Kierkegaard once warned of a serious danger he saw within Christianity. C.S. Lewis picked up on his point. I’ll use their criticism because they are themselves Christian. They believed that artists and pastors were becoming infatuated with their telling about Christian metaphysics or Christian ethics, rather than Christianity itself. It isn’t so much humility and charity that artists and preachers love, but rather what they say about humility and charity. Lewis and Kierkegaard were concerned that Christian preachers were more in love with how they told the message rather than the message itself.
In Canada, nearly a century ago, there was a minimum wage for men and a lower minimum wage for women. This is clear-cut, smoking gun discrimination in terms of a gender pay gap. Feminism was necessary to combat this. But something happened: A love of speaking about feminism developed.
After this developed, progress was made. Yet the rhetoric didn’t cease.
Smoking guns on the wage gap are found rarely today. Thus the feminists cry out that women are discouraged from entering into high-income degrees, such as the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). There are no societal barriers for women entering the STEM fields — we find quite the opposite; there are various agencies, scholarships, and strategies, to have women enroll in these fields.
Rather than any excitement about the fact that women don’t face barriers to entry, such as extreme bigotry, they become hostile because it means an end to that particular preachment. They cannot accept that women are welcomed with open arms into these fields.
What’s worse, where women do face disproportionate suffering, there are educational memes that outline sexual assault:
There is an enormous danger within feminism of manufacturing an issue where none exists. One of the biggest impediments to feminism is that some people legitimately don’t think there are issues that women face (and the risk of sexual assault is chief among legitimate issues women do face).
When they manufacture issues like the above drivel, it devalues feminism. It’s like adding water to alcohol: It becomes far less potent. When feminists have invented reasons as to why women can’t enter a STEM field, some discrimination that barely exists in comparison to the enormous campaign to have women enter the STEM fields, it devalues the feminism.
Feminism has put in its place a system that bullies those who say no to the project. If an individual denies the above charge, then they are surely an apologist for rape culture. There is a disgusting impulse to call the above scenario assault, not at all because any reasonable person would call it assault but rather because they need their soapbox that screams oppression.
Feminists have relied on bullying. They wish for the rest of society to rise against anyone that views their claims with suspicion. There must be a societal punishment for not accepting their preachments. This is the ultimate mother bear psychology — “I perceive this slight transgression upon someone I choose to view as a victim, so I shall maull you to death”.
Feminism is bereft of ethics. Their desire now resides in preachments. If a wage gap has ended, they are unhappy. Sexual assault, a legitimate issue today, is even diluted; so they can claim victimhood. Feminism has diluted itself — it has erased its own potency. No serious person thinks Jake is Josie’s rapist on the simple grounds that they had equal amounts to drink, and yet feminism must think this, or else it’s in danger of losing its soapbox.