Not all feminists are like that

You’ve probably heard that not all feminists are like that.

It’s one of the boilerplate responses, thrown out flippantly whenever anybody points to the difference between what feminism claims to be, and what that ideological gender movement demonstrates it is by its organized actions. For example, when feminists attempted to shut down a 2013 lecture in Toronto by Drs. Nathanson and Young, some of those “protesters” were challenged on the fact that men comprise 80% of suicides. The response? A sarcastic recital of the song “Cry Me a River”. Organized to silence and censor, and sneering at those whose pain drives them to suicide – this is just a recent demonstration of what the gender ideology of feminism really is. But of course, not all feminists are like that.

In fact, although organized, connected and influential feminists including social workers, lawyers, teachers and childcare workers participated in a blog regularly endorsing male exterminating eugenics, and sex-selective child abuse – it’s important to remember that not all feminists are like that. Indeed, those same feminists, whose annual conference lost it’s venue due to the insistence by the organizers that only chromosomal female participants qualified as fully human – we should remember that not all feminists are like that.

Of course, we should also read as typical the examples of feminists in opposing by direct violence any opinions differing from their own. No matter how often feminists may attend, armed with knives or bludgeons, other people’s speaking engagements – we should never forget that all such violent and sociopathic feminists are a tiny minority, and that the vast majority of feminists are not like that.

Obviously, all these examples are recent. When Lorena Bobbitt sexually mutilated her husband, thousands of feminists united to declare that if she were found guilty for this violent crime – they would murder thousands of men in retribution. When, 18 years later, Catherine Kieu Becker did the same thing to her husband, the hosts of The Talk and the all-female audience cheered and giggled over this sexual mutilation. One of the hosts, Sharon Osborne, drew the connection between these two events herself. Osborne claimed in the episode that she maintained a shrine to Lorena Bobbitt in her home. But again, it’s important to remember that not all feminists are like that.

Also, feminist-run domestic violence shelters and grievance organizations promote in their public messaging the idea that all domestic violence is male on female. This is contradicted by practically all the legitimate research on domestic violence, which shows reciprocity of abuse in the vast majority of cases, and in the minority of cases of DV where it really is one-sided, the majority of that small fraction is violence committed against nonreciprocating male partners.


But that appears to not matter. In fact, the phrase “violence against women” is now replacing the term domestic violence in public service messaging on the issue. It’s not even that this one-sided lie seems designed to promote fear and hatred, it’s that by using and promoting a false model, grievance organizations seem determined to prevent anyone with good intent from actually reducing domestic violence. After all, there’s money to be made in the form of grants and donations, as long as there’s ongoing human carnage. But again, we are to be reminded, not all feminists are like that.

We also have the rising trend on university campuses that new male students be required to attend a “she fears you” lecture. These lectures putting them all on notice that rather than students, rather than paying customers of the school, dropping 300 to 500 dollars per course per semester – that these young men are to think of themselves as potential sexual predators. But this campus-wide cultivation of fear and hatred shouldn’t be taken as indicative of the character of feminist ideology, because as we must all remember, not all feminists are like that.

We should also not take the phenomenon of the hate rallies called “slut walks” as a measure of the character of anyone attending such a rally. After all, hundreds of signs reading “teach men to not rape”, implying that without special education men are all sexual predators – that’s something only a tiny insane minority of feminists would support. And while a few prominent, vocal and highly visible feminists really are that insane and hateful, not all feminists are like that. If it seems otherwise, just keep repeating – that not all feminists are like that.

Similarly, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions about feminism from public messaging from organizations like Riverview whose public service announcement claimed a 6 month old male toddler was a future rapist, or the Canadian Federation of Women whose PSA depicted a not yet born infant girl being given a rape whistle as for a gift. The deterministic idea that all women are victims and all men are predators – that grotesque hatred and insanity shouldn’t inform what we think of the nature of the gender ideology calling itself feminism, because not all feminists are like that.

How do we know they’re not? Well, that’s obvious: every time some published, tenured or politically-connected feminist individual or major feminist organization demonstrates not by rhetoric, but by action, their agenda of hatred, violence, censorship and profiteering off real human carnage they manoeuvre to maintain the conditions of, some nobody claiming to be a feminist will show up in the commentary and point out that not all feminists are like that. They might even remind everybody that the dictionary definition of feminism is that it’s a movement for equality, and the real world indicators of produced outcomes, lobbying, changes to law, censorship, intimidation and violence are all non-typical, and non-indicative. The dictionary says feminism is equality, thus is must be so.

But this leaves us with just one niggling question. Now, admitting the absolute and irrefutable truth that feminism, the movement and the ideology is nothing more or less than the pursuit of social, political and economic equality, where are the “not like that” feminists? By “not like that”, of course, what I mean is, the ones not advocating eugenics, promoting violence, apologetics for false accusation, child abuse along with censorship and intimidation of any differing view. Where are the rest, indeed, where are the vast majority of feminists, you know, the ones conforming to the dictionary definition that feminism is a movement seeking equality?

For example, it seems obvious admitting that feminism really is about equality, that the workplace death rate, presently 93% male is right at the top of every real feminist’s major problems to solve right away. Bloomberg’s online business journal recently posted an updated list for 2013 of the lowest paying and most dangerous jobs. Unsurprisingly, every single one of them is a field populated almost totally by male workers. Obviously, feminists are lobbying and canvassing to reduce the death rates in these jobs, and to get women into these dangerous and unrewarding professions. After all, feminism is definitionally a movement for equality and for the benefit of all. This is especially pressing because these dangerous and unrewarding jobs – including taxi driving, logging, commercial fishing, construction, and truck driving are the basic work on which the entirety of the rest of our society relies on.

It would be unconscionable if the pre-eminent movement for equality just sat quietly and allowed men to act as disposable utilities, dying at rates as high as 120 per 100,000 workers annually, while women were elevated only into safe, high status, high comfort, and high relative pay, roles within the workforce. So obviously, this is a major feminist issue. The only question is where are the major feminist campaigns on this issue? Are they operating in secret?

Additionally, as it’s obviously true that feminism is a beneficent movement, and seeking nothing except equality, it’s somewhat puzzling that the efforts by feminist organizations to seek equal sentencing outcomes for female criminals are not more prominent in our popular media. After adjusting for severity of criminal offence, a number of studies have shown that on average, men are sentenced as much as 60% more harshly for the same crime for which women receive a sentencing discount. Truly, there could never be even an illusion of equality if feminists did not vigorously demand women receive the same degree of legal and criminal accountability men enjoy. However, since feminism definitionally is THE movement for equality, this is obviously right at the top of the list of problems to be solved. Real feminists are obviously lobbying and raising awareness of this issue. My question is, where are they, as they seem to be pursuing this goal well below the radar of public awareness too.

If women are to be thought of as fully adult, self-owning and empowered citizens, they must obviously enjoy the same justice men do, and I’m thankful that feminism is pushing so hard on this issue. I’m just not sure who, or where, or how it’s being pursued in feminist circles, because it’s also being done, apparently, quietly, and in secret.

However, feminism is a movement seeking equality. We know this because we’ve been told so by feminists, over and over and over. That’s why I know feminist anti-violence organizations are so strong on addressing the violent criminal victimization of our society’s most affected sexual demographic. Almost 75% of criminal violence targets men, obviously, a fact which even the most cursory glance at criminal victimization statistics will reveal. We also know that feminist efforts to reduce or stop violence altogether are powerful, well-funded, and persistent. The Stop Violence against Women campaign is so pervasive that the United Nations have devoted an entire branch of that international organization to stopping violence against women.

The larger, and more pervasive problem of violence against men is therefore bigger, better funded and even better organized. So well-organized that they don’t even need public messaging on the topic. In fact, under the influence of feminist public rhetoric the phrase “violence against women” has come to mean all domestic violence, including the HALF of domestic violent committed against men. My only serious question on this issue is how can I help feminists in their activism. I want to help stop violence too, but their obviously highly effective, well-funded and organized campaigns to end violence against the most affected victims (men) appear also to operate below any threshold of public detection. But those efforts obviously exist, and billions of dollars are spent on them, because feminism is in its own self-definition, a movement seeking equality.

But I’m just the slightest bit puzzled, because when we talk about the feminists pursuing violence, lying about domestic abuse, employing censorship and intimidation, and mocking male homeless or male suicides, it’s obvious that the overwhelming vast majority of feminists “aren’t like that”. Indeed, those who self-identify as feminists, but whose behaviour is openly sociopathic, psychotic, insane, violent and totalitarian – they are NOT REAL FEMINISTS. But I still have my slightly puzzled question. The (majority of) feminists who are, um, not like that – where are they?

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: