Feminism as Entitlement - Pt. 1
Collecting massive social privileges while still considering yourself aggrieved (and automatically justified) creates a sense of entitlement
I organize my thoughts according to basic propositions. Example: “issues with social justice ideology/Critical Theory” is a general category… “social justice as personality pathology” is a subcategory (as is “social justice as elite entitlement” and “social justice as tribal identity” and “social justice as a make-work scheme for liberal arts majors, non-profit employees, and HR professionals”).
When I write “feminism as entitlement,” therefore, I am not characterizing all of feminism as entitlement or entitled. I am describing one facet of one modern strand of feminism. I think anarcho-capitalism has many interesting ideas, for example, but I would also describe certain currents within the belief system as contrarian, anti-social, and utopian. I think anarcho-capitalism appeals to smart and analytical people who have great faith in their own ability to organize the entire society according to their own logical claims and who take delight in puncturing what they perceive as dependency and irrational assumptions about society and economics. That doesn’t describe all of anarcho-capitalism or all anarcho-capitalists, but I could absolutely write an essay on “anarcho-capitalism as intellectual certitude” or “ancap as high-functioning autism” and make strong cases. I’m not trying to be reductive or dismissive. This essay is about feminism, but the title doesn’t imply that I think women’s suffrage or wage equality as a principle or female empowerment are simply entitlement. They are not.
First: I need to address the reflexive objection to any criticism of feminism. Feminism is NOT an ideology pushing for equal rights for women. That may have been the case decades ago but those rights are won (in the West, and feminism is almost completely unconcerned with the plights of women in Africa or Asia; try finding a modern feminist organization talking about sexual inequality in African societies… go ahead). These days, about equal numbers of American women have negative associations with feminism as have positive ones. Obviously everyone has a different idea of what ‘feminsim’ means, but if feminism were really the desire for sexual equality we would have to conclude that many millions of American women don’t want sexual equality. We might conclude that… or we might allow that ‘feminism’ means a great deal besides (and, increasingly, contrary to) equality between the sexes.
Bryan Caplan:
[I]n this 2016 Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 40% of women and 67% of men did not consider themselves “feminists.” But over 90% of both genders agreed that “men and women should be social, political, and economic equals.” If Google’s definition of feminism conformed to standard English usage, these patterns would make very little sense. Imagine a world where 90% of men say they’re “bachelors,” but only 40% say they’re “unmarried.”
Each of my prior examples (women’s suffrage or wage equality as a principle or female empowerment are simply entitlement) really doesn’t intersect with modern feminism very much. The uncomfortable fact is that, in the West, they have all been more or less achieved. What happens to a civil rights movement once the rights are won? As it turns out, some activists do go home and enjoy their newly-won rights, but many radicals or borderline personalities or manipulative actors or non-profits or government programs simply cannot claim success. Their incentives are such that the problem can never really be solved, even if it is, because then they would lose money and social power and political motivation and a sense of meaning. Of course, problems are also never completely solved. There are still vastly disparate rates of inter-sexual violence against women, for example. Feminism is a modern movement should have narrowed its focus to those remaining issues, though. Instead it has transformed and shifted its focus to other issues, issues in which sexual discrimination or institutional inequality is not an obvious reality.
So: what is modern feminism? Bryan Caplan said it best:
What would a non-argumentative definition of feminism look like? Ideally, feminists, non-feminists, and anti-feminists could all endorse it. If that’s asking too much, all these groups should at least be able to accept the proposed definition as a rough approximation of the position they affirm or deny. My preferred candidate:
feminism: the view that society generally treats men more fairly than women
What’s good about my definition?
First, the definition doesn’t include everyone who thinks that our society treats women unfairly to some degree. In the real world, of course, every member of every group experiences unfairness on occasion.
Second, a large majority of self-identified feminists hold the view I ascribe to them. Indeed, if someone said, “I’m a feminist, but I think society generally treats women more fairly than men,” most listeners would simply be confused.
Third, a large majority of self-identified non-feminists disbelieve the view I ascribe to feminists. If you think, “Society treats both genders equally well,” or “Society treats women more fairly than men,” you’re highly unlikely to see yourself as a feminist.
I can’t address this protestor’s message… it’s simply not specific enough. ISIS and the Golden Dawn movement and Vladimir Putin also want change.
If I described a type of person that: made a great deal of money in a professional job; had immense cultural and romantic power in his/her person; could destroy the lives or reputations of many individuals with unsuppored claims; had preferential hiring and promotion and legal privileges; enjoyed the automatic regard and sympathy of most other people based on their identity category and opinion… and that person ALSO believed that most of their impulses was unquestionably righteous and that all of society was organized against them; would you consider that person entitled? Maybe?
If feminism really recognized the awesome gift of motherhood and the unique and all-important roles of mothers as caretakers and builders of society’s future… well, I probably wouldn’t be writing this.
(Note: I googled “feminist rally” to find images for this article… then I googled “crazy feminist rally” (just out of curiosity). When I googled ‘crazy feminist rally’ the only clear protest photo was of an anti-feminist rally (lol) and there were maybe a dozen other images. That’s right-across the entire internet of 8 billion people there are no photos which register under the search terms ‘crazy feminist rally.’ Interesting. Google “feminist rally” and you will see millions. I’m not overly troubled by the flagrant bias of Google or AI because I find much of it superfluous or self-defeating… but the bias certainly exists and it will eventually distort research and general knowledge. Perhaps it already has. Anyone who doesn’t admit that there is a built-in asymmetry on these issues, designed and implemented by tech companies, is not an honest communicator in my opinion.)
Many of the claims and priorities of contemporary feminism arise from a sense that women as a class are actively aggrieved and that this implies a policy imperative, or is simply an expression of negative emotions.
Women now are not only open to most fields of work and most company levels but they are often given significantly higher consideration than their male competitors. Many countries/companies/agencies actually have quotas for women in places of leadership.
This long ago abandoned the pretense of equality of opportunity (which, while never perfect no longer needed a national civil rights push after the 1990’s) or even outcome (feminists are not fighting for women to pave roads or work on landscaping crews). They want the jobs that they want and none others and they want them on their terms. This is understandable (who doesn’t desire great terms of employment) but it is entitled to demand those things, and it is even more entitled to receive them and continue to consider yourself aggrieved.
I’m usually unimpressed by the armchair diagnosis of vast social changes in psychological terms. It’s not that I dismiss them… but I think these changes are incredibly complex, and reducing them to ‘paranoia’ or ‘insecurity’ or ‘bigotry’ is reductive and tends to flatten complex social phenomena. Such claims often seem to be made in service of a policy goal or ideology as well. However, when I survey the total landscape of digital and corporate and educational feminism today I see a pronounced trend towards narcissistic traits. ANY limitation or questioning or condemnation or skepticism is framed as just ‘a man’ questioning ‘a woman’ or is just seen as symptomatic of ‘the patriarchy’. The urgent question for these feminists should be: what duty do you think women have to society and to the people around them?
I suspect, in many cases, the honest answer would essentially be: none. This is a problem. Aside from any ideological perspective societies must promote the regular pairing (even just for the day) and mating of young men and women and it must regulate the birth and raising of their children. Every society has done this because it must be done. This is entirely separate from questions of personal fulfillment and romantic interest and sexual parity. I have never heard a feminist acknowledge this basic fact… perhaps because it’s inconvenient or not the part of human existence thy want to focus on. Fair enough.
A worldview which teaches people that existence exists to grant them happiness and fulfillment and that they deserve all of the best things in life and that any questions or limitations and barriers are symptoms of structural oppression and that they owe nothing to their families or communities or society is not just an entitled worldview. It is a worldview based purely on entitlement.
Men seem to have their own issues but society seems to be feeding and encouraging entitlement on the part of young women . Society should never encourage entitlement. Duty and virtue and personal growth are always much better goals, for the individual and the community. Where, in modern feminism, do these values lay?
I wrote everything up to this paragraph a week or two ago (which is something I’ve done more recently) and then let it sit.
After a week of reflection I have another working definition of modern feminism. This is not a strict definition or a semantically precise categorization but I still think it’s useful to explain the mindset and life philosophy which is being advanced by feminism in advertisements and on social media and in news articles: the feminism of today is the assertion that women do not need men to be fulfilled or successful or psychologically balanced. I’m not talking about every woman and I’m not talking about the statistical average: I’m saying that the message is: women, in general (as a category), and as individuals living their lives, generally do not need men to find their place or achieve happiness. If they do it is brief and conditional and with the woman in the power position and the man precarious or subordinated. This is a recent epiphany for me so I will write more about it later… but please keep in mind: when the sexes’ places are reversed and men spread the message of independence or transactional relations they are called incels, or “men’s rights activists” (which has a decidedly dark implication in the modern media landscape)… or right-wing (the worst calumny, in the minds of these writers).
One good definition of entitlement is demanding standards and consideration for yourself that you are unwilling to grant to others.
I have started a two or three part Substack series on Feminism, and am glad to see that more attention is given to this vital social question.
Obviously, there are different kinds and degrees of feminism. There are women for example who would not want to relinquish the rights to vote or to enter various careers, yet at the same time feel that abortion is morally wrong; that the sexual revolution has gone too far; that children are a blessing and not a burden, and that a woman is not necessarily wasting her life if she is devoted to home and family.
Perhaps we can start with the two distinct strands of feminism that were already evident in the 19th century: liberal democratic feminism, which sought more rights for women within the existing system, and revolutionary feminism which was commonly allied with Marxist and socialist radical groups. This strongly leftist wing sought the radical reconstruction of society and changes in human nature through revolution. Thus Marx, Engels, Bakunin and Lenin described women's traditional roles as slavery that would be ended with the revolutionary destruction of capitalism.
Today, the radical feminists have long since left radical Marxism behind and are trying to reengineer human nature in other ingenious ways. They want to obliterate necessary, healthy and fundamental distinctions between men and women, and hence are afraid to oppose the transgender agenda even if it is demonstrably detrimental to women. That there might really be some significant differences between men and women after all, and not just unfair social conventions, undermines their entire agenda. They have radical leftist orientations in politics, are hostile to men, and some now even argue for literal women's superiority and deeper and more wide ranging social role reversal. They also support the indoctrination of children to accept the elimination of all traditional sexual boundaries and want to reject any and all moral restraints.
They are among the most pampered and selfish people on earth, and have become so totally divorced from reality as to feel that they are above criticism and must be indulged at all times in every way. Their drive for political power has given us Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton - whom some people will admire, but whom many others will recognize as real enemies to the traditional American system that they despise with revolutionary fervor (naturally, many men share the same views).
"I think anarcho-capitalism appeals to smart and analytical people who have great faith in their own ability to organize the entire society according to their own logical claims...."
Anarcho-capitalism is literally the recognition that NOBODY can / should / has the right to organise society (AKA rule society) according to their own logical claims. Anarcho-capitalism is the rejection of rulers who claim "we know best and all must do as we say".
If you want to know what utopian is, it's giving a small group of people exemption from the law as it applies to everyone else, and then demanding ('voting') that they decide how society should be organised. That's not just utopian, that's completely insane.
"the title doesn’t imply that I think women’s suffrage or wage equality as a principle or female empowerment are simply entitlement. They are not."
1. Women's suffrage was fiercely opposed by many women at the time. It resulted in women being granted the right to vote, with no obligations to the state. Men only got the vote a few years earlier than women, and only on condition that they surrender their lives to the state as cannon fodder. This meant for the next century women got to vote for wars that only men were forced to fight and die in. That is - by definition - female privilege and the product of a massive sense of female entitlement. If you can't comprehend this try flipping the genders so that men got to vote for women to fight and die in wars, with millions of women (18 years old) getting shipped off overseas and blown to bits. Now imagine the men saying "Oh no, but that's equality! And we are still the oppressed sex"
2. Equal pay laws were brought in to help men not women. A factories became more safe and comfortable environments, and housework became less time consuming (all thanks to new technology), housewives started to flood the workplace to earn extra income. Because they were still being supported by their husband's wages they were able to undercut mens's wages. Equal pay laws were brought it to stop those men from being undercut by women.
"Obviously everyone has a different idea of what ‘feminsim’ means"
Feminism's central tenet is that women are, and always have been, oppressed by men. Given that men share their most intimate relationships and homes with women (wives, girlfriends, sisters, mothers, daughter etc), feminism asserts that men are psychopaths. Only psychopaths could systematically oppress their own families and loved ones. Men are hard wired to provide for and protect women. Men have spent the last 5000 years working flat out in all weathers to (a) protect and provide for women and children (b) make civilisation more comfortable, safe and fun for women and children. Therefore to be accused of systematically oppressing women, and shamed for it, is a form of psychological (or even spiritual) exploitation, trauma and abuse of men. Feminists are cruel and manipulative exploiters of men's gynocentric / chivalrous predisposition. ('He for she').
"My preferred candidate: feminism: the view that society generally treats men more fairly than women"
Men score less than women in every metric we might use to determine social status and standard of living (homelessness, access to healthcare, conviction and sentencing bias, reproductive autonomy, child access rights, domestic violence laws and protocols, life expectancy, suicide rates, access to shelters, workplace injuries and deaths, genital mutilation etc etc).
And at no point in history was it ever preferable for a woman to trade places (swap gender roles) with a man of equal social status.
So the claim that "society generally treats men more fairly than women" (AKA that men oppress women) runs contrary to all the facts. The reason why the claim resonates with most people (and has grown into a multi billion dollar industry which has infiltrated every institution from schools to the UN) is that humans are a GYNOCENTRIC species. Both sexes are hard wired to prioritise women's comfort and safety, and to be super sensitive to women's emotional distress and neurotic fears. Therefore we are all inclined to view women as oppressed or vulnerable or downtrodden, even when all the evidence shows that men are actually the ones who suffer more and carry the larger burden.
Also men compete for women's social and sexual approval. In the past men competed in terms of being the best providers of shelter, food, protection, dry firewood etc. Today with our high living standards, men compete by throwing other men under the bus as 'sexist patriarchal misogynists' and by framing themselves as the 'one good man' (white knight/ male feminist).
This is why feminism endures, despite being a completely batshit crazy ideology which literally asserts the opposite of reality. No one cares about reality, they care about appeasing women's fears, complaints and distress... even if that means destroying civilisation along the way, which is what our obsession with treating women as victims is doing.
"The urgent question for these feminists should be: what duty do you think women have to society and to the people around them?"
This is the ultimate question. The most offensive question anyone can possibly ask. And the most important question which nobody is asking.
Feminism is a Male Power Fantasy because it defines women as helpless, powerless victims of male dominance and power. The feminist narrative of 'patriarchal oppression' strips women of agency (women are only ever 'acted upon') and imbues men with hyper agency (only men 'act'). This is great for blaming everything on men, and avoiding having to take responsibility for anything, but it reduces women to the status of inert objects. Nothing objectifies women more than feminism.
Thanks to feminism, women are not even obligated to take care of their own children, and are free to abandon them to strangers every day in order to enjoy a more 'fulfilling' lifestyle. Nobody dares to call this out as socially unacceptable behaviour. The result of this neglect and abuse is a mental health crisis in children and the total breakdown of society.
The equivalent for men would be men deciding to abandon the power stations, or road maintenance, or construction projects, or let the global supply chain collapse because they feel entitled to live a more 'fulfilling' lifestyle instead (snowboarding or whatever). If the electric went out and the supermarkets shelves emptied women would say "For fucks sake men, pull yourselves together and stop sitting on your asses and get back to work! We need you to keep the infrastructure running! That's your RESPONSIBILITY as men. We rely on you!"
But when women abandoned their role as mothers and homemakers men did not demand women pull their weight and get back to work. Ironically men's failure to hold women to any kind of moral or intellectual standard, or to demand women pull their weight in society and take responsibility for once, is the only form of 'oppression' that men can be fairly accused of.
And it's the one thing feminists have never complained about.