Sediverse Studios Better living through science!

Why Feminists Suck

WHY FEMINISTS SUCK
An observation of self-detrimental action and societal structuring as it relates to gender equality.

ABSTRACT:
I personally have always wondered about the statement I hear from Feminists about women being equal to men.  Now, I do agree that women are equally valuable to society as men, if not more so, but I question the specifics of the argument. Things such as strength, intelligence, and independence often arise in such conversations, with Feminists claiming diligence equal to if not greater than their male counterparts.

It is important to note that I make a large distinction between a woman who appreciates and encourages female integration in society, and a Feminist. Feminists typically have no appreciation for males, and instead rely on the same narrow-minded tactics that were formerly used to oppress women, such as spreading misinformation about the potential of the opposite sex.

DEFINITIONS:

-         Feminist: We know these women. They speak of gender equality, but spend more time trying to knock men down a few pegs than trying to improve on themselves. The social group equivalent of trying to break someone else’s face so you’ll be prettier than they are by comparison.
-         Intelligence: I am not talking about how big your brain is. Or how capable you are at mental gymnastics. I am referring here to clinical intelligence. Mechanical problem solving capability as it relates to survival. Generally speaking, women are better at “mental juggling” than men are. Men are better at objective ‘this plus that equals that.’ That is most likely due to men being designed for hunting and other high risk roles. Or alternately, because society places the responsibility for those roles on the shoulders of men and therefore they have adapted to that situation, depending on how you look at it.

OUTLINE:
Getting mad at men for the difficulties women face is like playing chess and getting mad at the opposition’s chess pieces while you attempt to play the game with cards. Chess was designed to be played with chess pieces. Society was made by men, for men. Societal structure as a whole needs to be reassessed to deal with sexual equality.

Also, the argument of Feminists needs to be reassessed to promote valuable female attributes, rather than scoffing at feminine qualities and encouraging girls to become pseudo-males.

Logically, if a society needs people with certain attributes to ensure there’s always food available, then people with those attributes would be valued in that society. That value would lead to the best having more reproductive options.

That same society would raise its children to understand that those attributes are valuable things. Thus the society accepts those attributes are good, and emphasizes them according to priority based on environment.

When a society is controlled by men, it is male attributes which will be emphasized.

THE FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND HOCKEY PLAYERS:
Let’s image a group of people will similar attributes. We’ll call them Joes. Now, these Joes want a game to play, they would, logically, make a game that would support their attributes. If they are good at throwing balls, running, and tackling, they would make a game like football. Let’s imagine that to be the case.

Let’s imagine a second group called Janes. These Janes want to game too, but if they’re all naturally graceful and can jump really high, then they probably wouldn’t make a game like football, they would make something that fits their own skills more naturally.

In the case of men vs. women in society, that’s essentially what it is like. The structure of society was built by men, for men. The attributes valued are the attributes necessary for personal advancement based on the structure of that system. If strength and independence are integral to a man’s survival, then strength and independence will be valued in a system designed by men. There’s no sense in someone making a system which values something not inherently part of the design of the pieces of that system. In other words, if you were designing a card game, chess pieces wouldn’t be particularly valuable.

Women in America, until fairly recently, have not been a valued group. Suddenly women are thrust into a system which decided these traits are valuable, these traits are not, and women have had an awkward time adjusting to that. Suddenly women are allowed to vote or hold positions of power, but there’s a problem: The system wasn’t designed to handle women, so those women encounter problems “making it up the ladder,” such as the proverbial “glass ceiling.”

But it stands to reason that women don’t have the same skills as men, so therefore can’t reach as high in a male oriented system.

…ENTER THE FEMINIST:
When Feminists go on about women being just as strong, intelligent, and independent as men, it’s like saying that a figure skater is just as good at football player at throwing a ball, tackling people, and running. A figure skater may be capable of learning to play football given enough time, but why should that be important? Why can’t a figure skater be good at figure skating instead?

And if strength, intelligence, and independence are male traits, then what are Feminists saying? Female can have just as many male traits as men do? Isn’t that even vaguely insulting? Doesn’t it seem counter-productive to the idea of elevating women?

The fault lies with the design of the system. The current methods of government, economy, and society are decidedly male in design, thus the design favors men. It is a system which worked incredibly well in the past, when plagues, war, famine, and death were omnipresent. A male controlled society then was protected and safe, even if it was oppressive and hostile. But now, that design is flawed. We aren’t fighting wolves in the forest or battling the elements, or otherwise operating under incredibly dire and deadly situations. Our society is huge, and is safe due to its size. Rather than claiming that it is men who oppress women, it would be more reasonable to understand that it is the system itself which oppresses women, and therefore it is the system which needs changing. The system should be torn out, examined, and a new system should be created which emphasizes the attributes and skills of both sexes.

THE ORIGIN:
Men deal almost exclusively in hierarchal systems. It would seem reasonable that in prehistoric times, males would identify problems in social groups and attempt to remedy those problems with structure, even subconsciously. As the size of social groups grew, more structure becomes necessary, especially in opposition to dangers in the environment.

Also, it should be mentioned that most likely the hierarchal system was most likely designed to counter male independence. Such as, if you get a group of men together, they’re not really empathetic with each others needs, so therefore they all wander off in different directions. Hierarchy, based on who is the strongest and therefore more likely to be dangerous, would end being necessary, in the idea of: Okay, I need to eat, but I can’t kill a mammoth on my own, so, all you guys have to help me, or else I’ll beat you into a pulp with a heavy object.

OBVIOUSLY:
The attentive will understand I’m not saying women cannot be strong, intelligent, or independent. To say such a thing would be comparable to saying that a painting must exist as absolutely one color. What I am saying is that to outright demand that these qualities be fulfilled specifically in opposition to men, is absolutely ridiculous. It’s like saying a photographer should stop taking photos and learn to paint. In the scheme of female empowerment and encouragement of gender equality, it’s incredibly self-detrimental. Rather than be yourself, or improve all aspects of yourself, you should be perpetually combative, and try so damned hard to prove that the other groups of humans are weak and pathetic.

NOTES:
Figure skating is not something to scoff at. It takes an incredible amount of endurance and finesse, as well planning. When done well, it can be absolutely beautiful. My mother loves figure skating, and so that’s why I use it as an example. Not because it’s girly or anything.

The title was just to be obnoxious.

This article was never finished. It was just cleaned up and dusted off. I don't even agree with myself on a few points here. I think I wrote this when I was in college or something.