I have a graduate background in sociology and have studied various perspectives of feminism and women issues. I have taken several classes on gender issues, have been taught by many so called feminists, and have explored the psychological, social, cultural, political, philosophical and economic realms of thought and ideas related to the idea. I like to think I know feminism and societies response to it.

First off I am not a feminist, but I am no seriously worried that society has become somewhat dull witted to the ideological fallacies of feminism and that it has become an affront to men; hence feminism is a paradox, and fruitless endeavour from my POV. In fact I believe, and would clearly argue, if asked the right questions, that feminisms only emergent property, i.e. the final endgame of feminism, is misandry. If I was writing a paper I would say something like this. Not all feminist are misandrists, but many do hate men, and the discourse does take several nuanced tones that somehow men, all men, or just some, are patriarchal, and hence inequitable.

Always remember that Feminism is a political project. That its foundational principle is that the economic, cultural, political, etc., spheres are dominated by patriarchy, or the rule of men.

Originally, I did not want to post here, aka circlejerk, but we all know, and don't know, that there is a log jam on rationality with ideologues, e.g. feminists, masculinists too, etc. All these do exist is subtle and overt ways in all people. However, the problem lies in the foundational concept of feminism, in that it is inherently Marxist. Feminism is bound to the core concepts and tradition of Marxist theory. This makes feminism a political project and as such it should be guaranteed to all people that we can freely, stigma free and democratically guaranteed, be able to criticize it. Facts and figures do not prove any points of feminism, and I am not going to give you case studies to prove men or women are better or worse off in comparison. In some ways I am a functionalist and believe, and could argue quite convincingly that the “social and economic play”, of society and the coexistence of genders, is mutually self serving; eg, one does the heavy lifting physically while another does it emotionally, etc.

As a Canadian I am saddened when our prime minister claims to be a feminist. Even his wife Sophie took note on this auspicious occasion to mention, to the consternation of her feminist allies and fellow 'man-haters', that men, or ' male allies' should also be 'applauded on International Women's Day. Anyways, needless to say I think all of this is a boring political dance, and PC rhetorical bull shit, and it merely shows that Trudeau doesn't understand the implications of being a feminist as a political stance. In essence, case studies like Trudeau will prove he is basically a socialist whose structural policies benefit women over men. BTW, this has been the case in most public policy for years now.

Power is power, inequalities exist and this doesn’t matter, what matters is how we react to the inequalities around us to better ourselves and the people around us, unless you are a complete socio-path. Remember, once again feminism always comes down to the notion of equality & inequality, which in essence is highly connected to theories on Marx, et. a . There is no such thing as equality and to somehow construct society anew again and to achieve equality is normally a tangent towards paradox of destruction.

This is exactly what society has achieved today, unless ideological counter-measures emerge. You have probably seen it. BTW. I teach high-school and secretly expose my students to a more balanced approach towards understanding and exploring gender and sex subjects. If feminism, or any other political idea comes up, stat, figure or otherwise, I always tell me students a equally astute, if I can, contradicting opinion. I empower both men and women, and I acknowledge that both genders and sex have inequitable struggles in achieving happiness. GL JJ