This is part of a series on feminism and the decline of society. See this index.

There are many definitions of feminism (PDF). Those who despise feminism define it according to the hell that it is. Those who love feminism prefer fluffy, sweet-sounding definitions. In October, 2019, one feminist provided her preferred definition of feminism:

The definition of equality as far as feminism goes is really simple: equal opportunity for all; not being stopped from trying because of gender. Treating everyone the same.

At first glance this appears to be a pretty tame definition. It is quite a bit less honest than Webster’s definition of feminism, but many feminists would probably agree with it.

Note that this definition is vague and contradictory. Equal opportunity for all is not the same as treating everyone the same. This is simple to demonstrate. If we were to treat everyone the same, then we would all be like Chinese culture: refusing to give up our seats to pregnant women. The reason I might yield my seat to another is because different people get treated differently. So let’s interpret treating everyone the same as a simple summary of giving everyone equal opportunity irrespective of their gender.†

There are many reasons that this is wrong.

#1: Equal opportunity is incoherent

The definition given is vague, especially not clearly defining ‘equal’. This is by design, because no specific, objective criterion can be established that leads to a coherent definition.

There are feminists called by the slur TERF: trans-exclusionary radical feminists. These oppose transgender rights, especially transwomen taking any rights afforded to biological women. They refuse to accept that transwomen are—in fact—women. They argue that women cannot have equal opportunities if (biological) men are allowed to take their opportunities.

When a transwoman competes in a women-only sporting event, they have an unfair advantage because they are men competing against women. The opportunity is undeniably unequal. But by excluding transwomen you are not giving equal opportunities irrespective of gender. Thus, by the definition of feminism given above, excluding transwomen is also undeniably unequal. Both positions are undeniably unequal.

It’s a hopeless contradiction because men and women are not equal. Trying to equal that which is not equal leads to absurdities like feminists fighting feminists over which equality must be more equal. The concept of equality in feminism is self-refuting because it denies reality.

#2: Feminists seek equality of outcome

Having established that it is impossible to have equality of opportunity, we realize why feminists focus almost all of their efforts on equality of outcome or, as it has since come to be known, equity.

Studies time and again show that the wage gap is real and that is predominately caused by choices made by women (PDF). The great irony was that when women achieved equality of opportunity, they used that opportunity to not close the wage gap. God forbid that we tell women what to do, so the only thing left to do is to try to force equality of outcome.

The Australian government attempted to help give women equal outcomes (that is, equal wages). They tried putting male names on female candidates’ resume. The result? Fewer interviews. It turns out that Australians are biased in favor of women, giving them unequal opportunities over men. In response to this, the Australian government insisted on new policies to increase the hiring chances of men over women. Wait, what’s that? They didn’t do that? No, they actually abandoned the practice because it didn’t lead to equal outcomes for women. They were perfectly fine with the anti-male unequal opportunity.

The feminist push for equality of outcome is not limited to women. As noted in the first definition above, feminism was about ‘treating everyone the same’. Embracing this philosophy, the School Diversity Advisory Group in New York City found that minority children were underrepresented in the city’s gifted schools. The suggested solution? End equal opportunity admissions standards to force equality of outcome.

#3: Feminists seek inequality—of opportunity and outcome—favoring women

Feminists don’t stop with seeking equality of outcome. No, they have to be sure that women have greater opportunities and greater outcomes than men.

Remember when Hasbro embarrassed itself by announcing Ms. Monopoly, a board game that gives unequal opportunities to women?

The NYT article entitled “Where Boys Outperform Girls in Math: Rich, White and Suburban Districts” noted that girls academically outperform boys in almost every area.

When faced with this inequality, the NYT suggested that schools in America need to focus greater attention on creating more opportunities for boys to try to catch up or exceed girls’ outcomes. Wait, what’s that? They didn’t do that? No, they actually said that this was a problem that could be solved by raising girls scores, further increasing the gender disparity.

Feminists love abortion because their death worship favors women. Dave Chappelle pointed out their hypocrisy: if they can murder his child, he should be allowed to abandon it and not have to pay child support if the mother chooses to keep it. It’s logically consistent. Feminists despise it when anyone points out that women have unfair, unequal reproductive power and parental rights.

Another way feminists favor women is in divorce proceedings. By giving unequal rights to women, they can and do use divorce and custody of children as threat points in marriage (PDF). This feminist view of marriage is thus an antagonistic competition where power is given to the wife over her husband.

Feminists love #MeToo and Title IX enforcement, because it allows women to create post-hoc rationalized rape accusations to further control men and destroy their lives as punishment for being men. #BelieveAllwomen is yet another way to support this and give women unequal social rights and punitive powers.

#4: Feminists see opportunity as a zero-sum game

In theory, there are two ways to achieve equal opportunity: reduce the opportunity of men or increase the opportunity of women. In a zero-sum game these two are equivalent, so feminists would have to decrease the opportunities of men to increase the opportunities of women. However, feminists don’t actually care if opportunity isn’t a zero-sum game: they will reduce a man’s opportunity whether or not there is a corresponding increase the opportunities available to women in order to achieve relative equality. Many of the examples given above are like this (e.g. girl’s test scores).

This is important because the fluffy sweet-sounding definition ‘equality for all!!!’ is used as an excuse to reduce a man’s opportunity even if it doesn’t benefit women. Equality in this context just means harming men. This is where Dalrock’s Law of Feminism (PDF) comes into play. Feminists demand that men change to their lives to give women more opportunity and better outcomes while simultaneously working to reduce his opportunities and outcomes. It is for this reason that many men are so hostile towards feminism, and their hostility is completely justified.

Conclusion

It turns out that the tame definition of feminism is actually insidious. Those gentle words are smooth lies. The best definition most consistent across all flavors of feminism is the promotion of gender inequality favoring women, that is, female supremacy.

Those of us who hate feminism are often falsely vilified for ‘hating women’. Yet by fighting the irrationality of feminism, we fight the resulting tyranny and inequality. In doing so, we are probably the only people left who actually care about both men and women.

† This interpretation is actually illegitimate. Karen really did contradict herself. The full context is this: “Treating everyone the same. So a heavily pregnant woman would be treated the same as anyone else with a temporary disability or injury that makes them vulnerable in a jerky bus.” She really does think that treating people differently means treating them the same.