MENU

feminism is a scam

Why Feminism is a Scam

Loading word count...
Listen to this article

While modern feminism is a scam, feminism as a social and political movement emerged for specific reasons and had specific goals – the political and economic rights of women. Since the second half of the 19th century, urbanization and the almost violent involvement of women in the industrialization process have brought about a new reality. Not surprisingly, women, thrown into the maelstrom of industrialization by capitalists, began to demand recognition of their role in it.

However, after gaining rights, individual young ladies decided to move on. Feminism began to take on an ideological direction, and now women fought not so much for their rights as for the opportunity to become instruments for the establishment of a certain system. Communist women in particular distinguished themselves by sacrificing female identity and sexuality for the sake of a Communist utopia. “For Teresa, as for most of her male comrades, love is only a stage, only a temporary stop on the road of life. The purpose of life, its content, is the party, the idea, the agitation, the work…”[1, p. 9].

these women don't know feminism is a scam
Someone should have told them that feminism is a scam.
Soviet female metro builders.

Under the leadership of Alexandra Kollontai, women who fell under the yoke of the Communists were forced to adapt to the new ethics (or rather absence of ethics), and the very construction of the red regime wouldn’t have been possible without the participation of women, who, due to many factors, were involved in hard and dangerous work.

“Women, freed by the complete communalization of domestic life for full forced labor, were to be employed in productive work in the same way as any able-bodied man.

[2, с. 54].

In other words, we see not only the destruction of the traditional image of women, which is associated with eroticism and family life, but also the creation of prerequisites for a neglectful attitude. Women seem to be equal, because they have political rights and work with men, but the ideology of the Soviet state itself turned women into “female cadres”. Moreover, the destruction of the traditional image and way of life was deemed difficult by the creators of communism, because of “maternal instincts” and the natural embeddedness of women in child-rearing, which was subjected to extreme critique:

These traditions play a particularly retrograde role in the area of child-rearing. Family upbringing competes with public upbringing most often in the name of supposedly best providing children with a mother’s love and care. But the limitation of this narrowly egoistic love is most clearly seen in the fact that, supposedly out of love for children, loving mothers in this case usually act to their detriment, for society as a whole is certainly capable of giving their children much more than even the best of mothers taken individually. To convince them of this, however, would be an utterly hopeless affair. Maternal instincts are blind and deaf to any logical argumentation, but a free labor school, a kindergarten, a nursery have already in themselves enormous objective persuasiveness.

[3, с. 475-476].

The situation in Western countries and the United States had its own specifics, because the West continued to exist in the capitalist system. The interwar period gave rise to the Frankfurt School of Philosophy, whose participants became the forerunners of the sexual revolution in the West. The Frankfurters were leftists, but ones who were disillusioned with the proletariat and its ability to bring about a world revolution. They formed a new vision of the leftist idea, in which sexuality is given much attention on Freudian grounds. In particular, Herbert Marcuse distinguished himself by accusing civilization and society of repressing sexuality and seeing human sexual liberation as the cornerstone of building a new society:

Polymorphous sexuality” was the term I used to indicate that the new direction of progress would depend entirely on the possibility to activate repressed, inhibited organic needs: to turn the human body into an instrument not so much of labor as of pleasure. It seemed to me that the old formula for the development of needs and capacities was no longer adequate, and that new, qualitatively different needs and capacities were becoming the precondition and content of liberation.

Herbert Marcuse [4]
feminism is a scam and these are the perpetrators

During World War II, the Frankfurtians emigrated to the United States. They had plenty of reasons: they were all socialists and there were many Jews among them. Once settled in the new world, the sexual revolutionaries began to spread their ideas there, including through teaching at universities. The so-called second wave of feminism and the hip sexual revolution of the 1960s in America in general was a product of these communists. But don’t forget the events in Europe, namely 1968, when young people fascinated by the ideas of the New Left, made their final choice in favor of Freudo-Marxist emancipation.

The feminist movement of these years was most pronounced in the United States, but over time it became quite widespread. A distinct group of feminists demanded rights to education and work on an equal footing with men. Radical feminists began to fight in cultural and ethical terms, demanding the sexual autonomy of women. In fact, it was they who created the slogan “My body is my choice.” In addition, black feminists, who resented their white counterparts because they did not see racism as the cause of their oppression, occupied a niche of their own.

Liberal feminism was dominant, with the goal of bringing women into all spheres of activity and ensuring their economic and political equalization with men. To achieve this goal, feminism took a cardinal step: women were removed from the center of the idea itself, but their place was taken by men, whose standards women had to meet for the sake of equality. The woman, her identity and her universe were ultimately destroyed by the ideology that was supposed to protect her.

This state of affairs gave rise to many problems that we are still dealing with today. Feminists are unhappy with the fact that there are more women in some fields and fewer in others, that because of their physiology the beautiful half of humanity has certain difficulties and limitations in employment and wages, that there is a of there existing male and female jobs. And all of this only came about because women were told they had to be like men.

“First, by relying on an incomplete view of human nature, it cannot provide an accurate understanding of the motivations for human behavior. Second, by taking the white male as the human norm, liberal feminism thereby requires women to be like men without recognizing traditional female characteristics, social roles, and ways of thinking. Third, in discussing society’s reproductive and familial needs, liberal feminism does not answer the question of who will take care of the home and the family in the new transformed society.

[5, с. 153-154].

This is a problem not only for feminism, but for the modern economic and cultural system as a whole, but feminists do not consider it necessary to look at the root. The harsh conditions of globalized capitalism cause many problems, including the deterioration of physical and psychological health, which directly and indirectly affects the well-being and fertility of both sexes. In an ideal world, feminists would offer a solution to women’s problems by recognizing the differences between women and men, but we have the opposite situation.

Gender differences are levelled in all spheres: in work, in family, in culture, in sports, and the like. Mainstream feminism has long been a “franchise” of gender ideology and promotes the idea of gender neutrality among women. Simone de Beauvoir started this anti-woman and anti-sexist trend even before the emergence of gender theory, when she in her work “The Second Sex that “One is not born, but rather becomes a woman”. This, of course, does not exclude men from “becoming”, who increasingly see masculinity as “toxic. This problem is multidimensional, but the economic system and the employment system play a very important role, since they were the basis for the further development of gender theory.

Gender differences do not always play a determining factor, no one disputes that. But the problem is that when these differences naturally manifest themselves in different situations, contemporary leftist discourse brands it “gender stereotypes” and demands that we get rid of them.

The gender perspective sees no meaningful or inherent difference between a man and a woman. Gender ideologues ignore and downplay the results of brain research, medicine and psychology, which reveal the different identities of men and women in brain structure, hormonal balance and psychological structure.

[6, с. 22]

Such thinking leads not only to the levelling of femininity and masculinity, but also to the abolition of gender as such. Gender ideology, with the crazy support of feminism, inculcates the idea that no innate characteristics matter, which means that sex, not only as a worldview and behavior, but also as a physical phenomenon, lends itself to “abolition. Without realizing it themselves, women have abolished themselves and, with motherly dedication, nurtured a new idol of the last breaths of postmodernity: the transgendered.

Feminist theory of the late ’70s and ’80s laid the foundations for gender studies and paved the way for addressing issues that are now defined as gendered, while also bringing with it a number of problematic and controversial claims

[5, p. 155]

Proponents of the feminist idea will argue, but the fact remains that feminism has long been neither about women nor even about men. This idea now serves to dehumanize people and deprive them of their identities, which would give them an inner core and an ability to to resist destructive tendencies.

Sources:

  1. Gabriela Kubi “Gender Revolution: Relativism in Action”, 2012.
  2. “Fundamentals of Gender Theory: Legal, Political, Philosophical, Pedagogical, Linguistic and Cultural Foundations”, monograph, 2018.
  3. Alexandra Kollontai “The New Morality and the Working Class”, 1919.
  4. Herbert Marcusehttps://www.gumer.info/bogoslov_Buks/Philos/Mark/index.php
  5. Leonid Sabsovich “Cities of the Future and the Organization of Socialist Life”, 1929.
  6. Stanislav Strumilin “Problems of Planning in the USSR”, 1932.

Post Author

Leave a comment

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I invented Feminism to destroy goyim families. Separate the men from the women is the best way to destroy a tribe. Then separate mothers from their children, and make the children eunuchs. A eunuch can be a good slave goyim for years afterwards.

1
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x