How about it. When you get to the point of being afraid that you won’t be able to pay rent this month, will you stop making mistakes? When you’ll reach the fear that you’ll have to give up your university degree, will then your fear be sufficiently severe to prevent you from making the mistake of choosing to approach a guy who turns out to be someone who didn’t want your advance, causing you to be penalized? If by the end of the evening you’d reach a concrete fear that you will bear the price of this evening for the rest of your life, will then, at long last, you will be in a position to never make mistakes and will approach only those who wanted you to approach them?

Does creating fear by increasing the risk of making a mistake in good faith, produce, as feminism seeks to believe, “sensitivity” to the degree of mind-reading? Or, are there things that can pass only in direct communication between human beings, making it impossible to decide that this very communication, in and of itself, when done with good intentions and without intent to harm, is violence just because the person declined it?

And now we arrive at the practical experiencing part of our thought experiment: what if the experimental settings were not a game, but your life? What if we were to reach a level of risk where you can’t go wrong even once, because the price will be everything you have and will ever have. We will reach this by risking the rest of your life as you know it – all your dreams, your relationship with all your acquaintances, your work. In the new game (“The Feminism Game”), if you make one mistake in that pub, if one guy rejects you and can say “I didn’t want her to approach me”, letters will be sent to your workplace to get you fired, you will be shamed as a sex offender among everyone who knows you, a message will be distributed in every field you work in so you’ll never find work again – and this will happen after you approached that guy in the nicest most pleasant way, because the only thing that matters is that he didn’t want you to make an advance, and you did. In the feminism game, the price of one mistake is everything. Will this make you never make mistakes? Will you develop “enough sensitivity”? Or, assuming you do not possess telepathic abilities, will a game where one wrong guess will cost everything, leave you with only one way to survive it: never approach. 

The description given above is not an approximation. This is the physical, concrete, material, real, actual, everyday, regular, ordinary state that feminism has placed all men in. And when men do not initiate, women do not take their place – Chapter 9 of the book Lovism explains why. Do you understand now how feminism has stopped the relations between the sexes? And, why feminism, not technology, is what generated the wave of disconnect and loneliness of both sexes?

The creation of a high enough risk for an initiation, does not increase sensitivity to the level of mind reading. It stops the relations between the sexes.

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!

Free preview

1 thought on “A thought experiment for a feminist”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s