7 accusations against feminism that Feminists have to answer to


EDITOR’S NOTE: The article below is a fan submitted article to AgeOfShitlords. The views expressed within it are the author’s alone, and may or may not be shared by the administration of the site.
You can submit your own article to us HERE.

This opinion piece started life in Danish in response to a recent “shitstorm” in which the current transport minister of Denmark, one Ole Birk Olsen, was summoned to a parliamentary committee (by lefties with too much time and too little to do) to answer for a piece he wrote all the way back in 2010, Seven accusations against women. That piece was, frankly, a bit scathing about the fairer sex, but apparently was intended to show that it’s much more acceptable to trash men than women, since the kind of things said were really no worse than what feminists say about men every day in the media. And lo and behold, the piece is still periodically shitstorming after seven years. Former shitlord par excellence Olsen’s been softened up a bit by the cushy ministerial job and he sort of halfway wussed out a bit, instead of just sending these snowflakes back to mommy for a Kleenex. This prompted me to surmise that the time is about ripe for seven rather more guided accuations against feminism. I could easily make a lot more, but as the reader will note, there’s just something about the number seven here, so this list is by no means exhaustive or systematic. It’s also not in any particular order. There’s so much wrong with feminism that it’s almost hard to write about when you’re making facepalms at the same time, so bear with me if I’ve forgotten anything obvious.

I hereby accuse feminism of

1. being a religion.
Feminist “theory” has no basis in science but is rather a kind of mythology, kept afloat by feminist evangelists. Ideas like “the patriarchy,” “rape culture,” “the glass ceilingt” and “the gender pay gap” are not supported by evidence or logical argument, but kept alive by dogmatic repetition. Just like Christianity and other mumbo jumbo, feminism has its churches, one such being Kvinfo in Denmark, a state sponsored “information library” that basically spews out feminist propaganda at taxpayers’ expense. Unlike the state church (also tax financed), one cannot opt out of paying for this claptrap and the salaries of the dingbats hired to produce it. Academia nurtures this holy feminism and protects it from criticism, also at taxpayers’ expense, so that feelings, impressions and fairy-tale fantasies are tolerated and even celebrated as if they were legitimate ideas. Feminism even has its own “holidays” like 8th March, a sort of “Feministmas” where the tenets of faith get repeated once again and the illusion of truth is held up on the premise that everyone knows these tenets off by heart.

2. being untrustworthy.

It’s as if feminism has two contradictory narratives. One is all about how strong, smart and independent modern women are, so that they no longer even need the useless, immature and obsolete man anymore, whom they are constantly overtaking on all fronts. The other narrative is about how there’s so much “glass ceiling” everywhere that progress is only possible by state intervention. These narratives can’t both be true and therefore Feminism struts around strong and tough and independent just until it looks as though there might be more to gain by changing to the role of whining, helpless victim.

3. Being unprincipled, opportunistic and spoiled.

Feminist (at least in Scandinavia) are constantly screaming for “affirmative action” in the form of equal representation in cushy leadership jobs and thereby claiming a right based on gender. When feminists are unwilling to discuss the gender representation in other than cushy areas like dirty, heavy and dangerous work, this is tantamount to a neon sign proclaiming no sense of duty or civic responsibility. It’s about a free pass to all the perks and benefits, without doing any of the spadework.

4. being rhetorically inept and manipulative.

All of the above naturally engender sharp criticism against feminism, which feminists are unable to answer in any sensible way. This comes to light through feminist censorship, blocking and a whole host of rhetorical sins like the use of straw men, ad-hominem attacks and shaming. A less obvious (but frequent) logical fallacy is of the type “A thief thinks everyone steals,” which can be observed in the common feminist habit of misrepresenting opponents’ criticism as complaint (“white men’s tears” etc.), presumably through an assumption that an opponent’s position is the mirror image of one’s own: Cry babies think everyone’s a cry baby. Shaming is a reactionary tendency in which one berates an opponent for his statements, though without addressing what has been stated. As an example, throwing the “mansplaining”-card in a discussion is presumably meant to take the wind out of an opponent in just this way, but it’s really an own goal as long as the content of what is said hasn’t been challenged.

5. not knowing the difference between “debating” and “campaigning.”

Scandinavian feminists in particular are forever asking why more men don’t join the debate on equality and gender issues, even though there really are a lot of us who do that and have done so for a long time. When one points this fact out to feminists (in precisely the discussions where they wonder where we are) we’re often told that we’re getting involved “in the wrong way.” Any criticism or disagreement fosters recriminations about how we’re “derailing” the debate. Therefore it would seem that what these feminists are really looking for is a bunch of “yes men” for the specific role of campaigning on behalf of feminism, not for anything resembling debate. When certain male feminists stand out like shining rhetorical beacons of the movement, it’s easy to see why feminists want more of these knights in shining armor. It’s not to debate, but to advertise.

6. being a totalitarian ideology.

When feminists claim that transgressions against women reflect a “rape culture,” “misogyny,” or “sexism,” they are implying that society will only live up to their standards (i.e. free of these things) when no such transgressions occur. They’re either saying that crime should only affect men, or that an acceptable society has no crime in it. Realistic? The price of such a society, even if it were ever possible outside of fiction (of the Orwellian kind) would surely be a total suppression of all freedom and civil rights. I cannot even envisage what a feminist utopia/dystopia would look like. I think it would only last as long as it took a femisociety to realize that all citizens don’t just obey laws because they’re law, but because non-compliance carries a real threat of violence, i.e. someone to carry it out.

7. being reactionary.

Feminism started soundly enough and had a great deal of success long ago in its legitimate fight for equality. As a result, and for a long time, feminism had an air of moral superiority about it, meaning that it didn’t really need actual arguments in its own defense. Fear of a negative stigma would be enough to keep many potential critics from airing their views, while an ancient gallantry, protecting women from risks and discomfort (and showing them to the lifeboats first), also gave feminism an easy ride, even when it was going full retard. But an inevitable consequence of equality is that no one is exempt from criticism indefinitely, and today, feminists answer increasing criticism with the same self-righteousness and complacency as back when their moral stock still seemed good. The irony is that feminism has taken over the same kind of reactionary stance that it was once up against, where a conservative grounding in a dominant moral code and the status quo seemed to free one from the need for reasoned argument. After all, playing the victim has paid off for feminism. So far.

……and one could surely go on.

Author: Phil Nice (2017)