The Curse of Feminism on Humanity
I start this blog by posing the question, can an isolationist vociferous sector of humanity be trusted to know what rights to defend and fight for the 50 percent of females that make up humanity let alone in knowing how to bring about the common good of humanity as a whole? Is giving into such representation the appropriate manner for establishing and assigning human rights? Who is defending the rights of the silent majority of humans on the issue of male and female interrelationships and agreements? This is the fundamental problem in dealing with feminism towards which I have a certain antipathy on the grounds of its divisiveness as a philosophy or a campaign weapon on behalf of the female component of humanity. By definition the feminism perspective is therefore not compatible with the humanism perspective. Feminism is a curse on humanity for the simple reason that there is no such thing as masculinism for it to counterbalance in society, unless we regard the traditional status quo as masculinism.
A feminist is not the opposite of a masculinist which the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a as “an advocate of male superiority and dominance” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism. Unfortunately, there may be large numbers of males who think that men are superior to women and equally there may be females who are convinced that females are superior to men.This has nothing to do with feminism. Feminism is not the notion either that men and women are equal, since it this is a preposterous proposition given the reality that men and women are biologically different; for some things men are better equipped, for other things women are better equipped. Society has evolved to exploit these strengths and weakness, for example, women are generally considered better at multi-tasking. It is impossible to balance out the abilities of the two sexes in multifarious tasks performed in society and come to a decision that men and women are roughly equal. There are numerous tasks in which there is no significant difference in the ability and performance of men and women and so there is no argument that the two sexes should receive equal treatmen which should be enshrined in law. The issue is one of equal opportunities for both the sexes. There are rights that should come under universal human rights that is applicable to both males and females so that feminism is not the platform upon which these issues are debated. If feminism equality implied that men and women should be treated identically and campaigned for equal rights, then I would call myself a feminist. But feminism is more than that. Some define a branch known as Radical Feminism. Feminists also campaign and protest about things like this which has nothing to do with fighting for equal rights http://www.object.org.uk/home/3-news…-press-release. So what is feminism?
Feminism is the idea that the female component of the human species should dictate the terms of the relationship between man and woman in favour of its independence and rejection of the need to submit women to the common cause of humanity. It stems from realising that it is a man’s world in that men make all the major decisions on the direction of humanity in terms of government, business and the professions. It wishes to empower women to take over the running of the world by abandoning women’s traditional role in child bearing and home-making. It abhors the negative aspects of womanhood that prevents the female sex from attaining high positions of power in society. The feminism movement is a resistance movement that wishes to upset the biological evolutionary imperative that the two sexes perform different roles in Nature and are the weaker sex from purely physical strength and stature that enables it to dictate the terms of social interactions. Females are better at multi-tasking, are apparently more intelligent and better decision makers so are able to do much more productive work than men who have evolved to be lazier wanting relaxation and sexual intercourse for which they have a penis which they can thrust into the women’s vagina until sperms are ejaculated, the act tiring them so much that they need rest afterwards. Feminism pays no regard to the biological evidence that the male component of the human species has evolved to wanting to screw the female component for strong sexual enjoyment and this has been selected for as being the efficient basis for species fitness with oestrus having consequently all but disappeared from this species of primate because of the strong development of male urge for sexual intercourse; feminism insisting that sex activity be restricted to only when the female component desires it.
Those women who are against marriage would certainly be classed as Radical Feminists. Marriage means when one woman and one man commit to each other and so live together. If women do not wish this then they oppose the getting together of a man and woman for life long commitment. Such an idea from a feminist agenda is indeed Radical Feminism that wants total independence from men. They would become spinsters and for men in the same position it will be bachelors. In other words tantamount to opposite sex haters.
Feminism goes further in that there are extremists who see the act of sex as a revolting intrusion into their privacy and independence and wish to change society to be free of this coercive male dominance over their body such that the act of sexual intercourse is seen as a form of violence against the woman. They would choose to have their children by artificial insemination of sperms alone. I have known feminists who are against prostitution, girlie magazines, playboy clubs, lap dancing, wearing bras even, for cause of women’s liberation. Should society encourage these extreme forms of feminism? I do not think so. These forms of feminism that I call warped feminism concerned solely with depriving males of their pleasures by preventing what they see as the exploitation of femininity by the male members of society. Warped feminism of this kind wishes to establish a kind of intellectual dominance over sexual matters which is impracticable without a wholesale imposition of criminal laws forbidding men from their certain natural activities.
Crucially, the feminist movement wishes to make the majority of women live according to their way of attaining liberation and this is wrong for those majority of women who are sexy and wish to enjoy and exploit the fact that men need these things so that the women can in turn derive pleasure where the appreciate the sexual encounter of courtship and raomance and where they are desperate for money, income from the activities that are geared to satisfying mens’ erotic desires. Further, the feminism that wants to make all women think this way so as to ban these aspects of human conduct in the interests of the ‘dignity and respect of women’ are also denying men their rights to those things which is a pity and, significantly for society, in the process the deprive society of economic activities for which there is real market demand. By wanting to deny men sex and children in the interests of furthering this kind of feminism as a philosophy that furthers their warped homosexual tendencies of lesbianism rather than having any intellectual base they are doing great damage to the cause of humanity which sees men and women playing ecological roles in furthering the propagation of the human species.
Feminists want all the sex that they can have when the want to but deny men the same. Their agenda is to liberate women about their sexual habits and therefore they especially hate the thought of virginity for marriage being desirable on the consideration of some cultures that the breaking of the hymen is a symbolic act of marital union, surrender and conversion to womanhood that she saves herself for the one and only special person in her life. Further men need to be careful: in a feminist society one day all men will have to be superstuds who gave their wives multiple orgasms each time they had sex because if they did not due premature ejaculation or lack of care for these needs of her it would amount to a form of rape in law. In other words, men will be women’s slaves. So let us get real. In a society men and women should jointly decide and have a vote on what we should do in society on sex, children and marriage; in other words women should not decide on these things unilaterally as feminism seeks to establish.
Feminism assumes and patronises women as being the weaker sex thus needing and deserving positive action t0 protect them from attacks from men whereas in real life women can be very exploitative and vengeful towards men and it is the men that require protection of the rights from exploitation by women. There is evidence that they wish to increase the age of consent to sex to 18 years of age for the woman. Here is what the female Head of Secular Cafe (DMB) wrote on the issue without specifying if she considered 15 years as being too young for sex:
”There is plenty wrong with adult males humping young girls. If the girls become pregnant young there is a high probability that childbirth will kill or them or seriously damage their health.
There is only one reason for adult men to want to abuse young girls and that is that they are seeking their own sexual gratification and don’t give a flying fuck for the wellbeing of the girls”.
Feminists also campaign hard about raising the age of consent for sexual intercourse to 18 years of age. As Beth argued at Secular Cafe: ‘’Many people who target young girls groom and manipulate the girl in order to silence her. There is an unfair distribution of power.’’ Such concerns display that they are in a fight for supremacy against men, rather than understanding humanity to determine how how men and women can reasonably associate with each other for the common good of humanity.
What kind of women fight for feminism and women’s liberation from the shackles of Nature that bind them to certain domestic duties leaving men to fetch the firewood and the food to sustain humanity? The vast majority of women go after men, especially rich men, who are attracted to the most attractive of women thus leaving the less beautiful ones on the sidelines. Radical feminists seem angry that Nature has made them into female rather than a male: they do not celebrate their femininity (that is their female biological attributes), so that this kind of feminism is wrong. In fact they would not think of themselves as typically female so that their condition may be considered an aberration of Nature, like homosexuality in its mildest form. The strongest feminists are indeed lesbians.
Equity Feminism versus Warped Feminism
Any antipathy against feminists has to be reasoned out and justified on the basis of what feminists actually say and campaign for. If they are arguing for policies that are against the legitimate human rights of others (including other females) these will be opposed. Equity feminists and warped feminists do not have manifestoes, so that noone seems to know what they stand for. This is why I have started making a list of what what these policies might be gleaned from my perception of feminist activities. For some feminists their hatred of men might be such that they just set out to create an atmosphere of antipathy towards men through their rants concerning men’s behaviour and do not attempt to understand the biological imperatives that has brought humanity to this point as the evolution of a two-component single human species. Such feminists are are vocal and wish to drive future evolution in a particular direction away from traditional beliefs. It is their right to do what they do but that is not humanism. I think I am right in saying that secular humanists see that society is best served when seen as a common project between men and women so that any policy from any quarter that meets the common objectives of humanity in a fair and just manner will be accepted as reasonable and those that are seen as unfair and unjust discarded. Feminists will have to clarify what their policies are in all major areas that affect mankind. They must have a manifesto. Or they exist only in the minds of some individuals. So here is a tentative list of feminist policies displaying equity femininism defined as that which is compatible with secular humanism and those displaying warped feminism:
(1) Campaigning for equal pay with men for doing the same job;
(2) Campaigning for equal opportunity to education for both male and female children;
(3) Campaignnig for equal opportunities at securing all kinds of jobs for males and females;
(4) Campaigning for research funds into female medical problems like gynaecological cancers;
(5) Campaigning for maternity leave in jobs for up to 3 years following the birth of a child;
(6) Campaigning for immediate divorce on demand;
(7) Campaigning for a unified world culture that assigns human rights using the same criteria for the whole world.
(1) Campaigning against marriages;
(2) Campaigning for unisex characterisitics in society such as in dress codes and hair styles for males and females;
(3) Campaigning against prostitution, sex clubs, pornography in magazines and newspapers;
(4) Campaigning for the role of being the sole arbiter of when abortion is permissible in society;
(5) Campaigning to lift the age of consent to sexual intercourse to 18 years of age;
(6) Campaigning against religions;
(7) Campagining against the rights of fathers towards their biological child;
(8) Campaigning against fathers kissing their daughters ‘goodnight’ at bedtime as an inappropriate behavioural activity that starts the process of the sexualisation of girls;
(9) Campaigning for institutions and organisations to have equal numbers of male and female officials regardless of merit and commercial imperatives.
When such issues are pointed out feminists will never discuss the points so as to maintain a facade that they have something respectable and worthwhile that they are fighting for when it is simply a reflection of having a chip on their shoulder about their inferiority complex. I am not against independent vocal feminists of whatever description as everyone is entitled to voice their perceived opinions on all aspects of society, but I only admire those who have the capacity and inclination to write books and blogs about their beliefs so that the person then becomes available for public scrutiny; like Germaine Greer, Britain’s most famous feminist, because they are open about their feminism and come on the media and talk about it freely. So people know what they stand for and they shown themselves as having no ulterior motives. For example, Germaine Greer caused a flurry of calls to the BBC switchboard following her appearance on BBC’s Question Time in which she suggested that young girls could become inappropriately sexualised by their fathers kissing them goodnight: this is warped feminism borne of ignorance from someone with no experience of bringing up children into adulthood.
On the other hand, the general feminist cause is a concerted effort, not organised deliberately in order that it escapes the attention of the public but which puts in insididous inputs into the reorganisation of society along a perceived idea of women’s liberation and emancipation from the shackles of joint-evolution. The cause has voices in the hearts of governments and journalistic circles and the activists sacrifice their political, business and literary ambitions in order to stick around and plug the warped femiinist agenda. They impose their warped feminism on the rest of the female population and tell them what to do in order to fight for their rights as evangelical feminists. They operate cunningly and selectively to get to positions of society where they can influencing the hearts and minds of even gullible men and establish the necessary political correctness. Some of us are not fooled by their facade of innocence.
As an evolutionary biologist I have written extensively about the relationships between the sexes in my blog: people can read the articles, familiarise themselves with the ideas and then make up their own minds about whether I am mysoginistic towards all females or humanisitic in dealing with the warped feminism that destabilises society by its pretence that there is a legitimate notion of equality in terms of its measurability, desirability and attainability given the biological differences in the primary functions of the sexes.
Be the first to like this.
First published in Blog https://shantanup.wordpress.com September 20, 2012 - Posted by shantanup | Uncategorized | Edit