A summary of the Manosphere’s formal definitions of Feminism.
In a recent post, One Hundred Years of Men’s Rights Have Come To Nothing (April 12, 2019), Ballista emphasizes the necessity of properly defining Feminism.
Feminism is ultimately ill-defined to the point that anyone that seeks to be against it always fails. A proper solution to a problem always begins with an accurate definition.
Yet few will come up with an accurate definition or an effective solution, nor will support the actions required to enact an effective solution. Therefore, the problem will never be dealt with.
Over the years, Manospherians have been kicking around descriptors to grab a better handle on Feminism.
Chateau Heartiste’s Definition of Feminism (ca. November 12, 2013):
“The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality and behavior and to maximally restrict and punish the exercise of male sexuality and behavior.”
Putting evo-psyche aside, Christianity and Masculinity cut to the chase with this breakthrough claim.
Deep Strength’s Law of Feminism (2016 February 18):
“Feminism is the promotion and glorification of rebellion.”
Dalrock broke new ground with his formalized definition of Feminism which captures the essential flavor of Feminism in modern Western society.
Dalrock’s Law of Feminism (September 6, 2018):
“Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.”
The second clause of Dalrock’s Law of Feminism is essentially a subtle assertion that women are subject to the authority of men. There is the expectation, shared by both sexes, that the health of the relationship is dependent on the behavior of the other. But this is a legalistic approach, which fails to implement God’s grace for the regeneration of the relationship.
Boxer’s Definitions of Feminism (January 18, 2019):
- A conspiracy against all men and all nations, to offload the individual and collective responsibility for female misbehavior onto men.
- An ideology (see Marx) which promotes a false state-of-affairs between men and their material conditions, furthering the support of women at the expense of man and his brothers.
- “Feminism” has no meaning corresponding to reality; it’s simply a rhetorical tool.
- “…if you’re a feminist, then you must naturally support the #MeToo movement, abortion, and exterminating 90% of the male population and keeping the remaining 10% caged up to be used as studs when needed. If you don’t support all that, then you’re not a feminist, and what you really want is for women to be treated like dirt!”
Jack’s Law of Feminism (January 18, 2019):
“Feminism is the assertion and justification of women’s rejection of male authority in favor of an institutionalized social ontology which is dictated by the Feminine Imperative.”
In summary, the panel has reached a consensus on the Law of Feminism as a working definition, and it’s not looking holy.
Derek’s Law of Feminism (October 1, 2019):
“The best definition most consistent across all flavors of feminism is the promotion of gender inequality favoring women, that is, female supremacy.”
In effect, it is a rebellion which seeks to invert the natural, God ordained hierarchy of authority. This hearkens back to the Sin of Eve, which has been covered in an excellent essay by L.T. Smash on Return of Kings, Men Have Foolishly Ignored The Warning In The Book Of Genesis (September 26, 2018).
Any feminist who disagrees with the above definitions is only seeking to evade the exposé of sin and shame that would result from being so eloquently pigeonholed. We can expect this kind of response, and we should always be prepared to respond.