What is wrong with feminism? Lucy Holmes believes not much

This week, I watched a YouTube video of the official trailer of a forthcoming documentary entitled The Trouble With The F-word. In it, Lucy Holmes, founder of the ‘No More Page 3′ campaign, says ‘I believe in equality of the sexes. Women should have the same rights as men. Not more rights, but equal rights, and there’s a word for what I believe in – it’s Feminism’. Well, no, I’m sorry. Lucy Holmes’s assertions are laudable, but her prescription for bringing them about is deeply flawed, and that suggests to me that she doesn’t understand what feminism really is.

Beneath the video, the blurb asks rhetorically ‘What is wrong with Feminism?’, and continues ‘Despite being in favour of gender equality, women choose not to claim as feminists.’ So, allow me to answer the question and suggest what is wrong with feminism, and address the reason why women might not be self-identifying as feminists anymore.

The clue lies in the very words women like Lucy Holmes use about it: words, which even obviously intelligent and otherwise normal women like her don’t realise are pregnant with political meaning. ‘Gender equality’ is a political statement. It’s use in this context is not as a biological descriptor. It comes from the cess pit of radical feminist thinking that seeks to place a social-political construct on maleness and femaleness, stating that there is no difference between men and women other than their reproductive capabilities and that any differences are due to societal expectations, largely created by men, for men’s benefit.

By using the weasel words ‘gender equality’, feminists pave the way for their ideology to cast the sexes in terms of separate political classes, from which they can foment a class struggle.

That is what feminism is: class warfare; a Marxism-based struggle for power in which women have been induced to rise up against men, having been led by extremists to believe that men have historically kept certain rights from women and have subdued and dominated them through patriarchy; which, in simple terms, is men creating society for their own advantage.

The feminists’ idea of patriarchy is nonsense. It is a wicked lie – pure and simple. Yet they have been extraordinarily successful in getting almost all women to believe it, which is to women’s shame for being so stupid. If women have been suppressed in the past it has not been by men. Men also have been suppressed, disadvantaged, disenfranchised – dismembered even – by people in power who have wielded it, at times with reason and at others unreasonably. Inasmuch as people with power have been the enemy of women, they have been the enemy of men too. 

For women to pick a fight with men about equality, blaming it on men, is fundamentally wrong because men are not, and never have been oppressors of women. There is no man-shaped society, there is just society: created over centuries by men and women; sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Sometimes fairly and justly and sometimes not. Men have never signed up to a patriarchy club – the entire idea is a false construct invented by feminists as a reason to justify their ideological attack on men so they can divide and conquer society and impose their cultural Marxism on it.

Women like Lucy Holmes are being duped by an insidious ideology that says it is offering equality of the sexes, but is not. Is she not aware that the very phrases she trots out, mantra-like, predicate a situation in which it is assumed that women are somehow intrinsically unequal? This is a petitio principii: an argument that depends on an unestablished conclusion. Does she not see that this is a trick, and she is allowing herself to be led unquestioning into a belief system based on a questionable given? Now I call that really foolish. Surely common sense, let alone intelligence, demands a testing of the underlying proposition? If for no other reason than if the underlying premise that women are unequal isn’t true, the entire feminist proposition fails, and there is nothing to fight for. 

The test of this is simple. Can Lucy Holmes name one area in which women are currently discriminated against, or disadvantaged in Britain today? Women are demonstrably not unequal – and they never have been, anymore than men, as I have already explained. This truly is the Achilles Heel of feminism.

Even if women had been given a raw deal in the past (in fact, women have always been protected and cherished by society, and where they have suffered, men also have suffered) that does not justify women today rising up against men. Since when did two wrongs make aright? Feminism’s uprising (and that is what it is, let us be in no doubt about it) amounts to just picking a fight for fight’s sake, and where is that going to get us? I mean, what is the point? Are men and women to be turned into a permanent struggle with one another? No. Women cannot continue with this crusade for ‘rights’ expecting to ‘win’ something they already have, or of which they have never been singled out and deprived.

To get where it is today, society has been a long, hard struggle for everybody, and feminism is just adding to that, not solving it. Society is one entity. What happens in it happens to everyone in it.  One class in society cannot continue asserting itself over the other without there being serious, concomitant, social consequences. You cannot have a pissing area in a swimming pool.

Let me now turn to the notion of equality of the sexes, in which Lucy Holmes declares herself to be in favour. She offers feminism as the way to achieve it, but she seems unable to grasp that it is not, and never can be. Does she not understand what feminism’s aims really are? Like many young feminist women today, she is obviously intelligent, able, and otherwise sensible and thoughtful. Yet she is wholly subscribing to an angry left-wing creed constructed by a bunch of superannuated Marxists way back in the 1970s, such as Germaine Greer, Kate Millett and a bunch of very weird lesbian activists such as Valerie Solanas and Jill Johnstone, all of whom had serious issues with men, and all of whom are now largely derided by intelligent people who know the were just a bunch of crazies from a crazy era. Any reading of the women’s liberation movement of the 1970s with an intelligent and open mind will show just what they were really up to. Neil Lyndon’s 1992 book No More Sex War: The Failures of Feminism (recently updated) is an eye-opener for any woman or man who dares to read it.

Feminism’s equality is an oxymoron: an inherently contradictory proposition. How can you have equality of the sexes if it is just about women? I mean, where is the logic in that? There isn’t any, which is why feminism has sought to paint women as a downtrodden political class that must rise up in struggle against men in the pursuit of equality: a term that to feminists means one thing, but in reality means another.

True equality is nothing to do with a simple binary balance between men and women. The true Enlightenment principle of equality, not the Marxist-feminist version, is a multi-dimensional thing that is the warp and weft of the tapestry that is society. True equality is a quality in society that goes up, down, and across it. It is about men and women of all creeds and colours having equality of opportunity, and equality before the law. That is what men and women down centuries have striven for: from Magna Carta to the Enlightenment. This has been a process of evolution – one, incidentally driven by men, not held back by them – which has become stalled by the feminist revolution.

True equality is a form of mutuality, not division. It is a cement that binds, not a wrecking ball that smashes and divides, setting one half of society against the other. That is why feminism’s idea of equality only for women is a deceit and a trap for fools.

True equality is where the value of each side sums to the value of the other. Notice I use the term ‘value’. Equality is emphatically not about parity of numbers, for example the ratio of women to men in parliament, or in the boardroom. That is such a stupid interpretation of equality, it belittles the intelligence of anyone who claims it.

Neither is equality about diversity, that inseparable twin term with feminism’s ‘equality’. That too is a trap set for fools. Diversity is not about ensuring women are everywhere, in all walks of life – any more than it is about men being the same. Diversity is not about women in each profession, or in each social space, or whatever. It is not about women invading men’s social spaces, such as golf clubs, or having all women prospective parliamentary candidate shortlists, or even promoting women to cabinet posts above more able men, as David Cameron has done in his new cabinet.

True diversity is people just being people: appropriately represented in each walk of life irrespective of their numbers here or there. True diversity is colour-blind, age-blind, and sex-blind (notice, I do not use the word gender here). In a truly equal society, diversity manifests in women being more represented in some walks of life, and men in others; in strong people being more represented in certain jobs and weaker people in others, in more intelligent people doing certain things, and less intelligent doing other things, in people with skills doing things other people cannot do. The common denominator throughout is equality of opportunity, and freedom to choose, each individual taking his or her chance according to his or her ability and aptitude.

True diversity is the outcome of true equality. It is what happens when men and women are comfortable in their own skins and accept their place in society – high or low – chosen, imposed, or gained – without jealousy, envy or the desire to have what someone else has. And, yes, that applies to men too.

We cannot avoid the reality that men are less likely to be nurses, and women are less likely to be trash collectors. To seek to challenge that amounts to nothing less than social engineering, which is what feminism is all about. Feminism wants to change women’s rôles in society, not elevate their status. They have that already, and always have had for at least two millennia. 

I mean, just look at the mess feminism has got us into. Marriage as the stable institution for the nurturing of children redefined and broken, to be replaced de facto by a union of equal ‘partners’, a temporary arrangement capable of being broken on a whim. Widespread divorce, broken homes, children being turned into the pawns of warring parents, or born to women who have disposed of their fathers altogether, and have turned to the state as their husband: a state created by an inherently left-wing political class in thrall to feminist fanaticism and the power it gives them. You need look no further than Harriet Harman (‘Harm-man’ as she is called in social media),  Tony Blair, Yvette Cooper, and a string of others, including in the Conservative Party, such as Theresa May, who have agitated for their feminist-Marxist agenda for decades.

Are these the signs of progress? Or regress caused by confrontation rather than collaboration and unrestrained totalitarian bigotry? How can the gender war win anything of meaning and value for women by seeking this false form of equality with men? How can a marriage of ‘equals’ be the same as one-flesh marriage? How can a man and a woman work in harness as one for their mutual happiness if the woman believes that to be a wife is to be somehow subservient to a man whose status as a husband amounts to being her oppressor? How can true partnership ever be fulfilled if women feel they need always to agitate for the ’freedom’ to be themselves, rather than be as one one with their man: perhaps the father of their children? If they believe they are ‘sleeping with the enemy’ and constantly need to vie for social power, space, advantage, privilege, over their husbands? (And make no mistake, this is the unwritten psychological contract of all male-female relationships today.)

Let me now turn to the issue of rights. When Lucy Holmes says, ‘Women should have the same rights as men. Not more rights, but equal rights, and there’s a word for what I believe in – it’s Feminism’, she is right in her assertions but she couldn’t be more wrong in her remedy. She and her feminist fellow travellers are being played by an ideology which is playing a zero-sum game over rights: one that can only end in winners and losers; and that is not the way society needs to operate to resolve its tensions and keep progressing for the good of all.

You cannot gain rights in society that aren’t there to be gained. As James Fenimore Cooper put it: ‘Equality, in a social sense, may be divided into that of condition, and that of rights. Equality of condition is incompatible with civilisation, and is found only to exist in those communities that are but slightly removed from the savage state. In practice, it can only mean a common misery.’

Wise words indeed, and reinforced by Thomas Jefferson, who said that ‘No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another’, and Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes who said:

‘The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.’ Rights must apply to everyone in the same sense at the same time. So rights must therefore be limited to claims of freedom to do anything which does not violate the freedoms of others. This requires recognising, respecting and abiding by anyone else’s wishes to be left alone whenever he wants, and his wishes to be free to do anything which doesn’t violate others. This is why no one can claim a ‘right’ to interfere with your life in any way without your explicit, personally-given consent for a specified purpose. There can be no such thing as a ‘right’ for anyone (or any group) to mess with you whenever he wants (or whenever they want) since it obviously isn’t applying to YOU in the same sense at the same time.

In their headlong charge to engage with men about their so-called equality, feminists would do well to remember that their claims cut both ways, and men have a right not to be vilified, blamed, attacked, demeaned, have their social spaces invaded by women intent on asserting their alleged rights. Feminism is not about rights, or fairness (or equality), it is about the politics of envy, greed, and power: things that have no place in a truly civilised, truly equal, truly diverse society. That is why feminism is poisoning us and our way of life. It is intent on destroying women’s relationships with men, and dividing society along the fault-line of gender, and I would respectfully remind Lucy Holme’s that this is the very society that nourishes her and protects her freedom to do what she is doing.

Fighting, and struggling, and grabbing advantage in the name of rights, which women have anyway is madness. It can only ever lead to irreconcilable tension and mistrust across society, and militate against the right both men and women have in a free society to be at peace, free from overbearing conduct and pernicious ideologies like feminism. Women (and men for that matter) who say they are in favour of ‘equal rights’ through feminism, are fouling their own nest, and everybody else’s too. They are embracing a divisive political poison that is attacking the social framework of our capitalist democracies, depriving everyone in them of the peace and prosperity in which life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can happen.

Feminism is an ‘ism, and all ‘isms lead to schisms. Feminism is destroying the fabric of our society: our loving, caring, mutual relationships; our families, and our way of life, and it is doing that because it is Marxism in a skirt. It’s aim, hidden beneath the false rhetoric of equality, is to re-engineer our capitalist democracies to conform them to its discredited dogma and communist precepts, which dictate that women must become a separate legal class and men be suborned: their rôle as fathers diminished and destroyed.

When, I wonder, are women like Lucy Homes going to wake up to this crock of lies and reinterpretations of reality they have been sold? Will it take the pain of a series of broken marriages or relationships? Perhaps when they are left struggling to bring up their children alone without the constant presence of their father? Maybe when they see the damage they have caused their children by never providing them with a stable home?

Or will it be when they are old and alone: single, solvent and self-interested. Firmly entrenched in a society devoid of community in which men and women no longer live together in mutual support and respect? When they are wiser, and full of regret for having been so gullible as to make feminism the operating system of their lives?

Women like Lucy Holmes, so comfortable and confident in her mantras, who say they are ‘in favour of gender equality’, or ‘in favour of equality of the sexes’ are onto a hiding to nothing, except society’s destruction. Despite their intelligence, they seem unable to grasp that the underlying premise of what they are saying is simply wrong. Logic demands that if women are not unequal, and they emphatically are not, then fighting for their equality is both nonsense and futile, and the entire feminist proposition fails.

That is why, no doubt, many women today will not self-identify as feminists: why there is ‘trouble with the F-word’. Women are beginning to stir and awaken to the degree to which they have been narcotised into believing the divisive ideology of feminism and its weasel words. Instinctively, they know that women have no social bounds today, other than that of childbirth and its consequences for motherhood, which most women see as a joy and the purpose of their femaleness, not a burden that must be shared by men because that is ‘equality’. Ordinary women, sensible women, those who actually rejoice in their womanhood know deep down that the feminist proposition really doesn’t hold water.

Yet, strangely, they still say they are ‘in favour of gender equality’, or ‘in favour of equality of the sexes’. Why should this be? Why do otherwise intelligent women still embrace feminism’s lies? Why hasn’t their intelligence lifted its veil and exposed it for what it is? I suggest it is because feminism is now just a way of life for so many women, a substitute religion, whose dogma and orthodoxy, and a full complement of religious mantras are so ingrained, so much a part of the social conversation, that it cannot easily be discarded.

Frankly, women are just following the herd: being docile members of a mesmerised sex that has been falsely led to believe that feminism is the default solution for the issues women have with society. But, women are worth more than that. Women are worth more than the undignified proposition feminism offers. They have brains and the freedom to use them, and it’s about time they did.

Women as individuals, not as a class, would do well to pause and reexamine what it is they are in favour of, and explore the meaning of the words that fall so easily from their lips: women like Lucy Holmes’s whose mantras are just wish-wash; they just don’t pass muster, and they belittle her.

I sometimes despair of ever finding an obviously intelligent woman such as she, who has used her brains to test her own beliefs. Maybe one day I will find one. But, I suspect, only when the stupidity that is feminism, let alone the evil it truly is, has been exposed and consigned to the trash can of history, labelled ‘Toxic ideologies – Hazardous waste’.

12 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

  • david hyatt

    brilliant piece of writing…..there is really nothing to add to this…..except to ask the question WHY society is allowing “feminism” to destroy it……i think the answer is decadence…..Rome fell paradoxically when it achieved a level of prosperity/stability that made it smug and indolent……this lunatic fringe of gormless airheads with their lust for power are truly the barbarians howling at the gates of the City and firing blazing arrows at the citizens within….

    • Taca

      The Rockefeller foundation sponsored feminism in the US, Goldman Sachs recently sponsored the UN HeforShe campaign. Big government embraces feminism everywhere. It’s as if some people have a vested interest in the social discord, the destruction of family allegiances, and the evermore intrusive state regulation of mens’ private lives, for which feminism offers the perfect alibi. Mmmm . . .

      • Fred Neecher

        I’m curious to know how the Rockefeller Foundation and Goldman Sachs can justifiably be described as “Marxist” and “communist” (see my comment above).

        • Taca

          Hi Fred. Ah, I wasn’t suggesting these organizations are Marxist or Communist. I was responding to David’s question regarding ‘why society is allowing “feminism” to destroy it’. I always perceived feminism as a top-down ideology more than grass-roots, one that is promoted by powerful organisations and governments, and speculating that these bodies can gain from social discord. I’m not averse to reading a bit of Marx myself – I think ‘preface to a critique of political economy’ is one of the most insightful, tidy and concise presentations of the human condition ever written. The borrowing of Marxist theories of class to apply to whole genders doesn’t much inspire me though. It’s a long time ago now since I was a student but I don’t remember being that taken by Engel’s critique on gender either. Maybe I should dig it out . . .

          • Fred Neecher

            I agree, Taca. I actually see modern feminism as stemming from an unholy combination of right-wing free market values and a bastardised version of neo-Marxist political thinking. Something not unlike the Cultural Revolution, but with wealth in mind rather than Mao’s thoughts. Hence the likes of Harriet Harman being placed alongside people like Theresa May.

  • Taca

    Fantastic, this sort of writing is poetry to me. And good selection of quotes too:
    . . . equality of opportunity, and equality before the law.
    That is what men and women down centuries have striven for: from Magna
    Carta to the Enlightenment. This has been a process of evolution – one,
    incidentally driven by men, not held back by them

  • Sean44SS

    Hi Herbert,
    You mention the feminist writer Kate Millett. It is interesting that her sister Mallory wrote an article published last year titled Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives ( http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mallorymillett/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives/ ).
    Mallory’s article includes these comments:
    I’ve known women who fell for this creed in their youth who now, in their fifties and sixties, cry themselves to sleep decades of countless nights grieving for the children they’ll never have and the ones they coldly murdered because they were protecting the empty loveless futures they now live with no way of going back. “Where are my children? Where are my grandchildren?” they cry to me.

    “Your sister’s books destroyed my sister’s life!” I’ve heard numerous times. “She was happily married with four kids and after she read those books, walked out on a bewildered man and didn’t look back.” The man fell into despairing rack and ruin. The children were stunted, set off their tracks, deeply harmed; the family profoundly dislocated and there was “no putting Humpty-Dumpty together again.”

  • disqus_QL05BqU79X

    “You cannot have a pissing area in a swimming pool.”

    A little piece – or small, warm flood – of genius. Indeed so. War on half of the population and everybody suffers.

  • Fred Neecher

    I had to stop reading this otherwise excellent summation when you started dropping ‘Marx’ and ‘communism’ in every line. Doing this is not an automatic explanation as to why feminism is bad, and to try to explain it in this context would land you in a circular argument. I do realise that dropping in those useful terms does get more people roused up, but it also alienates people on the left including those libertarian Marxists (yes, it’s a thing – look it up) who are just as much damaged by feminism as you are and who are just as opposed to it as you are. Communism (not that I’m advocating it) is defined by Marx as “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”. Nothing about equality. Let’s leave outdated politics out of this and recognise a common cause that affects all men.

    • Herbert Purdy

      Hi Fred. First of all, thanks for engaging with what I say so constructively. I appreciate that very much. I could spend hours discussing this with you but, clearly, that is not going to be possible. Suffice to say that it is my firm view that feminism is cultural Marxism and we would all do well to see it as it really is, whether one agrees with Marxism or not. I think feminism is a masquerade. Under the guise of seeking equality for women, it is actually a naked attempt to reengineer our society to conform to communist principles. If you think about it, your definition of Marxism (which is, of course, widely known), is all about equalising people in a society, which is communism. That is what feminism is seeking to do with women vis-a-vis men: feminists claim women are the ones in need and men’s abilities are being tapped to fulfill those needs. This has nothing to do with equality of opportunity for all, after which people find their own outcomes depending on ability. which is the true liberal Enlightenment aim upon which all we stand, surely? Carried to its ultimate conclusion, feminism would have the same number of women winning medals when competing with men in the 100 metres Olympic sprint final. Is that the sort of equality that would be acceptable do you think?

      PS. Are you coming to the ICMI16 conference in London in July?

      • Fred Neecher

        Hi, Herbert. Thanks for your reply. Yes, I hope to be at the conference. Let me say I agree entirely with what you say here about feminism. You echo much of what I have been feeling over the last few months. I accept that we have differing views about Marxism, though probably, once the labels have been set aside, not so much. At least, I prefer to preserve those liberal Enlightenment values whether in the face of “communism” or simply of female supremacy.

        • Herbert Purdy

          Well said Fred. Amen, and amen. Feminists have the money, they have the power, and they have the propaganda – but we have the truth and the ability to reason. That is the most powerful weapons we have in this resistance struggle against their totalitarianism – and, of course, the ability to agree to disagree. Looking forward to meeting you at the conference. Make sure you make yourself known to me eh? Best.