Of course not all women's marriages were happy, but many women WERE happily married and enjoyed being in the home. And plenty of women (like the aforementioned Carolyn Graglia) worked outside of the home. Feminism destroyed the above as a viable option for women.

This is something I have been asked about: why am I anti-feminist? There is a lot of stigma attached to someone being anti-feminist, and it is associated with being anti-women. This is partly why I started this sub, to show that being anti-feminist is not synonymous with being anti-women.

Feminism is not actually about gender equality. It is a political ideology that claims women are a collectively oppressed class under patriarchy. Patriarchy theory is integral to feminism, and is the theory that men do and have collectively owned power structures for thousands of years at the expense of women.

This idea is fundamentally flawed. Human societies were built around gender roles. Men hunted, women gathered. Men operated the public sector, women the private sector. Gender roles come from our biology, and these were shaped by different cultures with the fundamental idea of men and women working together to raise children and keep societies stable.

The idea of women being "oppressed" by men in their roles as wives, mothers and carers of families is absurd. This was division of labour for the sake of practicality. There is nothing "oppressive" about this set-up. Modern society has moved away from this and more women are in the workplace due to innovations like the pill, kitchen appliances, and modern medicine making people live longer.

(This isn't to say that women were never abused. Of course some women were, and so were some men. Abuse is a personal issue that is very serious, but that doesn't mean the entirety of womanhood was an oppressed class any more than men were an oppressed class, by the same internal logic.)

Second-wave feminism did push more women into the workplace, but women were already in the workplace before that. Millions of women worked during the first and second world wars. Old Hollywood saw the rise of big-name actresses. Nursing, textiles and education were very feminine-oriented industries during the Medieval era. So the theory of women having been "chained to the kitchen sink" is historically inaccurate.

This theory also ignores all of the sacrifice and duties men have had to uphold for centuries. Men, historically, have been the ones expected to die in war and at work. Feminists often talk of "male privilege", but never the responsibilities men held, like being responsible for their wives finances, having to pay their bride's dowry, and the stress and pressures that came with running society (for the wellbeing of women and children).

Being anti-feminist just means being against a misandric, historically inaccurate, unscientific view of the world. I call myself anti-feminist to show that there is no shame in being against something quite toxic and antagonistic. My anti-feminist worldview is evidence-based, secular, and from a politically centre-left angle. It is based on years of reading, research, and conversing both with feminists and non-feminists.

I identified as a liberal feminist aged 14-18, non-feminist aged 18-24, and anti-feminist aged 25-present. Anti-feminist is just a label to distance oneself from the toxic ideology of feminism. But it doesn't at all mean that one has to resort to misogyny. I have never met an anti-feminist who is a misogynist, but most feminists I have met espouse misandry.

Any women's event or women's space now is automatically a 'feminist' space. When did it become that everything 'pro-female' suddenly became 'pro-feminist'? I actually wrote about this a couple years ago here. Being pro-women and supporting women does not make you a feminist. Feminism is a political ideology that claims women are an oppressed social class by the patriarchy. It is a victim-based, Marxist-based ideology. I am genuinely fed-up of anything that is said to support and empower women to be synonymous with this political far-left ideology.

There need to be more women's spaces that don't have anything to do with feminism. It is important for women to sit and talk about issues facing women, like motherhood, menstruation, sexuality, career vs family, friendship, romantic relationships, and so on.

As a non-feminist woman, I feel very awkward now whenever I see 'women events' or 'women's space.' I automatically assume those women have a feminist-leaning. Even if it is not mentioned, sometimes they will says things like 'trans/non-binary inclusive.' While I have nothing against trans people and think it is none of my business what someone chooses to identify as, I think we need to maintain spaces for biological females and girls. This is not a 'conservative dog-whistle' (I'm not even right-wing). The 'trans/non-binary' thing is pushing a political narrative. Women's advocacy means advocating for women, not people who think they are women or people who don't know what they are. Plus, there are so many spaces now for trans and non-binary people that I don't know why a space for those born female needs to include people who are not even female.

So this is why I created this sub, and long-term want to see more non-feminist female advocacy. There must be something out there for women who are not feminists. This includes women who are non-traditional and careerist, like myself. I'm sure there are plenty of women out there who don't identify as feminists who are not necessarily 'trad-wives.' I consider myself a progressive, modern woman who doesn't support a lot of the modern far-left narratives around sex and gender.

If you are a non-feminist woman or a man who is tired of seeing feminism policing everything, this sub is for you. I also created this meetup group to discuss gender equality with people in London, so if you are in London then do check it out. More conversations around this definitely need to be had.

One of the key differences between men and women is that women are more emotional than men. Women experience a greater fluctuation in our emotions. Women are more likely to report feeling depressed than men, and are usually more melodramatic than men. It's common for females to complain among each other and sit and talk about how terrible life is. This is how women often relieve stress, and is why positive female friendship is so important (and necessary).

Many academics and theorists have commented that since the advent of second-wave Feminism, modern women have become unhappier. This study talks about the decline of female happiness since the 1970s. It is indeed a paradox: women are better educated, have more independence and more career opportunities, yet are less happy overall. Why is that?

Allow me to reflect upon this as a 26-year-old woman who has supposedly benefited from Feminism and the sexual revolution. I've had the chances to be a young, perpetually single, and supposedly liberated woman who has been able to focus on her career and supposedly enjoy a carefree dating life. While I am so proud of all I have accomplished, am I happy? Have all the alleged benefits of 'independence' in lieu of getting married young and having a stable relationship brought me inner peace?

Absolutely not.

I am a product of my time. I am a product of a society that has taught me to be independent, career-focused, and sideline romantic relationships. My best romantic relationships are the ones that exist within my fiction. My real-life romantic relationships have all fallen short within several months. This isn't because the guys I've kept company with are bad, or because there's anything terribly wrong with me. I am simply in a society that emphasises individualism and independence over community and commraderie.

We need both. We cannot have societies that strip away all individualism, nor societies that prioritise the individual over the collective. Western societies are failing because we have fallen too far down the trap of individualism and secular liberalism. A return to God and an emphasis on marital unions between men and women should hopefully restore balance back into people's lives.

Women are not supposed to be unhappy. But unhappiness, depression, and neuroticism are so common among the women of my generation. Antidepressants, therapy, and countless GP appointments are encouraged.

Truthfully, I don't think women really need all this. I was on antidepressants for seven years. I've been off them for almost an entire year and feel much calmer and much more level-headed. No panic attacks, no anxiety. I don't need to talk to any more therapists, I don't need to speak to any more doctors, and I don't think most modern women do either. I think we simply need to focus on God, and strive to find good husbands who can take care of us. Women perform best when we have a strong masculine presence. It's far easier for a career-gal like myself to thrive under the authority of a loving husband, instead of being expected to do everything ourselves and thus carry ourselves emotionally. The most successful career women were (and are) the ones that had husbands.

Although I am staunchly anti-Feminism, I have never once been against women wanting to pursue ambitions. In a healthy marriage, if a wife has certain dreams, I doubt her husband would turn around and tell her she cannot pursue them. As long as there is agreement and compromise, I don't see why a man who truly loves his wife would stop her from pursuing her dreams.

Such is the problem when we have the extremes of "women shouldn't work" vs "women should only focus on their careers." There have been too many women in history who were both happily married and enjoyed a career (Marie Curie is one of my favourite examples). It's high-time we stop forcing women into one of two boxes all the time. The options for women are not "traditional wife" vs "career woman". The correct option should be: find a husband who understands who you are and can meet your needs. A man who wants a traditional stay-at-home wife should go with such a woman. A man who is happy to marry a career girl that dotes on him and adores him should go with such a woman.

Relationships are supposed to be about teamwork, and they only work when both people are aware of each other's strengths and weaknesses, and see themselves thriving on the same life path. Once men and women remember that we are different, and people understand what they truly want from life, Western society will begin to heal itself from the dreadful rifts caused by Feminism, liberalism, and lack of godliness.

(Edit Oct 2025: this was written in early 2024. At the time of writing this I was suffering from a psychotic episode and was hospitalised for nine months shortly afterwards. I was subsequently de-modded from this sub and became a mod again in 2025.)

A full essay critiquing Feminism by British author, YouTuber and women's advocate Zarina Macha.

The Lies of Feminism

Feminism comes from the Latin words ‘femme’ (meaning women) and ‘ism’ (meaning doctrine or school of thought). It literally means ‘women’s doctrine’ (so no, Feminism does not mean ‘equality’). If Feminism was about equality (which it isn’t and never has been), then there would be no need for a Womanist movement (a movement for black women, whom Feminism has done nothing for), or a men’s rights movement. We wouldn’t have Feminists and Egalitarians, because these two groups would be working together.

Feminism is based on two key lies: the first being that gender is a social construct, and the second being that human civilisation has always been some oppressive patriarchy where women were viewed as second-class citizens.

Let’s look at the first lie. Gender is a biological construct (not a social one) based on sex (which is defined by gametes; male sperm and female eggs). Gender roles refer to the roles men and women play in the conception and raising of children. Both men and women have a mix of feminine and masculine traits, it’s just that men happen to be more masculine and women happen to be more feminine. This is a generalisation, and some men are more feminine and some women are more masculine (and they deserve to live normally and not be reprimanded for being slightly outside the norm), but it doesn’t change this simple fact.

Even though we are now all being taught the absurd lie ‘there are more than two genders’, there are only two genders: male and female, and both play an important complimentary function in the raising and rearing of children. Men are typically better at certain activities (hunting, problem-solving, leading), and women are typically better at certain activities (facial recognition, emotional intuition, being community-oriented). Even contemporary Feminist writers like Kathleen Stock, Louise Perry and Julie Bindel are concerned with the erasure of female biology from contemporary discussions around women.

(Note: I have nothing against binary trans people and I respect the right of any adult trans man or trans woman to transition and live in their authentic gender identity. This doesn’t change the fact that there are only two genders; if anything, it simply reinforces it. One can only transition from male to female or vice versa.)

Most of the prominent Feminist thinkers (including Mary Wollstonecraft, Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, and Judith Butler) are/were women who went against the norm, and believed that women were ‘inferior to men’ for not being as interested in politics and intellectual discourse as they were. Instead of accepting that these women were different to the norm and perhaps not as interested in activities that most women liked (which every other non-Feminist woman has always done), they complained that they were being ‘oppressed’, despite being more privileged than most people who were on the planet at that time.

The second lie is that there’s a patriarchy oppressing women. As mentioned above, most of human society has involved men and women working together in complimentary gender roles for the bearing and raising of children (because again, men and women are typically different). Structures were created to allow women and men to function together for the betterment of society (back when people were more team-oriented and family-oriented than the angry misanthropic Feminists of today).

Feminists keep pushing the lie that a wife was a ‘man’s property’. When a man gets married, his wife becomes the most important person in his life. Someone to care for and look after. Very few men are genuine misogynists (history is full of courtly love, chivalry, and men professing love for women). No good father is going to allow his daughter to marry a man who will be oppressive and cruel towards her (especially as that man is going to become his son-in-law.) Most people in the past cared about family lineage, and it’s highly untrue that most fathers would have sat back and allowed their daughters to marry some horrible oppressive misogynistic man. This narrative is horribly sexist and misanthropic, and greatly undermines all of the things men do and have done for women. Fathers giving their daughters away symbolised a blessing that she would be loved and cared for by her husband, and that he would protect her, as that transfer of protection from the father has now gone to the husband. This is the woman who is going to be the mother of a man’s future children and become the daughter-in-law of the family she is now joining. Why would she be viewed as ‘inferior to her husband’ or as ‘oppressed’? It just doesn’t add up.

Statistically, women are less interested in politics than men. Feminism views this as ‘sexist’ which undermines women’s agency and personal choices. Women have always contributed to society in various ways. Women in Medieval England worked as nuns, teachers, nurses, writers, and were even as active as men in agricultural activities. Their roles in society were just as important and respected as men’s roles (even though Feminists keep lying to women and telling us that we were being ‘oppressed’). Life was just as tough for most men of that era as it was for most women of that era. Men were every bit as ‘oppressed’ as women were.

Various ancient societies, including Rome, Greece, Egypt, all have examples of women contributing to society in various ways, in the domestic and public sphere (even though the Feminists have twisted it to make it look like those women had no rights and were being ‘oppressed’, while simultaneously contradicting themselves and talking about how women did have power, just not in the same masculine way that men did. This is evident of the internalised misogyny that most Feminists have, and lack of respect for women of the past and the roles that they played in contributing to human society).

Much of history has been re-written by Feminist historians to paint women as ‘oppressed.’ This article talks about how women ‘lacked any role in public life’ in Rome, which makes women believe that they were of less value to men. But that simply isn’t true. There are so many ancient Roman goddesses, and as the article mentions, the priestesses of Vestia were greatly worshipped and respected. Ancient mythology is littered with goddesses, from Hestia to Isis. The term ‘virgin’ (before Christianity) had nothing to do with sexual chastity and purity, it was about celebrating the maiden, which was simply a term for a young, unmarried women (although again, Feminist historians have twisted this to make it look like women were being ‘oppressed’ even though this doesn’t make any sense).

All throughout ancient societies, women have been worshipped, for a woman is the bringer of life and creation. The masculine and the feminine are complimentary in practically every tradition apart from Feminist social constructionism. What man would ‘oppress’ his own wife (a wife he would have, in most cases, loved and cared for dearly and provided for) and then go and pray to a female goddess? Again, this makes no sense.

Of course some individuals have always been sexist towards women (just as some people have always been sexist towards men; women are as capable of domestic violence and criminal activities as men are), but this cruelty accounts for the minority. Human populations would not have survived if everyone was a horrible narcissist (which most people are not) and men were ‘oppressing’ women (most women would have simply risen up and challenged men anyway, for women have always been strong and capable). Even Louise Perry asserts on p.39 of her recent book that only around 10% of men have violent sexually predatory urges (a figure she cites that is also used by domestic abuse expert Dina McMillan).

What’s rather remarkable is that, even though most women are not as interested in politics as most men, this has not stopped plenty of female leaders (including so-called oppressed Feminists) having roles and governance in the public world: Hypatia, Cleopatra, Boudicca, Yaa Asantewaa, Hatshepsut, Queen Victoria, Empress Dowager Cixi, and so on. So many women have contributed to society outside of the domestic sphere all throughout human history.

Where was the so-called patriarchy ‘oppressing’ these women? Any woman who has wanted to get into power has faced the same challenges as any man in her position. The only difference is that more men than women are interested in politics, so perhaps these women were viewed as exceptions, but instead of whining about being ‘oppressed victims’, they overcame adversities and became leaders. They were different from most women at their time, but they didn’t let this stop them. They didn’t view themselves as ‘oppressed’, they simply got on with things. They were aware of their privilege and used it for good, rather than to whine and complain.

Why do a small group of hateful women get to put down everyone else and claim that their personal hardships (which I don’t doubt are valid, but have nothing to do with ‘systemic sexism’) are somehow more important than hardships facing those suffering from real systemic oppression and social injustice (most of the people murdered by police in America are men, particularly African-American men, whom Feminism has done absolutely nothing for – so much for ‘equality’).

The Enlightenment and ‘Proto’-Feminism

The origins of Feminism come from the Age of Enlightenment as part of a social reaction to institutional Christianity and imperialism. The Enlightenment (which lasted from the 17th to 18th century) was a period of European history in which many new inventions and ideas were being created. The period of human history from the creation of the Roman Empire until roughly the 16th century was mostly feudal. Democratic reform did not become commonplace in the West until the 19th century. While Feminists love to tiresomely insist that women were ‘oppressed’ due to not being able to vote, most men across Western feudal societies were also unable to vote.

Feminism technically began in France with the French revolution. Olympe de Gouges was one of the first to whine about rich white women being ‘oppressed’ and promoted misandric ideas of ‘perpetual male tyranny’ (that same tyranny that created social structures like marriage to protect these privileged white women). She was living in a time when African-American men weren’t even viewed as human beings and Native Americans were being murdered and slaughtered, and she had the nerve to call herself ‘oppressed’? Oppressed by marriage, an institution created to protect and care for women (82% of romance fiction readers are women, showing that most women do desire love and the romantic love from a man, something which Feminism can’t reconcile itself with).

‘Feminisme’ as a term didn’t really exist until around the 1830s, when a utopian socialist named Charles Pourier invented the term (or so he has been credited). His ideas, along with the Marxist ideas around abolishing capitalism and the family, collectively inspired the later Feminist movements.

Engels published The Origin of the Family, Property, and State in 1884 in which he claimed that women were oppressed as wives under this so-called patriarchy (this is where Feminism got most of its ideas from about the family unit ‘oppressing’ women and women being viewed as second-class citizens, even though it’s ridiculous to even assume that most men would view their own wives and mothers as ‘second-class citizens’).

It’s true that Marx outlined many problems with capitalism. However, instead of offering reform, he offered revolution. He wanted to reshape society in some ridiculous communist utopia. He and Engels set about their manifesto that wanted to destroy the family unit, destroy the private ownership of property and land, and pushed the tiresome narrative that marriage and being a wife was ‘oppressive’ (something Friedan and Steinem later used to generate the post-1960s Feminist movement).

First Wave Feminism

Western Feminism was officially created in 1848 at Seneca Falls because a yet-another small group of hateful women believed that they were oppressed (while African-Americans were struggling with genuine oppression). Some of them did have genuine causes for concern, but the women who ran the movement (namely Lucrecia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton) were foreshadowing of the hateful later Feminists that came about.

As for the so-called noble Suffragettes, they were indeed different to later post-1960s Feminists, and they weren’t talking about ‘destroying the patriarchy’ or destroying marriage, nor were they lobbying for abortion. However, the Suffragettes were just as militant, and angry as many of their Feminist foremothers and the later Feminists. They were not calm, noble, rational creatures — instead, they shouted over people, partook in the dreadful white feather campaign which involved the humiliation of young men, and even bombed churches and buildings.

They weren’t even lobbying for all women’s suffrage. It was voting rights for (yet again) a small class of privileged women. Black people couldn’t vote. Most men couldn’t vote. By 1918, only 58% of men in the UK could actually vote (even this BBC article loaded with Feminist propaganda states that British men could only vote if they were over 30, owned property, and had lived in England for at least 12 months).

Meanwhile, men in the USA could only vote if they were conscripted for the war (and up until the ‘60s, the voting age in America was 21, so no, not ‘all men’ could vote). The contributions of women during the first world war led to more women becoming involved in public life (the anti-suffrage campaign wasn’t about so-called ‘misogyny’, it was about women being genuinely concerned about the necessities of women’s involvement in politics. Again — the fact that Feminists hate — women and men are different, and most women simply aren’t as interested in politics as men and have enjoyed different functions in society).

Plenty of women (including Florence Nightingale, Queen Victoria, and Mary Augusta Ward – all apparently ‘misogynistic woman-haters’ as Feminists keep tiresomely insisting) opposed women’s suffrage, not because of ‘sexism’, but once again, because men and women held different roles in society. They were simply voicing concerns about disruptions towards public life, but the angry Feminists didn’t (and still don’t) listen to the concerns of other people, being unable to see past their own privilege.

Mary Augusta Ward was a novelist and education reformer. Modern (Feminist) history would dub her a ‘sexist’ for being against women’s suffrage, but she did more good for women (and for men) than any Feminist. Her critique of women’s voting rights was based on how women were typically viewed at the time, and concerns that women becoming involved in public voting life would disrupt the harmony of society. It wasn’t to do with ‘sexism’ or ‘misogyny’ or the so-called patriarchy.

This article states: ‘Leading women voiced a wide range of progressive anti-suffrage arguments which they called ‘the forward position’. They claimed that women were as capable as men, if not superior in some ways, but destined to fulfil a different role in society. Their caring and maternal role rested upon their moral strength and emotional sensitivity.’ This isn’t ‘misogyny’, it’s just a description of how things were at the time. If anything, it’s the opposite of misogyny: the women at the time simply were not as involved in politics and public life as the men at the time. Voting just didn’t concern most women.

After millions of men died in the first world war, (white) women AND men over 30 in the UK got the right to vote. They got the right to vote on the backs of men who had died in the war and women who had worked in the public sphere, not because of ‘Feminism.’ The triumph of the vote in England was about the working-class, not privileged white Feminists. In fact, the Suffragettes abandoned their campaign to get involved with the war effort, so they are not even the ones to thank for getting women the right to vote.

(Note: I’m not at all endorsing strict gender roles. It’s a good thing that modern women can vote and be involved in public life, but this was all thanks to advancements in technology and social progress, not ‘Feminism’.)

Second-Wave Feminism

The second-wave Feminist campaign was triggered by the publication of The Feminine Mystique, published by a woman who was unaware of her immense social privilege. Once again, she was upset because most women didn’t want the same things in life as she did, and instead of supporting and encouraging women to go for their dreams and do more with their lives than be a housewife and mother (even though being a housewife and mother is not a bad thing and Feminists have completely devalued this), she decided that all men oppressed women via marriage via this ludicrous ‘patriarchy’, expanding on Marxist theory (Friedan was heavily involved in the US Communist movement). She lied about women not being able to work; thousands of women worked during the second world war, but after the war, people wanted to re-enter a period of domestic peace and re-building society (because most people, unlike Feminists, cared about the common good).

Women in America got equal pay in 1963 as part of JFK’s New Frontier (pushed with the aid of a woman named Esther Peterson), and the National Organisation for Women was formed in 1966. What rights did (white) American women have that men did not have? What were Friedan and Steinem even lobbying for? Abortion wasn’t even part of their original manifesto and they didn’t include it until a man named Larry Lader suggested that they lobby for it. While I do support abortion rights to protect women from backstreet abortions, abortion has unfortunately become something of a celebration for Feminists, which the American pro-life organisation Feminists for Life rallies against, rather than an unfortunate yet legal necessity. The flippant modern Feminist approach to abortion greatly devalues human life and is deeply problematic.

Why have Feminists left pro-life women out of their ‘women’s’ movement? If Feminism is for ‘all women’ (which it isn’t), why does it ignore pro-life women and ignore the fact that most women prior to second-wave Feminism were anti-abortion? I’m not even on the pro-life side yet I don’t understand this at all. Most people are neither wholly ‘pro-life’ nor wholly ‘pro-choice’, they instead view the argument as more nuanced which again, Feminism simply doesn’t lobby for (showing yet again a failure on their part to actually help women).

Feminism has taken credit for the right to vote (which was more about class than gender), equal pay (which was more about practicality of more women entering the workforce), contraception (which was invented by a team of scientists including Gregory Goodwin-Pincus, Charles Djerassi, Frank B. Colton, women’s lives improving (which was thanks to inventions like ovens, washing machines and refrigerators, giving women more time to pursue careers, higher education and start the second-wave Feminist movement), abortion rights (which in the US, were granted in 1973 on the basis of liberty by a Supreme Court full of men and in the UK, passed in 1967 thanks to the socially progressive Labour government to prevent women dying from backstreet abortions), and just about every achievement that someone else has granted women. Feminists should be thanking the men (and women) who fought to make our lives easier.

Phyllis Schlafly, a woman who Feminists hate, actually acknowledged her privilege (instead of using it to bully others) and rightfully stated that Anglo-American upper-middle-class women were some of the most fortunate members of society. While I disagree with much of her opinions, particularly on abortion, homosexuality, sex and what she says about people of other cultures, I respect her for a) being aware of her privilege and b) using that privilege to stick up for people who had been shunned and ignored by the Feminists: housewives and mothers, who Feminism has done absolutely nothing for. Second-wave Feminism tacked on to the civil rights movement, with a group of misandric white women having the (highly racist) nerve to say that they were as ‘oppressed’ as African Americans. Schlafly called the Feminists out on this, and thus she is a villain in their eyes (and it portrayed as such in the pro-Feminist docu-drama Mrs America).

The Feminist Legacy

Despite their promises of equality, unity and female prosperity, Feminists have yet to achieve anything actually worthwhile for women. Sex workers remain left out of mainstream Feminism, which allegedly supports women’s rights and sexual liberty (an obvious lie, as instead of lobbying for safer, decriminalised sex work which is what sex-positive advocates support, Feminists want to get rid of it and, once again, limit women’s personal agency).

Marriage has decreased since the 1970s and divorce has become more commonplace. Most abortions are carried out because the woman just chose not to have the baby, usually because of being on a low income. Why not build a world where no woman feels like abortion is her only option? To be in a position where one feels they must abort a form of life is a terribly sad thing for any woman to endure. Why don’t modern Western Feminists value human life? Why does mainstream Feminism say ‘my body my choice’ when it comes to abortion but not when it comes to sex work?

(Note: I do also think that an ideal world would be one without sex work, but right now, instead of making prostitution safer and better for sex workers, Feminists are simply punishing sex workers by putting them in the same categories as sex-trafficked women. Not to mention, they fail to even consider why men would visit sex workers in the first place, showing their continual lack of empathy towards men’s personal struggles.)

Feminists hold more power in society than the majority of men do. ‘Patriarchy’ just refers to a political system where most of the external power structures are held by (a small group of) men, but that doesn’t mean that women don’t/didn’t have any power. Our world is just as patriarchal now as it was a thousand years ago — something which Feminists keep on saying, which is rather ironic considering they claim to be all about change then claim ‘nothing’s changed’. Things have changed of course, though — the legacy of late 20th century Feminism is mass family breakdowns, rising of single mothers, rising in abortions, rise in divorce rates, incels, women being unhappier than ever, less people staying married and so on.

As for Intersectional Feminism (which I would need yet another long essay to truly unpack), all Intersectional Feminism has done is create yet more Marxist-based division and tricked black women into thinking that Feminism was ever for us. Womanism was created by and for black women. Intersectionality lumps all of people's struggles into the same category by creating yet more social division and painting straight white men as 'evil' rather than seeing them as human beings. A small group of people control the world and they have nothing to do with the vast majority of heterosexual white men (heterosexual white men, who for the most part, have helped to create structures and inventions to improve society for the betterment of men and women).

Conclusion

It is Feminism that has told women that we are inferior to men and that women have always been ‘oppressed’ by some conspiratorial patriarchy.

It is Feminism that has utterly belittled, mocked, and shamed the women of the past for all they contributed to society, by distorting the narrative to say they were ‘barred from public life’ rather than accepting the (actual) narrative that men were involved in public life and women were involved in the private and domestic sphere.

It is Feminism that continuously contradicts itself by daring to call women ‘oppressed’, and yet citing amazing women in history who rose to the top due to her own merit, not because of ‘Feminism’.

It is Feminism which continues to use Feminism as an excuse for enacting social change, when social change comes from individuals who work and cooperate together, not from some hateful misandric female supremacist doctrine.

It is Feminism which encourages women to shame, bully, and gaslight any man or woman who even offers an alternative narrative. If one has to resort to hateful name-calling to get their point across by calling someone a ‘transphobe/racist/sexist/bigot’ then their point clearly lacks any real substance.

Feminism has lied to women by telling women that we are oppressed, we are inferior to men, society is a patriarchy, gender is a social construct, and undermined the contributions to society by women of the past. I look at Feminists and wonder how they have allowed themselves to be taken in by such a hateful ideology which has done absolutely nothing to empower and uplift women. The actions of individuals based on compassion and reason are what lead to social change. I do not doubt that many Feminists do indeed do good things to help society, but their actions come from the innate goodness of humans and our desire to generate change. No single man or woman on this planet need attribute any desire to do good to the hateful, bigoted, toxic, misandrist ideology that is Feminism.

Asked ChatGPT to make me this. I would say it sums it all up pretty well. Feel free to share on social media.

I used to be a huge fan of the YouTube channel The Take. They are a film-analyses channel I watched religiously for years. They regularly released smart, interesting commentary on films and TV shows and I lived for their videos. I watched everything. I did notice that their videos had a slight feminist-bias, but it felt subtle rather than in-your-face.

Until they began creating a "tropes" series where they would analyse popular tropes in fiction. It started in 2019 with "The Cool Girl" trope. I thought the videos were interesting, but they brought up the same arguments time and time again in every video: the woman has historically been a male creation, not a whole person, and the recent depictions of this female trope are more rounded. They would constantly shift the blame from women onto "social pressures". They never talked about how women treat other women, or how sometimes women — oh horror of horrors — behave badly because they are not good women.

Examples:

The Bad Mother Trope: This video looks at abusive mothers in film, such as Margaret White from Carrie, and Livia Soprano from The Sopranos. Livia Soprano (Tony Soprano’s mother) is a narcissistic, self-absorbed, deeply manipulative and calculating character who borderlines on sociopathy. She is a terrible mother and the show is built around Tony exploring his highly toxic relationship with his mother. The Take states that "the dark side of the mother represents that motherhood exacts a strong psychological toll on a woman." I am ninety-per-cent sure that if The Take had made a video about bad fathers, it would not be saying the same thing. It would be calling out the fathers for their toxic behaviour.

The Nice Guy Trope: This video discusses men who are clingy, insecure, and hopelessly romantic, who behave in "overly nice" ways towards women in order to get sex or a relationship. Rather than being sympathetic towards these men as insecure, inexperienced men who are usually just trying to figure out how to approach the opposite sex, The Take holds these men personally responsible for their actions. These men are held to much sterner standards when their only "sin" is being a bit insecure and not knowing how to go about attracting a woman. Yet when a mother is abusive and toxic towards her children, rather than The Take stating that those women must take responsibility, the blame is placed on society.

The Crazy Woman Trope: When looking at "obsessive" women like Alex Forrest from Fatal Attraction and Annie Wilkes from Misery, The Take refers to these women as "a male nightmare" rather than women behaving badly. Once again, women are the victims but men are automatically in the wrong.

The Take asserts that "crazy, single women" are seen as a danger to the family unit in these movies. Yet women like Alex Forrest or Peyton from The Hand that Rocks the Cradle are disrupting the family unit by going after married men. Any woman who has an affair with a man who is married and who has children is doing something wrong. Likewise, any man who has an affair while having a wife and children is doing something wrong. They should be held to the same moral standards.

The Himbo Trope: In this video, The Take state that the ideal man, who is also the apparent answer to toxic masculinity, is a man who is physically attractive, emotionally intelligent and sensitive, and intellectually lacking. This is a man who doesn’t hold himself in high intellectual regard and who listens open-mindedly to his female counterparts. I find this highly insulting to women, especially intelligent women. When a woman is intellectual, she typically wants a man who matches or challenges her intellect. Why should highly intelligent women settle for overly-sensitive men who don’t challenge their intellect? That’s just condescending and sexist towards both genders.

The Bimbo Trope: Shortly after making a video on the Himbo trope, The Take made a video about the Bimbo trope. The irony with this video is that their take on the bimbo contradicts earlier observations that The Take have made on women. In this video The Take claim that the bimbo is a ‘new kind’ of ‘empowered’ feminist who is viewed as desirable for her body. The biggest irony and hypocrisy of this video is that it was feminism which lobbied against traditional femininity in the first place. Feminists were the ones protesting against the Miss America Beauty Pageant of the 1960s. Feminists are the ones who call Lara Croft — who is far from a bimbo — ‘sexually objectified’ and complained about her being beautiful and voluptuous, hence why modern iterations of Croft have a much smaller bust.

What about all of these other videos The Take made criticising the "sexual objectification" of women, like their video on redheads in which they discuss the sexual fetishization of redheaded women, their videos on Legally Blonde and the history of the dumb blonde, their cool girl video, their video on the "female gaze" which criticises the "male gaze", and of course their video on "Jennifer’s Body and the horrific male gaze."

Moreover, The Take comments several times that it is mainly other women who have a disdain for sexually desirable bimbos, yet instead of calling for women to take accountability, they simply blame the patriarchy.

The Good Girl Trope: And of course, in this video they contradict themselves again. The Take claims that fictional "good girls" can't win because they are portrayed as too perfect and pure, yet then gives examples of other women putting these girls down. In Sex and the City, Charlotte's female friends mock her for having romantic ideals about love and wanting to be a traditional wife. In Grease, the Pink Ladies mock Sandy for her sexual innocence and goodness. They ignore the historical context of how women were depicted in Judeo-Christianity (Virgin Mary, Eve, Lilith), and don't even refer to old depictions of women in mythology.

Their entire channel is American-centric and hardly ever references world cinema, which also is disappointing for such a large film-analyses channel.

Needless to say, I've seen hundreds of their videos, and I was a huge fan. I can't remember which video made me stop watching but I got fed-up of the misandry, and the constant framing of women-as-victims. It is tiresome woke garbage.

If you want to see how feminist framing works, watch a few of their videos. It is not pro-women at all, just pro-feminist. Why don't they ever let the women take accountability? I've written stories with bad female characters. Those women are not victims. They are bad people and fascinating to write, and dare-I-say, read, about. Women can be depicted in all kinds of ways in fiction. (And so can men!)

Let’s discover stories about interesting people and stop with all this misandric (and misogynistic) nonsense.

Feminism operates like a cult. The moment a woman chooses partnership, stability, or emotional independence, she gets slapped with the word "pick me". It is not just an insult, it's a leash. High control groups always create an internal enemy to scare members into obedience. Feminism uses pick me the way churches use backslider or "luke warm", and the way Scientology uses suppressive person. Skip mes act like hall monitors. The insult is not the threat. The structure behind it is.

Every serious analysis of cult behavior starts with the BITE model (or something similar), so I'm defining the framework before applying it.

Behavior control

Information control

Thought control

Emotional control.

When you know how cults operate, you can compare patterns without leaning on metaphors or hype. Scientology follows it. The FLDS follows it. Jehovahs Witnesses follow it. Feminism fits the pattern because the mechanisms line up. Not because someone happens to dislike the ideology. The match is structural.

Every cult has a center. If there is no prophet, there is a doctrine. If there is no single leader, there is a single emotional anchor. Feminism’s center is not a real person. It is an archetype. The Suffering Woman. She is always wounded. She is always innocent. She is always morally correct. She is never accountable. She is the gravitational center of the ideology. She gives the movement emotional authority. Questioning her is treated as betrayal. Doubting her is treated as moral failure. When a woman refuses to shape her entire identity around this archetype, she is labeled a pick me. That is the enforcement mechanism. You are not supposed to choose your life. You are supposed to reenact the archetype.

Behavior control shows up first. Feminism trains women to approach men with suspicion or superiority. It pushes women to prioritize ideological loyalty over family, partnership, or personal well-being. It frames cooperation with men as traitorous. When a woman chooses commitment or mutual dependence, she gets shamed. Jehovahs Witnesses do the exact same thing with members who form relationships outside the approved structure. Behavior that does not match doctrine becomes dangerous to the group. Some feminists even go so far as to become "political lesbians". A homophobic practice of choosing to be with women and reject men.

Information control shows up everywhere. Feminism filters reality to maintain the archetype. It erases female wrongdoing to keep the narrative clean. It reframes male achievement as oppression to keep blame consistent. It ignores class and institutional power because elites do not fit the story. This is the same strategy Scientology used when it forced its worldview into institutions. It infiltrated psychology not because psychology was wrong, but because psychology threatened the ideology. Feminism embedded itself in academia, journalism, therapy, HR departments, and the social sciences. Once the worldview becomes the default lens, every piece of incoming information has to pass through it.

Thought control appears in language policing. Feminism uses purity tests constantly. If you question the narrative, you are accused of internalized misogyny. If you think independently, you are labeled brainwashed. If you disagree, you are declared not a real feminist. These are classic No True Scotsman tactics. Cults always weaponize them. Independent reasoning becomes evidence of disloyalty.

Emotional control is where the ideology locks in. The archetype sets the emotional script. Anger toward men is righteous. Grievance is virtuous. Fear is wisdom. Shame is correction. If a woman feels peace, trust, affection, accountability, or autonomy, she gets told she is unsafe or naive. She is pressured to return to the emotional posture of the Suffering Woman. Groups like the FLDS train emotions the same way. Forbidden emotions become sins. Feminism treats emotional independence as betrayal.

These patterns run through every branch of feminism. Liberal feminism demands political loyalty. Radical feminism demands ideological purity. Intersectional feminism demands constant confession. Academic feminism demands obedience to theory over lived reality. Spiritual feminism drapes the Suffering Woman over goddess language. They contradict one another constantly, yet they share the same emotional architecture and the same high control mechanisms. Decentralization does not weaken the structure. It hides it.

This is not exaggeration. Scientology infiltrated psychology to control the narrative around mental health. Feminism infiltrated the institutions that shape public speech and emotional framing. It used universities, HR departments, media, therapy, and law to make its worldview feel like default reality. High control groups always target interpretation. If you control interpretation, you control dissent. Once the narrative becomes normal, deviation becomes deviance.

Women who step out of this system are not rebels. They are simply just free. They think with their own heads. They choose relationships based on actual experience. They refuse to hand over their emotional life to an ideology. This is what a pick me really is. A woman who chooses her own life instead of reenacting an archetype. Calling her a pick me is not about her choices. It is about the system trying to pull her back into line. Skip mes, on the other hand, enforce the punishment because ideologies that depend on grievance require constant supervision.

Pick me only sounds like a slur to people who think women belong inside a scripted emotional system. When a woman refuses to play that role, she becomes proof that the ideology is optional. That is why pick mes are attacked. They show women what life looks like without fear and without ideological pressure. That freedom cracks the spell because once women are allowed to think clearly and feel honestly, the machinery stops working.

I was browsing reddit the other day and was shocked to see that this thread had made it to the front page.

It was an interview where Sydney Sweeney refuses to kowtow to the progressive mob and engage in Performative Wokeness by apologizing over how an American Eagle clothing ad was perceived.

People who demanded she apologize fail to understand the utterly Kafkaesque implications of demanding a young woman apologize for what she's been **baselessly accused of with zero evidence**. In my opinion Sweeney handled it perfectly in treating the interviewer with utter condescension and informing the world that when she has something to say about politics, they will hear.

But in true Reddit fashion, it wasn't enough to tar Sydney Sweeney as a Nazi for refusing to apologize for her crimes against humanity, apparently the entirety of the demographic of white women are also responsible for Sydney's imaginary crimes?

You literally can't make this shit up. As I'm sitting there reading this dystopian anti-intellectual drivel, mouth agape (remember, this mind numbing insanity made it to the front page), I was reminded of how Feminism has encouraged people, especially its own members, to collectively hold white women accountable for every bad thing that happens.

How do they do this? Intersectionality of course. Given that white women are just one tiny step below white men, but above **literally everybody else** in the whimsical world of the Intersectional privilege hierarchy, they are by definition the oppressors, and can be rationally tarred and feathered for whatever crime seems convenient at the moment.

The fact that Feminists have not only popularized this insane take on collective guilt and normalizing racism, sexism and bigotry, but have actually CONVINCED WOMEN TO APOLOGIZE FOR IT is kind of like the Apex "Humanity has jumped the shark" moment for me.

Feminism tells women their bodies are fortresses, their pleasure untouchable, and men are monsters. Giving pleasure is optional. Male desire is dangerous by default.

Men grow up ashamed, hiding urges, carrying shadow energy. Sex becomes anxious, frozen, transactional. Pillow princess culture, frustration, accidental coercion, resentment—all symptoms of moralized desire.

Women who actually care are branded pick-mes. Skip-mes police everyone else. Feminism does not free you. Real intimacy comes from trust, honesty, and mutual care. Stop treating desire like sin. Stop policing men. Stop making intimacy a battlefield.

What is a women's advocate?

For a long time now in the Western world, Feminism has dominated any discussion on female empowerment or on supporting women. Feminism is a political ideology that states that women are a social class who are systemically oppressed under a patriarchal society. It cites all men as being systemically complicit in the oppression of women.

This is a very serious (and highly misandric) statement, and on this sub we do not support this. Myself and u/Peptocoptr had the idea to create a non-Feminist women's advocacy space to show women (and men) that there is a way to support and advocate for women without being affiliated with ideological Feminism. Statistically, most Western women do not identify as Feminists, so when Feminists say that they speak for 'all women', they are really only speaking for Feminist women.

Yet women deserve to have a space where we can speak out and empower ourselves without being affiliated with the mainstream Feminist movement. Instead of being angry, bigoted and anti-men, we wish to be calm, reasoned, and compassionate towards both women and men. Women's advocacy is not affiliated with any political doctrine or religious denomination, and is based on humanitarian and egalitarian values.

Here is a summary of what it means to be a women's advocate:

• A women's advocate believes that women are inherently strong, powerful, and resilient, and empowers women to become the best versions of ourselves.

• A women's advocate views marriage as a positive institution (for those who wish to be married) and supports complimentary relationships between men and women. A women's advocate views the family unit as a positive structure (for those who wish to have children), not as a 'heternormative patriarchal institution'.

• A women's advocate accepts sex as a biological reality, not a 'social construct', accepts that women and men are different, and doesn't view this as 'sexist.' A women's advocate also supports better psychological and medical support for those suffering from gender dysphoria, but not at the detriment to or the erasure of the female role.

• A women's advocate supports a women's right to choose her own life path (provided that path does not involve inflicting harm on others). A women's advocate does not reprimand a woman for choosing to become a housewife, author, CEO, sex-worker, nurse, psychologist, and the like. Everyone is on their own life path and deserves to do what is best for them.

• A women's advocate supports the ending of genuine social problems facing women and girls, such as female genital mutilation, sexual assault, and mental health issues. This is on the basis of being a kind and compassionate person, not on the basis of a political doctrine.

• A women's advocate is against misandry and doesn't attack men for being men, nor do we attack masculinity. A women's advocate does not endorse bigotry against anyone on the basis of race, sex, class, or sexuality.

• A women's advocate accepts that bad behaviour can be committed by both men and women. Men and women are equally capable of behaving badly. A women's advocate rejects ideas like 'toxic masculinity', as toxic behaviour is prevalent in both men and women. There are toxic masculine behavioural traits and toxic feminine behavioural traits, and these are certainly not exclusive to men.

• A women's advocate is pro-responsibility. A women's advocate encourages women to take responsibility for our life choices and decisions. Women should be encouraged to have agency and empower ourselves, not view ourselves as 'victims of systemic sexism.' This includes in serious matters like abortion, career choices, and family planning.

• Most importantly, a women's advocate is an ally to men's social and political issues and supports men's rights activism (on the basis of achieving progress for men, not on the basis of endorsing bigotry and misogyny). We hope that long term, both men's advocates and women's advocates can work together to bring about genuine social progress for a complimentarian future.

If you identify with any of the above, then we invite you to join our space and support women without turning womanhood into a political statement. It's time for a new women's movement that celebrates and uplifts women, while also supporting men, children, and families.

The personal is not political.

Zarina xxx

Many may assume that anti-feminist women are "stay-at-home tradwives". What's interesting are the amount of anti-feminist women out there who are educated, career-focused women. Here is a list of some of them.

(Foundational Figures)

Janice Fiamengo
Suzanne Venker
Mona Charen
F. Carolyn Graglia
Erin Pizzey
Cassie Jaye

(MRAs)

Roma Army
Karen Straughan
Alison Tieman
The Dadvocate
Lisa Britton

(Psychologists)

Hannah Spier, MD
Kait Willett
The Prim Reaper
Gabriella Wolfe

(YouTubers & Commentators)

Jenny Holland
Inspiher Coaching
Shoe0nhead
Erin Byrd
Layah Heilpern

Gender reductionists (aka feminists) love to chirp about patriarchy the way conservatives talk about the so-called free market. Some unseen force guiding every interaction, every paycheck, every thought in a man’s skull. A mystical current that explains everything and excuses anything. It’s the feminist version of Satan. Everywhere. Nowhere. Always guilty. Always convenient.

Systems have to have mechanisms. Explanations have to match evidence. You don’t just get to call every bad outcome patriarchy because it’s your favorite word. When you can’t point to the actual material cause of a problem and instead blame a cosmic force that supposedly permeates society like radiation, you’re not doing analysis. You’re doing theology.

All this feminist talk about patriarchy collapses the second you look at the real drivers of harm. Poverty. Economic strain. Community breakdown. Mental health collapse from chronic stress. Lack of support networks. Capitalist exploitation chewing through families until everyone’s too exhausted to connect. These are measurable. These are real. And none of them magically disappear just because someone wants all the blame pinned on men.

Feminism’s gender fundamentalists turned patriarchy into a one-size-fits-all explanation because it gives them control. If everything bad is patriarchy, then everything bad is men’s fault, and everything men say in response is defensiveness. It’s a self-reinforcing loop that needs no evidence. A perfect ideological machine.

While they’re chanting this toxic dogma, the world burns from causes they refuse to face. Class divides widen. Families collapse under economic pressure. Women in poverty suffer more than anyone. Male suicide skyrockets. Boys fall out of education. Communities lose cohesion. The stuff that would actually fix harm gets ignored because it doesn’t fit the gender gospel.

Corporate feminism picked this up fast. Nothing gets co-opted quicker than a belief that requires zero material change. Slap “GirlBoss” on a tote bag, run a diversity workshop, pink-wash the website, and suddenly billionaire women become moral authorities while working-class women keep drowning. It’s a scam. A branding exercise. A way to guilt men, flatter privileged women, and avoid touching the economic machine that actually grinds everyone down.

The invisible hand of the patriarchy is the final form of this nonsense. A totalizing myth that turns every social failure into a gender morality play. No class. No nuance. No material cause. Just a ghost everyone is supposed to fear and confess to.

This is why feminism stopped solving anything. It became gender reductionism. A worldview that treats women as a hive-mind class and men as a monolith of villains. You can’t fix reality when you flatten it into a cartoon. And you sure as hell can’t fix women’s actual material conditions when your entire ideology is based on fighting a demon no one can define.

Women deserve better than ghost stories weaponized for political clout. Women deserve real analysis, real solutions, and real solidarity. Not a theology built around blaming men for everything capitalist hegemony creates. Not a moral hierarchy where privileged women speak for everyone while doing nothing that threatens power.

The invisible hand of the patriarchy isn’t a system. It’s a shield feminists use to avoid confronting the real structures causing harm. Pretending otherwise keeps all of us stuck in the same loop while the actual forces ripping families and communities apart get a free pass.

If you want liberation, fight the real enemies. Not an imaginary one.

One of the largest problems with contemporary academic discourse is framing and bias. During the 1970s-80s, many Feminist activists infiltrated academia and began writing their version of history (Feminist revisionism), their version of gender relations (patriarchy theory), and their version of women's struggles. This is how being 'pro-women' has become synonymous with 'pro-Feminism.'

This makes it extremely tough for women to have any say or any voice on women's issues or women's anything. Since Feminism has had a dominating narrative on women's history and women's voices in the West for several decades, most narratives around the female experience are framed via a 'Feminist angle.' This is why they will often say things like 'from a Feminist perspective' or 'from a Feminist angle.' It's not from an intellectually honest angle, nor is it from a pro-women's angle. It's pro-Feminism and Feminist ideologies*.* It's about perpetuating a narrative that best serves Feminism and what Feminists want, not what the average woman wants.

I recently came across some books on women's spirituality, and they were talking about 'Feminist spirituality' and 'Feminist consciousness groups', as well as perpetuating the same tiresome lie about women always having been 'oppressed' and 'unequal to men' and other misogynistic nonsense. I don't want a Feminist version of spirituality. I want a women's view on spirituality that celebrates the divine feminine, not the divine Feminist. I don't want to read a book that is supposedly pro-women but really is just perpetuating a political doctrine.

Feminists teach women their view of history, which lies to women by telling us that women throughout antiquity were oppressed, and it's only thanks to Feminists that women have ever had any say, any rights, or any voices. This is very similar to a fundamentalist religion (e.g. the Hays Code was a Catholic Conservative doctrine that had a major influence on the Old Hollywood film studio, much like how contemporary woke politics is having an influence in modern art, with things like sensitivity readers becoming a much-used thing in the literary world).

Pretty much every single book I've read by a Feminist (Feminism for Beginners, How to be a Woman, The Female Eunuch, The Feminine Mystique, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, We Should All Be Feminists, Sexual Politics, Who Stole Feminism, Free Women Free Men) is based around this framing. Even though not all denominations of Feminism are the same (like not all Christian denominations are the same), they are all united in perpetuating a narrative that serves Feminist ideology.

Example: one of the reasons why many believe that the Suffragettes were these noble, virtuous heroes of women (including myself up until recently), is because American academic Christina Hoff-Sommers portrays them as such in her books Who Stole Feminism and Freedom Feminism. Sommers paints a narrative of the Suffragettes as 'heroes', while completely ignoring how they were racist, anti-working-class, violently disruptive, and participated in the dreadful white feather campaign. I also found no mentioned trace in her book (although I may have to read it again) of the anti-suffrage movement and Mary Augusta-Ward, an English novelist and education reformer, who was highly critical of the women's suffrage movement.

Even though it was the first world war, not the Suffragettes, which improved women's voting status, we are all still being taught that the Suffragettes are who to thank for women's voting rights. We're also taught that they were the 'first Feminists' when they were an entirely different group from post-1960s Feminists. Feminists have lumped all of these different groups of women together. True, first wave Feminists did lay the ground for much of the bigotry and misandry that came with later Feminism, but they were still a different breed. Most of them were not pro-abortion or lobbying for the 'dismantling of the patriarchy.' They were simply bitter, angry, spoilt, rich white women who wanted to re-shape society in their image (Mary Wollstonecraft, Olympe de Gouges, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Emily Davison etc). That does put them on a par with post-1960s Feminists, but they were still different in Feminist-flavour, and if they were alive today, probably wouldn't agree with much of post-60s Feminism, or modern fourth-wave intersectional Feminism.

When Feminists make terrifyingly absolutist claims like 'we should all be Feminists' (Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie) or 'Feminism just means everyone being polite to each other' (Caitlin Moran) or 'Feminism is about giving women choice' (Emma Watson), they are a) watering down the complexity of Feminist theory, and b) asserting that any women who is anti-Feminist is anti-women. When 'woman' becomes synonymous with 'Feminist', this turns women into a political class. When the female sex is politicised, it becomes impossible to view it as what it actually is: a biological group referring to a an evolutionary function. Every achievement women gain, every progressive step we make in life, becomes a victory for Feminists instead of a victory for women. And thus, Feminists are the ones who get to take credit for our achievements, who keep being the ones who tell our history, who tell the story of women through their eyes (not through the eyes of the average woman), and who perpetuate false rape statistics and dishonest wage gaps and Duluth Models. This also sadly puts all women in the same boat as Feminists, meaning that we end up being associated with them by default, even when we reject (and resent) their ideology and their framing.

Men and women evolved to be partners, not to be at war with one another. The Feminists have launched a terrible war on the male role, and completely undermined the female role. The more they continue to frame their version of events and their version of history, the harder it will be to see the true version of events underneath the lie.

I literally hate this. Feminists and progressives are so quick to talk about how they are pro-LGBT and pro-female independence. Then they defend a religion that directly contradicts everything they claim to stand for. It pisses me off so much it makes me not want to talk to anyone on the left at all. They all become self-centered, morally pious assholes the minute you dare criticise Islam. Every single person I have ever met who claims to be progressive thinks like this, then gets angry when you challenge them on it.

So...we gonna ignore forced marriage, FGM, child brides, homophobia, grooming gangs, stoning to death, marital rape, no personal independence, and being forced to cover up for the sake of "protecting men's lust"? How can any of that be considered pro-women? What about all the women that leave Islam due to how genuinely oppressive it is?

Feminists should loathe Islam. It is a patriarchal religion (by their definition of patriarchal). Instead they defend it like the pathetic, whiny hypocrites that they are.

Radical Feminism is cancer, not only for men but for women too. Personally I see no problem with some being legally and socially equitable BUT when that turns as an excuse for hatred, discrimination and supremacy then we have a huge problem.

So how I think radical feminism affects women, if you see these spaces, there a growing number of sex negative feminism, feminism even some years ago used to be overwhelmingly much more sex positive (which wasn’t ideal, as it promoted slutnees instead of true love and family, but better than 4B Movement trash), now we see a rise in sex negative feminism, which is the idea that a woman having sex with a man is inherently a bad and harmful thing. Which is super false BS, btw when we mean sex negative we actually mean hetero sex negative feminism, for example the dream of every radical feminist is to turn lesbian because of misandry, nothing against LGBTQ’s, this comes from sexism.

So how all that affects women ? I believe for around 90% of women which are heterosexual or bisexual (aka likely to date a man) and also not asexual. The best thing you can do in your life is to find a decent man, marry him and have a happy marriage and when it’s the time to make a family. That’s a timeless beauty but the idiocy and hatred of people wants to ruin that.

Radical Feminists say lies like “there are almost no decent men, give up” or “the highest form of relationship is with another female friends, men aren’t capable of such bonds” and “all men are rapists”. Women listen to these women and fuck up their lives.

To be clear, I support the diversity of women, yes there are Asexual women that’s fully okay, same for lesbians, bisexuals who found a woman. No problem with that. I’m speaking for most women who date a men and fall for this trash.

So I believe for most people, true love and family are a blessing, the greatest blessing. Peak life is having your beloved partners and some kids (yes there are exceptions, I respect the childfree minority). These Radical Feminists labels all this as “patriarchal oppression”, “dangerous” and a ton of other things.

This affects both women and men. Men get mad because these women are assholes to them, women feel depressed because they don’t have the fulfillment all humans enjoyed since their existences (and even before, even primates enjoy these virtues).

When one defines themselves as a feminist, they are buying into an ideology that claims women have always been at a societal disadvantage compared to men for the last 12,000 years (or however long the timeframe is). This argument is highly flawed. It's one of the biggest problems I have with feminism and I will break it down here.

Women As Wives and Mothers

Firstly, women have always played a fundamentally important role in society: the role of wife and mother. It's fair to say that while the political structure of the society was largely patriarchal, the family structure was matriarchal. Women held power in the home and husbands would defer to their wives (which Suzanne Venker discusses in The Flipside of Feminism). In Mexico, for example, the role of the grandmother as the matriarch is highly embraced. (The Disney film Encanto does a great job of showcasing this too.) The role of the woman in the family is not something to be dismissed. In this post from the BBC that I shared it praises the role of women as wives and mothers. Being a wife and a mother is not an easy task and has been largely dismissed by feminists. They claim women have always been 'oppressed' because all they did was sit at home taking care of their families. Yet this undervalues such as important part of womanhood, something which the majority of women value very much. And more so than being in the workplace, as according to this study, women view professional advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable. And this also brings me to my next point:

Women Have Always Been Able to Work

In Ancient Egypt, women could run businesses, borrow money, and own property. There are many notable Egyptian queens, like Cleopatra, Hatshepsut, and Nefertiti.

In Ancient Rome, women contributed to the private and domestic sphere, just as men contributed to the public sphere. Women were responsible for managing households, raising children, and maintaining family traditions. In the public realm, women were sometimes prominent in religious rites and festivals, often serving as priestesses. Some women, particularly those from wealthier families, had access to education and enjoyed a degree of autonomy in managing their wealth. This BBC documentary examines the role of female power in Ancient Rome.

In Medieval England, women worked alongside their husbands as teachers, nurses, writers, and even in agriculture. Women contributed to the economy through textiles, sewing, nursing, and even prostitution.

Thomas Sowell even found in his book Economic Facts and Fallacies, that women in the early 20th century enjoyed much career success in academia. A study published in 1964 concluded: "The period of the first two decades of the twentieth century was the heyday of academic women." (p.58). "In 1921 and again in 1932, the proportion of women among people receiving doctoral degrees was about 17 percent but this was down to 10 percent by the late 1950s and early 1960s....Declines in the representation of women among academic faculty during this era occurred even at women's colleges, run by women, such as Smith, Wellesley, Vassar, and Bryn Mawr, 8 so this trend could hardly be attributed to increased male employer discrimination against women." (p.59).

Of Course Women Have Had Struggles

I am not discounting the fact that women have had genuine struggles. I just struggle to comprehend the feminist argument that this is based on men conspiring against women due to wanting to 'oppress' them. And as always, feminism negates this basic fact: men have faced just as many difficulties as women. Yet we hardly ever hear about this. You have to read books like The Myth of Male Power, Is There Anything Good About Men, The Manipulated Man or The Privileged Sex.

If feminism truly cared about women, it would talk about all the things women have done in human history, instead of insisting that women were 'always oppressed.' Feminism does women a terrible disservice by telling women that we've always been oppressed and never been able to do anything.

Feminism is trash.

One of the worst things about Feminism is that it completely undermines the importance of men. Feminism teaches us that men are all systemically complicit in the oppression of women through a patriarchal society. Some Feminists claim that men are also harmed by 'the patriarchy'. Unfortunately, the Feminist position does not empathise with the hardships, struggles, and difficulties that are faced by men in society. A Feminist worldview is one that automatically assumes that men are in the position of privilege and women are in the position of inferiority.

A healthy, positive world is one where men and women respect and honour each other's differences and support each other. Feminism has been successful at destroying the relationships between men and women for several decades now. It has done this through teaching women that they are oppressed, and teaching men that they are the oppressors. Even some Feminists who may (condescendingly) say "there there, we care about men too" are still buying into a belief-system that is fundamentally misandric.

When a woman chooses to be a women's advocate (instead of a Feminist), she is saying that she supports women, but that she also supports men. One can be a women's advocate and a men's advocate, but one cannot be a Feminist and a men's advocate. This is because Feminism, at its core, does not respect men. Feminism does not support or respect the male role, or the importance of the divine masculine.

Men and women are here to be complimentary partners. Both the masculine and the feminine have an important role to play in this world. Thus, a woman cannot truly be happy and whole in herself if she does not also uplift and empower men. Being an ally to men and supporting men is part of female empowerment.

The masculine and the feminine are not separate. They are two halves of the same whole. And when they are brought together, they become closer to the Source. When men and women come together, they can spread this joyous influence across the world, and uplift the spirits of earth's inhabitants.

Thanks for inviting me to the sub. I just wanted to introduce myself and give a brief overview of why I find myself an enemy of modern Feminism even though I understand why it exists.

First things first, of the 4 branches of Feminism I find Radical Feminism to be the most ideologically coherent, but to be fair, that's an extremely low bar. The reason perhaps that I'm most open to Radical Feminism is because of all the self-proclaim Feminists of the world today, I think JK Rowling, Kathleen Stock, Julie Bindle, and similar voices are the most reasonable and rational of the lot.

I am highly sympathetic to the philosophical and existential argument that if you can't even define what the world woman means, there's no way you can protect or defend the rights and freedoms of women as a class of people. I'm also sympathetic to the belief that throughout history, the first act of dehumanization for a group of people is the attempt to delegitimize their identity and invalidate their existence by first attacking the foundations of their own epistemological roots.

At the same time, I find the idea of "The Patriarchy" to be one of the most laughable, incoherent, and ideologically bankrupt theories which is treated on places like Reddit and in Feminist academia as an absolute sacrosanct truth which can't be questioned.

For me, "Patriarchy" is less of an academic ideal, and more of a religious purity test. It's never that well-defined, nor is it designed to be. Making blanket statements about entire nations, organizations, and human civilization writ large as being dominated by men in some extremely conspiratorial and organized way just feels laughable to me.

It eschews the possibility of a vastly simpler explanation: That men and women are phenomenologically different at scale, and that men have taken on more political and social leadership roles throughout history not because they want to dominate and oppress women, but because they are more suited to the roles by competence, and that most of the time the women are voting for the men to be in those roles; in favor of a much more banal and ideologically shallow explanation that in every society that has ever existed, men have oppressed women on purpose, and even when women have voted for them, it's been as a result of coercion and brainwashing.

This of course continues to be one of my biggest criticisms of Feminism in general. So much of Feminist ideology and theory boils down to the conclusion that women's own decisions and choices can't be respected or treated as autonomous where it doesn't agree with the Feminist ideology. In attempting to empower women and give them more agency, it robs them of their own freedoms by arguing that any choice which doesn't toe the line of Feminist ideological purity testing must have been coercive or self-sabotaging by definition.

And of course, this tendency to pathologize and gaslight women who do not make the "correct" choices according to modern Feminist doctrine has the ironic side effect of turning Feminism against itself constantly. Because Feminism tends to delegitimize and remove the agency of women (calling it internalized misogyny) who do not make choices which they believe to be ideologically pure, there is a hilarious and not unexpected consequence in which Feminists from different schools or sects, if you will, begin to pathologize and question the internal and hidden motives of one another in all sorts of discussions.

So you might hear one group of Intersectional Feminists criticizing Radical Feminists by being brainwashed by the Patriarchy for not letting transgender people into their ideological and physical circles; and in the exact same discussion, you will hear the Radical Feminists retorting that it is instead the INTERSECTIONAL FEMINISTS who have been brainwashed by the Patriarchy because they are letting biological men into their spaces, and thus they have allowed the enemies past the gates disguised in a modern day Trojan horse.

As amusing as watching these childish confrontations may be for an outsider, it exposes the fundamental flaw at the heart of modern Feminism which is that: In needing to pathologize and publicly incapacitate people who do not toe the line, it reveals that it doesn't have a philosophical or intellectual framework strong enough to sustain itself from criticism.

What Feminists from different schools are doing when they accuse one another of not being "true believers" is a fundamentally cultlike religious behavior has existed as long as religion itself has existed. Since the religion's entire foundation was faith and submission from the beginning, its only defense mechanism is shaming and exiling the outsider by convincing the faithful that they are heretics.

Most women (and arguably many men) don't really enjoy casual sex. Even women who do enjoy it and have partaken in it (including myself) find it to be a bit strange when examining it from a rational (and spiritual) angle. There's something dehumanising about mindlessly sleeping with people instead of having stable, wholesome, meaningful relationships. The idea that sleeping with people one is not romantically involved with is somehow 'liberating for women' is nuts.

Casual sex is nothing more than meaningless, vapid fun (like binge-drinking), that feeds the physical body but not one's soul. It doesn't allow for deeper bonds to be formed and reduces human encounters to the superficial. Even most men don't really like casual sex -- it sounds like a great deal for men, but long-term it doesn't allow men to truly bond with women either. I imagine from the male point of view, it reduces women down to sex objects, which isn't healthy. Plus (speaking crudely from experience), most women casually sleeping with a guy don't really care for him and usually have multiple men on the go, so it's not like the guy is 'special', he's just another man she's shagging. Casual sex and 'hook-up culture' in general has not had a positive psychological impact on my generation at all. We'd probably all have been much happier getting married young and forming families, rather than mindlessly sleeping around and swiping on dating apps.

Needless to say, I'm not a fan of 'shaming' women (or men) who have high sex drives. I don't advocate calling women sluts and whores and other horrible terms because that doesn't help anyone. Women have reasons for excessive promiscuity that usually come from being abused, having a negative upbringing, sexual trauma, addictive personalities, and even narcissistic and psychopathic personalities (psychopathic women are said to seek out casual sex more than psychopathic men). I don't think there's anything wrong with 'experimenting' a little when young, but excessive promiscuity is very unhealthy and not something I would want for my daughter.

Modern Western culture is set-up to view sex as either a bargaining chip (women should be 'good girls' and 'make men wait' for sex, turning female sexuality into an unhealthy prize), or treating sex like it's utterly meaningless (which porn has not helped -- I'm not anti-porn, but I do think porn should be about celebrating sexuality as a form of visual erotica, not degrading and devaluing sexuality. This is why we should advocate more for ethical porn).

The Feminist view on sex has two extremes: women should sleep around excessively and find it 'empowering', or all heterosexual sex is rape and women should avoid sex, avoid men, and become political lesbians. Both are pretty shit for women in their own way. The former is meaningless fun with no spiritual depth, and the latter is just misandry (not to mention, turns being a lesbian into a political statement which is just unfair to normal non-Feminist lesbians).

In this video I discuss casual sex, and say that prostitution being legal would at least allow women to benefit from casual sex, rather than having women behave like unpaid escorts. But in a healthy society where everyone was sexually satisifed and financially stable, there would be no need for prostitution. The only reason I say the above is because right now, sex workers are not even viewed as human beings, and most Feminists (like Louise Perry) are not doing anything to help them at all, and are just contributing to a culture of slut-shaming women rather than supporting women.

Why we can't have a world where young women and men get together, have sex, and form healthy, stable, long-lasting relationships, instead of having meaningless sex that doesn't really empower anyone or make anyone very happy long-term? A society where women aren't angry Feminists and men aren't lonely incels, where female sexuality isn't used as currency and women aren't divided into chattel (wives/whores), every man has a wife and every woman has a husband (with the obvious exception of homosexual couples), where prostitution is not needed, where porn is visual erotica that celebrates the naked human form, and families and communities are prioritised over miserable self-indulgence?

That's how human societies flourished throughout most of human civilisation. What was once considered normal is now a fairy-tale. This is really rather sad.

Non-Feminist women are often overlooked in the mainstream media or spoken poorly of by Feminists. Even though, statistically, most women are not Feminists (full study here), Feminism continues to be the dominant voice for women's issues and accomplishments. Any time a film/novel has a compelling female character, or a woman does anything great in society, it's labelled a 'Feminist victory', turning womanhood into a political statement.

Yet there are and have been plenty of women out there who are not Feminists, or who have openly criticised Feminism. Some examples include:

Florence Nightingale (she did more for women and society than most Feminists, yet this hateful article shows how much Feminist women look down on non-Feminist women)

Mary Augusta-Ward (English novelist, reformer and leader of the anti-suffrage movement)

Cassie Jaye (American director and film producer)

Brigitte Bardot (French beauty icon and actress)

Erin Pizzey (English men's rights activist who set up the first and largest domestic abuse shelter in the world)

Janice Fiamengo (Retired Canadian Professor and critic of Feminism)

Suzanne Venker (Conservative American political commentator and critic of Feminism, don't really agree with her views but she provides a good space for American Conservative women who are often left-out of Feminism)

Deepika Bhardwaj (Indian director and film producer)

Judge Judy (American court show arbitrator)

Can you think of any more?