Debating feminists can be a trying affair. Their tendencies to use straw men fallacies, ad hominem attacks, emotionally-loaded but hollow rhetoric while constantly moving the goal posts is well known. As is, when all else fails, they settle for the tried and true muh-harrassment tactic. But more than just faulty reasoning—if you can even call it that—much of what feminists argue involves having their cake and eating it too. (And in most cases, this involves a very substantial amount of cake.)
In this article we’ll focus on one particular gaping hole in feminist “logic.” Aside from the radical feminists who explicitly hate men, most feminists deny the charge that they despise, hate or hold men in contempt. “It’s the patriarchy” or something like that. Men “aren’t naturally bad, it’s society and the environment” or “toxic masculinity” or whatever.
Aside by the interesting point that this is pretty close to an admission that they despise men, in general, as they are in the real world today, it would at least be a coherent position.
Coherency and feminists don’t go well together though. The not-so-radical feminists may say men are naturally good, but they then set up what is an effectively impossible criterion for men to actually be good. It is what I will call “The Feminist Tautology” for virtually all sets of male behavior fall within it. An individual man may be able to escape its condemnation if he flagellates himself and his gender enough. But the male sex is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. No matter what, they’re evil.
Men Doing Bad Proves Men Are Bad
We’ll start with the obvious. If men do something bad more so than women, this is proof that men are terrible. While painting with an awfully broad brush, it makes sense.
So men commit close to 90 percent of violent crime and almost three quarters of all crime. Men are more likely to harass others online (although men are also probably more likely to be harassed), drive drunk and receive a Darwin Award. Most wars have been started by men. Etc., etc., etc.
Of course, feminists have done a great deal to exaggerate men’s avarice. The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, which consists of over 1700 studies, found that domestic violence is pretty close to 50/50 and if anything, women probably commit more (although men do more damage). Indeed, lesbian couples appear to be the most violent. Women commit the majority of child abuse. The “1 in 5 women are raped on college campuses” canard has been completely refuted. A portion of the gender crime gap is due to a massive (63 percent according to Professor Sonja Starr) disparity in criminal sentencing.
Even differences in aggression are less than previously thought when you take “relational aggression” (i.e. ostracizing, spreading secrets or lies, etc.) into account.
And contrary to the “there would be no war if women were in charge” crowd, a study from New York University “…analyzed 28 European queenly reigns from 1480 to 1913 and found a 27 percent increase in wars when a queen was in power.”
Still, while feminists torture the data with bogus advocacy research, the general thrust of their argument is correct; men do commit more crime and violence than women.
Men Doing Good Also Proves Men Are Bad
But once we turn to the other side of the equation, things start to get a little more, well, problematic. After all, shouldn’t male achievement be a credit to the male gender?
Apparently not. After all Larry Summers was forced out at Harvard for noting that the reason there are less female scientists may be because of factors other than discrimination. Why are more women going to college than men? Who cares! Why aren’t women equally represented in engineering and science? Sexism of course!
The discrepancy between male and female achievement in the upper echelons is actually far larger than most people think. Yes, in the past women were sometimes locked out of such opportunities. But the gap is still massive today when such barriers have been eliminated (and often reversed.)
Charles Murray did a historiometric study of the greatest figures in math, science, literature, art, technology, music and medicine from 800 B.C. to 1950 for his book Human Accomplishment and found that 97.8 percent of the greats were men. Murray also noted that men won 96 percent of the Nobel Prizes between 1900 and 1950 and 97 percent between 1951 and 2000 (apparently sexism increased over the last 50 years of the 20th century). Not a single woman had won the Nobel Prize in Economics until 2009 and none had won the Fields medal in Mathematics until 2014.
As for positions of leadership today, this article from EverydayFeminism.com of brings home that point,
Among Fortune 500 companies, women are only 5.2% of CEOs and 17% of board members. Among Fortune 1000 companies, women are still only 5.4% of CEOs – and 8.1% of top earners.
Women won in record numbers in the 2014 midterm elections, but still only 20% of the Senate and 19% of the House are women. At the state level, only 24.2% of legislators are women – and only five women are governors.
Only 16% of directors, executive producers and producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors of top-growing domestic films are women – and only 28% of off-screen talent in broadcast television are women.
Women are only 30% of physicians, 13% of engineers, and 9% of management and 14% of senior management positions in IT.
This is a feminist site, so we know they must first bemoan that “Unfortunately, a lot of cultural conversations around women’s leadership don’t encompass solutions to these gaps.” And the reason for those gaps? Well, obviously “gender still holds women back at work.” The one-note song of male oppression is sung once again.
But let us consider this briefly in more detail. If we need a “solution to these gaps” it is implied that male and female achievement should be 50/50 or approximately that (despite having never been so at any time in history ever). Indeed, feminists say this kind of thing all the time so feminist theory infers that men’s and women’s achievement should move in tandem. Therefore male achievement and female achievement are not independent variables, but directly contingent on each other.
So let’s arbitrarily set male achievement at 100 and female achievement at 50. There are two ways to look at this. The first is that both should be 75. In that case, men are just hogging some of that sweet achievement for themselves, but not costing society anything.
But feminists tell us that “liberating” women and ending discrimination will improve the economy and increase overall progress and achievement. Science, progress, nay, the future itself “is too important to leave to men.”
Thus, we would expect that if achievement were brought into a supposedly natural equilibrium, male achievement would stay at 100 and female achievement would come up to 100.
What this means, weirdly enough, is that men are actually doing wrong when they do right.
If this were true (spoilers: it’s not) male achievement is actually only 50. It would be 100 on its own, but because men can only do better than women by oppressing them, you have to subtract 50 off men’s 100. In other words, half of men’s achievement was simply taken away from women. Women’s, on the other hand, should be at 100 if you add the stolen 50 back.
So in the upside down world of feminists, women have actually been, or at least should have been, mostly responsible for the technological, scientific, artistic and medical achievements of humanity while men continue to be responsible for crime, poverty, environmental decay and war.
A feminist who was called out on this might concede it’s not completely contingent and it’s only supposed to be approximately 50/50. But the same logic would apply. Then men’s achievement is only approximately the cause of any shortfall in women’s achievement.
The end result is the same. When speaking about the gender on the whole, when men do bad, they are bad. When men do good, they are also bad because the only possible way men could do better at anything than women is because they discriminated against them.
Again, an individual man who consumes sufficient quantities of soy, subordinates himself and chastises his own gender enough may be considered tolerable by feminists and their ilk. But in the end, the male gender has been damned by feminists with the original sin of being evil no matter what. And unless you are under the belief that men and women are effectively the same and these differences can be completely abated (in which case, you’re stupid), then this original sin is also unfixable. There can be no salvation nor redemption. Men are evil. By definition, they have to be and there’s nothing that can ever change that.
When looking at the matter this way, men would be wise to ask themselves a simple question: What exactly is the point of trying to appease people with such views?