Like communism, feminism ignores basic, natural rights. Communism, striving for the happiness of the proletariat, trodden among others property rights. Private property was to be abolished, everything was to be shared, and everyone was to receive from common property "as needed."

​

It was necessary to make the unconscious working class aware that it was being exploited by the capitalists. The most conscious part of the proletariat - the communists - were to lead it and bring about a change of regime by abolishing property rights and abolishing the exploitation of the working class. One of the dogmas of communism was the theory of "class struggle". The victory of the proletariat would lead to the liquidation of the bourgeoisie as a relic of the previous epoch and the creation of a classless society.

​

While communism was the ideology of one social class (and fascism - the ideology of one nation), feminism is the ideology of one sex. In seeking to "liberate" women, it ignores basic, natural laws, incl. ignores the fact that gender largely determines social roles. Feminism postulates, inter alia, introducing gender equality. To realize the ideals of feminism, women need to be made aware that they are abused by men. Feminists will be at the forefront of women, eliminating inequality and abolishing the exploitation of women. The victory of feminism will lead to the creation of an androgynous society - in which gender will not determine the social role.

​

Instead of the communist dogma of "class struggle" in feminism, we find the dogma of the "eternal war of the sexes." In feminist magazines, on the other hand, we can find serious considerations as to whether a woman will still need a man in the new society.

​

A feminist is someone who believes that there is such a thing as an "eternal war of the sexes." She is convinced that a patriarchal society oppresses women. He fights for a "brave new world" in which gender will not determine anyone's role in society. She calls for equality, seeing the discrimination against women in the different treatment of women and men.

​

We who have experienced communism find it easier to understand feminism when we realize that feminist concepts are a carbon copy of the communist newspeak. This is illustrated by the following table:

​

​

communism Feminism

class struggle war of the sexes

bourgeois white heterosexual men

rotten capitalism, oppressive patriarchy

classless society androgynous society (asexual)

social justice equality

points for origin of gender quotas

imperialist warmongers, perpetrators of domestic violence

class consciousness sense of belonging to the female "gender"

class exploitation of women

elimination of social inequalities; elimination of gender discrimination

fideistic superstitions patriarchal stereotypes

people's democracy parity democracy

historical necessity (inevitable collapse of capitalism) human progress (inevitable collapse of patriarchy)

communists in the vanguard of the world proletarian revolution feminists in the vanguard of the world women's liberation movement

reaction Ciemnogród

enemy of the people (class enemy) male chauvinistic pig

​

​

In the case of the communist ideology, it turned out that property rights were the driving force of the economy and that their elimination led to widespread poverty. It turned out that the implementation of the postulates of communism is either impossible or leads to absurdities in social life. It also turned out that average workers generally do not want communist power and the communists lose in free elections.

​

Likewise, in the case of feminism, roles are found to be generally beneficial to families and to society. Implementing the postulates of feminism is either impossible or leads to absurdities in social life. It also turns out that average women generally do not want the power of feminists, and feminists, having no chance to enter the Seym under their own banner, must join a group dominated by men.

Alleged or real oppression of women as a pretext for feminism

​

For feminists, the pretext for making absurd demands to meet "here and now" is the real or imagined suffering of women "somewhere and in the past," for example, the suffering of circumcised women in Africa may be the basis for feminists to make demands to improve the situation of women in Poland.

Let us ignore the fact that the suffering of African women cannot be the basis for claiming compensation from men to women in Poland. Nor can it be denied that there have been situations in human history where women have suffered a lot. However, if we were to bid on who suffered the most in recent centuries and for what reasons, gender would not be the most important criterion for differentiating the amount of suffering. During the Vendée massacre in revolutionary France, women, children and men were murdered alike for their Catholicism. The Turks murdered millions of Armenians for their faith and nationality. Likewise, Jews were murdered for racial reasons. The communists, on the other hand, murdered according to the class affiliation of the victims. The gender of the victims was not a particularly relevant criterion, and if anything, women were often treated more leniently.

The situation of women throughout the history of Poland and feminist propaganda

​

Outraged by the "oppression of women", feminists in Poland disregard the real situation of women in Poland, as well as Polish history and Polish conditions, repeating mindlessly the slogans imported from the West. Meanwhile, if we look at the real situation of women and men in Poland, we can see that women in Poland have never been discriminated against. Although there was a division of roles, women have always enjoyed great social respect. Slavs, as a rule, respected women. Moreover, the adoption of Christianity (where a woman is considered to have a soul just like a man), Marian cult, chivalrous culture and the role of women in uprisings further strengthened the respect for women. A man who did not treat women with respect placed himself on the margins of society.

​

For these reasons, feminism has never had any significant influence in Poland. Despite this fact, women in Poland gained the right to vote at the same time as men, simultaneously with Poland regaining independence, in 1918, by a decree of the Chief of State, as something obvious, without any debates on this matter (for example in such a "progressive "France only a few years after World War II).

​

Feminists did nothing for Polish women. The right to vote for women in Poland was introduced not because feminism was so popular, but despite the fact that feminism in Poland never mattered.

​

Similarly, in Poland, feminists did not have to fight for women's access to education. Also under partitions, women could take part in the general self-education movement, which could, inter alia, result in receiving the Nobel Prize by Maria Curie-Skłodowska. Current statistics indicate even a greater percentage of female students than students in Poland (perhaps men should demand the introduction of quotas?).

​

Feminists who proclaim the slogans of defending women against discrimination cannot understand how it is possible that more women are gathered in Poland by any parish procession than by the feminist manifesto. They do not understand why women, even more than men, have traditional political views and are more attached to the Catholic Church. It is no coincidence that the League of Polish Families is the grouping with the highest percentage of women in a parliamentary club.

​

To explain the fact that women do not feel discriminated against, feminists coined the concept of "false consciousness". If a woman claims that she wants what a patriarchal society is forcing her to do, feminists say she has "false consciousness." For example, a woman may think that she wants marriage, but in fact she is forced into it by the force of patriarchal stereotypes that say that a woman fulfills herself most fully in the family. So she marries against her real desires, secretly dreaming of a career as an aviator or firefighter.

Who is really discriminated against in Poland?

​

When repeating their slogans about discrimination against women, feminists try not to accept facts that could indicate the opposite - for example, discrimination against men. Meanwhile, a comparison of the real situation of both sexes in Poland shows that if we were to talk about discrimination, it would be more justified to say that men are discriminated against.

​

Women in Poland enjoy the privilege of retiring five years earlier. Moreover, taking into account the fact that men live shorter and earn more - men earn money for long-term pension payments to women, using it themselves to a small extent. If the pension societies entered into agreements with future pensioners on market principles, determining the amount of the pension contribution based on the average life expectancy in retirement - the premium for men would be lower and the pension paid could be higher.

​

Men are required to undergo military training and defend the country in the event of war - which women do not have. The Universal Defense Duty Act is clearly contrary to the constitutional principle of gender equality, and it is even strange that no dissatisfied conscript has yet requested

The family code especially discriminates against fathers of illegitimate children. The woman then has a choice that the man does not have. He may decide to raise a child alone and sue the man for maintenance. She can also give up motherhood by leaving the baby in hospital or giving her up for adoption. In the latter situation, a man who is not the husband of the child's mother cannot recognize the child as his own - without the woman's consent. He cannot raise him alone (or sue the women for alimony). His child may be adopted by someone else, and he has no rights.

​

Pregnant women enjoy specific privileges. The employer is obliged to transfer the pregnant woman to another position if she works in harmful conditions, and she is not allowed to work shifts. At the same time, he has the right to keep his current remuneration. On the other hand, a breastfeeding mother has the right to an hourly break for breastfeeding (instead of a break, she may leave work an hour earlier). Single mothers bringing up children are entitled to tax benefits.

​

In addition to legal privileges, there are many customary privileges for women: passing the door, kissing on the hand, paying in the premises by a man, Women's Day, Mother's Day, Grandma's Day, marked places for mothers with a baby in their arms in buses, the privilege of serving out of order pregnant women, etc. ., etc.

​

If the Government Plenipotentiary for Equal Status was really intended to deal with the implementation of equal status for women and men, she should first of all deal with real problems - for example reducing the very high and increasing excess of male mortality. The difference in the average life expectancy of men and women is already 8 years! Meanwhile, the analysis of the expenditure of the Ministry of Health shows that, despite the advantage of women in terms of life expectancy, still more funds are allocated to combating typically female diseases than typically male diseases.

Absurdities and contradictions of feminism

​

Feminism is against nature and against common sense. The implementation of feminist postulates leads to absurdities in social life. To meet feminists' demands that women have access to male professions, standards are being lowered so that women can meet them. In the USA, the cross section of fire hoses has been reduced so that women can bear them. As a result, they now pump less water, to the detriment of the firefighting speed. In Poland, when women were admitted to officer schools, the requirements for the fitness exam were lowered. However, it is difficult to count on the enemy to be equally generous in the event of war, adjusting the attack force to the gender of the soldiers.

​

Promoting feminist slogans, considering whether a man is needed - leads to the weakening of the family. Some feminists choose to have children in advance, assuming they will not be with the child's father. A man is treated only as an object - as a donor of genetic material and provider of maintenance. Meanwhile, modern science unequivocally confirms that the best conditions for raising children are in full families. Of course, sometimes divorce is an unpleasant necessity, but no reasonable person marries, planning in advance the divorce and raising children alone. On the other hand, some feminists, especially those with lesbian inclinations, decide in advance for single motherhood. They use a man, treating him instrumentally - as a donor of genetic material, but most of all they hurt the child.

​

Feminists often believe that a woman has the right to have an abortion because "only she can decide about her belly," and the legal prohibition of abortion is an expression of "a patriarchal culture that oppresses women." Let us ignore the fact that attitudes to abortion do not depend on gender, but rather on a system of values ​​and the view at which human life begins. There are both women and men for and against. It can even be assumed that it is women who, in practice, find it more difficult to decide on an abortion than men.

​

However, if, according to feminists, we recognize that only a woman has the full right to decide about the fate of the fetus, then it should be consistently assumed that only a woman bears full responsibility for her decision (full power = full responsibility). This would therefore release the father from responsibility for the child and from the maintenance obligation if the woman decides to give birth to the child. This is where feminists are already stopping - they demand full power for a woman, but they also want the man to be jointly responsible for her decision.

​

The situation is similar in the case of parities. Feminists demand the introduction of quotas for women on the electoral lists, recognizing that women's participation in power is insufficient. On the one hand, they argue that women have the same governing abilities as men, and on the other hand, that they bring some undefined "new quality" to politics (this is difficult to reconcile, because if women have "the same abilities", then they do not can bring any "new quality"). They ignore the fact that this and no other participation of women in power is the result of a democratic decision of a society in which the majority are women.

​

However, the principle of parity would require that it be introduced not only where the proportions of the participation of women are unfavorable to them, but also where women dominate - in studies, in education, in the middle-level state administration or among office workers - where women definitely prevail. . Consistent adherence to the principle of parity would require that parities also apply in professions such as miners, steel workers, soldiers, policemen, and also among prisoners - which would require taking into account gender when issuing sentences (the vast majority of convicts are men). The principle of parity should also be applied when making decisions on granting custody over a child after divorce - so that the percentage of children specified in the act would be taken over by fathers after the divorce. Meanwhile, feminists are calling for quotas only where women might gain - and are defending themselves against introducing quotas where they might lose.

​

Consistent application of the principle of gender equality would require that this principle be introduced also in sport, eliminating the current gender segregation. Therefore, it would be necessary to lead to joint competitions of women and men in all sports. The belief that women have the same abilities as men, and the observed differences are the result of stereotypes - should also result in the introduction of gender parities in team games. For example, half of the players of any football team should be women. The captain of the Polish football team should be, for example, Edyta Górniak, who has already proved that she can bring a new quality to Polish football.

Kinga Dunin, promoting gender equality in "Wysokie Obcasy", advanced the postulate that men should take a hormone - prolactin, in order to grow their breasts. He believes that they could then ease women by taking over some of the duties related to feeding infants, while women could fulfill their professional work to a greater extent. Unfortunately, she did not write whether instead, as part of gender equality, women should take testosterone, for example to increase their aggressiveness in the workplace. However, I'm afraid the idea of men with breasts and women with a mustache and beard will not be very appealing to the heterosexual majority. Rather, I think the average woman would rather devote herself to caring for a baby than sleep with a husband with large breasts and grow a mustache and a beard or shave their hair every day.

Feminist hypocrisy

​

Feminists generally do not try to live up to the ideology they preach. A feminist who demands to be treated as a human, not as a woman, forgets about it when invited to an elegant venue. He does not then demand that everyone pay for himself. Receiving a female version of the menu from the waiter (without the prices of the dishes), he does not protest against such discrimination, but treats it as a compliment ("apparently I don't look like a sponsor").

​

A feminist who laments that women are paid less for "the same job" in her own company also pays women less, arguing that she must do this to keep herself from going out of business. But if women work just as well as men, then it could hire only women, pay them less, and win against the stereotypical competition by employing men. Unfortunately, it turns out that this is impossible and the men in her company are essential, and to keep them, you have to pay them more (both examples are authentic and taken from an online discussion forum).

​

Feminists who demand the introduction of quotas on electoral lists or condemn the Catholic Church for disagreement with the priesthood of women should start by introducing their demands in their own organizations. When such views are expressed, it would be fitting for half of the positions of board members of feminist organizations and the position of vice-chairman to be given to men. Unfortunately, at home - in the authorities of feminist organizations - they do not introduce parities. Women are also employed in the office of the Plenipotentiary for Equal Status in substantive positions. Where the balance is upset in favor of women, quotas are apparently no longer needed ...

​

The desirability of discrimination against men is mentioned by some feminists explicitly, sometimes using the term "positive discrimination" or justifying it as the necessity of a transitional period. As we remember, leftist revolutionary ideologies have it to themselves that they "temporarily" approve all measures in the fight against "the enemies of the people", in the name of future universal happiness. The vision of a "bright future" for the next generations justifies the suffering of the present generations, and especially the suffering of "class enemies".

​

In May 2002, at the invitation of Izabela Jaruga-Nowacka, the plenipotentiary of the Swedish government for equal status of women and men, Mrs. Lise Bergh, was in Poland. In an interview published on May 14, 2002 in Gazeta Wyborcza, Bergh made the following statement:

"Yes, for a while, until a balance is achieved, men will have to be discriminated against. So that women will no longer be discriminated against and will not be discriminated against in the future."

​

In this way, the spokeswoman for the alleged "equality" and the plenipotentiary for "equal status" - openly promotes discrimination against men.

​

Feminism is therefore an ideology full of contradictions and hypocrisy such as "we want equal rights, but we don't want equal obligations." The slogan of discrimination against women is used by feminists completely instrumentally - either in the struggle for power or demanding additional, unlawful privileges. But they don't want any equality when it comes to responsibilities.

The difference between men and women and social roles

​

Feminists demand that "gender does not determine social role." At the same time, they deny the existence of differences between men and women, arguing that any perceived differences are the result of environmental influences. The social environment expects children to behave in accordance with the stereotype appropriate for their gender. The perceived differences between women and men are, according to feminists, the result of social expectations to which both women and men adjust. The remedy for this is to be a change in social awareness, which will make it possible to fully interchange social roles, regardless of gender. Free from the influence of stereotypes, women will be able to exercise power and work in men's professions, and men will be able to take care of the house, wash, clean and raise - depending on personal preferences.

​

It is a fact that women have long been able to work in many male occupations and men have been taking care of the home, but still few families choose to do this. However, according to feminists, it is culturally conditioned and will change as social awareness changes.

​

Meanwhile, human culture arises on a biological basis, and although it is quite plastic, it cannot be freely shaped. Human habits and behaviors often correspond to those of animals that are biologically conditioned. It is interesting to note that there is no equality among primates. Only males participate in the competition for control of the herd. The behavior of the monkeys in the herd - making tactical alliances, intriguing, provoking one another - is deceptively similar to the behavior of employees in the office. The seizure of power comes with certain privileges - priority in access to food, priority in access to females - but also with specific responsibilities. The march of the baboon herd follows specific rules that make it practically impossible for predators to kidnap the young or the female. The marching herd forms a triangle-shaped formation, headed by a dominant male, and at the other vertices of the triangle - males occupying subsequent positions in the hierarchy.

This example illustrates well two regularities: (1) the differences between the social position of women and men are not only culturally but also biologically determined, and (2) each social position is associated with specific privileges and corresponding duties.

​

The logical consequence of the first of these regularities is that it is impossible to change human culture to one that ignores human biological predispositions. Biology has a "higher priority" than culture, because while we can change culture to a certain extent, biology remains unchanged and it ultimately sets the framework for possible changes in culture.

​

The second of these regularities says that it is not possible to enjoy the privileges of a particular social position on a permanent basis without taking on the corresponding, specific obligations.

​

Meanwhile, feminists try to build a new society by ignoring both of these patterns. They want women to be treated the same as men where it pays them off, but they do not want to be treated the same where they might lose out.

​

The differences between the sexes are revealed already in childhood. In Vasta, Haith and Miller's "Child Psychology," Chapter 15, "Gender Role Development and Gender Differences," we read that boys are better at reasoning math tasks and that the difference increases with age, shows greater spatial abilities, while girls show greater abilities verbal. When it comes to personality and social differences, boys are more active, more willing to explore their surroundings, and more independent of their mothers. Girls need more encouragement to dare to go out. Boys are also more aggressive than girls and are more likely to resolve conflicts using physical force, while girls prefer verbal persuasion.

​

Feminists argue that the observed differences between boys and girls are the result of pressure from a patriarchal society that forces them into specific social roles from birth.

Can the power of a patriarchal society be so great that it also affects monkeys? It turns out that male monkeys prefer to play with toy cars, and female monkeys prefer to play with dolls - just like human children. This suggests that a similar preference in children may be a congenital feature, not an acquired trait, says the American researcher in "Evolution and Behavior". The results of the research therefore challenge the belief that the preferences of boys and girls in choosing toys are shaped by upbringing in response to cultural and social expectations.

​

Gerianne Alexander of Texas AM University, a specialist in the field of sex-related differences in behavior and their biological basis, tested the validity of this belief in studies on vervets. The observations concerned the reaction of monkeys to various toys. It turned out that, just like in children, animal preferences were related to gender. Thus, males spent much more time than females playing with toys traditionally considered "boyish", such as a soccer ball or a toy car. Females, on the other hand, devoted more time to dolls and toys imitating dishes. Moreover, toys assessed by the researchers as "gender neutral", such as a picture book or a teddy dog, enjoyed equal interest from both sexes.

​

According to the researcher, the results prove that whether a toy is "boyish" or "girlish" is not related to cultural stereotypes or upbringing, but primarily to gender-specific preferences for toys of a different type. According to the researcher, preferences as to the choice of specific items have become established in the course of evolution in relation to the roles played by individuals of both sexes in the past, at the beginning of the development of the human species.

​

Thus, boys show an innate tendency to choose objects that can move around in space and whose use requires physical activity. These preferences may be associated with such features as good spatial orientation, which made it easier for men to hunt game, search for food or a partner. Objects of this type also enable more aggressive and active play, characteristic of males of most species of mammals.

​

In turn, the preferences of girls are largely based on the color of the object, which may reflect, among others, the role of women in caring for their offspring. For example, choosing a doll that is pink reveals a woman's desire for bodily contact, which increases the likelihood of survival of the newborn.

Denying the role of genes and leftist utopias

​

Denying the role of genes has a long tradition in leftist, utopian ideologies. It is worth returning to the sources of feminist views rooted in the beliefs of the Marxist biologist Trofim Denisowicz Łysenka. This Russian agrobiologist, in the years 1948-1956 chairman of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the USSR, denied the existence of genes and heredity in biology. He tried to transfer the ideas of Marx's dialectical materialism to the field of natural sciences. He argued that the physiological and morphological features of organisms are formed only in the course of their development and are acquired through similarity and adaptation to forms that coexist in a given environment, which in the animal world is known as social determinism.

​

He believed, among other things, that wheat can grow rice (and vice versa) as long as these grains are sown in a rice field, hence he believed that plants can be hardened by planting thermophilic varieties in the vicinity of crops resistant to cold, he believed that it was possible to grow rice in Siberia, and domestic dogs released into the forest could give fox offspring under favorable conditions (without trying to mate them with foxes).

​

Although it may seem improbable today, baldness was the dominant doctrine of agrobiologists in the Eastern bloc, and Lysenko himself led to the imprisonment of several dozen geneticists. For example, the chairman of the Institute of Genetics in Moscow, N. Wawiłow was imprisoned and then banished from the country. Polish geneticists who wanted to keep their positions also rejected Mendel's laws of heredity by going over to Łysenka's side.

Fighting the traditional family

​

The traditional family is sometimes portrayed by feminists as a modern form of female slavery and the source of all evil: violence, alcoholism and sexual abuse. What seems to us to be only a family pathology, a perversion of an otherwise good and necessary institution, for feminists is the very essence of patriarchal marriage. In their opinion, domestic violence results directly from the patriarchal culture and is allegedly universally accepted. As Anna Lipowska-Teutsch writes in her book "To raise, heal, liberate":

A patriarchal culture is a culture of domination that does not respect differences related to race, age, gender, abilities, and preferences, but constantly uses these differences to dehumanize and exploit others. Violence is a fundamental element of patriarchal culture and serves to enforce obedience and maintain domination. Violence against women by their husbands and partners is a form of control and submission that is widely accepted in patriarchal society. The family is a microcosm that reflects the patriarchal order and is at the same time the foundation of a patriarchal society. Domestic violence is not an anomaly of this system, but is the essence of patriarchal power.

​

At the same time, feminists idealize homosexual cohabitation, presenting it as a seat of pure love. Some feminists even claim that women are bisexual in nature and therefore may choose their sexual orientation. Sometimes they also treat sexual orientation as part of a feminist ideology, according to the slogan: "feminism is a theory, lesbism is a practice". Meanwhile, research shows that homosexual relationships are the most unstable. This is where changes of partners occur most often, and in such relationships the most violence (especially in lesbian relationships, where violence occurs in 50% of relationships).

​

Without denying the fact that pathologies do occur in traditional families, it must be stated, however, that it is the traditional family that can best and fully satisfy human needs. Also the needs of women. Numerous studies show that a successful relationship with a man has a beneficial effect on the emotional balance of women and that this relationship is biologically determined.

​

Feminists and normal, emotionally healthy women

​

As has been shown many times, women are different from men and this difference determines (though not uniquely) their role in society or in marriage. Normal women understand and accept this fact, not wanting to trade roles with men for nothing. Feminists, on the other hand, feel inferior because of this, and to alleviate this feeling, they prove to themselves and to the whole world that they are just like men.

​

Unlike a feminist, a normal woman:

​

she likes men and expects that the chosen man will be the closest person to her (even closer than friends or children);

has generally positive expectations of men, attracts, contacts and makes closer acquaintances with men with whom she feels good (despite all awareness that there are also brutes, alcoholics and deviants in the world - but these she generally tries to avoid);

as a husband she willingly chooses a strong man who gives her a sense of security;

is content to be a woman and takes full advantage of female privileges (adoring, dressing up and painting, coquetry, sex, etc.);

does not envy men their privileges, or rather, on the contrary - would not like to trade with them for anything;

she feels fulfilled as a woman when she becomes a mother; giving birth and raising children becomes more important to her than professional work; if she previously thought otherwise - such a re-evaluation takes place, for example, during pregnancy (possibly under the influence of hormones) or during breastfeeding;

even when she works professionally, a close emotional bond with the child is a source of much greater gratifications for her than professional work.

​

The feminist, on the other hand:

​

he hates men, is afraid of them, is unable to make lasting, successful relationships with men;

as a husband she willingly chooses a henchman whose submission gives her a sense of security, while towards a strong man she is distrustful and prepared for divorce (e.g. she secretly sets up a separate bank account from her husband, just in case);

has generally negative expectations of men, perceives them mainly as brutes, alcoholics and sexual deviants - and indeed often attracts them to him;

cannot enjoy the fact that she is a woman, even if she sometimes enjoys female privileges,

her sex life is unsatisfactory due to fear of giving herself fully to a man;

envies men of their privileges and would gladly swap with them (but without taking on male responsibilities);

more than in motherhood he seeks fulfillment in power, prestige, or high professional position, sometimes he denies the existence of the maternal instinct.

​

author Maciej Kołodziejczyk