In spite of the fact that feminism, as an ‘ism,’ enjoyed many advantages, it is now on the decline due in large part of the populist uprising in the Western world.
It was advantaged by beginning with a premise that all ethical people agree is true – men and women should be treated equally. It was further advantaged by empirical observations that a woman can be discriminated against, and comparatively are the disproportionate victims of sexual assault and domestic violence.
There are two strands of feminism, popular feminism (pop feminism) and academic feminism. Popular feminism is the feminism of popular culture – the equality philosophy espoused in art, by celebrities, by politicians, expressed on internet forums, blogs, through memes, and tweets.
Academic feminism is the feminism advanced by philosophers, sociologists, gender studies professors, and educators.
Both forms of feminism, which found at least tangential support amongst bystanders, are now facing serious backlash.
Pop feminists have, as a result of passion on serious ethical issues, become perceived as vitriolic. Much of this is anecdotal on the part of their detractors but their detractors are reporting the same widespread experiences with feminist vitriol, which makes it phenomenologically valid as a knowledge claim.
This brand of feminism began to decline with the rise of Hillary Clinton.
Their unfettered passion for her ascension to the presidency showcased unfettered hypocrisy. Their sheer silence on her allegiance to Saudi Arabia – a country that prosecutes women for being sexually assaulted – her decimating women’s rights in Libya, and her hawkish foreign policy that favors misogynists, is beyond a betrayal of feminist values and I’ve not yet said anything of her aggression toward her husband’s victims.
Feminists who supported Mrs. Clinton have emptied themselves of feminist values for the veneer of feminism – it is vacuous feminism and, as something empty, it’s nothing; as such it’s nothing to take seriously.
Thus pop feminism has become passionate vitriol over nothing and many of my libertarian comrades are flouting it.
Academic feminists are nearly a different variety. They use a Marxist analysis to shed light on gender power relations.
Marx analyzed the power relations between the rich and the poor. Some critical race theorists analyze the power relations between various races. Feminists use it to analyze the various power imbalances between men and women (sometimes favoring women, but most often favoring men).
The difficulty of Marxism is that it’s false; it’s nearly as false as the claim that 1 + 1 = 3.
The chief difficulty Marxism faced is its failure to parse. It committed the philosophical sin of claiming that “what’s true of the part is true of the whole.”
It made grandiose claims about the bourgeoisie – that they’re exploiting the proletariat.
It made grandiose claims about business, claiming certain capitalist practices about underscoring competition or increasing production that are only partially true.
It made grandiose claims about price fixing.
Capitalism operates differently and more efficiently. It doesn’t have meta-narratives the way communism does. It doesn’t make broad sweeping claims about production. Prices aren’t fixed by broad, sweeping, economic judgments; they’re made by business owners faced with particular situations.
It’s true that some business people can be exploitive; the difficulty is in the class judgment that business people as a whole are exploiters. Business people that don’t exploit their employees have predictably found they’re more productive. Saying that “what’s true of the part is true of the whole” is what logicians refer to as an illogical shift from an “existential quantifier” (there exists at least one) to a “universal quantifier” (the entire set of individuals).
Feminism, in adopting a Marxist analysis, then plagues itself with falsehoods and illogicisms when they claim that “what is true of the part is true of the whole.”
They refuse to parse. They make statements about maleness and men as a whole based on the actions of some men. They make statements about the victimhood of women based on the victimhood of some women (albeit, an alarmingly high number of them).
Capitalism far surpassed communism because it deals with particulars on a local level. Feminism would be far more successful it looked at individuals rather than classes.
When called out on their irrationality of claiming “what is true of the part is true of the whole,” or “what is true of the whole is true of the part” (for example, men are more likely to be sexual offenders than women, therefore, a feminist claims a particular man has some responsibility). Feminists who err logically so much to the extent that they would mock their opponents with some such nonsense as “#butnotallmen” are to be treated as though they are claiming 1 + 1 = 3. Their lack of logic in committing the material fallacy of confusing the whole with the part is, in a Russell and Whitehead sense, just as glaring.
The illogical reasoning is what causes starting with true premises, and true observations, but winding up with false conclusions.
This is a false philosophy and the fact that it guides the thinking of politicians, and government funding is an assault on liberty.
It’s an assault on women in the same way Marxism assaulted the impoverished (though granted, he assaulted more impoverished people than Hillary Clinton assaulted women – though her aggression is as impressive as most male dictators). It creates a culture of coddling, dependence, victimization, and entitlement.
Through liberty, woman can know true strength, true power, and true feminism.