I am not, I repeat, I am not an expert on feminism. I never read The Feminine Mystique, paid attention to the press releases of the National Organization for Women, or got caught up in the debates on abortion, contraception or the glass ceiling. Such things were completely off my radar. To me, feminism was a niche philosophy, like veganism or Buddhism that a small minority practiced to make them feel superior to the masses.

Buddhists feel superior to the masses because only they are enlightened to the truth of the Eightfold Path. Vegans feel superior to the masses because only they recognize the needless slaughter of innocent animals for human sustenance. Feminists feel superior to the masses because only they take seriously the patriarchal oppression and humiliation women endure.

I totally get this. I get it because I believe in libertarianism and it makes me feel superior to the close-minded masses that graze like sheep on whatever the powers that be are selling at the moment. My libertarianism lets me see through this, which makes me better. I am really, really, really awesome.

In that light, as a fellow niche thinker, I totally get why a woman would want to be a feminist. It makes her feel superior. And as a libertarian, I was perfectly content to let them, “Do as thou wilt,” in the immortal words of Hagbard Celine, while I ignored them as inconsequential. Then everything changed when I read an article on the Internet by leading feminist thinker Hanna Rosin.

Fantasy football and Netflix not withstanding, my Internet consumption consists of reading sports, business and technology articles. I am not much interested in the daily news and couldn’t care less about pop culture. It was the insightful tech articles of a writer named Farhood Manjoo that brought me to the website Slate. Because advertising, which is paid by the click, funds the free Internet headlines have a vested interest in being catchy. When navigating Slate, I often clicked on the catchy headlines.

What I noticed over time is lots of these headlines led me to a sub-genre on Slate called the XX Factor. As it turned out, the XX Factor happened to be a website devoted to feminism, purporting to write about, “What women really think.” As I read these articles on, “What women really think,” I always got a chuckle or two out of the hypocritical logic they contained. It was like reading Jonathan Swift’s masterful satire A Modest Proposal on a daily basis. The difference was Swift’s satire was knowingly a bit of illogical shockery, while the feminists shockery was unknowingly illogical. It was like when a person with no sense of humor says something funny and does not understand why people are laughing, which only makes the joke funnier still. Then I read the article by Hanna Rosin and everything I thought about feminism changed.

I did not find it funny at all. I was disgusted.

In July 2012 a nut job in black walked into a movie theater in Aurora, CO armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. I won’t write his name because that’s exactly what he wants — fame. In the minutes that followed he murdered 12 people and injured 70 others. Wikipedia notes on the casualties that night that “Three of the victims (Jonathan Blunk, Matt McQuinn, and Alexander Teves) died to protect their girlfriends.” In her article on the DoubleX, how did feminist Hanna Rosin interpret the act of heroism by these three men?

On the Today show interview, Jansen Young, the girlfriend Blunk saved, mentioned that Jonathan was thinking about re-enlisting in the Navy. She attributed that to his undying heroism, but it may also have to do with the fact that he, like a few guys in the theater, was working at Target and surely not making enough money to support one family, much less two. Young, meanwhile, had just finished getting her veterinarian degree, becoming the latest in an onslaught of women who have taken over that lucrative profession, which was not very long ago dominated by men.

None of these life details are meant to detract from the men’s heroism. They are only meant to make it more poignant, and even beautiful. As I’ve traveled to different middle-class towns that are struggling after the recession to report my book The End of Men, I’ve found a strained and touching effort to redefine the roles of men. They are often not the breadwinners because in that slice of America, women are often financially better off than the men. They are often not the steady fathers because couples don’t get married all that much anymore, and the women, if they are working themselves, see the men as just another mouth to feed. But one thing I find consistently is the enduring need for men to think of themselves and women to think of them as the protectors.

Couples will often insist that the man is the head of the household even when he doesn’t seem to be checking any of the traditional boxes. When I ask how it’s possible that he should retain the title without any of the attending duties, I almost always get some version of the same answer: If anyone threatened us, he would rescue us. If someone broke into the house, I would call him. If anything happened to the children, if a fire, if a tornado, etc. Papers have described what happened in the theater as “chivalry.” But it’s not really that. Chivalry is a code of conduct connected to social propriety. Throwing your body in front of your girlfriend when people all around you are getting shot is an instinct that’s basic, and deeper. It’s the same reason these Batman and Spider-Man franchises endure: Because whatever else is fading away, women still seem to want their superhero, and men still seem to want to be him.

In short? These men were “Loser Sponges Whose Only Purpose In Life Is To Act As A Human Meat Shield.”

Jonathan Bunk did not have “undying heroism.” He had a loser job at Target. He would have been “just been another mouth to feed” for his veterinarian girlfriend. An act of chivalry? No, “it’s not really that.” It was just “instinct” because putting himself between a madman and the woman he loved was this Target workers only shot at being a “superhero.”

That the mainstream media did not denounce Ms. Rosin for her crassness, using these men as a point scoring mechanism to prove “Women are winning!” I found abominable. That Dr. Jansen Young the veterinarian did not rebuke Ms. Rosin I found pathetic. Still, something good came out of this for me.

This was the moment where feminism no longer existed as a humorous, niche philosophy akin to veganism and Buddhism. I began reading the articles on the DoubleX, not for a daily laugh, but to really understand the meaning of feminism. What I found was this:

Feminism is a philosophy based on a fraudulent supposition. To justify the fraud requires arguments that rely on hypocrisy. To deflect the masses from realizing the hypocrisies necessitates a constant campaign of intimidation. Feminism does not exist to advance the causes of women. Feminism exists to advance the causes of feminists — 28% of the well-educated elite. Its modus operandi is a simple one; Maintain the Moral High Ground and Protect Feminist Doctrine.

I have two nieces ages ten and seven. I desperately want the best for them. No matter what path they choose to walk in life, I hope they find success and happiness. But I do not think feminism will bring it to them. Feminism teaches them to be proud of being women, but that their femininity is a weakness and embracing masculinity is the key to their hopes and dreams. Feminism tells them they are strong and capable, but constantly encourages them to assign their failures to a patriarchy under whom they are weak and oppressed victims. Feminism tells them they can “have it all” and then makes excuses when it fails to deliver.

I want to thank Hanna Rosin for forcing me to open my eyes to these truths about feminism with her vile worldviews. Ms. Rosin is the Cruella deVille of the movement, gleefully wearing a coat of skinned little boys who would never amount to more than becoming “mouths to feed” Target workers. While it is true 40% of American households now have women earning higher incomes and claiming “bread winner” status, that means 60% of households are still led by a male “bread winner.”

Does Cruella deVille have the balls to call 60% of the women in America “mouths to feed?” Of course not. Does Cruella deVille have the balls to call her mother, grandmothers, great-grandmothers and all women of previous generations “mouths to feed?” Of course not. Ms. deVille is a ball-less hypocrite of the highest order — both literally and figuratively.

The article on the Aurora Shooting was not a one-off for her. It is consistent with all her articles and is indicative of her concept of Men As Meat Shields in her feminist utopia. Ms. deVille wishes men to fail and follow, while women thrive and lead. Such a Cruella deVille character is an eye opener and important. It gives us the opportunity to ask questions.

The question women should ask is this: Is this what we want? After fifty years of feminism are women happy with where the movement has led them today and will they be happy with fifty years more of the same. The quick and easy answer is yes. However, when you read a feminist website like the DoubleX, or Jezebel or Feministing or any of their like, the answer must be a resounding no. On these websites there is a new outrage every day; a sexist outrage; an abortion outrage; a rape outrage; a sexual harassment outrage; an objectification outrage; a gender stereotyping outrage; outrage after outrage after outrage.

If after fifty years of feminism women are subjected to more outrages than ever, how can woman claim to be happier than what they had before? What is absolutely true is women are doing less housework and more paid work; having less monogamy and more promiscuity; having less time with their children and more time outside them; having less restrictions and more options all together. What you infer from those differences depends on your interpretation. However, what you cannot deny is that every benefit has a cost; every reward a risk; every upside a downside. There are two sides to every coin and the daily outrages feminist thinkers complain about tells us feminism is no cure all.

I personally believe women are no happier today than they were fifty years ago. They have just exchanged one set of stressors for another. The feminists’ assertions that career success and more sexual freedom have not achieved a net positive outcome (add the angst over delayed motherhood and motherhood’s effect on career success [and career success’s effect on motherhood] and the plot thickens further). This is because feminism asked the wrong question and came up with the wrong answer.

If this is true, then it explains why feminism is a fraud at its core; why hypocrisy must be embraced as logic to defend it; why a campaign of intimidation must enforce the hypocrisy to make it stick. If that is the best feminists have to offer, something is severely awry because that is no recipe for a successful outcome.

In the ensuing sections, I will quote feminists’ own words that clearly state things are worse than ever — proving feminism is no cure for women’s problems and is as much a bane as it is a boon. I will use their words to point out the fraud, highlight the hypocrisies and illustrate the intimidation tactics that enforce it all.

Next: Explaining The Fraud

Submit a Comment