Feminism: Where It Goes Wrong

October 18, 2018 Updated: October 18, 2018


James Brown once sang, “This is a man’s world, but it would be nothing without a woman or a girl.” As the song continued, it proclaimed that man-made cars, roads, trains, electric lights, and other inventions. Yet, he would be lost in the wilderness without a woman or a girl.

When we take off our ideological sunglasses, this song profoundly embodies the historical relationship between men and women.

Equality is considered an absolute in this day and age. But as much as it pains some people to admit it, this is impossible when we aspire for equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is more realistic, but when we assume we’re all the same, we inevitably expect uniformity. This is where feminists go wrong.

Viva la Difference

Men and women aren’t the same, though differences don’t mean better or worse. If we consider Brown’s song, perhaps we can make sense of these differences without feeling the automatic outrage many feel about this today. Men are the builders of civilizations, creating amazing technological feats of engineering that would bore all but the most dedicated mind.

Of course, there are always exceptions—and that’s okay because equality of opportunity means that merit, in theory, should come first. But exceptions don’t make rules.

You’ll always find women and girls who enjoy engineering. Given the choice, however, most prefer people over things. What this means is that they like to work with people rather than abstract concepts such as science, and when they do work in science, it’s usually either soft sciences like psychology, or caring professions such as medicine.

This matters when we’re told there aren’t enough women in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) because sexism stops women from entering these professions. This is a key feminist complaint—also a demonstration of where feminism goes wrong.

Perhaps, feminists could learn a thing or two from Brown’s song. It’s not that men are conspiring to keep women down. Rather, the very purpose of men is the love and protection of women. Again, exceptions apply, but how far would we have gotten as a species if men had decided they don’t need women?

Likewise, how far would we have gotten if women thought they didn’t need men?

Feminist Gloria Steinem once said that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” She couldn’t be more wrong. In reality, men and women need each other. This is one of the most precious relationships in nature, especially among human beings. You could even call it sacred.

What does it take to make women believe that men despise, resent, or even hate them—that men prefer their own sex to the respect, love, and companionship of women? It would be a place warped by adverse experiences that make women and girls vulnerable to indoctrination: the girl abused by a male relative; the mother that poisons her daughter against her father during an acrimonious divorce; or the girl bullied by boys in school.

These experiences, and others, can affect a woman forever. Some can rise above this with psychological support and personal development. But in a culture of identity politics, this isn’t encouraged.

In this culture, women and girls are taught that masculinity equals privilege and toxicity, that males stop women breaking through the glass ceiling or becoming the next president of the United States. The result is women that see men as opposition, and a society that treats masculinity as pathological.

Not only is this destructive to the foundation that makes civilization possible, but it harms the very cycle of life itself.

Presumption of Innocence

Setting aside the impossibility of equality of outcome, equality under the law is another matter. Once again, feminists have gotten this wrong as a whole, especially when it comes to a presumption of innocence. We’re told that women should always be believed, in spite of evidence. Recent events in 2018 have demonstrated why this is folly.

In the UK, during the celebrity reality TV show “Big Brother,” contestant Roxanne Pallett was tapped on the shoulder by fellow-contestant Ryan Thomas during a playful interaction. She subsequently played the victim by suggesting she was abused, to which the public was widely appalled by this mischaracterization. The conclusion many reached was that, had it occurred somewhere without cameras filming, the man’s life would have been over.

In the United States, Justice Brett Kavanaugh had his name dragged through the mud when Christine Blasey Ford accused him of an alleged sexual assault that took place over 35 years ago at a house party. After a hearing and FBI investigation, no credible evidence or witnesses were found. Yet, some believe the absence of evidence doesn’t absolve Kavanaugh.

They say we should always believe the victim (Bill Clinton being an exception), and ask why Ford would lie? The answer to this question is simple: Women are human and humans can lie, especially for politically motivated reasons like stopping President Trump from selecting a second member of the Supreme Court.

Whatever feminism was supposed to represent, today it’s another part of the perpetual cycle of victimhood that drives our current political climate—the multi-headed hydra of cultural Marxism that takes many forms.

As with any movement, the risk is always that the extreme elements will take over and marginalize the moderates, who will eventually leave in disgust. What feminists and the Democratic Party tried to do to Kavanaugh—the trial by media and the destruction of the presumption of innocence—is what we saw under communism: show trials where legal protections and rights were secondary to the words of a woman who could bring no evidence to bear on the accused.

Is it so surprising that this is what happens under communism, when there are so many willing to chip away at our legal protections for political advantage?

Cid Lazarou is a blogger, writer, and freelance journalist from the UK.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.