Why opinion of highly regarded academicians means almost nothing. (Read “insert feminist author”) Looking into feminist arguments: Part 1?

Many of you who engage with feminists on this platform may have heard something along the line: “Patriarchy hurts men too, read Bell Hooks.” It may sound like there is some concern for men’s well-being and in order to “truly” help other men one has to become a feminist. But I would argue that this is nothing but a distraction and will explain why.

1. Actors are more important than theorists.

Here I want to make a short disclaimer: I am from Russia and many of my arguments in the future will have examples from Russian history because it is closer to me. And as you should know Russia was once a Soviet Union led by communist party. And now let’s ask ourself how could a country which based its ideals on universal equality and interests of workers be the reason for famine, repressions and birth of a new type of oppressive class – state nomenclature. I think the answer is obvious, the movement and the government were highjacked by the people who mainly acted in their own self-interests often times contradictory to the ideals they used as a justification. And to this day whenever ordinary person hears “Communism” or “Socialism” does he think of Karl Marx and Engels or USSR and North Korea?

The same is happening to the feminism. Despite “equality” being the main moto of the movement it completely overlooks fields where women have advantages or preferential treatment such as academia or women dominated companies, HR and so on. Because actors of the movement are interested in their own financial or status gain over anything else. And just like that the main beneficiary of the “Positive discrimination” happened to be white woman.

1. There is never a true feminist. (Reverse Strawman).

This one I bet you also have seen. Remember when you presented an example of feminist group or celebrity, or just one random person on the internet being unhinged and acting or speaking in contradiction to the main system of feminist belief. What is the response? You are right. “Then she is not a true feminist.” You also may know this answer as a no true Scotsman fallacy. And the thing is, often times person writing this knows they make a weak argument. In order to protect it, they present you “THE true Scotsman” or as I would like to call it “reverse strawman”. This is when theorists come in. Basically, pointing at another feminist author or academicians who is more in line with the system of feminist beliefs. Forcing you to wrestle the idealized version of their belief “hence reverse strawman”. Why is it mainly authors? Because being flawless is only possible on the paper.

1. Have you read the bible?

Here I will keep it short. Just like majority of Christians have never bothered to read the bible, majority of self-proclaimed feminists never bothered to read at least one book from highly regarded author. Instead, they rely on their own vision of truth and equality which often times aligns with their immediate self-interests.

TLDR: Main idea. The existence of such literature brings almost nothing to the discussion, if the average person of that movement won’t even use it as a toilet paper. Instead, it places idealized strawmen for you to wrestle. Making it impossible to address real life short-comings of the movement.

P.S. What do you think?  Please let me know if you want to read more. I have some future ideas I want to share. Also I am open to the discussion.