Now what do I mean by weasels? Well, I mean Feminists of course! When have I not been around to beat the snot out of this broken ideology? Oh yeah, during my blue pill days when I’d happily jump under a bus, but we’re getting off topic already.
So in debating Feminists I’ve found one really irritating thing about them (actually there are many irritating things about them but this one stands out); the amount of ducking, dodging, and weaseling out of charges and their general refusal to admit any wrongdoing or negative effects that Feminism has caused. I have a theory as to where this comes about, and it comes from both the automatic in-group bias that women have, and the core “ethics” (if one can call them that) that Feminism is built out of.
First let’s go over the automatic in-group bias. In a study done by the State University of New Jersey four experiments were done questioning whether or not women and men have automatic in-group biases. In the four experiments it was shown that women have a remarkably higher in-group bias and not only that, but in experiments with men and women present men favored WOMEN more than other men. Purdue University also did a similar experiment with similar results, and a quick Google search will pop up many more studies having similar results.
Now, why is this important? Because of the gendered language implicit in Feminism itself. I’ve gone over this before briefly that many people conflate the ideology of “Feminism” with “Female” or “Feminine” which I suspect was intentional in the very naming of the ideology itself. Making your ideology implicitly gendered towards femininity will help trigger the automatic in-group bias of women, and help reel in the men to do their protector roles for whenever Feminism comes under fire.
It’s interesting how they named the big bad social force that oppresses all after men (patriarchy) and the good, virtuous movement to free everyone after women (Feminism).
Now to address the “ethics” of Feminism, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Feminism finds that partiality is more valuable than universality. That right there helps prove the point that Feminism is an inherently hypocritical ideology. If you’re not to apply a concept universally you’re bound to fall right into hypocrisy.
For an example, if you peruse Jezebel or any other Feminist website you’ll notice that they constantly make reference that men’s behavior rarely (if ever) has any form of subtext. There’s always some hidden meaning behind something a man does, and it’s generally devious. Generally what will happen is Jezebel, and associates would attack the man, not on his actions but on his implied motives as they imagine them. So now let’s flip this on its head and talk about this in the idea of “hidden motives” being applied to women.
There’s never any shortage of the idea that “a woman should be able to dress how she wants and be treated with respect” amongst Feminist circles. Feminists claim that a woman dressing provocatively or what-have-you is only expressing her “freed sexual nature” and not trying to garner the attention of males. If a woman wears a fishnet top and a pair of shorts that require two haircuts to pull off, she’s wearing it because she wants to. No deeper meaning, no subtext, no nothing.
To a Feminist, a man perceiving a woman as a slut, or calling her one will lead to her getting raped, but a woman dressing herself like one has nothing to do with it. It’s always the fault of the man, and the woman had no choice in the matter and no agency. You just gotta love it when Feminism treats women as directionless children and ironically becomes incredibly misogynistic by denying women agency.
(Writers note: I’m not implying what does, and does not lead to a rape there’s evidence in both directions, I’m just pointing out Feminist logical hypocrisy.)
Feminists love to pivot the conversation so it fits their narrative even when it comes across as blatantly hypocritical. To them, men always have subtext or some deeper devious undertone, but women? Nope. Everything is to be taken at face value with no deeper readings required.
We also have the common held concept in Feminism that one of a specific class cannot see their own privilege and cannot understand how said privilege may impact the other side. This is commonly known as the “check your privilege” argument/deflection. Feminists will consistently assert that “women don’t have privilege because patriarchy,” and yet they don’t see the hypocrisy of saying to a man he cannot see his own privilege. When was the last time we stopped to ask if women had any privilege, or did we just assume they didn’t have any because they didn’t see any?
Feminists consistently Fem-splain (or Woman-splain) how men feel, or how they should feel in a situation and yet they cry like harpies when a man goes to them and tries to explain to them how he actually feels by dismissing it under the phrase “man-splaining.”
Is the common phrase amongst Feminists that “Misandry isn’t real,” or that Misandry is really “secondary Misogyny” not ridiculously hypocritical? Or perhaps their idea that men voicing concern or demanding that the pressing issues of men be addressed just another way to oppress women not a massive sense of projection? If Feminism applied this same logic to themselves universally instead of partially (i.e. non-hypocritical) then they would understand that men feel blamed for all of society’s ills thanks to patriarchy theory, and they’d understand that the gendering of the names of “Patriarchy” and “Feminism” would lead to people seeing men as dangerous oppressive brutes and women as infallible patrons of good.
With this partiality over universality it just shows that Feminists are not willing to hold themselves to the same standards they hold to society and that they want to have their cake and eat it as well. That’s not how the world works though. You can’t have some items be up for constant scrutiny and others be completely immune from scrutiny.
Even if you point all this out to a Feminist they’ll still duck and dodge around this trying to come up with more and more contrived reasons why women are oppressed, or something is somehow misogynistic. It really is quite astounding the mental gymnastics required to debate on a pro-Feminism front. As someone on reddit once said, debating Feminism is like sword fighting a fart.
If you are not willing to apply the same rules to yourself as you are to others then you’re not for equality. You’re for preferential treatment. I honestly can’t tell if Feminism is more sexist, hypocritical, or just both.