Feminism is based on false premises:

1. that, historically, men as a group or class had more power than women as a group or class.
2. that the very structure of social institutions reflected this and gave all men more power than any woman
3. that what was true of any man was true of all men
4. that all men were responsible, culpable, and shared the guilt for any and all bad acts by any and all men.
5. that all women are inherently good and smart, and all men inherently evil and stupid

False premises cannot lead to anything except false conclusions.

Actions and social policy based on these will not produce the desired results, but rather the opposite or totally unpredictable results.

The truth is that power within any society is not divided horizontally, but vertically. Society is a pyramid structure with the majority of people at the base of the pyramid, and progressively fewer people the farther up one goes. At each level, there was a subtle, complex, and dynamic balance of power between men and women.

From about the middle of the 2nd decade of life, through about the middle to end of the 4th, women have an inborn advantage in power based on the structure of courtship, the human mating dance. Men must seek and court women’s favor in order to have an outlet for their drives to reproduce and continue the species. Women are able to demand resources from men in return for this outlet, which implies that they demand for men to compete with other men for control of those resources. The pea hidden under the rapidly moving shells of this sexual-power shell game is the fact that once men had these resources, they usually turned control of them over to women.

Now, women are being encouraged to compete with men directly for these resources, just like men compete with other men, as well as to hold on to the power to make men turn over the resources they have competed with other men, as well as women, to acquire. It will not work, and it cannot work – because it attempts to deny, refute, and change the behavior and preferences of the majority of women. First, it simply means that most men just have fewer resources to give to women. Competition makes it a lot tougher to get them. Second, the bar has been raised for women to expect MORE, while LESS is what is available. Women are disappointed. Boo hoo. Grow up and get over it.

While the short-term balance of power has shifted in women’s favor, justified by always being able to refer to a distorted interpretation of history to prove that women of today deserve such an imbalance to make up for things “suffered” not by them but by their ancestresses, it will not and can not remain so for long. Men will find ways to get their power back – and the number one way has been to decrease women’s power in the traditional ways that females have had power over men: in sexual interaction and in social pampering of women, also known as “chivalry.”

As women invade men’s former spheres of power

And demand equal share, so do men push back against women’s traditional sphere’s of power – personal, particularly sexual, relationships. When women bailed out of their traditional roles so did men. If women had no need of a man to protect and provide for them, they certainly didn’t need commitments from men to do so.

Besides, commitments are only binding on one side – the male side. Women were encouraged to see marriage as a form of “oppression” and leaving it as a form of “self-expression.” The more astute and intelligent among men thought that just skipping over the “oppression” stage and letting women “self-express” from the get-go made much more sense. Why cave in to a woman’s demands to get married when she is going to come in a few years to hate the man for allowing her to pressure him to letting him “oppress” her? Makes no sense at all. But, then, feminism refutes the very existence of something like sense as “patriarchal” or “androcentric.”

As women have gained power in the worlds of business and politics, they have lost it in personal relationships. The old traditional notions of male-female interdependency were equally binding on men and women, and when women broke those bonds they broke men’s at the same time. Like the old Joni Mitchell song, “Big Yellow Taxi” says, “you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.” The men who adapted early and well to the new visions of total equality (and uniformity) were perfectly happy to let women support themselves, AND the children. They gave women what women were asking for. It just didn’t turn out to be what women wanted.

Men, damn fools that many of us are, first ignored feminism expecting it to go away and collapse from its own internal contradictions and refutation of reality. And, more than a few of them quite liked the idea of free, uncommitted, sex. What followed was an absolute orgy of pretense and counter pretense; lie and counter-lie; manipulation and counter-manipulation.

Today, many women are finally waking up to what they have lost due to feminism.

And, more than a few are calling to have it back. Sorry, grrls – when Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall, all the kings horse and all the kings men, couldn’t put things back together the way they were, ever again.

There has been a fundamental change in social values. These values reflect the statistical average of the acts based on those values which result from billions of tiny and seemingly inconsequential decisions each day. A woman who decides to let man-bashing hate speech fall stupidly out of her mouth in an otherwise empty head, drops one more drop of poison into the well of relationships that everyone must drink from. A man who overhears her likes women just a tiny bit less. A man who might have otherwise considered asking her out on a date, decides that he really doesn’t want to date a man-basher, so the opportunity for a positive interaction between them gets passed up.

Older men now tell younger ones “DON’T get married. DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.” The anti-male bias in law which has been used to temporarily shore up the loss of social controls of irresponsible male behavior has been used so extensively against responsible men, that more and more they just avoid situations where they might be vulnerable.

And, as women get angrier and angrier over having to live up to the demands of the new world that FEMININE-ism has created for them, they just keep escalating their war on men and boys. And men just keep moving farther away from women, and liking them less and helping them less.

For more than 2000 years, Aristotle’s erroneous medical theories, his false premises, led physicians to bleed their sick patients with leeches and instruments. The treatment itself became the cause of the disease, and more people died from too much doctoring than died from too little.

FEMININE-ism is bleeding the life out of society because it’s premise is false.

Maleness is not the root of all evil, as they say, any more than blood was the source of disease instead of vitality, but the root of at least half the good in the world. Women are not universally “the fairer sex”, although they probably were more moral when society demanded of them that they be, but are are the root of at least half the evil in the world.

The result is that FEMININE-ism has blinded society to female evil and male good.

False premises cannot lead to anything but false conclusions. Blindness to evil makes one totally vulnerable to it, and blindness to good removes it from one’s life.

The world as it really is:

This is the world that feminism wants:

Any Questions?

Back to “Feminism Deconstructed”

Back to EOTM: Gender War, Sexuality, and Love

Backed Up and Credited by – no-maam.blogspot.com