Feminism is Horse-shit

I doubt it. Very few people seem to self-identify as feminists, for just the reason I said- to self identify as a feminist implies a lot more than "women should be allowed to wear long pants and work outside the home".  It's similar to how a person doesn't call themselves 'leftist' because they want black people to be able to vote and think alcohol should be legal (pretending for a moment that progressives supported either of these things when they were controversial).  A person identifies as a group if they are in favor of the things the group is currently working on, not things from a century ago. 

It would be NICE if the feminists working to protect women in the Middle East from being stoned for showing their ankles outnumbered the feminists trying to define the word ‘bossy’ as a microagression, but I see no evidence that this is the case- again, speaking just of those people who present themselves as “I am a feminist”, not just people that you are classifying as a feminist because they agree wth what feminists did in the 1800’s. Of course, there could be millions of feminists working on Middle-East issues that don’t speak English and so don’t get media exposure in English-speaking-space.

There is no liberal wing of academia, because that would be to imply there are wings in academia where it is absent. There is academia, which has been taken over by the liberal wing of the general population. Also, progressivism more so than other positions has the dubious honor of always moving towards something new- so what you’re thinking of as fringe may in fact just be ‘cutting edge’.

 I'm sorry, but  I can't really take the conversation seriously if you means to imply that in 2015 the left isn't about policing language. 

Did you know that there’s a bot active on Twitter that will send you a message correcting you if you refer to Caitlyn Jenner as a ‘he’?

Nobody is forcing me to change my language? I’m almost 40. I could write a fucking book about the things people are no longer allowed to say because of the left totally not trying to force people to change their language in my lifetime, and trannies are gonna be any different, eh? Do I really need to start listing the people who have been shamed in to public tearful apologies, lost their jobs, and etc. just in the past couple years because they wore a fucking shirt a feminist didn’t like, or said something about women in the work place that a feminist didn’t want to hear, or applied the wrong gender-pronoun to some self-mutilating tranny, etc.? Be honest- did me saying ‘self-mutiliating tranny’ just now spark in you a desire to punish me?

Not trying to force me to change my language. Tell it to the Redskins.

Anyway, there’s all sorts of ways a persons genitals and genetics can be screwed up such that standard gender definitions don’t apply to them very well. We generally don’t define a creature by it’s disordered states- unless it’s related to human sexuality. I feel totally comfortable saying “humans have two legs” without worrying that somebody is going to jump out of the bushes and try to get me fired from my job or kicked off this site because I have somehow revealed my hatred of amputees by such a statement*. But go say humans have two genders on Tumblr or Twitter, and see how long it is before somebody is taking pictures outside your house and trying to ruin your life.

• • Oh, but give it time, I suppose.

Seriously? This is the kind of thing you write the day you get off being banned? There is just no reason to keep you on this website.

Carleas

About scholarship, are you aware that there are some female only scholarships, as well as female only universities? Yet it was recently a major deal when a scientist expressed that it would be better if males and females were divided into 2 groups when working in the lab, because attraction to the opposite sex can be distracting.

I do not give a shit what somebody who says they are feminist, but are never heard or seen, does. So just like I assume you don’t care if there is, somewhere, some silent majority of KKK who actually like black people more than majority, what we observe by the organization itself and its main spokesmen, is that they hate black people, no? I care what the most important people of the movement say, and what the organizations of the movement do. If a good portion, perhaps even a majority of the most prominent and famous feminists (or KKK) blatantly, openly hate men (or black people), then the movement is a man-hating (black people hating) one regardless of what this supposed hidden majority supposedly thinks but never expresses outloud or puts into work because they are silent or whatever.

There is no better source for what happens in reality than reality itself. A feminist study examining whether feminists or nonfeminists hate men more. Ha! That is worthless to me, feminists are infamous for their tendency to lie and distort data and censor opposing views. If you ask feminists if they care about men, most of the moderate ones, or at least those who pretend to be moderate, will say they do, yet they do absolutely nothing to help men gain equality in court f.e. And I understand that, that is how women are, they don’t care about men, nor should they - men should care about themselves, all I ask is that feminists stop lying and pretending that they do care, when all their actions prove the opposite.

Feminists are just a minority subgroup in the larger group of women, the other women constituting non-feminists.
Yet, how many examples do you know of non-feminists expressing the kind of hatred towards men that feminists do? Not just a particular man, or a type of man (which I can understand and sometimes agree with), but MEN in general, and masculinity.

[tab]“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” - Valerie Solanas

“I feel that “man-hating” is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” - Robin Morgan

“Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.” - Andrea Dworkin

“I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men.” - Judith Levine

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” - Sally Miller Gearhart

“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males” - Mary Daly

“As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women … he can sexually molest his daughters … the vast majority of men in the world do one or more of the above” - Marilyn French

“They [men unjustly accused of rape] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.” - Catherine Comins

“Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and the spray of semen” - Cheryl L. Clarke[/tab]

I’m aware of the distinction, and yes, equity feminism isn’t nearly as crazy, but sadly, it is the minority.

I strive to be rational and in control of my emotions. If I treated other people differently than how I prefer to be treated, it ironically means I would just be lying in their faces and actually considering them so inferior and pathetic, that they cannot take honesty and criticism (which is how I think most people are, but you might have a problem with it).

As I said, I do try to pay attention to people’s emotions within reason, but if somebody with a dick, who looks like a male, asks me to call them a female or the other way around, I would refuse.

What’s worse is when the trannies mistake genuine interest and ignorance for ill-intentions. So for example, I meet a female turned male with a vagina, so I ask what gender they identify with, and they get offended as if I’m trying to insult them. I think it has to do more with their self-hatred and insecurity than anything else. Maybe also the bigotry of others. I expressed this opinion, that I ask trannies sincere questions due to unfamiliarity with them, on a feminist forum and I was censored and my post deleted because I didn’t submit to them and just accept whatever they say. The feminist forum was spacefem if you’re interested, they regularly delete any opinions which run contrary to theirs, even if they are expressed politely and without a single insult. That’s my experience, at least, and my experiences on YouTube are similar.

James, if you have to use bold, caps lock, 200 px font, and eight exclamation marks to make your point, you should ask yourself if your position is still sound when spoken with an indoor voice.

I take as a given that the people I’m talking to are sincere and engaging in good faith, such that if they’re wrong they’re either mistaken or presenting arguments that they disagree with but nevertheless find problematic for my position. Which makes the conversation worthwhile in two respects: first, it is possible to change minds, and to influence people who are interested in the truth. And second, even if no one is convinced, I am forced to think through my position, to see and address its weaknesses. Even if I move no one else closer towards an accurate perception of the word, I will be moved, and that is worth my time.

Uccisore, there seems to be a distinction in feminism (as in many other areas of politics) between feminism as an absolute position and feminism as a relative position. Your point about leftism is good, except that it is significant to some discussions that the leftism of yesterday is the common sense of today. If we think of leftism as “go left from here”, then those beliefs aren’t leftist. But if we think of leftism as an absolute constellation of specific beliefs regarding the relationship of individuals to society, then racial equality can still be a leftist idea (though I agree there’s reason to think it is better cast as an individualist ideal).

Similarly, feminism has in the past been a movement to extend full legal agency to women. Now that everyone accepts women’s legal agency, we can think of feminism as “more power to women from here”, which is what you seem to be doing, or we can think of it as the same movement to extend full legal agency to women.

And really, it’s both. As I said earlier, by some definitions of feminism, virtually everyone in the western world is descriptively a feminist, because early feminists won their fights and women can own property and vote (somewhere around 90% of the US population thinks that’s a good thing). That is a definition of feminism.

So perhaps as a preliminary question, we should discuss why we’re even concerned with the most popular usage. Most uses of the word “philosophy” use it to mean something like an aphorism (or, if Google ads is to be believed, a brand of cosmetics), but that’s not how we use it here and we should have no problem with the name “I Love Philosophy”.

It seems like when people say things like “feminism is horse shit”, they mean “a specific version of feminism that is particularly vulnerable to criticism (and may in fact be a strawman) is horseshit”.

I actually just searched Twitter for the phrase “I am a feminist”, and I expected to find almost exclusively rabid feminists of the type you’ve described, but I was surprised that only a few of the top couple dozen responses were of that kind; only one was explicitly gender feminist, and only one said that she hates men. Many more were statements about support for equality generally, and several were people explaining that e.g. they don’t like what happened to Tim Hunt even though they identify as a feminist.

I think this latter is probably part of a movement (that may or may not be explicit) to ‘reclaim’ ‘feminism’. I think we’ll see a lot of that in the coming US election cycle as certain Hillary supporters accuse her detractors of hating all women, and her detractors insist that they really just don’t like Hillary as a person.

You’re right, I overstated. Let me put it much more narrowly: the coercive power of the state is not being used to restrict your ability to continue to offend people, at least in the US, and I agree that it should not. I also acknowledge that there have been incidents of language-policing virtual mob violence. And I agree that that’s not a great thing for society, and I’m not arguing that anyone should lose their jobs for calling Ms. Jenner “he”.

Nor do I think the threat of mob justice is a good reason to avoid calling transgendered people by the gender pronouns they’ve rejected. I do, however, think there are good reasons.

No, they are annecdotal, as would be the list of people who have been groped on the subway or faced full-on, old-school sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Names play good politics, but they don’t make for sound reasoning. I think we can both concede that some of the complaints on either side are legitimate. It seems like it’s more important to ask whether the theory on either side is better, and/or what portion of complaints on either side are legitimate.

As I’ve said, in many context you won’t be wrong to say that there are two genders. However, in some cases, you are wrong to say that humans have two legs. Particularly, if you’re hanging out with an amputee, you’d probably extend them the courtesy of not suggesting that they’re not human because they don’t have two legs. You’d probably avoid mentioning legs, or running, or soccer or what-have-you, out of basic decency. I don’t think extending trans people the same level of courtesy is a big ask.

Also, it’s worth noting that the crime of being an amputee does not bear the death penalty in any society of which I’m aware. People still get killed, both with and without state sanction, for stepping out of gender lines.

Certainly we can agree on that. But to assert that this somehow bolsters your argument is question-begging. How do we determing what “reality itself” shows? Certainly any academic field, feminist or otherwise, would hold that the unanalysed perception of what one takes away from an hour on Twitter is a bad representation of “reality itself”, for a lot of reasons. And rigorous social science takes steps to address the problems with this mode of examining the world, or at least to qualify the takeaways from it. If you want to recast your position as one big “I feel” statement, I’d have no objection.

One way to interpret this is “all feminists are [xyz]”. Another way is “feminists who strongly identify as such to the point where they participate in/run a forum dedicated to feminism are [xyz]”. Another is that feminist forums are lighting rods for the other extreme: crazed anti-feminist, actual women-hating men, and when you come in unwilling to match your tone to the tone of the site, they smell a problem they’ve seen a hundred times before, and so they respond with what appears from the outside as [xyz].

In the latter case, they aren’t right to silence you, but they are understandable and their actions can be attributed to something other than malice or self-deception. Unfortunately for the world, not every site is ILP, and if you go into a support forum the way you go into a discussion of feminism here, it is likely they will not appreciate your participation.

Incredible. And he’s the administrator of this forum.

Where have I ever even MENTIONED Twitter in my previous posts, much less rested my argument on Twitter?

What I did mention as a real-life example, is what feminists organization do, which is explicitly anti-male.

If KKK get people to write papers and books for them claiming that KKK aren’t bigoted against blacks, but are, in fact, less so than the rest of the population, but KKK consistently try to pass racist laws, support the racist laws already in place, and advocate the murder of blacks (like some feminists advocate the murder of men, which I also provided examples of), would you believe the papers and books, aka, how those with a political agenda try to depict reality, or how you observe it yourself?

Do you still refuse to recognize the similarity of the modern radical left to the radical right? Check this out:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-ZX5V4Qft4[/youtube]

Also see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

I am using Twitter as a somewhat facetious catch-all for social media and lay internet commentary generally. When I initially suggested that might be your source, you seemed to respond, “If they are not a source, what is?” You also cite your personal experience in Youtube comments and on feminist discussion forums. I mean “Twitter” to include these.

Twitter is appropriate as a catch-all, I think, because there are a particular lot of rabid feminists on the platform, who do use mob justice to attack perceived violators of their morality (as do their anti-feminist counterparts).

I am, however, happy to acknowledge that these are bad sources of data from which to draw generalizations, and move on.

I think this too is dangerous. First, the people you’re quoting are all radical feminsts. There are plenty of radical feminists, and we agree that their ideas are problematic. I’m not defending their positions. But neither are most feminists. Mainstream feminism isn’t radical feminism.

Second, feminist organizations are not monolithic in their message. For example, many radical feminists are (like you and Uccs seem to be) opposed to calling male-to-female transsexuals, “women”. And feminist organizations that hold that position have been expelled from feminist conventions. We could cherry pick ‘things feminists say’ from either side and come up with a nonsensical amalgam of positions that no feminist actually endorses, and composed of individual pieces that very few feminists endorse.

Which is to say, this, too, is a biased sample of feminist views, so that when you generalize from them to “feminists are [abc], believe [qrs], want [xyz]”, your statements will not be applicable to the majority of feminists. To me, it is a problem when you criticize a group for beliefs that most of the group do not hold.

Honestly, if you can present properly conducted study printed in a peer-reviewed journal, surveying a representative sample of self-identified members of the KKK and finding that most aren’t actually racist, I would 1) be amazed and 2) have to rethink my position on the KKK. Because that’s what we have here. You dismiss it as ‘feminist’, and therefor untrustworthy, but your evidence for that is circular: its conclusion is at odds with your concept of feminism, so it must be feminist propaganda, because feminists aren’t actually like that. But the study is in a peer reviewed journal, it describes it’s methods, you could recreate it and see if holds if you don’t believe the outcome. That is a reflection of real life.

So feminist organizations who have actual political influence in society are now a bad source of information about the intentions of feminists as well? I think that what feminists DO is the best source of information by far about their intentions and ideology, preceding in importance the scientific articles (is this not too soft a subject to be called science anyway).

And come on, we both know that radical left is much more numerically dominant and influential than right, which is true in academic circles too. It’s all due to their censorship tactics, as Uccisore pointed out - they label anybody who dares to disagree an Xist, Yist, Zist and all possible ists and phobias. They hide their own bigotry behind these accusations, at least the far right KKK admit they hate blacks.

I am just saying, feminists have proven themselves countless times to be liars and have no credibility at all. I am going to take a look at that paper, even though it apparently requires registration to download the PDF.

I really wonder how the study was done, did they just ask feminists and non-feminists what they think about men? Did they judge their words or actions? Who peer reviewed it? Other feminists and women? If a group of feminists was invited to participate in a scientific research regarding their attitude towards males, would they not recognize themselves (since there aren’t as many feminists as non-feminists, I assume some of them would know each other and connect the dots) and intentionally lie, in order to be perceived as less man-hating, while the average non-feminists might be more sincere.

There are definitely instances of particular women hating men, but that’s mostly some other particular man, or a type of man and not men or masculinity itself. Feminists do it on a massive scale, and have made an ideology of hating everything that is masculine. Do you not see the difference?

No, I wouldn’t say they’re a bad source of information, I just think the way you generalize from that information is limited by the type of information you collect. If you look at a bunch of radical feminist groups, you can generalize about what feminists of a certain sort do, but if you look at a diverse set of feminist groups, you’ll find they disagree about certain issues, and you will generalize differently about a more diverse group of feminists. And then if we consider the relationship between feminists and feminists groups, and what type of positions groups are likely to take relative to what types of positions individuals are likely to take, etc.

I don’t mean to imply there’s zero value from looking at groups, and I think you’re right that actions often tell you more than words. But there are better and worse ways to do evaluate that information, and there’s legitimate and illegitimate inferences that can be drawn. I think the possible problems with the paper that you listed would be legitimate problems.

I’d also like to bring this back to something I said to Uccisore: let’s assume that most feminists, and most feminist groups, are rabidly anti-male. What then do we do with the feminists that reject that position? If there are minority sects of feminism that are sincerely aimed at equality, is their feminism still horse shit? Take a feminist in the middle east, where there is still a real struggle to get women recognized as legal agents. I don’t think we would say they aren’t feminists, would we? But they’re the kind of feminist that basically everyone in the US is, and that many in the US may not identify as feminist today.

Feminism was created and promoted by white males and is a male ideology.

In present times hard core feminists devote themselves to inconsequential ramblings, (if you compare some of the negligible influences many feminists have had), and are often seen by both male and female as ‘freaks’.

The question begs, why did men encourage and create feminism. Obviously not to emasculate themselves, in fact the opposite. For men there are many advantages in wresting women away from the protection of their fathers and husbands, by becoming vulnerable, it leaves them exposed to the possibility of being seduced or exploited. Feminism only expresses succinctly the problems of our chaotic times.

“White” males???

Yes.

JSS I thought somebody as experienced with the internet as you should know this already.

If you get the impression that somebody is either a sneaky troll or an utter retard, they aren’t worth engaging.

So when somebody says something as false as ‘feminism is a male ideology’, you laugh because it’s funny at the moment, and maybe shed a tear in the name of humanity, because it’s also somewhat sad and depressing, then you get on with your life.

People who want equal rights for all are egalitarians regardless of what they have between their legs. Feminists are female supremacists, masculinists are male supremacists, whiteists (white nationalists) are white supremacists, blackists (black nationalists) are black supremacists. Simple enough.

If they identify as feminists, it means that their claim of ‘equal rights’ is only a deliberate ploy meant to conceal their real intentions and succeeding only due to circumstance. The circumstance being that women do have less rights in middle-east, though less rights doesn’t mean they are necessarily worse off, since rights imply obligations for men, and men have a major burden on them in middle-eastern countries. Again, most people are taught to look at this from a gynocentric, Western, feminist point of view, and therefore fail to see how that it affects both genders positively and negatively, instead only focusing on how it influences the female gender negatively. It isn’t as binary as females-oppressed, males-supremacist shitlords. With rights come responsibilities and obligations, which females refuse.

If blacks have less rights, does it mean that if they want equal rights that they should call themselves equalists/egalitarians or blackists/black nationalists? Black nationalists and feminists MAY be useful for egalitarians if blacks/women really are oppressed, but once they stop being so and equal rights for all are established, the extremists who use gender/race/other biological category + ism can only hinder the efforts of egalitarians. And this isn’t even only 3rd wave feminism, even in first wave this bias was present:

Even suffragettes weren’t in favor of equal treatment and thought it obvious that women should be rescued first in case of an accident, which does have its biological basis, but then again, so does inequality and this is my point - modern women, especially feminist, want all the benefits of a traditionalist system for females (no responsibility, male pays for everything and provides, has to work very little and only comfortable jobs, if she works at all) but none of the disadvantages that come with it (being submissive to men, having less rights) and yet they want to pretend that they are, and be considered responsible and independent (while simultaneously promoting dependency, aka, welfare). They are inconsistent, but being women, you can’t reason with them, and they just blackmail males into complying with their bullshit because the price value of pussy is high in a gynocentric system and unless you want to be socially, publically shamed, or even arrested you better submit. Peripheral is the perfect example of this - shaming tactics, lack of arguments, spiteful mocking, provocations, accusations of being this or that ism or phobic.

There's a problem though. If you want to say racial equality is a leftist idea because leftists advocated it in the past, then you also have to say extreme racism and eugenics are leftists ideas because they advocated those too. Wasn't so long ago that it was the progressive left  academic tide pushing for 'racial hygeine' and asserting that the rationality of the Englightment made mandatory sterilization of undesirables a no-brainer.  The ones standing against them were a few conservative Catholics.  I mean honestly, if you look at history beginning with slavery and ending with the affirmative action, 'black people can't be racist', flagranty anti-white and anti-Israel position of the left today, I think the left has spent more time and more words against racial equality than it has spent for it.

Right, and if we did that, we’d have to think of it as the same movment that banned the consumption of alcohol in the United States and caused Prohibition, too, since they did both things virtually at the same time.

Doesn’t that make it a fairly useless definition? Maybe that’s the problem is that as a convention of language, when people say ‘x-ism’ they mean to say a group as distinct from other groups.

Yeah, they must.

Heheh. Well, if I may, I don't think Twitter is a good example for that today.  Twitter is currently a battleground on feminism, because every time a feminist does something like ruin a person's career over a joke, or a photo, or a shirt they wore, there's now a huge and not entirely organic backlash against it. 

Oh, it’s explicit. Since a couple events late last year that you can read about in my sig, there’s upwards of 100k people who hear about it when a Tim Hunt type incident happens, or a filmmaker/director/author gets chased out of the industry because they wrote a female character in a way the bad kind of feminists don’t like. And they all have Twitter.

Unless you refuse to take photos at a gay wedding in Oregon, New Mexico, and a few other states.  But yes, the power of the State is limited in those regards because the people we're talking about (feminists, or some other term if you please) don't have popular opinion on their side such that they can make things happen legally, for the most part. 

Sure, virtualy any statement is wrong given the proper context. My point was more about things I can say without fear of consequences.

Similarly, should I do Rachel Dolezal the courtesy of calling her 'black' to her face should the situation arise?   I think the answer is probably 'no' and the reason is "Because society isn't quite insane enough to buy trans-racial shit the way we buy trans-gendered shit".  But of course, give it time.

 The kind of point you're making is along the lines of "Don't swear in fromt of my grandmother", and you're right, I'm not going to bring up trans-issues in front of an obvious tranny or insist on referring to them as a particular gender they wish they weren't (assuming  I can even tell what one they are going for) just to make them feel bad.  But not bringing up contentious matters around people that are likely to be offended and contend them has really nothing to do with gender issues.  There's a huge difference between not calling a tranny 'he' to their face because you don't want them to cut themselves or cause a scene, and actually internalizing that into a "Well, that person with a penis and XY chromosomes is a woman because they have declared that they think they are" which is what is ACTUALLY going on. 

That shouldn't happen, but in terms of human suffering it's only somewhat worse than indulging these people in their delusions and encouraging them to mutilate themselves when we know the result is an astronomically high suicide rate anyway.  Why do we do this?  Because certain styles of feminism and certain aspects of queer theory demand a deformed understanding of gender in order to make sense. That's the beginning and end of it. So one society kills it's crazy people, the other society uses them as a political tool and encourages their insanity until they pop and irrevocably harm themselves and everybody around them.  All told, I still prefer the second, but I am not at all impressed with how the left treats transexuals either since you bring it up.

It is quite quite likely that one day Bruce Jenner will declare he regrets his decision (they so often do, you know), and when that happens he will no longer be useful to the people who ‘supported’ him, and then where will he be? Hanging from a noose, in all likelihood.

In other words, there is a point in which indulging a man who thinks he is Napoleon, or Jesus, or an elf, or some race outside his ancestry, or a woman is polite, sure. There is a point beyond which you are NOT doing him a favor though.

It might be that transexual stuff takes us too far afield of the subject of the thread though.

Do you have an explanation for that?
…and realize that I am an expert at “nothing is at it seems”.

For what?

White male?

Do you take umbrage at the word ‘white’, if so, you see more into this than I do.

What I am questioning is why you would think that specifically white males, or even any males, are the foundational instigators of feminism. What is your reasoning, evidence, or suspicions?

jJSS wrote:

Ha ‘suspicions’.

Now you are talking War and Peace, not a simple answer. Give me some time to think about this and I will endeavour to substantiate my claim.

The modern historian, Aileen S. Kraditor, wrote:

“A few women in the abolitionist movement in the 1830s … found their religiously inspired work for the slave impeded by prejudices against public activity by women. They and many others began to ponder the parallels between women’s status and the Negro’s status, and to notice that white men usually applied the principles of natural rights and the ideology of individualism only to themselves.”

Throughout the twentieth century, black feminism evolved quite differently from mainstream feminism. Alice Walker created a whole new subsect of black feminism, called Womanism, which emphasized the degree of the oppression black women faced when compared to white women.

youtube.com/watch?v=zCpjmvaIgNA

Are you aware that most major women organizations in America were funded by Rockefeller Foundation who claims in their website, “By funding a strategic mix of organizations, institutions, and projects; the Foundation is fostering smart globalization.” Most feminist “Women Studies” funding comes from big foundations like Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Foundation etc and of course USAID, UNIFEM and UN.

youtube.com/watch?v=6t0O-iV8KBI

So a historian noted that white women were being allowed to speak against white men, probably in the US and England. And from that we are to conclude that feminism is a “white man"s invention”? I agree that historically white men have allowed a great many freedoms that other races did not consider allowing, but allowing something and inventing it seem quite different.

Yes and the distinction now is very considerable. Why aren’t black women storming Congress because of the very, very obvious difference in treatment compared to white women (because mistreatment or unfairness doesn’t really have anything to do with any of it).

What I am aware of is that Socialism is what Rockefeller and most such foundations, including the U.N. are very purposefully promoting. The UN is almost entirely socialist nations, thus of course, their global mandate is going to demand socialism world over.

And a very significant part of socialism is feminisation or “de-masculinisation”, causing weaknesses and dependency within the entire population. And a part of that endeavor is to not merely allow women to rule, but to demand it, ensuring that weakness and dependency is maintained.

With that in mind, one could assert that feminism is a male invention, because you can certainly bet that there are only a few males atop that socialist pyramid of power ensuring that they are always the relatively more masculine than any others, by keeping the others mentally, medically, and militarily weakened (Nietzscheanism Relativism at its best).

So all in all, I could agree that white males allow, encourage, and substantially support feminism to their own demise and oppression far more than normal people, but I can’t say that they invented it. And of course, they inherently spread it to other peoples.