Why Feminism is Nonsense

That is a not a statement of misogyny it is a statement that the founding theory of feminism is nonsense. Obviously no one should suffer or experience distress but to solve this needs correct thinking, and feminism is not correct thinking.

Recently saw Sharmishta Chakrabarti talking about rape as a war crime. What she forgets is why rape occurs during war. It is not men abusing women and toxic masculinity oppressing vulnerable femininity (which is itself a stereotype of women). The reason is that to really subdue a people you need to break genetic lineages. You can attack a people and kill their king but they remain integral and will just elect a new king and mount resistance. To really subdue a people you need to breed with them to have children whose loyalty is split between the invading people and the subdued people. It is human behaviour to rape as part of conquest in order to create a generation of children who will support you. And this is not men against women, because the women of the invading population benefit from this subjugation as well. It just happens that by definition the part of a population that does the insemination we call "men" and so it falls to them to inseminate during a conquest. Hopefully it can be easily seen that feminism contributes nothing to understanding this behaviour and just politicises it between a fake division between men and women. In war it is not a division between men and women, it is between invader and defender and the women of the invaders benefit as much from this behaviour as the men.

One objection to the above will be that I have just remolded patriarchy in a naturalism where I argue that "it is natural" or a "material fact." The Feminist will argue that once we see things from the feminist perspective we will invalidate arguments based on material facts. The problem with this view is that we start to enter a world where we have no verification. You can just invent anything you wish and your "human rights" will back you in this. This begins the world of people "self identifying" with things like sex and gender. The problem with this is that if the "individual" is the only basis of truth then which is the basis of this truth? Does an individual just decide that the individual is the sole source of truth or are we basing this on some other foundation. The thing about observing the natural world is that it does not just depend upon the prejudices of an individual, but seeks to describe broader patterns. What is said above does not just apply to a particular person, or group or people: it applies to all people and even animals. There are very broad truths in the above far beyond the narrow horizons of the individualist.

On the subject of sex. A very simple look at the natural world will reveal there are two sexes. Not just in humans but in our pets as well. When you buy a couple of pet rabbits you are well advised to get two of the same sex. And the reason goes to the heart of what sex is: if you get a male and a female you will end with with more rabbits. There is no binary or patriarchal prejudice here, it is a simple fact. Try it if you don't believe it. And what is true of rabbits is broadly true of humans. Put 2 humans of the same sex on an island and come back in 20 years and you will have 2 humans. But 2 humans of opposite sex and come back in 20 years and there is a good chance you will have more than 2 humans. Not always but the possibility is there and if you repeat the experiment the pattern will be clear. There is no prejudice here, these are provable and obvious facts. It takes in fact prejudice not to see this. There are two sexes and they have very obvious biological function. This has nothing to do with social conditioning, "cis" culture, prejudice, patriarchy and any of the host of nonsenses that have been invented in the last century.

I am interested that the biological functions of sex may have developed social meanings. Sex plays its role not just in procreation but in pair bonding and arguably social bonding also. And sex plays a role in non-productive homosexual relations, polygamous relations, casual relations and a whole range of constructs that are not linked to child birth. Interestingly religions dissuade from this type of activity, and monks abstain completely. This could be to limit the production of children with no clear parentage, or in Capitalist societies to protect the inheritance of capital or social positions but with contraception you might think these abstinences would become pointless. Disease in animals is strong linked to monogamy with many birds for example usually be monogamous most likely to reduce the spread of disease, but also this is linked to resource supply. But there are spiritual reasons too like Sodom and Gomorrah warming society to not become addicted and diverted by the "pleasures of the flesh." Just as drugs can destroy lives so can sexual obsession and addiction. All things in moderation applies here. And monks in particular have spiritual reasons not to waste time and energy in such pointless pursuits. However I just had that entire exposition with no reference to any prejudice or patriarchy.

Now argued at length in this blog the reason that women get stuck at home in many cultures is deeper than a role in childbirth. It is a simple fact that men can only be sure that women will produce their children if they lock them up. Women on the other hand cannot produce someone else's child! Women do not need to worry who their partner sleeps with as the partner does not bring home the produce. Men on the other hand must rely completely on their partner to provide offspring. This is where marriage comes from. The need for fidelity is primarily driven by the male needing some assurance that the female will not get pregnant by someone else. Now some feminist may argue well who cares, I am free to sleep with whoever I like and you the male must put up with that. But the male will turn around and say well I won't contribute to the upbringing of someone else's child, that is their problem. So unless you can prove that your children are mine then I'm walking out. So the feminist goes back to the true father and says my partner just walked out will you help contribute to the upbringing of your child. And the true father says well how do I know that kid is mine? I'm not helping. So the women ends up bring her children alone. Now this is good in a way, because without the need to prove fidelity to a man she is free to leave the home and work and do all things she was restricted from before. But she ends up doing the child rearing alone. This underpins the primary link between the female and the child - she always knows who her children are. Suddenly she realises that if she wants to support of the father she must prove to him that the child really is his. And so women accept loss of freedom in order to prove to men that children are theirs. This is the basis of what the feminist calls patriarchy and female subordination.

Now none of the above says that men do not abuse women, Humans abuse humans and this is never justified. But the idea that men abuse women specifically is highly problematic and without accounting for the actual structures of male and female relations nothing feminists say makes any sense,and worse is actually profoundly prejudice and damaging to people, children and society.

===

One argument I have produced before is that "rape" is itself a highly problematic crime. Rape as it is currently defined means that only a man can commit rape by definition of their anatomy. And yet rape needs the interaction of male and female genitalia. Despite the fact that a union must take place, only one side of the union can ever be to blame. It is like locks and keys have free choice and when the union is considered problematic only the key can ever be at fault because the key must enter the lock. In a free and fair society then everyone should be accountable for a crime, you cannot have half of a society unable to be convicted based on a biological feature of their anatomy that is no fault of their own. When intercourse has occurred it must be possible for the male to also accuse the women of rape if she has coerced the male into sex against his will. Example of this might be flirtatious behaviour where the male would not have had intercourse without. What is called "coming on" in the vernacular. Many sexual encounters between a male and female are initiated by the female. If the male decides afterwards that he was seduced then this is rape. Getting a male drunk for the same purposes is also rape. And the more complex one is when a girl behaves flirtatiously, encourages a male and then afterwards she decides it was rape. Well under the proposed change to the law, if she initiated the encounter then she must share some of the responsibility. Obviously this does not mean that a women in a revealing dress can be raped and the male claim that she dressed like she wanted me to do it. It is common sense. If a woman dresses like she wants a sexual encounter, initiates the encounter with someone, make no indication or attempt to protect herself and then afterwards decides it was rape there is a problem in convicting the male. I think of an example I heard from a friend of a girl in a nightclub flirting with this guy recently released from Grade-A prison, going back to his and then in the morning saying she was raped. How can her behaviour not be interpreted as meaning she is interested, and how is she not partly not responsible? The current law is absurd. Another example is a women getting pregnancy by lying about contraception. Such deception cannot be the responsibility of the male.

Feminism does not make sense, and current attitudes that pervert reality into a fake battle between women and men mean that common sense has been lost.