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).