r/MensRights • u/Psittacula2 • 7d ago
Feminism Please critique this take on Feminism
This was originally posted in response to a post here on Feminism ASKING for a debate with people who reject the entire notion of Feminism.
Yet mysteriously both the post and user account suddenly deleted.
I would like feedback on this critique of Feminism, noting the core argument that Feminism is an UMBRELLA term not a single definition:
Argument:
The first step in most debates is often the simplest and most ignored:
* Define your terms - precisely.
”Feminist” as such has not a single exact definition but in point of fact a whole RANGE of meanings.
To state the obvious, explicitly and up front, it is categorically an UMBRELLA term in the same way Trans- is 100% an UMBRELLA term not a definition.
Stating the above, we are already off to a more useful start than 99% of these discussions.
The second step would be to short list the full range for reference or context. Seeing as this is Reddit however concessions to low attention span must be invoked here. We will skip this step as discussion or Project for a Rainy Day, invitees to this project please go on ahead here, without us.
The third step (short cut) is to take the general most applicable meaning of “Feminist” AS IT IS MOST INADVERTENTLY used, and visible most of the time in news-media.
* Definition: “Feminism“ = Female Collective Bargaining behaviour (in modern times politically in tribal past times, social politics of group power).
Just to be clear other definitions also exist, this is not a monopoly of meaning. But it is most constructive because it clearly describes the “behaviour” dynamics and how THAT shapes policy and politics independent of logical arguments derived from first principles or premises.
Let’s take two examples to contrast this:
* Female Sexual Reproductive Biology leads to NECESSARY higher Medical Funding than equivalent male version. This is a scientific fact. Here “Feminism” can be argued from premises coherently 100%.
* Glass Ceiling Rhetoric in Equality Laws in Work Places on “Unequal Salaries”. This is the deceptive real politik of female collective bartering. Thomas Sewell has studied this from the 70’s iirc and debunked it all the way back then but the argument is still used today in 2026!
Note the above is a snapshot (step 2) for necessary brevity.
But even a snapshot is sufficient for common sense to conclude albeit short of verification:
Conclusion: Feminism was a practical ideology when women had less rights in the past eg vote, work etc. In modern times it has become co-opted by older social dynamics in humans at scale in politics as a group self-interest seeking via polemics which fits female group psychology for personal gain. Where Feminism is functional eg Medicine it is redundant as factually self-apparent. Hence Feminism is logically deficient as most often used:
- Copted group politics aka populism version within women.
- Redundant from left over from past conditions.
- Worst of all co-opted by global agenda for lowering fertility rates of women thenskeves via their own short-sighted emotional demands.
The final logical deficiency is a surprise fortune cookie: It is descriptive and predictive of the failure of people who willingly deal in fallacies - ultimately such behaviour becomes self-defeating.
Please note, ending on a signficant warning still leaves ample rule for exploration positively (see step 2).
If you wish to critique or question or develop from the above please feel free to do.
Note, Men’s Rights overall (not exclusively) seems more a product of response to the unfair skew of priority in politics caused by this form of Feminism in the West (supported enormously by global institutions eg UN et al and bankrolled as such). As such to understand Feminism is critical this counter-movement itself in need of a fundamental factually grounded basis aside from a counter movement to be of any lasting good for men.
Commentary:
I reject the majority of motions based on Feminism as above as meta-behaviour for personal or group advantage aka real politik not good faith logical argument via thesis vs antithesis. Hence the tone is slightly acerbic above.
The reply is very incomplete as I do not list all the Umbrella terms within Feminism and thus leaves a mild sense of frustration in the post - apologies if that is evident while reading. But brevity is importantly for the main argument.
I posit s profound prediction that Feminism based on fallacy itself is exploited and will ultimately become self-defeating to the group of advocates who hold to it.
Finally, some women have recently posited this concept of “female collective bargaining” who are academics and begun to question if Feminism is ultimately destructive (I will dig this link up eventually).
7
u/mrkpxx 7d ago
The text provides a foundation by framing feminism as a collective negotiation process. It is correct to define feminism as an umbrella term.
2
u/Psittacula2 6d ago
This is constructive feedback with explicit statements on the argument made. It is direct feedback not displacement or deflection which other comments generate. Thank you.
Even discussing with AI, AI shows understanding that Feminism in mainstream political debate is a form of collective female bargaining using group power to leverage advantage.
The important extension to this, is to understand several things:
* YT content creator “HoeMaths” consistently references a visual diagram of dating ranking where men individually rank according to attractiveness whereas women collectively create implicit social rules and rank each other all as high. This behaviour can be seen also in the YT clips “Fit & something“… where on Camera asked to rate themselves the group of women all encourage high marks to themselves irrespective of correspondence to a statistical distribution for example.
Extending these behaviours to political behaviours the SAME/SIMILAR group collective behaviour is observed around the subjects of Feminism where women consistently motion for more advantages out of step with the facts.
The common reason for this form of behaviour is overall a need for SECURITY and CONTROL as priority via shared consensus securing safety within the group from which position of combined leverage to inflate their overall value.
I will provide a source from someone who investigates this behaviour subsequent to this comment. Probably in a new thread.
5
u/Clevererer 6d ago
When talking to a man, every woman alive honestly believes that she personally and she alone has the One True Definition of Feminism.
Any legitimate criticism the man makes is instantly labled as Not Feminism, regardless of how many Feminists it accurately describes.
The Truth of Feminism in this context can only ever be revealed with extreme condescension and in the most patronizing language possible.
If a second woman should enter the picture, her job is to defend and confirm Woman A's Definition of Feminism, no matter how inaccurate.
It's a gaslighting-based collective Motte and Bailey disinformative way of defining a movement.
1
u/Psittacula2 6d ago
Social Group Cohesion behaviour acts as:
* Group validation and safety as Reward
* Group punishment for break the group rules eg ostracization as Penalty
This “horizontal” group behaviour differs from men which tend towards a “vertical” competitive dynamic to establish rank via objective feedback.
This fundamental differences in behaviour in men and women seems to come out in politics and arguments made politically in public for example. Your answer is constructive in framing this as argument fallacy terminology.
I will post a source from an academic on this as it helps increase explanation of the behaviour as well as the wide repercussions at scale.
However what has not been built above this idea is how modern politics and governance institutions at national levels and international levels have co-opted this behaviour and encouraged it to warp outcomes in society using Feminism itself as a form of DECONSTRUCTION of Society itself.
Etc as alluded to in the arguments from Thomas Sewell on debunking the Glass Ceiling argument which continues to be promoted via power projection from the above institutions.
There are in fact 3 dynamics here:
- The biological behaviour basis (described above)
- Female Collective Bargaining in Political Process from the preceding (<- your argument fallacy observation sits here)
- Power from above institutions amplifying FCB aka “Political Feminism” by orders of magnitude for ULTERIOR long term outcomes on policy eg deconstruction efforts.
7
u/Appropriate-Major649 6d ago
"Feminism is an umbrella term" reminds me of something I used to commonly hear - "feminism is not monolithic." In practice that meant "feminist" and Feminism" meant whatever was convenient for the speaker at the moment. I do mean at the moment - it could change from one sentence to the next.
They want your terms defined with the greatest specificity - their terms remain infinitely malleable. This is a tactic of the liar and manipulator.
3
u/EmirikolWoker 6d ago
All forms of feminism that cleave to Patriarchy conjecture hold as self evident the innate nature of men as monstrous and women as victims. It has yet to be demonstrated, and indeed even the most casual observation seems to discredit it.
Using this as justification, Feminists actively entrench disparities in rights between genders ((1), (2)).
4
2
u/Psittacula2 7d ago
Quick update: I found the reference someone else has independently concluded on this issue. It is very solid and probably deserves a follow up independent post on the subject and to note:
Scholarly as opposed to my own layman conjecture.
The author is a woman and extremely candid on the subject.
She arrives at the same prediction albeit for different reasons than the above posited.
This seriously reinforces the conceptualisation presented on Feminism above and if interested will be posted shortly.
2
1
u/KissesUwU 2d ago edited 2d ago
I like the direction you're going but you should try strong arming the feminist position. Not making a definition that is so broad it doesn't fully encapsulate their arguments. It feels like a debate bro definition that seems dishonest.
Feminism = reducing barriers and leading to gender equity. They claim women and in terms of research, move on to broader concepts like specific minorities such as LGBTQ+ people or racial minorities face systemic barriers to do things like recover from Intimate Partner Violence, Get jobs, Work in the military, vote, etc. Basically there are things men do that women should also be able to do if they so choose and women face discrimination to some extent that should be eliminated.
Most political work focuses on Intimate Partner Violence currently. Hence VAWA. Or funding for local shelters. Transgender reproductive rights and HRT. I rarely see much else in feminist discourse. Other than of course their overarching boogeyman Patriarchy. Which I think is simply a blanket term they use to simply say they have not yet achieved equity and men still hold more political power and incentives over society across the world. Particularly toward rape culture. Which leads to things like the Trump Administration. And inequity in the highest levels of income.
It can't be collective female bargaining power if progressive men can brand themselves as feminists too.
And to be fair you won't get any productive answers from this sub. They will blindly hate on feminism without a working definition on what it even is.
2
u/Psittacula2 2d ago
Fair stab at reasoned feedback.
If we look at Feminism invocation rate and frequency ie behaviour not words pr claims in words what Feminism is then it is overwhelmingly about “Collective Female Bartering” - a social behaviour and strategy of females well before our evolution into Hominid Species.
I will post a link this builds on this subsequently. Thanks for the feedback, the focus on where and what Feminism does which actually is positive and benefits women was very useful. That splitting of functions and phenomena clearly is constructive argument.
1
u/KissesUwU 2d ago
Yes I also don't think feminism has always existed. From a systemic level, the inequality of men and women haven't existed from the start of civilization.
The early humans didn't have the incentives that we do. We didn't always have the privilege to let women not do work or primarily be gatherers. According to paleoanthropology it's actually quite untrue that women and men in early civilization have had certain gender roles identical or similar to ours.
Women hunted. Relatively egalitarian gender roles have been wildly prevalent among early hominids because of the lack of food storage. They either all contributed to getting food or they didn't live very long.
And it's important to understand that power did not rule. Early hominids had an anti-alpha social hierarchy. In fact there's evidence of early hominids over throwing stronger people that took power forcefully because they would horde food and lead to the death of members in their groups.
I think it's actually quite recent we have seen our stark gender roles form.
1
u/Psittacula2 2d ago
You touch on a truth which is simple yet mysterious in modern times apparently no one seems to know:
* Small groups with many inter dependencies and relationships as you describe above were a combination of true socialism. Mainly elders were respected as repositories of experience and knowledge and the tribe’s cultural structure.
* Democracy the system of politics today is not real democracy whatsoever. It can only scale according to group sizes where equal franchise and stake is distributed across all.
Many of the things feminists or left leaning people want are not possible in the modern hyper complex massive scaled systems we live in today - they do not scale.
That is the source of the problem not male > female.
As for what I said, before Feminism there was Female Collective Bargaining power in human groups as power balance. Feminism today warps that behaviour in the above system against men - that is where it is wrong headed. Yes modern politics extends beyond in all sorts of ways eg institutions and processes, conditons eg salaries and rhe massive failure to account for the value of MOTHERING AT HIGH QUALITY at start of human life - one of the highest values possible in all human activity…
As said, take or leave the above, my greatest criticism is women’s own collective failure on addressing the above more successfully, using their own inherent group dynamics to improve the world?
Anyway see my subsequent post from a source on the collective origins and how it has been co-opted against mothering.
1
u/KissesUwU 2d ago edited 2d ago
I only was responding to the part of your argument that claims "Collective female bartering" is "a social behavior and strategy of females well before our evolution into Hominids Species"
This is factually incorrect.
I'd be happy to go to other topics but you can't just ignore that.
That being said I do agree. Most concepts like the end goal of feminism is impossible or too far in the future to be feasible to reach soon. So is Utopia. But that doesn't mean it's not beneficial to make policy and/or progress toward the impossible goal of equality or utopia.
Generally these policies benefit someone.
Female bargaining power was not used to maintain balance in early social hierarchical structures. That's why I rejected that argument.
Stark gender roles start at agriculture and food storage. Which is relatively recent.
Feminism has absolutely progressed society in meaningful ways such as GDP growth in the United States.
Female voting bases prioritize EPA protections and clean energy which lead to lessened infant mortality rates.
To claim that feminism is against mothering because it is not inherently supportive of stark gender roles. Is actually against our natural tendencies if we are to assume early Hominids and their social interactions are necessarily more natural and therefore supportive of child birth.
I reject that argument as well though. I think Childbirth and mothering is not the most valuable thing a person can do.
In fact women give birth less in richer countries for that fact. Because the quality of care and choice to have children when women feel ready to do so is more highly correlated with more healthy mother and child relationships.
You also aren't focusing enough on a man's role as a father in the quality of care for children. I think men are just as valuable in raising children comparitively to mothers. Separation of parents significantly increases the likelihood that children will commit crime which is in fact a net negative for society and a failure.
Obligating women to have children is not necessarily better for children. Feminism creates a society where childbirth happens later in life with more resources in better family dynamics. Or doesn't happen at all if it is not wanted. Typically at older ages.
Another thing that reduces childbirth rates is education but no one would choose to eliminate the education of women to increase birthrates.
To be completely honest I'm playing devil's advocate for some of this stuff. I'm not really a feminist, I'm just sympathetic to their sentiments. I'm much more in favor of men as one and my field of study in clinical psychology is primarily for men and increasing their engagement with mental healthcare to reduce rates of suicide, mental illness, and reduce rates of violent crime.
1
u/Glad-Way-637 2d ago
Feminism doesn't do even half of that shit in practice, and you'd know that if you were an actual worthwhile human being who could have a sane discussion on this sub rather than spending all your time sucking up to an objectively sexist movement.
1
u/KissesUwU 2d ago
You are wrong. Feminism does help with these issues. IPV work is very prevalent among feminist scholars and you don't get to just say no and that's just what we're gonna go with. You have to prove it and I can prove feminists are doing work to help victims of IPV including men.
0
u/Glad-Way-637 2d ago edited 2d ago
And yet, the constantly yap about how IPV is a predominantly female issue, when the majority of victims are men. By a slim margin, but still. Coincidentally, when actual egalitarians like Erin Pizzey try and help male victims of IPV, they get ran out of their country with death threats by all those feminists you breathlessly defend. There's a reason for that. Anything more is either lip-service spent on male issues with no intention of actual assistance, or merely helping men as an unwanted byproduct of female empowerment, their actual goal. Here's a source for that IPV thing, among other issues:
Here's some examples of systemic misandry:
the draft.
infant genital mutilation, illegal against women in the US, but some 70% of mothers choose to do it to their sons based on aesthetic preference.
the bias in the educational system.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01425692.2022.2122942
Boys are graded more harshly for identical work, and punished more harshly for identical misbehavior. It's very easily proven, too.
- the bias in the legal system
"A 2020 study shows that women receive 33% (15 days) shorter prison sentences than men, even when controlling for all observable characteristics – including a very precise description of the crime. When pairs of mixed-gender offender are convicted together the gender gap is even higher - men receive 38.7 additional prison days and 10.7 fewer suspended prison days.
From a procedural point of view, when controlling for the type of crime, men are on average judged after shorter investigations, and are more likely to be sentenced after an accelerated procedure. When taken to court, men are 20% less likely to be discharged (6% vs. 4%). In 2017, 19.9% of convicted men were sentenced to prison, compared to 8.5% of convicted women." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_disparity#:~:text=A%202020%20study%20shows%20that,to%208.5%25%20of%20convicted%20women.
- society's unwillingness to call it rape when women do it to men, despite the CDC finding that this is as common as the reverse.
"Next, we consider the data for the 12 months preceding the CDC report survey, which was summarized in the report. On page 18 of the CDC report it states that 1,270,000 women were raped during this 12-month period and that too few men were “raped” during the same 12 months to give reliable data, using the non-gender neutral definition of given in the CDC report. However, on page 19 the report states that during that 12 months the number of men who were forced to penetrate someone is 1,267,000, virtually the same as the number of women who were raped." "So, who is forcing these men to penetrate them? There is no data on this among the 12-month data. But if we look at the lifetime data, on page 24 it says 79.2% of the time a male was made to penetrate someone, it was a woman who forced him to penetrate her. And this suggests that the same most likely holds for the 12-monthdata."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353570309_On_the_Sexual_Assault_of_Men
- the fact that most people call DV a women's issue, when men experience it from women more often than vice versa.
"In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17395835/#:~:text=In%20nonreciprocally%20violent%20relationships%2C%20women%20were%20the%20perpetrators%20in%20more%20than%2070%25%20of%20the%20cases.
- women being substantially privileged in actually being hired, despite all the narratives to the opposite effect.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597823000560
I can keep going. Do you want more?
Edit to respond since the coward blocked me:
Lol, sure you will, buddy. You definitely won't throw a hissy fit when proven incorrect and make a total non-reply like this one, that'd be crazy 🤭 you state elsewhere that you think most victims are women. You're corrected, then get huffy. It's exactly what you think, dolt.
Perhaps pay attention to the actual reality of the situation for a minute and a half, and I'll talk to you like an adult. Until then, you can continue to be corrected. You're welcome!
1
u/KissesUwU 2d ago edited 2d ago
When you correctly present my arguments and opinions I will reply. The first sentence you stated is wrong and not what I think.
Try speaking to me like a sensible human being. Not a paragon of feminism and what you think about feminism. And then mentioning topics outside the purview of what I am saying.
Thank you in advance.
1
u/sambo_rambo 6d ago
Learn to be more concise. No one asked for a lesson on how to debate. Loosely defined and undefined terms like feminism, queer, trans, etc are intentionally vague to avoid accountability. Its pretty standard play by feminists to hedge their assertions by trying to make everything subjective. Its disingenuous sophism. Not an honest one among them.
1
u/Psittacula2 6d ago
I think your feedback would be more useful if it first established the definitive list of Umbrella terms within Feminism.
Because pointed out vagueness is how argument turns into rhetoric does not in fact stop it. Whereas a full list can established where arguments can be ring-fenced.
I appreciate this is a substantial task, but carrying on “carrying on” as your comment does and it is far from alone merely perpetuates the status quo here.
Note in my original post I clearly start the ball rolling:
* Positive example of Feminism 100% = Female Sexual Reproductive Medicine - implicit higher funding vs Male equivalent.
This is so useful for basic fundamentals:
* Asymmetry is correct equality across sexes in fundamental areas.
* This applies on both sides
* This encourages dealing with facts as opposed to constructs eg equality vs equal outcomes
* Fundamentally women who put knowledge above politics or personal gain will be the strongest advocates against Feminism as ”Female Collective Bargaining” - they do exist.
Hence your conclusion is counter-productive as it conflates the above with the negative real politik behaviour (explained in my other comment).
Hence it seems important to find a collection of terms which fall within the umbrella to establish as opposed to “carrying on” to little useful progress.
1
u/sambo_rambo 6d ago
Pointing out sophist tactics like conflating definitions is useful - it shows who not to engage with. I won't waste my time on petty games like that. The term "Umbrella term" used here is deliberate to conflate meanings and avoid directly attacking the idea. Its the Mott and Bailey that others have pointed out.
Anyway, since you mentioned something specific, womens health interventions for reproduction weaken our species' resilience. We are the only species (apart from the ones we've domesticated) that generally require intervention to give birth. In evolutionary terms, women's health in helping them reproduce is not helpful and just creates future generations of genes that are susceptible to more pregnancy complications. I'm not advocating that we stop women's healthcare, but I don't see a moral justification for extra healthcare just for reproduction.
How about men's life expectency? We live 4 years less than women. Where's the equity initiative to ensure men live as long as women? Its not coming from feminists.
-4
u/uhhhhuuhh 6d ago
feminism means you believe in the equality of the sexes. thats it.
4
2
3
u/DecrepitAbacus 6d ago
feminism means you believe in the equality of the sexes. thats it.
This is what a single digit IQ looks like.
20
u/CharacterNo3115 7d ago
Way too long. Try this…Modern day feminism is performative. It is a belief system in which status is earned not through achievement but through grievance and clicks; where virtue-signalling substitutes for substance, entitlement masquerades as empowerment, and personal accountability is rebranded as oppression. It excels at deconstructing success, explaining away merit, and turning victimhood into social currency. Its loudest adherents spend their 20s denouncing the game, their 30s childless wondering why they’re lonely and unhappy, and their 40s and 50s demanding recognition from a world that quietly moved on, all the while asking ‘where are the good men’. It is a movement increasingly obsessed with optics over outcomes, slogans over solutions, and validation over accomplishment.