The future of feminism is one of the most discussed, debated and written about topics on supposedly male-centered blogs. It seems that almost everyone from traditional CONservatives, alt-right morons, MRAs, game CONartists and followers of pretty much every other supposedly male-centric ideology want to see feminism fail. These people spend a lot of time coming up with scenarios under which their dreams would come true and try to interpret every new bit of information through their ideological blindfolds.. I mean goggles.

It is often hard to ignore the obvious parallels between them and those who believe in apocalypse-centered belief systems. Yet feminism keeps on winning more victories and expanding in its reach- even to parts of the world where it is relatively new and non-indigenous. And all of this brings us to a question that most people opposed to feminism seem to be incapable of answering with any significant degree of objectivity.

Why does feminism keep on winning and expanding its reach? and why do comparable male ideologies fail?

There are those who believe that the success of feminism is due to its support by international bankers or elites who are using it to further their own “super-secret” nefarious goals. Others see it as the result of “christian” men abandoning their supposed roles as “leaders” of the family. Yet other blame artificial female hormones in the water supply. I could go on and list many other equally peculiar and convoluted theories put forth to explain the success of feminism, but I am not in a mood for telling you any more fairy tales today. So let us look at the core elements of all these theories..

Most conventional theories about the success of feminism try to explain it as something “unnatural ” that is rammed down the throat of a reluctant society by some shady collection of small but “powerful” groups.

They want you to believe that the remarkable success of feminism is an “unnatural” aberration and somehow unsustainable without the constant and tireless efforts of shady elites or banal bureaucrats. But is that really the case? What is “natural” and what is “unnatural”? Is working in cubicles and living in suburban stucco boxes natural? Are nuclear families natural? Are corporations or “free markets” natural? Is capitalism natural? My point is that a lot of what these people strongly believe in is no less “natural” or “unnatural” than feminism.

Feminism is best seen as one of the eventualities of a larger systemic change that began with the industrial revolution.

But why is there no male equivalent of feminism? Sure, we have all heard about MRAs, alt-righters, MGTOW and PUAs- but none of them have been able to start a movement that is even remotely as successful as feminism. Now, I am sure that all of them have their own complex analysis of the factors underlying their repeated failures. But what if there is a far more straightforward and obvious reason for the failure of all these supposedly male-centric movements?

Here is my theory..

The incredible success of feminism (and popular support for it) comes down to the very basic membership criteria required to benefiting from its gains and victories. To put it another way- any woman can benefit from feminism. Sure.. women from some groups might benefit more than women from other groups, but in the end they are all better off than before. Being white, black, hispanic, asian, fat, thin, hot, ugly, hairy or smooth is secondary to being a woman- as far as benefiting from feminism is concerned. The beneficiary does not have to prove anything beyond their gender.

In contrast to the universal benefit provided by feminism, all of the supposedly male-centric movements want their members to prove that they are worthy or deserving of their membership. The CONservative morons want you to be religious and traditional, the alt-righters want you to be white, the game morons want you to white, buff, witty and so on. Isn’t it odd that people who cannot guarantee anything to their followers want so much from them.

But the bigger problem with all supposedly male-centric movements is a profound unwillingness to share the gains. It is about robbing others with the assistance of your followers and then stiffing those very followers instead of sharing the gains with them. Compare this to feminism, where the gains made by affluent white women in the earlier part of the feminist movement did not remain restricted to them and went on to benefit less affluent white and non-white women.

To summarize, feminism has been very successful because of the very low barriers for membership and universalization of benefits and gains for its members. The same is not true for supposedly male-centric movements and ideologies which have more in common with snake oil schemes and cults than anything vaguely resembling a coherent movement with long-term objectives.

What do you think? comments?