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.
“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.”
Aside from the voting part that is precisely how human societies are organized all over the world and how they seem to have been organized since the chalcolithic. I don’t have to even introduce the concept of rights or equality or property to note that complex human societies tend to be hierarchical and that we tend to submit to powerful powerful people who can organize builders and military force, and who tend to exempt themselves from the duties and expectations of the average person. If anarcho-capitalism was NOT utopian it would simply be the default setting of humans all over the world, rather than a program which exists (in its fullest form) largely on paper. Where there is anarchy there’s very little capitalism and vice versa. Technically even the concept of human equality, rights, or the ideas that (for example) babies should never be killed by the government or people should never have their harvest taken are utopian. Our ancestors would have recognized these as misfortunes but if you tried to explain to them why these things should never happen they wouldn’t have known what you were talking about. They DO happen, they always have, and the best we can do is to introduce new ideas and technologies incrementally to improve life slowly. Anyone who presents you with a ready-made set of principles and onolotogical precepts about how society SHOULD be organized and what the government SHOULD do in every situation, based upon first principles, is a utopian. Like all utopians they are underestimating the difficulty and confusion of life and the realities of human nature… in my opinion.
The first part of your reply is not an argument. It is just saying "I see the world like this, so this is how it should be". Also you conflate organisation with rule. Rule (rule by force AKA statism) is the opposite of social organisation, teamwork or collaboration.
" If anarcho-capitalism was NOT utopian it would simply be the default setting of humans all over the world"
It IS the default setting all over the world. In our everyday lives (both business and personal) every transaction or interaction is conducted under the principles of anarchy (no rulers). Those who attempt to rule others by force or fraud are called muggers, rapists, hijackers, extortionists, bullies, murderers etc and we all consider their behaviour socially unacceptable and treat them accordingly.
The 'state' is the only group of people who have managed to make themselves exempt from our condemnation, and they are only able to do this thanks to a systematic propaganda campaign consisting of 6 hours daily propaganda, starting at age 4 and lasting at least the next 12 years, into adulthood.
The fact that theft, extortion, murder and mafia monopolies can ONLY be normalised (effectively made invisible) thanks to such intensive propaganda, and the use of weasel words like 'taxation', 'public spending', 'regulation' etc only confirms that anarchy is our default setting and that statism (rule by force/ exemption from the law) must operate under false pretences in order to not be rejected. The elaborate costumes, buildings and rituals (pageantry) are also strategies to trick the masses into accepting such blatant moral hypocrisy ('royal' families have been using the same strategy for centuries).
"Technically even the concept of human equality, rights, or the ideas that (for example) babies should never be killed by the government or people should never have their harvest taken are utopian."
The fact that people always have to resort to such WEIRD and WACKY arguments to defend statism also confirms it runs contrary to every other aspect of our modern civilised society. Anarchy just means agreeing to be CONSISTENT when discussing morality, just as science just means agreeing to be CONSISTENT when discussing observations of nature.
What you are effectively doing is arguing that we cannot, or must not, demand scientific theories apply universally. Such a consistent standard is 'utopian'. After all, human nature is all about making stuff up and being superstitious, so expecting humans to adhere to strict scientific principles (the scientific method) is asking too much. Of course if you can win enough people over with this argument we WILL revert back to a superstitious age where the Earth is flat and crop failures are caused by not enough human sacrifice.
Morality is no different. The degree to which we advocate for universal morality (murder, theft, rape etc is wrong regardless of what costume you happen to be wearing) is the degree to which we end up with a civilised society.
You are advocating for inconsistent moral rules - specifically for one group in society to enjoy a special monopoly on the legal right to violate basic moral rules which apply to everyone else. What you are proposing cannot be argued with facts or reason, only a succession of logical fallacies (appeals to authority etc).
Anarchists argue that moral rules (like the laws of physics) must apply to everyone because that is what a 'rule' is supposed to mean. We either have a society based on moral rules or a society based on moral hypocrisy.
You are arguing that having a society based on rules (ie theft, murder, rape etc is against the rules) is utopian and should not even be attempted. Therefore you have ejected yourself out of the debate and have left civilised society.
So the question is why are you even pretending to debate this topic? Why not just bash people over the head and smash up their computers in order to claim victory, because that is what your position is (might makes right, moral rules are for losers).
I suspect that if your car was stolen or you were mugged you'd claim this was unacceptable behaviour and they had no right to violate your person/ property in that way. To become an anarchist all you would have to do is recognise that the rights YOU claim should also apply to everyone else too. After all, you are not special (like a god or a higher species) are you?
To be a statist is to exist in a fog of profound cognitive dissonance (created from all those years of propaganda as a child).
Organizing society purely based upon rights and what “should” be done is its own kind of Utopianism. No complex human society has ever been anarcho-capitalist because there’s more to
Human affairs than deontology. In fact, the concept of ‘rights’ as a complete basis of government and law is extremely recent and originated among the educated and the prosperous. ANYONE who thinks that THEY have access to the principles upon which all of society should be built and organized as first principles (as opposed to pragmatic deductions based upon trial and error) is a utopian. Anarcho-capitalism cannot fully be based upon its success as an applied system because it hasn’t been sufficiently applied. There are two main drivers behind human organization: ‘what works’ versus ‘what should be’. Anyone who bases their ideology purely in the latter is utopian in my opinion. This is simply not how human societies are organized.
I don’t disagree with your statements about “women’s suffrage or wage equality as a principle or female empowerment” but I would still maintain that these aspects of feminism are not purely based in a sense of entitlement. Even if their historical origins are completely misunderstood or invalid that doesn’t mean that these goals are entitlement. To support that claim you would literally have to address every argument or motivation for these changes and ground each of them in ideas of dispensations or an entitled worldview and this would be difficult.
"Organizing society purely based upon rights and what “should” be done is its own kind of Utopianism. "
Calling something 'utopian' is not an argument.
Anarchy (ie consistent moral standards) does not mean everyone is on their best behaviour all the time, nor does it require everyone to be on their best behaviour all the time.
Anarchy just means if you commit murder, theft, rape, extortion etc you won't get a pass simply because you happen to be wearing a special costume, or because you had a bunch of people cheering you on or 'voting' for you to behave that way. Such idiotic excuses won't wash in an anarchic society, just as they don't wash most of the time in ordinary society today.
Your main argument seems to be this: It's utopian to outlaw rape for everyone, because there will always be people who are going to go out there and commit rape.
That seems reasonable enough if you don't think too hard about it. I mean, we can agree that there will always be rapists, but when you think about it that does not mean we should not outlaw rape for everyone. It means we should.
The second half of your argument (which you are probably not aware of) is this: It's utopian to outlaw rape for everyone, because there will always be people who are going to go out there and commit rape....... therefore we must make rape legal for a small group of people.
Statism is based on the argument that to protect our property rights, personhood rights and to organise society, we must give a small group in society the legal right to violate our property, violate our person and disrupt social organisation with legalised coercion.
It is the sort of 'woo' that can only be instilled in childhood when our capacity to reason has not developed enough to resist it (ie at school). Statism is so demented, so contradictory and so illogical it is effectively a mental illness.
My statement was not an argument for or against any system (if that’s what you meant). I’m not trying to argue for or against any system. It’s an argument that anarcho-capitalism is utopian, so this is a semantic discussion.
As for defining ‘rule’ separately from ‘organization’… that is a move that can be made but I think you’ll find that every complicated society’s organizations include aspects of rule, coercion, and violence. If you define social organization in such a way that rule is never included then, yes, rule is necessarily different from organization. In that case fascism, feudalism, monarchy… and basically every form of governmental and economic structure is NOT organization, which is a strange case to make, since they all include rule by certain individuals and classes and interests over others. I would define social organization as the form large groups of humans assume as they try to solve problems of scarcity and defense and self-regulation. Not only will you find that rule and coercion are included in that definition but they’re almost always present.
I consider an cap utopian because:
1.) it’s a theoretical idea of how human societies should be organized
2.) it’s based on deontological notions like ‘property’ and ‘rights’ and ‘coercion’ which are, themselves, socially constructed ideas
3.) it makes universal claims
4.) it doesn’t arise organically from human activity (or has not up until this point)
I think every political philosophy which adheres to (all of) these features is utopian
"It’s an argument that anarcho-capitalism is utopian"
What you're arguing is that anarchy should not be attempted because it could potentially descend back to statism.
By this argument overt slavery (of the cotton picking variety) should not be outlawed because it could descend back into slavery again. Burning witches at the stake should not be outlawed because we might revert back to the practice again one day. It's a very weird and wacky argument.
As a general rule, any form of moral progress (away from hypocrisy, and towards more consistency) tends to be a one way street in the same way that abandoning superstition for scientific consistency (empiricism) also tends to be a one way street.
For an anarchic society to revert back to a statist one would be like reverting back to the idea of volcano gods causing eruptions or bad spirits causing infertility. It's extremely unlikely to happen, and also the worst case scenario is that we still get to enjoy decades or centuries of more civilised living before sliding back to a more barbaric state.
"I think you’ll find that every complicated society’s organizations include aspects of rule, coercion, and violence. "
The majority of transactions, interactions and relationships in our current society are conducted voluntarily through the use of negotiation and contracts (both formal and informal). Anarchy is what happens when the current rules, conventions, etiquette and laws which have ALREADY been accepted in ordinary society are extended to include politicians.
As for your other arguments ...
1. Anarchy (AKA moral consistency/ equal rights/ equality under the law) is not theoretical, it's how 99% of transactions are already conducted in our current society.
Nobody (including you) would dare to argue that 'John' ever has the right to violate 'Sally's' property or person. Statism only exists - and can ony be defended - by disguising the moral hypocrisy, and violations of basic human rights under weasel words and relentless propaganda (as explained in previous comments).
2. 'Property', 'rights' and 'coercion' are perfectly simple concepts which form the basis of all contracts. Pretending they are somehow mystical and elusive is just an attempt to avoid having to defending the indefensible. You're effectively arguing that you've not got any words to defend statism with (eg "have you done your homework?" ... "What does 'homework' even mean? 'Homework' is just a socially constructed idea" etc etc)
3. All rules are universal claims. Universality is the foundation of modern civilisation. Again this is just derailing the very notion of 'a rational debate' in order to not lose it.
4. Voluntary interactions are absolutely natural and organic. It is how most of us behave most of the time.
"I think every political philosophy which adheres to (all of) these features is utopian"
'I think' and 'utopian' are not arguments. In any case nothing can possibly be more utopian than statism. eg putting a small group of people in charge of society, and making them exempt from the law as it applies to everyone else, and then hoping society will not descend into endless wars, tyranny, social breakdown, demoralisation, and violent wealth redistribution from the 99% to the 1%.
I'm NOT arguing that anarchism SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be attempted. The merits of anarchism were not the point of my essay and nowhere did I make a claim about whether anarchism should be explored or whether it would benefit us. Everything that you are claiming I'm saying about anarchism (other than my direct quotes) are purely your own invention. I limited myself to describing anarcho-capitalism as utopian (and I explained why) and then I made historical generalizations about anarchism and human government.
Great article and spot on! I was experimenting with ChatGpt3 one day. I asked it to write me a joke about men. It complied and wrote a good joke. I asked it to write a joke about women and it refused. Reason given was that it was hateful. That women are part of a marginalized group. A little research found the one of the data sources was Wikipedia. In chatGpt4 (new version) they omitted Wikipedia and the results were much better. Note: Katherine Maher was just hired as president of NPR. Prior to that she was executive director for Wikipedia. This does not bode well for the United States. I think these biases are intertwined in every aspect of our lives. We are becoming or have become a matriarchy. The empowerment and entitlement train has no breaks and continues to pick up speed. Eliminating anything in its path. For the radical feminist it's about power and money.
I worry about the next generation of young heterosexual white men (HWM) coming up. Due to DEI and the preferences women have, HWM will be relegated to second class status. It's become acceptable in our society to give women preferences. As more women get hired and promoted into these positions of power, there will be no turning back. Sadly, there hasn't been enough pushback by men in leadership positions. They keep their heads down and go along so they don't get targeted. Change won't happen until there.is male activist groups that have the resources and desire to bring lawsuits.
I think the only way to fight this movement is for men and women to stand together and speak out. Most people have a boy or man in their life that they love and care about. Women who stand against radical feminism are better able to fight it. They also understand how women compete socially. It's very different than men. Bettina Arnt and Janice Fiamengo (see links below) are great examples of brave women exposing the feminist myths and standing up for men's rights.
Your comments about women celebrating their incredible God given gifts was beautiful. They can bring new life into the world and their innate sense of empathy and compassion (a generalization) makes our world a better place. Celebrating and honoring this in no way diminishes equality or lifestyle choices. I believe women and men's gifts are complementary.
If you haven't already, check out the documentary "The Red Pill" from 2016 (Dir. Cassie Jaye). Absolutely revealing how, in reality, the power structures of the sexes in this country are completely flipped from the way they are portrayed in mainstream media and culture. The first 15 minutes or so could have been handled much differently by the director (but it's resolved at the end of the film). The rest of it is very well done. It does not support hatred towards women in the least. There are so many truths revealed in this film. [spoiler alert] Feminism is shown not only to be an entitlement, but a fundamentalist religion. As someone who grew up in a fundamentalist family and had to become well-versed in their tactics to survive, it all started suddenly clicking to me. Everyone should see this documentary immediately for a clearer picture of how we've been bamboozled. Rather heartbreaking and terrifying, but that's how truth arrives sometimes. I found it either on the Arte or Plex channel when I was travelling in South America, not sure if it's available here in the United States anymore (though you can get both of those as apps in the U.S.).
Taking back society to a purposeful culture of respect for order, biology, evolution, fertility, and getting rid of the entitlement mentality begins with the repeal of 19A and disenfranchisement. The West rose for millennia knowing this. It has been falling for a century because of it. Pandora, Eve, Brunhilde ALL are teaching characters from mythology and ALL are female FOR A REASON.
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.
“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.”
Aside from the voting part that is precisely how human societies are organized all over the world and how they seem to have been organized since the chalcolithic. I don’t have to even introduce the concept of rights or equality or property to note that complex human societies tend to be hierarchical and that we tend to submit to powerful powerful people who can organize builders and military force, and who tend to exempt themselves from the duties and expectations of the average person. If anarcho-capitalism was NOT utopian it would simply be the default setting of humans all over the world, rather than a program which exists (in its fullest form) largely on paper. Where there is anarchy there’s very little capitalism and vice versa. Technically even the concept of human equality, rights, or the ideas that (for example) babies should never be killed by the government or people should never have their harvest taken are utopian. Our ancestors would have recognized these as misfortunes but if you tried to explain to them why these things should never happen they wouldn’t have known what you were talking about. They DO happen, they always have, and the best we can do is to introduce new ideas and technologies incrementally to improve life slowly. Anyone who presents you with a ready-made set of principles and onolotogical precepts about how society SHOULD be organized and what the government SHOULD do in every situation, based upon first principles, is a utopian. Like all utopians they are underestimating the difficulty and confusion of life and the realities of human nature… in my opinion.
The first part of your reply is not an argument. It is just saying "I see the world like this, so this is how it should be". Also you conflate organisation with rule. Rule (rule by force AKA statism) is the opposite of social organisation, teamwork or collaboration.
" If anarcho-capitalism was NOT utopian it would simply be the default setting of humans all over the world"
It IS the default setting all over the world. In our everyday lives (both business and personal) every transaction or interaction is conducted under the principles of anarchy (no rulers). Those who attempt to rule others by force or fraud are called muggers, rapists, hijackers, extortionists, bullies, murderers etc and we all consider their behaviour socially unacceptable and treat them accordingly.
The 'state' is the only group of people who have managed to make themselves exempt from our condemnation, and they are only able to do this thanks to a systematic propaganda campaign consisting of 6 hours daily propaganda, starting at age 4 and lasting at least the next 12 years, into adulthood.
The fact that theft, extortion, murder and mafia monopolies can ONLY be normalised (effectively made invisible) thanks to such intensive propaganda, and the use of weasel words like 'taxation', 'public spending', 'regulation' etc only confirms that anarchy is our default setting and that statism (rule by force/ exemption from the law) must operate under false pretences in order to not be rejected. The elaborate costumes, buildings and rituals (pageantry) are also strategies to trick the masses into accepting such blatant moral hypocrisy ('royal' families have been using the same strategy for centuries).
"Technically even the concept of human equality, rights, or the ideas that (for example) babies should never be killed by the government or people should never have their harvest taken are utopian."
The fact that people always have to resort to such WEIRD and WACKY arguments to defend statism also confirms it runs contrary to every other aspect of our modern civilised society. Anarchy just means agreeing to be CONSISTENT when discussing morality, just as science just means agreeing to be CONSISTENT when discussing observations of nature.
What you are effectively doing is arguing that we cannot, or must not, demand scientific theories apply universally. Such a consistent standard is 'utopian'. After all, human nature is all about making stuff up and being superstitious, so expecting humans to adhere to strict scientific principles (the scientific method) is asking too much. Of course if you can win enough people over with this argument we WILL revert back to a superstitious age where the Earth is flat and crop failures are caused by not enough human sacrifice.
Morality is no different. The degree to which we advocate for universal morality (murder, theft, rape etc is wrong regardless of what costume you happen to be wearing) is the degree to which we end up with a civilised society.
You are advocating for inconsistent moral rules - specifically for one group in society to enjoy a special monopoly on the legal right to violate basic moral rules which apply to everyone else. What you are proposing cannot be argued with facts or reason, only a succession of logical fallacies (appeals to authority etc).
Anarchists argue that moral rules (like the laws of physics) must apply to everyone because that is what a 'rule' is supposed to mean. We either have a society based on moral rules or a society based on moral hypocrisy.
You are arguing that having a society based on rules (ie theft, murder, rape etc is against the rules) is utopian and should not even be attempted. Therefore you have ejected yourself out of the debate and have left civilised society.
So the question is why are you even pretending to debate this topic? Why not just bash people over the head and smash up their computers in order to claim victory, because that is what your position is (might makes right, moral rules are for losers).
I suspect that if your car was stolen or you were mugged you'd claim this was unacceptable behaviour and they had no right to violate your person/ property in that way. To become an anarchist all you would have to do is recognise that the rights YOU claim should also apply to everyone else too. After all, you are not special (like a god or a higher species) are you?
To be a statist is to exist in a fog of profound cognitive dissonance (created from all those years of propaganda as a child).
Organizing society purely based upon rights and what “should” be done is its own kind of Utopianism. No complex human society has ever been anarcho-capitalist because there’s more to
Human affairs than deontology. In fact, the concept of ‘rights’ as a complete basis of government and law is extremely recent and originated among the educated and the prosperous. ANYONE who thinks that THEY have access to the principles upon which all of society should be built and organized as first principles (as opposed to pragmatic deductions based upon trial and error) is a utopian. Anarcho-capitalism cannot fully be based upon its success as an applied system because it hasn’t been sufficiently applied. There are two main drivers behind human organization: ‘what works’ versus ‘what should be’. Anyone who bases their ideology purely in the latter is utopian in my opinion. This is simply not how human societies are organized.
I don’t disagree with your statements about “women’s suffrage or wage equality as a principle or female empowerment” but I would still maintain that these aspects of feminism are not purely based in a sense of entitlement. Even if their historical origins are completely misunderstood or invalid that doesn’t mean that these goals are entitlement. To support that claim you would literally have to address every argument or motivation for these changes and ground each of them in ideas of dispensations or an entitled worldview and this would be difficult.
"Organizing society purely based upon rights and what “should” be done is its own kind of Utopianism. "
Calling something 'utopian' is not an argument.
Anarchy (ie consistent moral standards) does not mean everyone is on their best behaviour all the time, nor does it require everyone to be on their best behaviour all the time.
Anarchy just means if you commit murder, theft, rape, extortion etc you won't get a pass simply because you happen to be wearing a special costume, or because you had a bunch of people cheering you on or 'voting' for you to behave that way. Such idiotic excuses won't wash in an anarchic society, just as they don't wash most of the time in ordinary society today.
Your main argument seems to be this: It's utopian to outlaw rape for everyone, because there will always be people who are going to go out there and commit rape.
That seems reasonable enough if you don't think too hard about it. I mean, we can agree that there will always be rapists, but when you think about it that does not mean we should not outlaw rape for everyone. It means we should.
The second half of your argument (which you are probably not aware of) is this: It's utopian to outlaw rape for everyone, because there will always be people who are going to go out there and commit rape....... therefore we must make rape legal for a small group of people.
Statism is based on the argument that to protect our property rights, personhood rights and to organise society, we must give a small group in society the legal right to violate our property, violate our person and disrupt social organisation with legalised coercion.
It is the sort of 'woo' that can only be instilled in childhood when our capacity to reason has not developed enough to resist it (ie at school). Statism is so demented, so contradictory and so illogical it is effectively a mental illness.
My statement was not an argument for or against any system (if that’s what you meant). I’m not trying to argue for or against any system. It’s an argument that anarcho-capitalism is utopian, so this is a semantic discussion.
As for defining ‘rule’ separately from ‘organization’… that is a move that can be made but I think you’ll find that every complicated society’s organizations include aspects of rule, coercion, and violence. If you define social organization in such a way that rule is never included then, yes, rule is necessarily different from organization. In that case fascism, feudalism, monarchy… and basically every form of governmental and economic structure is NOT organization, which is a strange case to make, since they all include rule by certain individuals and classes and interests over others. I would define social organization as the form large groups of humans assume as they try to solve problems of scarcity and defense and self-regulation. Not only will you find that rule and coercion are included in that definition but they’re almost always present.
I consider an cap utopian because:
1.) it’s a theoretical idea of how human societies should be organized
2.) it’s based on deontological notions like ‘property’ and ‘rights’ and ‘coercion’ which are, themselves, socially constructed ideas
3.) it makes universal claims
4.) it doesn’t arise organically from human activity (or has not up until this point)
I think every political philosophy which adheres to (all of) these features is utopian
"It’s an argument that anarcho-capitalism is utopian"
What you're arguing is that anarchy should not be attempted because it could potentially descend back to statism.
By this argument overt slavery (of the cotton picking variety) should not be outlawed because it could descend back into slavery again. Burning witches at the stake should not be outlawed because we might revert back to the practice again one day. It's a very weird and wacky argument.
As a general rule, any form of moral progress (away from hypocrisy, and towards more consistency) tends to be a one way street in the same way that abandoning superstition for scientific consistency (empiricism) also tends to be a one way street.
For an anarchic society to revert back to a statist one would be like reverting back to the idea of volcano gods causing eruptions or bad spirits causing infertility. It's extremely unlikely to happen, and also the worst case scenario is that we still get to enjoy decades or centuries of more civilised living before sliding back to a more barbaric state.
"I think you’ll find that every complicated society’s organizations include aspects of rule, coercion, and violence. "
The majority of transactions, interactions and relationships in our current society are conducted voluntarily through the use of negotiation and contracts (both formal and informal). Anarchy is what happens when the current rules, conventions, etiquette and laws which have ALREADY been accepted in ordinary society are extended to include politicians.
As for your other arguments ...
1. Anarchy (AKA moral consistency/ equal rights/ equality under the law) is not theoretical, it's how 99% of transactions are already conducted in our current society.
Nobody (including you) would dare to argue that 'John' ever has the right to violate 'Sally's' property or person. Statism only exists - and can ony be defended - by disguising the moral hypocrisy, and violations of basic human rights under weasel words and relentless propaganda (as explained in previous comments).
2. 'Property', 'rights' and 'coercion' are perfectly simple concepts which form the basis of all contracts. Pretending they are somehow mystical and elusive is just an attempt to avoid having to defending the indefensible. You're effectively arguing that you've not got any words to defend statism with (eg "have you done your homework?" ... "What does 'homework' even mean? 'Homework' is just a socially constructed idea" etc etc)
3. All rules are universal claims. Universality is the foundation of modern civilisation. Again this is just derailing the very notion of 'a rational debate' in order to not lose it.
4. Voluntary interactions are absolutely natural and organic. It is how most of us behave most of the time.
"I think every political philosophy which adheres to (all of) these features is utopian"
'I think' and 'utopian' are not arguments. In any case nothing can possibly be more utopian than statism. eg putting a small group of people in charge of society, and making them exempt from the law as it applies to everyone else, and then hoping society will not descend into endless wars, tyranny, social breakdown, demoralisation, and violent wealth redistribution from the 99% to the 1%.
I'm NOT arguing that anarchism SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be attempted. The merits of anarchism were not the point of my essay and nowhere did I make a claim about whether anarchism should be explored or whether it would benefit us. Everything that you are claiming I'm saying about anarchism (other than my direct quotes) are purely your own invention. I limited myself to describing anarcho-capitalism as utopian (and I explained why) and then I made historical generalizations about anarchism and human government.
Bravo! Well said!
Great article and spot on! I was experimenting with ChatGpt3 one day. I asked it to write me a joke about men. It complied and wrote a good joke. I asked it to write a joke about women and it refused. Reason given was that it was hateful. That women are part of a marginalized group. A little research found the one of the data sources was Wikipedia. In chatGpt4 (new version) they omitted Wikipedia and the results were much better. Note: Katherine Maher was just hired as president of NPR. Prior to that she was executive director for Wikipedia. This does not bode well for the United States. I think these biases are intertwined in every aspect of our lives. We are becoming or have become a matriarchy. The empowerment and entitlement train has no breaks and continues to pick up speed. Eliminating anything in its path. For the radical feminist it's about power and money.
I worry about the next generation of young heterosexual white men (HWM) coming up. Due to DEI and the preferences women have, HWM will be relegated to second class status. It's become acceptable in our society to give women preferences. As more women get hired and promoted into these positions of power, there will be no turning back. Sadly, there hasn't been enough pushback by men in leadership positions. They keep their heads down and go along so they don't get targeted. Change won't happen until there.is male activist groups that have the resources and desire to bring lawsuits.
I think the only way to fight this movement is for men and women to stand together and speak out. Most people have a boy or man in their life that they love and care about. Women who stand against radical feminism are better able to fight it. They also understand how women compete socially. It's very different than men. Bettina Arnt and Janice Fiamengo (see links below) are great examples of brave women exposing the feminist myths and standing up for men's rights.
Your comments about women celebrating their incredible God given gifts was beautiful. They can bring new life into the world and their innate sense of empathy and compassion (a generalization) makes our world a better place. Celebrating and honoring this in no way diminishes equality or lifestyle choices. I believe women and men's gifts are complementary.
https://open.substack.com/pub/fiamengofile?r=ws3zi&utm_medium=ios
https://substack.com/@bettinaarndt?r=ws3zi&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=profile
If you haven't already, check out the documentary "The Red Pill" from 2016 (Dir. Cassie Jaye). Absolutely revealing how, in reality, the power structures of the sexes in this country are completely flipped from the way they are portrayed in mainstream media and culture. The first 15 minutes or so could have been handled much differently by the director (but it's resolved at the end of the film). The rest of it is very well done. It does not support hatred towards women in the least. There are so many truths revealed in this film. [spoiler alert] Feminism is shown not only to be an entitlement, but a fundamentalist religion. As someone who grew up in a fundamentalist family and had to become well-versed in their tactics to survive, it all started suddenly clicking to me. Everyone should see this documentary immediately for a clearer picture of how we've been bamboozled. Rather heartbreaking and terrifying, but that's how truth arrives sometimes. I found it either on the Arte or Plex channel when I was travelling in South America, not sure if it's available here in the United States anymore (though you can get both of those as apps in the U.S.).
Taking back society to a purposeful culture of respect for order, biology, evolution, fertility, and getting rid of the entitlement mentality begins with the repeal of 19A and disenfranchisement. The West rose for millennia knowing this. It has been falling for a century because of it. Pandora, Eve, Brunhilde ALL are teaching characters from mythology and ALL are female FOR A REASON.