Its time to deal with an elephant in the room - I have some major criticisms of modern feminism. Before you tune me out for pushing over the sacred cow of feminism, let me explain.

Criticism of feminism isn’t criticism of women



Feminism is a political ideology/movement.

Women are a biological people group.‭



Criticizing feminism does not mean someone is anti-women,‭ ‬much like criticizing the Democratic Party does not mean someone is anti-democracy and criticizing the Communist Party does not mean someone is anti-community.‭ ‬Sadly,‭ ‬in the current political climate any criticism of feminism almost always results in knee-jack accusations of misogyny. This is one of the ways feminism protects itself from legitimate criticism.

I am not a misogynist. I am strongly opposed to bigotry. I am a very strong believer in gender equality.‭ ‬I believe that the lives of men and women hold equal inherent value.‭ ‬I think men and women should have equal rights and privileges under the law.‭ In fact,‭ ‬it is because of these beliefs that I so often criticize feminism.

Feminism doesn’t‭ “‬own‭” ‬women,‭ ‬nor does it always‭ (‬or even regularly‭) ‬act in their best interests.‭ ‬Mary Koss and Ms.‭ ‬Magazine certainly didn’t help American women by terrifying them with the questionable statistic that‭ 1‭ ‬in‭ ‬4‭ ‬of them would be raped if they risked obtaining an undergraduate degree. Eve Ensler and One Billion Rising aren’t helping women by spreading the seemingly invented statistic that “1 in 3 women on the planet will be beaten or raped during her lifetime.” Although the word “misogyny” has been diluted by feminists to mean almost anything, it could certainly be argued that these actions are misogyny (or at least callousness toward women) of the highest order. Modern feminism routinely deceives and terrifies women to fill them with the fear and rage necessary for feminists to gain and maintain political power. Feminism may treat men like demons, but it also treats women like puppets.

You can’t examine gender issues and their statistics without examining feminism.

Initially, I was hesitate to directly criticize feminism. I just wanted to debunk statistics. If that meant feminists looked bad, so be it. However, the more I examine bad statistics on gender, the more it becomes apparent that feminists are often their source, or at least a great contributing force in their creation and spread. I’m not just looking to explain why so many alarming statistics on gender issues are wrong. I want to explore why these statistics are created in the first place.

Furthermore, it is impossible for fully understand the danger of these false statistics pose without also understanding some of the danger modern feminism poses to actual gender equality and society as a whole. False statistics very often fuel feminist activism.

I also want to explain why I have such a low opinion of feminism, why feminism is very clearly not simply a belief in gender equality, why feminist ideology is inherently bigoted, and why I view the presence of feminism as a problem in research on gender issues.

Feminism is a movement and an ideology, not a dictionary definition

Feminists has been very successful in marketing feminism as simply a belief in gender equality. Feminists will often deflect criticism against feminism by hiding behind a dictionary definition of feminism rather than addressing what feminists actually do. Emma Watson gave an excellent example of this in her speech promoting feminism for the launch of the UN’s HeforShe campaign:

“…the more I spoke about feminism, the more I realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop.



For the record, feminism by definition is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of political, economic and social equality of the sexes.”

Of course, Emma Watson’s definition doesn’t specifically mention the many questionable ideological beliefs central to modern feminism. Feminist “patriarchy theory” claims that men as a class oppress women as class for the benefit of men. Feminist “rape culture” maintains that society encourages/allow men to rape women (even though rape is illegal and rapists are some of the most hated criminals). The belief in “male privilege” contends that men are afforded special privileges over women (often ignoring that women have the same, if not more, legal rights and privileges then men do in many, if not most, nations).

Watson’s definition of feminism as being for gender equality doesn’t explain why ‬the U.S.‭ ‬National Organization for Women (NOW) has campaigned for decades against fathers having equal shared custody of their children after divorce.‭ That doesn’t seem like “equality of the sexes” to me. Is one of the oldest,‭ ‬largest,‭ ‬most influential feminist organizations in the U.S.A.‭ not representative of feminism‭? This is just one of many example of feminists actively working against gender equality.

Feminism is not a dictionary definition - it is an ideology and a political movement.

Feminist as an ideology - inherently misandric

As I mentioned, modern feminism includes ideological tenets,‭ ‬often disingenuously referred to as‭ “‬theories” and cloaked in pseudo-academia.‭ These ideological beliefs expand feminism far beyond (and away from) a simple belief in gender equality.

One of the most notable is‭ “‬patriarchy theory.” (also sometimes known as ‬patriarchal dominance or male dominance theory) ‬ Patriarchy theory seems to be the highly questionable and frankly bigoted belief that men as a class have always and continue to oppress women for the perceived benefit of men. It assumes that men are in some way inherently evil or broken.

I only say “seems” because feminists are notoriously vague about what the “patriarchy” actually is. Is it a unconscious social construct? A kind of male-only original sin? A secretive cabal of men? Does it include all men? Only rich men? Only white men? Feminist definitions appear to differ and change at a moments notice.

Regardless, the “patriarchy” is always treated as a bad thing and the need to destroy it is ever-present, if the not the central goal of feminism. How that actually will occur is a point of debate, especially since what the patriarchy actually is often unclear. It seems to often involve some how drastically changing men psychologically, increasing the number of women (or more specifically feminist women) in supposed positions of power or giving women special privileges. More “radical” feminists may even claim it involves completely separating women and men, destroying the nuclear family, or some how reducing the male population.

I maintain my definition of patriarchy theory fits the practical working definition that most feminists actually use. They may claim I don’t understand patriarchy theory (feminists often claim someone doesn’t understand feminism when that person points out an inconvenient aspect of feminism or makes a valid criticism), but they would struggle to prove my definition was actually invalid.

Indeed, the vagueness of “patriarchy theory” is what makes it useful for feminists. Practically speaking, the “patriarchy” acts as feminist double-speak/double-think. Replacing “men” or “maleness” with “patriarchy” allows feminists to both internally and externally be anti-male without‭ admitting it others (or even themselves). It also allows feminists with different levels of anti-male bigotry to work toward common goals. It’s a bit easier to sell “smash the patriarchy” than “smash the men.” Patriarchy theory allows feminism to paradoxically portray itself as a gender equality movement, while acting as an anti-male hate movement.

Feminist arguments for patriarchy theory

Feminists attempt to support the idea of a “patriarchy” with a combination of bad research, exaggerations, lies and selective misinformation. Complex cultural/social situations are distorted into myopic examples for their women oppressed/male oppressor world view. For example, a feminist might point out the majority of elected politicians in the U.S. are male as evidence of patriarchy. However, the feminist would likely neglect to mention that women have been the majority of voters in the U.S. since the 1960s.

The feminist would also likely not mention other refuters of a supposed patriarchy in the U.S. The feminist would likely neglect to mention that women were given the right to vote in many places by an all-male elected all-male legislature. Why would a “patriarchy” ever do such a thing? The feminist may even claim that other refuters, such as male-only conscription in the U.S., are actually some how “male privilege”.

There are many more refutations and arguments against the feminist belief in a “patriarchy.” However, anyone who has questioned feminist patriarchy theory has probably noticed that feminists are very resistant to any evidence that women are not actually horribly oppressed. Shouldn’t feminists be happy to learn that 1 in 4 college women are, in fact, not being raped?

In general, feminists are not happy when such statistics and misinformation are debunked (especially if they helped create or promote them). This is because these faulty statistics and misinformation are often not what makes them believe in the oppression of women. Under patriarchy theory, female oppression by men is a central article of faith for feminists. Oppression of women is also inherent - women can never not be oppressed by “the patriarchy” in some way. It is the basis of their world view. The faulty statistics and misinformation are just tools feminists use for recruitment and for justifying their actions. They are normally not happy when these tools are taken away.

Feminist Bias

Patriarchy theory is one of the reasons why I consider use of feminist theory in reports and studies as bias. As I mentioned, belief in a “patriarchy” is not a true theory, but an faith-based ideological world view that affects your ability to see things objectively or rationally. That is the very definition of bias.

Furthermore, this bias means feminism cannot be a gender equality movement because feminist ideology supports a false and bigoted understanding of gender relations. It would be like a white supremest group claiming to be a racial equality movement.

However, feminist marketing has been so successful that many people believe they must label themselves “feminist” to be seen as pro-gender equality. Many of these people do not know about feminist ideology. When confronted with the ideological bigotry central to modern day feminism, they may claim that “their feminism” does not hold these beliefs. The problem is that once these non-ideological feminists enter any feminist activism, they become a cog in a machine that furthers misandric feminist ideology, regardless of whether they actually believe it or not.

Other feminist beliefs

I have focused on the feminist belief in patriarchy because it is central to modern feminism. However, there are many other questionable beliefs within modern feminism: notions of “toxic masculinity”, the insidious “male gaze,” feminist standpoint theory, political lesbianism, etc. There are far too many to cover here. There are also an incredible array of ideological flavors of feminism. The one of the most well-known is radical feminism, which really doesn’t seem that “radical”, since “mainstream” feminism often seems to follow, support, or at least not condemn it.

Feminism as a movement

Feminism is also not just an abstract ideology. It is also a political movement that is defined by the actions of its adherents.‭ I already mentioned the NOW’s crusade against fathers. Despite claiming to support gender equality, feminists often exhibit frighteningly extreme double-standards for men and women.

There are many other examples of feminist hypocrisy. ‬Feminists decry anything that is even conceivably misogynist, but often treat blatant misandry as acceptable, irrelevant or as a joke.

Feminists portray the minority of violent men as representative of patriarchal norms (and thus all men), while excusing the minority of violent women as isolated individuals or even driven to violence by patriarchal oppression.‭

In many ways, feminists enable violent women. Feminists continue to be advocates for the “battered wife” legal defense, which basically gives women a license-to-kill male intimate partners. Feminists warn us about abusive fathers,‭ ‬but lobby to defend female child murders.‭ Feminists idolize Valerie Solanas, who wrote a book calling for campaign of terrorism, gender-cide and enslavement against men as well as attempting to murder three men in cold blood. The popular feminist Diluth Model of domestic violence treatment portrays domestic violence as an effect of male patriarchal dominance and does not allow for the possibility of female perpetrators of violence despite a great deal of research showing that women are just as violent as men in relationships.

Feminists heavily criticize anyone they perceive as possibly “silencing” them, ‬but readily censor ideas and people they don’t like. The feminist organization WAM! pressured both Facebook and Twitter (for which it now permanently acts as a moderator) into widespread censorship of user content. Feminist censorship is even more aggressive in the EU, where feminists have tried to censor the internet and make “anti-feminist” speech illegal.

Feminists also do plenty of censoring outside of internet, disrupting events discussing gender issues from a non-feminist viewpoint or simply ideas they don’t like. Mobs of feminists have drowned out speakers with shouting/noisemakers, blocked entrance to events, launched propaganda campaign against speakers, harassed attendees, clashed with police and pulled fire alarms to force building evacuations. Erin Pizzey, a pioneer in the field of domestic violence, fled her home country because of threats of violence from feminists. Her offense? Maintaining that women also commit domestic violence and that domestic violence was not caused by “patriarchy”.

‬Feminists spread unfounded worries that men’s rights activists are violent. Meanwhile, they do little to condemn the violent behavior of feminists such as Femen, an international feminist organization that physically assaulted the head of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as other religious figures, attacked a female fashion model, destroyed a national memorial with a chainsaw, threatened to hunt down “and castrate” men and faked the kidnapping of a priest.

Again, these are just a few examples from long list of feminists’ appalling and frightening misdeeds.

But not all feminists are like that…right?

When confronted with examples such as these, feminists have several responses. Sometimes they will try to shift the blame toward the “patriarchy”, trying to claim current feminist misdeeds some how justified by (sometimes long past/invented) transgressions against women. They may simply claim these feminists somehow are not representative of feminism. This is often a No True Scotsman fallacy. As I pointed out with NOW, this is not simply a matter of a few bad apples. More importantly, it seems like the “good” feminists are doing to little to condemn the “bad” ones.”

I think some feminists really are just and fair-minded people. They are just ignorant of the deception, bigotry and hypocrisy within modern feminism. Unfortunately, while they may claim their own personal‭ ‬feminism‭ ‬isn’t “like that,”‭ ‬they often still aid the feminism that is‭ “‬like that.‭” ‬They don’t realize the‭ “‬feminism‭” ‬silently locked in their minds doesn’t matter.‭

‬What matters is the feminism with active political power.‭ ‬The mainstream feminism that self-described‭ “‬equity feminist‭” ‬Christina Hoff Sommers has spent her life trying to save from deceptive misandrists with little success.‭ ‬It really doesn’t matter how many‭ “‬good‭” ‬feminists are on deck,‭ because it’s the bad ones steering the ship.

How it all connects - a feminist-industrial complex?

U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the dangers the “military-industrial complex” - a dangerous cycle of money and power between the military, private defense industry and government that needs war to sustain itself. However, the more it feeds, the bigger it gets and the more war it needs to sustain itself. Eventually, the complex’s out-of-control hunger for war could create a military that sought to promote war rather than maintain peace.

Today, we seem to have a kind of “feminist-industrial complex” fueled, not by war, but by misinformation on the oppression of women and further greased by a natural human instinct to protect women. Feminists collect misinformation on the oppression of women, often from feminist researchers. They use this misinformation to gather support and money to build organizations. Then feminists need more (and often more sensational) misinformation to maintain and expand these organizations.

Politicians often support these feminists, even if they are not feminist themselves. They may not know much about feminism and believe it is simply about gender equality. They also don’t want to risk being smeared as misogynists. They can use the (exaggerated or often invented) issues feminists bring them to court female voters (the largest voting demographic in many places). They can even slander opponents legitimately skeptical of feminist claims as misogynist. This all has allowed feminists not only huge amounts of government funding (the U.S. Violence Against Women Act alone provides 1.6 billion dollars) and support, but also positions (normally unelected bureaucratic appointments) within government.

This has created a system that not only spreads feminist ideology and feminist agendas, but also provides a primary source of income for people who have turned feminism into their career. There is a lot of money and power to be made through the feminist narrative and lot of risk in criticizing it. Its often hard to tell whether an individual’s interests are chiefly financial, ideological, political or some combination of the three.

The Danger

Aside from demonizing men and terrifying women, the danger of all this is that feminist ideology and propaganda start to poison society’s ability to rationally understand and effectively respond to important issues. This is currently especially true in rape and domestic violence prevention.

I mentioned the feminist Duluth Model, which really doesn’t acknowledge male victims (or even female victims of lesbian-partners) of domestic violence. Why does it do this? It doesn’t make sense if your goal is to help victims of domestic violence. It doesn’t even make sense if you are just trying to make money. Double the victims could mean double the funding. It only makes sense when you realize that male victims (and even female victims) of female perpetrators go against the feminist “patriarchy” narrative, which hurts the utility of domestic violence as a feminist tool. Similarly, feminists dismiss, ignore, or hide male victims of female rapists. Of course, this is all in addition to other tactics used to inflate or invent female victimization.

Again, these are some examples. I haven’t even really touched feminist jurisprudence and feminist legal theory - feminism’s quest to make the entire legal system conform to fit its ideology. I also haven’t mentioned feminism’s assault on education and the very concept of knowledge through feminist curriculum reform and feminist epistemology.

Conclusion: Modern Feminism is not about gender equality, its about bigotry.

In summary, modern feminism is not a gender equality movement, it is largely an anti-male hate movement. Modern feminism is rotten at its core because ideology central to modern feminism is misandric. The actions of many powerful feminists are not only morally questionable (if not simply vile), but often actually create gender inequality. To maintain justification for these acts and political power, feminists needs a constant supply of sensational misinformation on the oppression of women. This is why feminism so often has a hand in creating and promoting the bad research on gender issues I debunk on this blog. This is far from a complete criticism of everything wrong with modern feminism, but it should give you an idea why I consider feminism a negative force in gender related research and and often society at large.