Feminism as social pathology | The Vineyard of the Saker

by Ljubiša Malenica for the Saker Blog

As we move into the third decade of the twenty-first century, we can undoubtedly claim, taking into account all the important elements of social life, that women have achieved equal status with men. Moreover, in some cases, women can justifiably be considered more privileged.

According to research by Sonia Starr, men usually serve 63% more severe sentences than women who have committed the same offense. ^[1]^[2] An analysis from the United States found that the workplace death risk is ten times higher for men than for women. ^[3] According to a 1994 report by Andrew Knestaut, at that time an employee for the Office of Safety, Health and Working Conditions, “women are less likely to be killed at work because they hold far fewer jobs in the most dangerous occupational groups”.^[4]

The statistics used by the author are related to the United States, but since feminism as a pathological process is most observable within the United States and other Western countries, the presented figures are useful as an indicator of influence the feminist notions have on shaping reactions of society and its institutions.

Women are far more privileged than men when it comes to acquiring custody of children during divorce litigation. According to statistics from American sources, within the United States, in as many as ninety percent of cases, it is the woman who acquires the right of custody over children. Moreover, in regarding the consequences of a divorce, women are likewise far more privileged than men.

The cases mentioned above are just some examples where the the privileged status of women is more than obvious. Some might point out there is a logical and justifiable reason for this state of affairs, a claim with certain merit. However, if we follow this reasoning, we then easily come to the conclusion that there is also a logical and justifiable explanation for the “privilege” of men in certain social spheres, which is according to the advocates of feminism, the essential problem.

If, for now, we ignore the cases of female privilege and reiterate the fact that in the eyes of the legal system, in a significant part of the world, women enjoy the same rights as men, it’s logical to ask what is the further purpose of feminism. All the great goals have been achieved. Women have the right to work, to participate in social and political life, they have the right to vote and be elected, they can start and develop their own business ideas. Furthermore, without any fear of legal sanctions, women can kill their own unborn children in cases where pregnancy, for one reason or another, is seen as a hindrance to the woman.

With a certain amount of irony we notice that women have gained right to independently decide, without any input from the father, on life and death of future generations, and yet, representatives of feminist organizations still act as if women are denied basic rights, given to them long ago.

For the purposes of this text, and in accordance with the title of the article, it is necessary to begin by defining both the term of feminism and that of social pathology.

Feminism did not always have the characteristics found within it today. There is an understanding on four different waves of feminism which, temporaly speaking, stretched from the half of the nineteenth century until the second decade of the 21st century. The first wave of feminism, limited to the 19th and early 20th century, encompassed movements fighting for women’s suffrage. The second wave, marked by demands for legal and social equality and the sexual revolution, affected a significant part of the 1960s. The 1990s were characterized, among other things, by the third wave feminism, while the fourth wave, since 2012, has been marked by extensive use of social networks and the alleged struggle against “violence towards women, rape culture and sexual assault”.^[5]

For the needs of ideological consumption, feminism is defined as a movement for gender equality, that is, a theory of political, economic and social gender equality.^[6] Integral part of the feminist narrative is the idea that throughout history women have been oppressed by men within a society branded as patriarchal, which itself is seen as an essentially bad form of social organization, without redeeming qualities.

The definition of feminism emphasizes the political, economic, and social dimension of women’s struggle for equality. In 2021, none of the three mentioned areas is beyond female reach. Within each exist women who found themselves there either through their own work and talent or through corruption and nepotism.

Women, since the category of citizens includes them as well, have the same rights before the law as men. In some states, given their specific biology, they enjoy benefits that are inaccessible to men, as noted earlier. In light of these facts, which are indisputable, it would seem that purpose of feminism today is perpetuation of victimhood narrative and through it, struggle for power.

The characteristics of modern feminism are deviation from objective perception of reality, aggressive attacks on current structures of society, demonization of men as a category and destructive effect on the ability of a certain society to renew itself, both in a purely biological and in cultural and national sense.

Regarding social pathology, it can usually be understood in two ways, either as a scientific discipline of the same name or as a negative social phenomenon.

One of the better known digital dictionaries in English, Miriam-Webster, defines social pathology as “a study of social problems (such as crime or alcoholism) that views them as diseases of the social organism”.^[7] Wikipedia, the largest online encyclopedia, observes this phenomenon in a similar manner. An article dedicated to social pathology defines it “in the broadest sense as the science about a complex of facts related to disorders that are socially conditioned, harmful, unacceptable and undesirable”.^[8]

Definitions relating to the very nature of the phenomenon characterize social pathology as “social factors, as poverty, old age or crime, that tends to increase social disorganization and inhibit personal adjustment”.^[9]^[10]

The phenomenon of personal adjustment of an individual is explained within the sociological sciences as a process of “adaptation by an individual to conditions in his or her family and community, especially in social interactions with those with whom regular personal contact is necessary.”^[11]^[12]

In the book entitled “Social pathology as a tragic form of human existence”^[13], Professor Branko Milosavljevic defines socio-pathological anomalies as phenomena “which, manifesting as a form of aggression of criminal or suicidal type, drug addiction and social perversions, negatively affect life, conditions and developmental possibilities of individuals, small and large social groups ”.^[14]

As we can see, there are certain characteristics common to all of the definitions given above. Regardless of whether we are discussing explanation of the science in question or the phenomenon itself, each of the offered explanations recognizes the existence of a certain process within the community and emphasizes its negative impact upon the degree of societal cohesion and development of individuals within the society in question.

If we accept this synthesis and the definitions which generated it, feminism, as we know it today, can be classified within the category of social pathologies.

Feminism as a process, in addition to the fact that its meaning is questionable in 2021, is stimulated by drives which affect the internal stability of a certain society in a degenerative manner. These drives include a specific form of historical revision, warping of legal principles and social norms, basing arguments on false premises, and one-sided observation of pathological phenomena such as, for example, domestic violence.

One of the basic claims of feminism, on which the justification for the whole movement is based, is the historical oppression of women by men. Proponents of feminism recognize this oppression in most spheres of social activity. From politics, through legislation, martial arts, military capabilities, art, science, to economics and religion, human history for feminists is a story of active efforts by men to subjugate women and prevent their full development.

According to Susan James, one of the prominent feminists from the previous century, the feminist movement is “grounded on the belief that women are oppressed or disadvantaged by comparison to men, and that their oppression is in some way illegitimate or unjustified”.^[15]

Notice the use of present tense, implying women are currently oppressed and disadvantaged. Historically speaking, instances of female subjugations or male privilege did exist and no one can argue against that, however, we can notice here aforementioned kind of historical revisionism, resulting from the application of modern social ideas regarding the role and status of women, retroactively, to the complete duration of human civilization. The entire course of human history is observed and interpreted through the male-female dichotomy, where the negative connotations of the perpetrator are unreservedly attributed to the male sex, while the woman becomes a victim, without the possibility to change her position.

While observing the feminist understanding of history, there is an impression we are considering a kind of conspiracy theory within which it is assumed that the male population of any society actively worked to prevent women from reaching their full potential. To give additional weight to this narrative, it is suggested that women, regardless of the time period in question, were able to achieve much more than they did, if only there was no “patriarchal oppression” by men.

This approach to history neglects a large number of factors influencing the formation of human societies and creates an extremely distorted picture of history and gender relations in different periods. For the purposes of this text, we will look at two factors that, interrelated, provide a better insight into the reasons for the nature of history as we know it. The first of these factors is called sexual dimorphism, while the second factor encompasses a set of natural phenomena, in a global sense, that have influenced the development of human communities and social circumstances while remaining outside human influence.

Sexual dimorphism, most simply defined, represents differences between males and females of the same species in color, size, shape, and body structure, which are caused by inheriting one of two sexual patterns present within the genetic code. ^[16] Within the human species, this type of dimorphism is most easily observed when comparing the physical characteristics of the male and female body. A scientific paper published in early 2020, dealing with sexual dimorphism in the structure of human arms, points out that “similar to other great apes, human males fight frequently and fighting may be highly injurious or lethal. Selection on male fighting performance in humans has led to similar sexual dimorphism to that in other great apes: males have 41% greater fat-free body mass, 75% more muscle mass in the arms and, consequently, 90% greater upper body strength than females (as compared with 50% more muscle mass and 65% more muscle strength in the legs)”.^[17]

Often, sexual dimorphism, as a biological reality, is associated with the notion of biological determinism, as its logical continuation. Proponents of biological determinism believe that human behavior is innate and determined by genes, brain size, and other biological characteristics. ^[18] The theory in question was under critique for certain conclusions in favor of racism, and later it was opposed by the thesis that culture, and other social phenomena, are in fact the real sources of human behavior.

Today, it is more than clear that biological determinism has an impact on the behavior of women and men and that it cannot be rejected as a theory without basis. ^[19] Moreover, a 2017 survey conducted in Sweden, the capital of progressivism and liberalism, discovered that young Swedes of both sexes, when enrolling in high school, choose occupations that are in line with traditional understandings of their gender role. ^[20]^[21] Regardless of the ideological needs of feminism, biological determinism remains one of the important factors while choosing a profession, and for behavior within the society.

When we accept the factual situation described through sexual dimorphism and biological determinism, we can observe the course of history with a higher degree of understanding and comprehend the roles the two sexes played in any given period. Namely, when we take into account the hitherto known history of human civilizations, one of the first conclusions which imposes itself, rightly so, is that mutual relations between different societies were often marked by brutality. From its very beginning, the history of Mankind has been marked by battles, wars, enslavement and killing, and it should be noted that genocide was not a foreign phenomenon in any historical period. It is enough to observe conflicts which built the great empires of the past, from Rome to Britain, to find historical moments characterized by a high degree of cruelty and lack of humanity, as we understand it today. The destruction of Carthage, fall of Constantinople, conquest of Baghdad by the Mongols, German offensive in the East, are just some examples of human brutality towards people different from themselves.

Even before our species began to develop its diverse civilizations, the need for physical exertion that favored men more than women was present in the form of fighting other primitive tribes and hunting wildlife for the survival of the community. Women, as physically weaker and that part of species that goes through pregnancy, were far less suitable for hunting expeditions or the brutality of close combat that has characterized warfare for most of human history.

The harsh reality of human existence and the necessity of struggle for survival, first of the tribe and then of the city-state, empire or nation, required reliance, first and foremost, on sheer force. Even in the cases where development of high civilizations occurred, necessity of struggle so as to preserve the achieved was clear and constant. It does not hurt to remind that barbarians were not stopped by a high degree of Roman culture and art, but by the naked force of the Roman legions.

As an exception to this historical course, although the brutality of earlier centuries did reappear, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries stand out. During these two hundred years, various processes have influenced the formation of a globalized human community, and one of the most influential among them was certainly the gradual formulation of legal norms guiding the interaction of all Humanity, both at the individual, national and supranational level. Unlike the tenth century, today it’s inconceivable for population of Scandinavia to plunder the coasts of the British Isles using their naval power.

Ideologists of feminism use every opportunity to point out that women fought for their rights, but what they overlook, accidentally or intentionally, is the fact that circumstances unrelated to the efforts of the first feminists favored the development of legal norms that applied not only to women but also children, and covered a number of other social issues as well.

The feminist view of history as subordination of women to men is very shallow and, for the purposes of its ideological construction, neglects a wide range of other relationships within different historical communities, together with a long list of women who have distinguished themselves in various roles of social significance. There are more indications that, throughout history, the relationship between men and women has rested on the complementarity of their roles rather than on alleged oppression. If it is really necessary to view history as a relationship between the oppressed and the oppressor, far closer to reality is the existence of privilege based on class, rather than gender. Regardless of sex, being a member of the elite meant, and still means, being privileged in comparison to the remaining society.

Alleged historical injustice is used within modern context as an appropriate excuse to violate basic legal mechanisms, laws and unwritten social norms.

One of the most obvious examples regarding abuse of legal rules to privilege women in comparison to men is the #MeToo campaign. Namely, during 2017, Harvey Weinstein, a former American producer, was accused for a series of sexual assaults, which led to his arrest and sentence amounting to 23 years in prison. ^[22] Parallel with the drama surrounding this case, the hashtag #MeToo became extremely popular on the American social network Twitter, and soon an increasing number of women began to describe their own experiences with sexual assault. Shortly afterwards, accusations against men in high positions began to emerge around the world, leading to a significant number of them losing jobs and reputation they had enjoyed earlier. This phenomenon became known as “Harvey Weinstein effect.”^[23]

There is no doubt that we can all agree on fundamental wrongness of rape and other forms of sexual assault. Rape, as an attack on a woman’s personality, was negatively understood even in antiquity and the medieval period. The efforts of human communities to protect their female members from physical and sexual violence are not questionable, but with the advent of the #MeToo movement it has become partially questionable what constitutes sexual assault and even what is defined as rape.

After #MeToo movement reached its peak in 2018, a group of scientists from the University of Houston conducted research on its possible negative consequences. According to the Harvard Business Review, researchers first “sought to understand whether men and women held different views about what constitutes sexual harassment”.^[24]

This implies existence of a certain undefined space when it comes to sexual harassment, that is, what sexual harassment actually is and what characterizes it as a social phenomenon. Carried by the moment of the #MeToo movement, feminists radicalized the space in question and this, consequently, led to the violation of legal norms. At the same time, this had effect of privileging women and thus further infantilizing them.

During the presidency of Barack Obama, colleges across the United States, under the influence of feminist theories, executed changes to internal legal regulations regarding cases of sexual abuse, making them far more skewed towards those who present themselves as victims of sexual harassment.

It was not long before results of such decision came into the spotlight. In September 2013, two students from the Occidental College in Los Angeles, after a night characterized by excessive alcohol intake, had an intercourse. Seven days later, the young man (John Doe) was charged with rape by a girl he had spent the night with.^[25] Despite the fact that witnesses confirmed a significant degree of intimacy and interaction between individuals in question, John Doe was informed after three months that he had been expelled from college due to rape.

The girl, whose identity was kept secret for security reasons, pointed out during investigation that she did not remember intimate contact at all. However, despite her claims, investigators discovered messages on her phone clearly indicating that she was aware of the situation.^[26] Despite both John and Jane Doe being under the significant influence of alcohol, and both, as far as it was possible in their condition, voluntarily entering into an intimate act, only the male student bore the consequences. As dean of the Occidental college himself admitted “during a heterosexual relationship, it is the man who must obtain consent and who bears the blame in the case when they are both under the influence of alcohol”.^[27]^[28]

This statement, coming from the faculty’s highest official, would seem to be divorced from common sense, considering it treats women as completely devoid of responsibility for their own behavior, but cases like this are not unknown to American universities. During 2014, US media closely followed the accusation of gang rape by a female student at the University of Virginia.^[29] Prior to the events at the University of Virginia, during 2006 and 2007, media covered the case of three Duke University students who were also accused of gang rape.^[30] In both cases, the defendants turned out to be innocent.

One reason for this kind of behavior among young women is the feeling of shame, which, according to a joint study^[31] by scientists from Scandinavia and the United States, is much more prevalent in women than in men when it comes to engaging in casual and short-term sexual intercourse. Worry, disgust, pressure, sexual gratification, sexual competency of the partner and taking initiative are a set of six factors that were monitored during the research. The results showed that most factors had a greater impact on feeling of shame in women than in men. The results of a 2012 study^[32] conducted by the University of California demonstrated that women feel a greater degree of shame or remorse after a one-time intimate act, due to their specific nature, derived from evolution. Namely, the assumptions that led the research, and were confirmed by it, pointed out that “women, according to Hypothesis 1, evolved to regret mistaken sexual actions, which helped them avoid reproductive costs. Men, according to Hypothesis 2, evolved to regret mistaken sexual inactions, which helped them avoid missing reproductive opportunities.”^[33]

If we follow the logic of the aforementioned research, which is in accordance with the principles of biological determinism and dimorphism, it is not difficult to notice that sexual promiscuity represents, for several reasons, a behavior that negatively affects women. Facts implying that sexes are different, that men want frequent intercourse, and that, given the possibility of pregnancy, a short-term intimate relationship can affect women to a far greater extent than men, are nothing new. Even without modern science, different cultures around the Earth and in different time periods were aware of these characteristics and accepted them as a natural.

The goal of social institutions that developed in response to these natural human tendencies was not to remove or suppress them, but to integrate them within the complex structure of a human community in order to reduce negative and strengthen the positive consequences of the behavior in question. The institution of marriage is one such adaptation, meeting both the needs of the individuals and social group at the same time. Through marriage and the closely related institution of family, the community ensures its own biological and cultural renewal, while men and women provide their own continuation through offspring, whereby women also acquire a safe environment within which they would not have to bear all the hardships of raising children on their own.

When you consider the possibility of contracting one of many sexually transmitted diseases, the possibility of pregnancy, development of other diseases and the impact on women’s psychological health, increased feelings of shame and remorse in women, after engaging in activities whose primary and sole purpose is immediate pleasure, appears as a natural and understandable feeling.

An illustrative example is the anonymous letter sent to the editorial board of the London Guardian^[34] from 2008, which contains confession of a woman whose youth was marked by short-term intimate relationships with various men. A consequence of this behavior was the development of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, a precancerous condition. Part of the letter dedicated to her life at the time of the writing emphasizes that “only my closest girlfriends (and certainly not my partner) know the full details of my sexual history” indicating presence of shame and remorse for previous behavior, and a clear understanding that the truth would have very undesirable consequences for her life at that moment, a life of a wife and a mother. Given the anonymity of the text, the existence of this person may be called into question, but the consequences of her behavior are a real possibility.

Feminist ideology, which for decades encouraged the so-called sexual revolution, attacked the institution of the family as a negative creation of the “patriarchal” order, while reducing the act of sexual intimacy to mere satisfaction of physical need, can undoubtedly be characterized as the culprit for the current state of women. Under the pretext of freedom, feminism advocated acceptance of self-destructive behavior among women. Guided by the principles of feminism, modern women inevitably find themselves trapped between the Scylla of their own femininity and the Charybdis of the feminist notion what a woman should be.

One of the original women movement goals was related to the right of women on equal chances for employment and the alleged “liberation” of the female population from life spent in the kitchen. Possibly the most striking result of women’s entry into the labor market, largely paradoxical, is the statistically confirmed phenomenon of declining feelings of happiness and satisfaction within the female population.

According to a study, from 2009, by Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson, happiness among the female population in the United States has shown declining trend for the period of 35 years prior to research itself. Two experts point out how “measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging — one with higher subjective well-being for men”.^[35]

During 2017, a new research^[36] with a similar topic appeared, conducted by Adam Kozaryn and Rubia Valente. Unlike the previous study, Kozaryn and Valente explored the relationship of life satisfaction between women who chose a career and those who decided to become housewives. The conducted research determined “that, until recently, women were happier to be housewives or to work part-time than fulltime, especially, women who are older, married, with children, in middle or upper class, and living in suburbs or smaller places. The effect size of housewifery on subjective wellbeing (SWB) is mild to moderate, at about a fourth to a third of the effect of being unemployed. Therefore, we argue that one possible reason for the decline in average happiness for women was increased labor force participation. Yet, the happiness advantage of housewifery is declining among younger cohorts and career women may become happier than housewives in the future”.^[37]

One gets the impression that, from the perspective of feminist ideology, a woman can realize herself only when she becomes similar to a man. The emancipation of women, if we follow feminist logic, meant emphasizing negative traits, which were previously attributed to men in most cases. Intemperance in alcohol, sexual promiscuity, indulgence in narcotics, and violent behavior, through the prism of feminism, have become key characteristics in achieving women’s alleged liberation from oppressive pressures and expectations imposed by the wider community. These social pressures and expectations, such as adherence to chastity, modesty, entering marriage and bearing children, were without exception, defined as negative.

The constant emphasis on achieving gender equality, understood within feminism as 50-50 representation in every sphere of social action, is a negative factor in social development regardless of its illusionary correctness. It is a clear and unquestionable fact that this ratio in every possible area can be achieved only artificially and through means of coercion, which in most cases are the monopoly of the state.

Legal norms of a state are usually changed to give this process a semblance of legitimacy. One of the illustrative examples from the author’s environment would be the notification by the Republic of Srpska Ministry of Internal Affairs calling for enrollment of 300 cadets at the Police Academy, where 20 places were reserved for women.^[38] Regardless of the test results, after the male contingent was filled out, the rest of the place had to belong to the female candidates, and therein lies the problem. Principle of meritocracy becomes the first victim of feminist interpretation regarding the principle of equality.

Within the framework of modern legal norms, women have achieved right to equal representation before the law and to equal opportunities both in education and employment, and activities in other spheres of human activity. Anything that goes beyond these two principles calls into question the general stability of society. As we pointed out at the beginning of the text, the principle of equality before the law has already been violated in certain areas, which has led to the privileged position of women.

Given its pathological nature, with the ideology of feminism as it is today, it is not possible to debate or attain compromise through which feminist ideas would incorporate themselves within the social fabric without causing permanent damage or encouraging drastic negative transformation of the society. An illustrative example in this regard is the phenomenon of domestic violence. It is enough to listen to a feminist representative discussing about this topic or take a look at various advertising campaigns created within feminist NGOs, to get a clear impression of a narrative where women are always innocent victims while men are always the culprits.

As in the case of sexual assault, the definition of domestic violence is to be as blurry as possible thus covering as many situations as possible which would then be defined as domestic violence, whether they are truly domestic violence or not. It is inconceivable to question the established narrative of men as a source of domestic violence, and feminists are therefore uninterested in engaging in discussion on this topic, especially considering that research in this area and the professional literature present fairly different picture.

According to a study^[39] published in 2010, its importance being in the fact it was a review of a larger number of scientific papers dealing with cases of domestic violence or violence within relationships where women were responsible for physical assaults, there are far more women who engage in physical violence towards their partners than the sterilized feminist narrative allows.

The research summary points out, among other things, that “in general, women and men perpetrate equivalent levels of physical and psychological aggression, but evidence suggests that men perpetrate sexual abuse, coercive control, and stalking more frequently than women and that women also are much more frequently injured during domestic violence incidents; women and men are equally likely to initiate physical violence in relationships involving less serious “situational couple violence…”^[40]

Aforementioned research does not change the current social consensus which of the sexes has a greater share in cases of domestic violence, but at the same time provides an insight into the far more complex reality of this social phenomenon. It is clear that women bear part of the responsibility, as perpetrators of domestic violence, no matter how politically incorrect it may sound. Reasons for this behavior of women are numerous, trauma experienced during childhood or experiences from previous relationships, self-defense or fear, but the fact remains that women as aggressors in a relationship are not sporadic and indicate existence of deeper socio-psychological problems which can only continue to metastasize if the phenomenon of domestic violence continues to be viewed through a distorted and ideologically colored view of feminism.

A more recent review of scientific material related to violent behavior of women within intimate relationships, from 2012, based on scientific papers covering the period from the current decade to the eighties of the last century, suggests that in comparison to men, women are equally, in some circumstances even more, prone to physical violence in an intimate relationship. The total number of respondents from all papers included in this study amounts to more than 370,000 people.^[41]

At the beginning of this article, we defined social pathology as social factors which tend to increase social disorganization and prevent individual adjustment. Acceptance of feminist ideology, as can be seen from the previous text, increases the disorganization in question through transformation of men and women into conflicting elements of society, as opposed to their natural complementarity. If we accept that feminism rejects biological differences between the sexes, and everything arising from those differences, we can conclude it is an ideological construction that refuses to accept the principles of reality itself.

In the long run, feminism harms women themselves by advocating behaviors contrary to the female nature. The feminist notion of woman’s progression through life, completely opposite to female biological reality, leads to a situation where it is often too late for family and children when these categories become imperative in a woman’s life. Sexual liberation, actually incitement to promiscuity, diminishes the value of women as wives and mothers, while distortions of laws make marriage undesirable in the eyes of men, leading to a reduced number of families, low birthrates and the slow but sure disappearance of a certain community. Given all of the above, it is not difficult to conclude that feminism has nothing to offer to either women or men. Moreover, given that consequences of feminist ideology have a pathological impact on the structure of the society, it is desirable to suppress the spread of feminism, both through individual initiatives, legal norms and educational content.

Ljubiša Malenica on March 10, 2021 · at 1:19 pm EST/EDT

I presume I could be accused of emotional bias, I am human after all.

However, I do not see how I made point after point that women are less capable on the positive side and more deplorable than men on the negative side. I did attack feminism as I believe it should be attacked. If you perceive feminism as a source and eternal guarantee of right women achieved, I do not judge, but I also disagree. I believe I have mentioned on several occasions withing the article that I see men and women as complementary and have illustrated, through biological research, that there are differences in regards to their physical capabilities. Those capabilities might have lesser influence today, but differences between sexes do not stop strictly with biological disomorphism. As feminist today complain there are very few girls in STEM, they seemingly overlook clear domination of females in other areas. From my perspective this is a natural outcome of different interests and predispositions. Where feminism appears as pathology is in constant drive to include more women in areas where there are no gatekeepers but where women are simply not interested in being, at least in large numbers. This is done to the detriment of men in those areas who are called out as if they or the nature of their work field is the problem. It is my experience, from the interaction with women in my life, that women can be insightful, wise, can be brave and hold all positive traits but that they can be negative as well, malicious and arrogant.
My intent was never to “put women down” as you say. Intent of the article is more along the line of a warning to degenerative effects feminism has on societies. I do not equate women with feminism and from the statistics I have seen, increasing number of women do not see themselves as feminist. If I was to try and boil down the entire article to a single thought it would be that feminism teaches women they have all the rights and none of the responsibilities. Issue of abortion and childbirth is a especially illustrative case in point.

I fail to see what is the problem with defining feminism as pathology. The definitions you used correspond, relatively closely, to what I used when defining pathology in the article. If we accept pathology is a process which negatively influences organism, or in case of social pathologies, societies I believe I have made a correct correlation. From what I have seen in the countries where feminism was most active, societies there have not progressed towards a more stable but towards more divisive and unstable form. And I have to reiterate here once again, from my point of view, feminism can not be equal to entirety of female experience, especially when it critiques some forms of female behavior or advocates for behavior negative for women.

“In my observations,The age old patriarchal system is responsible for all the “isms” in our world: first and foremost colonialism, racism, nationalism, fascism, Nazism.” Regarding this, I do not agree with you nor do I see patriarchal system as something bad in its entirety. It might be good to actually define what is patriarchy by this point in time, as I would claim that no country in the West is currently any sort of patriarchy. Furthermore, I expect to be respected in my house and by the members of my family, but from the society in general, with special emphasis on legal system. I would also say this is what most men expect if they are contributing to the society. If that makes me patriarchal, then so be it.
Western feminists are pushing the pendulum too far and and that is having negative effects on society. I would say two best case in points are the issue of fatherless homes in US and the boy crisis which is becoming more evident, again in the US.

I found it interesting that you see my article as an argument for feminism, and that is your prerogative but in that case anyone who understands it so should also accept all the negative traits of feminism mentioned in the article itself.

In the end, we come to something we both agree on, that being “human equality regardless of gender” and as I stated earlier, equality of opportunity and equality before the law are the best we have come up with. I am for equal treatment in life and before court, but that is not what is happening. Legal norms are more severe towards men and education institutions are more skewed towards females, since the elementary school. A small case in point:

https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarships/scholarship-directory/gender/other

Take a look at how many female and how many male schoolarships are listed.

All the problems mentioned above I see as products of feminism, created by feminist in places of power by pursuing their ideology.

71 Comments

Ugh... on March 07, 2021 · at 12:09 pm EST/EDT

This is a good article, I agree with many points. Though being on the eve of International Women’s Day, I won’t rant about bad apples spoiling the bunch. To all the good women out there, Happy Women’s Day. Without the love of a woman, the family is incomplete. And for a man, your smile is the bright energy that lightens the day. Thank you all.
- Leo on March 07, 2021 · at 11:55 pm EST/EDT
  
  Ugh
  Yes, some good points were raised. However, the article omits the basics. Feminism, together with homosexuality, lesbianism, etc., was massively introduced into Christian countries after the Second World War, the obvious intent being to subvert and destroy Christian countries. Feminism on the surface advocates women’s equality, which has been raised to absurd levels. As one Swede told me, a situation has been created in Sweden where so-called feminists do as they please, with no one daring to say a word about it, certainly not to feminists. Sweden is probably the chief feminist country. I met some of those feminists, Swedish and non Swedish. Their chief traits are arrogance and rudeness bordering on brutality.
  
  Why does feminism appeal to many women (although it’s debatable if it appeals to most) ? It’s a wonderful excuse not to marry and have kids, who require attention. Why look after kids when you can go out and have a good time. And the result ? The birth rates in Christian countries are falling, no doubt the intent of social engineers. According to one source, the death rate among native Swedes is higher than the birth rate. In about two generations the native Swedish population will become a minority in relation to immigrants and their descendants who, of course, are screaming about human rights and cultural diversity, refusing to assimilate, as if such a thing was possible in the first place. And Swedish feminists ? What do they do when they become old ? Many regret their new “status”, living all alone without any family. They regret becoming feminists in the first place. Too late. Europe, for example, is going to pay a terrible price for all the new “fashions” introduced after the Second World War, like feminism, multiculturalism, etc.
Arvy on March 07, 2021 · at 1:33 pm EST/EDT

The feminist version of ‘equality’ is based on the fact that women have no balls. Ergo, men should be deprived of theirs in order to make things ‘equal’ … and they’ve been working very hard on achieving that outcome, especially among boys they’ve deprived almost entirely of mature masculine influence in the upbringing.

In essence, it’s just one of several current and emerging hate movements based on envy and seeking something called ‘equity’ with the almost total absence and avoidance of personal responsibility.
- Pamela on March 07, 2021 · at 8:56 pm EST/EDT
  
  “women have no balls.”
  
  Yes we do. What do you think these 2 things on our chest are??
  - Babushka in Oz on March 07, 2021 · at 10:16 pm EST/EDT
    
    lol
    you mean those orbs designed for ‘chestfeeding’
- red1chief on March 08, 2021 · at 7:19 pm EST/EDT
  
  I am for full equality, including the same rights men have to go shirtless pretty much anywhere they want.
  - John Hagan on March 11, 2021 · at 6:40 am EST/EDT
    
    President Kamala: A short video forecasting the inevitable as Joe Biden retires and Kamala becomes Madam President and takes on some of the duties that entails particularly with foreign leaders. It is of course severe satire with Kamala using all her ‘diplomatic’ skills to convince Putin, Xi and many others of her influence. This was not permitted on youtube yet for those interested they can watch it on my channel. The first half is the setup while the second is the satire. http://johnhaganart.com/videos//presidentkamala.mp4
    - Anonymous on March 15, 2021 · at 3:21 am EST/EDT
      
      Excellent, very good. Only little detail, Kamala is postmenopausal unattractive female and you show us bodies of pretty younger women. Thank you.
Tomsen on March 07, 2021 · at 1:40 pm EST/EDT

Too intellectual, too long, missing the origin.
Feminism and women’s lib, equality and rights have roots in Wall Street. One more illusion and profit scheme.

By removing men from power, jobs and weaken men’s family position you remove competition to power.
By appointing women to men’s jobs you castrate men, double the taxation of the family and lower birth rates (eugenics, children seen as cost).
By smashing the family unit you make people singular and weak, depended and open for exploitation.
Any form of feminism is unnatural and artificial.
We are created with each our biological function with each our special abilities to function as a strong couple complementing each other.
Feminism is violence against nature.
- Gerry on March 07, 2021 · at 2:39 pm EST/EDT
  
  @ Tomsen
  
  yes too intellectual and too long.
  
  how about a song instead @ the 7:28 mark here
  
  https://youtu.be/zmlzTPSlGGw
  - The Saker on March 07, 2021 · at 11:24 pm EST/EDT
    
    The Saker blog does not consider intellectual or long as a liability. In fact, we see that as a great and precious quality.
    The Saker
    - K on March 08, 2021 · at 5:38 pm EST/EDT
      
      How about too full of the author’s own uninspected emotional bias dressed up as “intellectual”?
      Thus making it very boring indeed to this intellectual woman.
      
      it isn’t scholarly to be making point after point that women are less capable on the positive side and more deplorable than men on the negative side.
      
      Such a narrative and argument is transparently intended to put women down rather than discuss feminism.
      
      And arguing that feminism is “pathology” ?
      
      Definition of pathology:
      1 : the study of the essential nature of diseases and especially of the structural and functional changes produced by them
      2 : : the structural and functional deviations from the normal that constitute disease or characterize a particular disease
      
      So the premise of the article is that Feminism itself is a disease. That’s not a good sign for me as a women trying to be open minded about it. Don’t you think?
      
      In my observations,The age old patriarchal system is responsible for all the “isms” in our world: first and foremost colonialism, racism, nationalism, fascism, Nazism.
      
      If the patriarchy didn’t exist neither would feminism.
      
      To all the posters who believe that feminism is merely a CIA creation, I would say that there is no doubt that the US deep state will meddle in anything it can get its hands on, but there are millions of women around the world who never heard of the CIA yet desire to be treated equally and fairly.
      
      The author needs to interview and talk to the real women in his life and work situation and find out how they think and feel about women’s equality, rights and freedoms.
      
      Unfortunately this long and scholarly article only comes off as someone having a big long gripe about women.
      
      The author makes the argument FOR feminism that much stronger.
      
      Personally I believe in human equality regardless of gender and that if we had that no “ism’s” would be necessary, however in a world still dominated by elite men with a sprinkle of token women acting like men, these movements are still completely necessary.
      - Ljubiša Malenica on March 10, 2021 · at 1:19 pm EST/EDT
        
        I presume I could be accused of emotional bias, I am human after all.
        
        However, I do not see how I made point after point that women are less capable on the positive side and more deplorable than men on the negative side. I did attack feminism as I believe it should be attacked. If you perceive feminism as a source and eternal guarantee of right women achieved, I do not judge, but I also disagree. I believe I have mentioned on several occasions withing the article that I see men and women as complementary and have illustrated, through biological research, that there are differences in regards to their physical capabilities. Those capabilities might have lesser influence today, but differences between sexes do not stop strictly with biological disomorphism. As feminist today complain there are very few girls in STEM, they seemingly overlook clear domination of females in other areas. From my perspective this is a natural outcome of different interests and predispositions. Where feminism appears as pathology is in constant drive to include more women in areas where there are no gatekeepers but where women are simply not interested in being, at least in large numbers. This is done to the detriment of men in those areas who are called out as if they or the nature of their work field is the problem. It is my experience, from the interaction with women in my life, that women can be insightful, wise, can be brave and hold all positive traits but that they can be negative as well, malicious and arrogant.
        My intent was never to “put women down” as you say. Intent of the article is more along the line of a warning to degenerative effects feminism has on societies. I do not equate women with feminism and from the statistics I have seen, increasing number of women do not see themselves as feminist. If I was to try and boil down the entire article to a single thought it would be that feminism teaches women they have all the rights and none of the responsibilities. Issue of abortion and childbirth is a especially illustrative case in point.
        
        I fail to see what is the problem with defining feminism as pathology. The definitions you used correspond, relatively closely, to what I used when defining pathology in the article. If we accept pathology is a process which negatively influences organism, or in case of social pathologies, societies I believe I have made a correct correlation. From what I have seen in the countries where feminism was most active, societies there have not progressed towards a more stable but towards more divisive and unstable form. And I have to reiterate here once again, from my point of view, feminism can not be equal to entirety of female experience, especially when it critiques some forms of female behavior or advocates for behavior negative for women.
        
        “In my observations,The age old patriarchal system is responsible for all the “isms” in our world: first and foremost colonialism, racism, nationalism, fascism, Nazism.” Regarding this, I do not agree with you nor do I see patriarchal system as something bad in its entirety. It might be good to actually define what is patriarchy by this point in time, as I would claim that no country in the West is currently any sort of patriarchy. Furthermore, I expect to be respected in my house and by the members of my family, but from the society in general, with special emphasis on legal system. I would also say this is what most men expect if they are contributing to the society. If that makes me patriarchal, then so be it.
        Western feminists are pushing the pendulum too far and and that is having negative effects on society. I would say two best case in points are the issue of fatherless homes in US and the boy crisis which is becoming more evident, again in the US.
        
        I found it interesting that you see my article as an argument for feminism, and that is your prerogative but in that case anyone who understands it so should also accept all the negative traits of feminism mentioned in the article itself.
        
        In the end, we come to something we both agree on, that being “human equality regardless of gender” and as I stated earlier, equality of opportunity and equality before the law are the best we have come up with. I am for equal treatment in life and before court, but that is not what is happening. Legal norms are more severe towards men and education institutions are more skewed towards females, since the elementary school. A small case in point:
        
        https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarships/scholarship-directory/gender/other
        
        Take a look at how many female and how many male schoolarships are listed.
        
        All the problems mentioned above I see as products of feminism, created by feminist in places of power by pursuing their ideology.
        
        Tomsen on March 12, 2021 · at 12:17 pm EST/EDT
        
        @Ljubiša Malenica
        Please allow me a last comment. I agree with you in all the above except in your last conclusion: Feminism is guilty.
        In the overall scheme we are manipulated into divide and conquer games with our fellowmen(women) as scapegoats.
        If we take universal basic (which I have from the bible and confirmed from life), man and woman become one unit in marriage and family. In this biological basic men have access to parts of the brain women dont have and opposite.
        We have different intelligence to complement, women naturally adapted to conquer near and emotional problems and men naturally adapted to see longer term, muscles and practical skills to secure the family.
        
        If we focus on this universal (divine) platform its easy to see all the other bs and research on how we act in different situations, power games and which sex is more intelligent, are social engineering from ungodly Elites to suit their interests.
        To my opinion we have to point the finger on ourselves. Have we acquainted ourselves with the universal divine basics and take our own stand from there.
        Or do we only participate in the manipulated power game giving to us by TPTB, by giving out scapegoat rolls to other groups or ideologies.
        As Georg Carlin says: Maybe its someone else who sucks here than the politicians, the feminists, the capitalism, the communism, etc………………………….:-D.
      - Anne on March 11, 2021 · at 1:26 pm EST/EDT
        
        He may well not actually have real women in his life…He is among the bitterest of haters of females, that’s for sure. He clearly believes that it is his right and those like him to determine the lives of females, not females themselves.
        
        Re: jobs – it never seems to occur to him that Maybe females aren’t even considered for “male” jobs? Back in the 1970s I went on job training scheme for the unemployed – only to be presented with “waitressing, cleaning, care work in homes for the elderly, disabled, etc…” while the blokes were offered training in television repair, bricklaying, plumbing etc… any one of which paid far more and were far more interesting than anything offered females…
        
        Re: assaults/harassment – hmmm…I’ve endured numerous of the years from males (in primary schools it was females who bullied me) from sexual assault to physical attacks…Female newborn babies in such as India were regularly put to death because the husband wanted sons, not daughters…Over one in every three females throughout the world endure, suffer from sexual assault….
        
        It is clearly fine with this bloke if females working outside the home do so in jobs like store clerks, hotel cleaners, waiting tables, barmaids…But NOT when they compete with such as he for better paying, more interesting employment…
        
        And by the way Males have bigger Noses in order bring in more oxygen to create more and maintain more muscle; Females smaller noses for that fat…
        
        And in Hunter Gatherer societies in fact it is the females who do the majority of the – small animal – hunting and the gathering, while the males hang about until there is a larger animal to try and bring down (not as often as they might like/have liked). So it is the females who provide, through their work, labor, the majority of the nutrition…
        
        This writer has a real problem…
    - Tomsen on March 10, 2021 · at 8:10 am EST/EDT
      
      @The Saker
      I Agree. From my side it was only a feed back about the content to the author. Let me advise as a positive feed back how real women with W deal with the world. From Nigeria without tattoos ;-). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNng4A4330Q
      - Ljubiša Malenica on March 10, 2021 · at 12:14 pm EST/EDT
        
        Tomsen greetings,
        
        I agree with you on many things you pointed out. Simple thing is, as you yourself pointed out, article is long, though I tried to be as brief as possible. To take into consideration all impacts of feminism on the society, one would need to write a book.
        
        Also, thanks for the video of Ekeocha, I will be sure to use it in my future article regarding abortion as murder.
        
        Tomsen on March 10, 2021 · at 1:13 pm EST/EDT
        
        All the best. I think you mean it well. I tried to feed back on the academic newspeak we have here in West. It took myself many years and another language to learn the truth out there.
- Arvy on March 07, 2021 · at 2:41 pm EST/EDT
  
  “By appointing women to men’s jobs you castrate men, double the taxation of the family and lower birth rates (eugenics, children seen as cost).”
  
  Yup, you got it on the nose. Not to mention that doubling the domestic ‘labor pool’, and thus halving the ‘supply and demand’ value of any ‘family man’s’ labor, has been a great adjunct to offshoring. As for ‘children seen as cost’, corporate managed daycare made necessary by feminist abandonment of child care at home will soon be fully supported at taxpayer expense. It would appear that the feminist version of the much-touted ‘mother love’ factor, if properly managed and manipulated, can also be ‘offshored’ at public expense.
Tomsen on March 07, 2021 · at 1:45 pm EST/EDT

There is only one fight, the social fight!
Equal for everybody, any sex, any race, any nationality. All “rights” are artificial political division and conquer schemes.
- John Hagan on March 08, 2021 · at 6:49 am EST/EDT
  
  Kalama: In all her roles in my videos from Cleopatra, Lady Godiva to Don Quixote and Julius Caesar. Just a reminder Kamala’s husband is jewish.
  
  There is a feeling that the plan is to elevate Kamala to the Presidency as most folk understand Joe Biden may well be in a position well above his energy and intellectual capacity. She is now on the line to foreign leaders pledging support!
  
  Just saw the news that Kamala made calls to Macron and Trudeau pledging the US support for many things and promising to work closely etc. Who will she call next Xi or Putin?Perhaps jumpin’ Joe is not exactly jumpin’ at the moment.
J-P (Jean-Pierre) on March 07, 2021 · at 1:53 pm EST/EDT

With all due respect for the author and a very good article, I believe an opportunity was missed to tie the subject of feminism to the rise (and now over-the-top) over the past 4 or so decades of the Hollywood-projected uber-female, the ultra-thin/ultra-young (and always gorgeous/sexy) woman who engages the baddies (virtually always men) in hand-to-hand combat (and/or with myriad weaponry) while facing a 25kg disadvantage in body weight… and kick a##. This is supposed to be the positive role model media tells us is necessary for girls/young women to be empowered and to gain “parity” with men?

And yes, I am calling this out as an ever-accelerating agenda propagated through the media/entertainment industry and that the blame should be placed far more on this than on the “feminists” who, for their various reasons, are often only responding to the prompts from the propaganda. The funding for the feminists coming from the same structures which own media, NGOs and think tanks, feminists are only availing themselves of the opportunities provided them.

Cheers,

J-P
- Ljubiša Malenica on March 10, 2021 · at 1:25 pm EST/EDT
  
  Indeed you are right, I have omitted that, however I do agree with you in the regard of unrealistic, for the most part, combat interaction between men and women in HW movies.
  
  Like I said in my reply to Tomsen, it was a long article and unfortunately, some good points were not utilized. I think I will have to write a book in the end :D
teranam13 on March 07, 2021 · at 2:02 pm EST/EDT

Well, this article would have been more illustrative had the author explored the different waves of feminism. In the 1960’s in the USA women were still vastly underrepresented in medical schools where the few women were socially harassed by the male students—i.e. they had to be “better than” and had to have at least one ally to “watch their back” ( so that their lab experiments would not be mysteriously sabotaged). Getting a coveted graduate student fellowship in some departments like the biology department was impossible–especially for an equally deserving woman from a poor background. This, I experienced as I witnessed a male professor mock and dismiss my room mate—I foolishly said I would go with her as witness to ask him directly why a male with less credentials was given the job .

In the 1950’s a married woman had to have her husband sign for credit in her name or she could not get it—no matter if she had a job outside the home. Some women cannot have children…and for these, it is a source of deep grief, at least in my generation.

As for divorce or death of husband. no fun!!!! One’s social states plus One’s economic situation spirals drastically which is why many women look for remarriage. It is clear that women’s liberation wave 3 and 4 was taken over by wealthy women..( Ms. Magazine types) .The demand for decent daycare ? Disappeared! Just as the demand to end all foreign wars disappeared from the ( Neo) liberal agenda. In the 1970’s wave of campus take overs by the student rebellion against the killing at Kent and Jackson State Universities/expansion of war to Cambodia, the graduate student wives took over the ROTC building and promptly set up a daycare center.

The class based content of women’s rights was decimated by wave 3 and 4 and so I see “Liberation” after the word women as double speech and a canard and a distraction. It is clear that the alliance of the 4th wave elitist women with the transgender movement is the death knell fo their relevance to reality, but, of course, their organizations will get loads of government cash which they will use in abusing or snatching the children of women who do still love and create them. It just makes me more determined to support those who believe and work for a human future.

Happy International Women’s Day, March 8th!!!!
- joey_n on March 07, 2021 · at 4:06 pm EST/EDT
  
  The article would also benefit from discussing the situation outside of the West, particularly in a country like Russia, or the Soviet Union before it.
  And speaking of which, to the best of your knowledge, what was the situation in 1950s and ’60s Soviet Russia in the contexts you described?
- jiri on March 08, 2021 · at 2:29 am EST/EDT
  
  “In the 1950’s a married woman had to have her husband sign for credit in her name or she could not get it—no matter if she had a job outside the home. ”
  
  True. But this only happened because the husband was obliged to pay off the credit in case the woman didn’t pay.
  
  One of the suffragettes refused to pay her taxes and her husband was expected to pay and since he couldn’t he ended up in jail. Interesting tale- I am sure the details are on the net somewhere.
  - John Hagan on March 09, 2021 · at 3:42 am EST/EDT
    
    For some ‘real’ history consider the situation regarding Nero and Agrippina: Agrippina was responsible for the deaths of two of her husbands while Nero at least two wives. This was only for starters. Finally later Nero had Agrippina killed. She was no doubt the most powerfull woman on the planet 1960 years ago. Not necessarily the best role model for femminism as murder and mayhem in her own family was also her recipie for power. When she managed to get her 16 year old son Nero as Caesar she began her rule.
    
    https://youtu.be/gFEK-IJtIr0
    
    Moderators please note my youtube channel has been fully restored so all links work.
Nussiminen on March 07, 2021 · at 2:15 pm EST/EDT

Much food for thought here provided by Ljubiša Malenica; appreciated. She writes:

”The feminist view of history as subordination of women to men is very shallow and, for the purposes of its ideological construction, neglects a wide range of other relationships within different historical communities, together with a long list of women who have distinguished themselves in various roles of social significance.”

What strikes me is that speaking of ’the feminist view of history’ becomes too narrow. I do agree that LM’s conclusions apply in full to First World feminism where, typically, Anglo-American women concoct less than groundbreaking very arbitrary, shallow ”theories”. Her observation above concerning women who have distinguished themselves in various roles of social significance is especially true of Third World feminists who, unlike most of their ”sisters” in the First World have some wits and spine, regardless of their formal education. Even if First World feminists are not necessarily promoting humanitarian interventions with all the ensuing horrors these always inflict upon, especially, poor women in poor countries, First World feminists are very similar to other Western ’radicals’ such as the LGBTQ++ swamp. Imperialism along with its horrors of oppression, violence, and injustice don’t enter the picture; at least not as a problem. As Bertolt Brecht explained:

”Erst kommt das Essen, dann kommt die Moral”

Really, I wouldn’t be the slightest surprised if the adorable Madeleine Albright were to become a renowned feminist very much in vogue. She has already written a book addressing the dangers of — yes — fascism or what in her warped mind passes as such. Killing infants and children en masse intentionally and praising herself for it can hardly be fascism (yes, I’m guessing here since I have exactly zero interest in reading brain-dead reactionary filth).
- Conjecture on March 07, 2021 · at 6:45 pm EST/EDT
  
  “She writes:”
  
  Apologies if I am wrong but, for a bit of a nitpick, isn’t ‘Ljubiša’ normally a male name?
  
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ljubi%C5%A1a_Malenica
  - Nussiminen on March 07, 2021 · at 11:17 pm EST/EDT
    
    Haha, that was a little ”surprise” 😀 Thanks, Conjecture. I wrongly believed Ljubiša was the same name as Louise (Swedish: Lovisa).
  - Theodora on March 09, 2021 · at 5:27 pm EST/EDT
    
    I kind of figured the writer was a human without a uterus. It is so tiresome to hear or read the opinions of a urterusless person telling those of us who do have a uterus what to do it. From the beginning of time women have exercised sovereignty over their own bodies via herbs, mechanical measures etc. And will continue to do so.
    For males who are truly concerned about the race dying out I recommend looking up some of the 5G research by Martin Pall. There are high tech European towns in which 75% of the males are sterile. Here is a real issue fellas.
    - Ljubiša Malenica on March 10, 2021 · at 2:10 pm EST/EDT
      
      As someone born in the very late eighties, I have spent my life listening to women from different media telling how should a man behave, thus I reserve for myself the same right in regards to the opposite sex. My belief is that feminism is a negative influence on women, whatever you might believe about men and this text was written as a sort of a warning. Women today, especially in the West, have freedom to do as they please. One, that is not always a good thing, for a woman or a man, and two, we can already see some of the effects of the “female liberation”, declining happiness being a point in case, rise of use of antidepressants among female population being another one.
      - Katherine on March 11, 2021 · at 12:54 am EST/EDT
        
        “As someone born in the very late eighties,”
        
        Oh, boy, lectured by a stripling as to what is best for women—and we’ll be sorry if we don’t heed the warnings!
Anonymous on March 07, 2021 · at 2:17 pm EST/EDT

Feminism is a project of the elites.
- John Hagan on March 09, 2021 · at 12:02 pm EST/EDT
  
  My belief is that women favour social interaction, family consolidation and consideration of the community while men like making bows and arrows. There is little wrong with that unless you have an alternate views that have changed over the last 2000 years. Let’s be fair, women did not invent gunpowder while men did not invent nappies. Femnism is a project that needs consideration as women are essentially healers while men have a desire to improve society whatever the cost. To be brutally honest femminism only exists in a society where stability, peace and reading books is primary.
- Fem on March 13, 2021 · at 11:23 pm EST/EDT
  
  FEM is CIA
  
  NYT is the paper of record, for CIA
  
  NYT has been pushing the “FEM agenda”, for what now 100+ years?
  
  OSS since 1930’s was front running the agenda out of UK&USA
  
  What more really needs to be said? “Feminism is CIA”
  
  The entire biz plan of Wall-Street, Casey CIA agenda is to lie and make people nutz, like Casey said “When everything the USA public believe is a lie, our agenda will be complete”.
  
  Certainly mostly 99% there.
  
  Reality of course, is just the good old divide&conquer. Like there is something different than men&women, take Israel, they train women to kill just as well as men. Racial divide, sexual divide, income divide, that everybody hate each other is a management heaven for the CIA.
Peter Moritz on March 07, 2021 · at 2:44 pm EST/EDT

“The emancipation of women, if we follow feminist logic, meant emphasizing negative traits, which were previously attributed to men in most cases.”

This seems to me the where the feminism runs off the rail, and the effort to “become” totally equal to men actually achieves the opposite of what I think – I might be wrong – was once desired.

Instead of playing towards the strength of female biology and psyche, the demand of an equality denying the objective differences of biology and psychology only would necessarily lead to a defeminisation and a masculinization of females, the feminists actually following the playbook of the hated “patriarchry” by actually confirming the superiority of the male.
Paul Schmutz Schaller on March 07, 2021 · at 2:52 pm EST/EDT

The question of relation between women and men is – since more than 50 years – one of the subjects witch fascinates me most. So, I was very interested in reading this article. However, I did not like it very much. There are some obvious problems. As everybody knows, the majority of human being lives in Asia, with other big parts in Africa and Latin America. However, the article gives the impression that only USA and Europe matter. Moreover, the article speaks of „four different waves of feminism“. Again, it seems that the author considers only USA and Europe. Why? This should be explained. Why not speak of *waves of feminism“ in India, Indonesia, Pakistan, or Thailand? And of studies made in these countries?

Also, the article is too abstract for my understanding. Why not speak of the personal manner how the author handles the relation between women and men? How are shared the duties in the household and the professional life? Certainly, there are many possibilities to share these duties, but I would be interested in the concrete situation.

During my youth in Switzerland in the 1960s, I was, being a boy/young man, very happy about women emancipation (as we called it). I always hated the role as a „Club Med animator“ with respect to girls/women. In order to made some efforts for more equality, I learned to knit and I kitted gloves for my girl friend.
I also was very happy to marry a woman who has created the first crèche in her community.

Sorry, but the question of relation between women and men – and of feminism – should include our hearts, not only our rationalistic brains. This article is way too cold for me.
- joey_n on March 07, 2021 · at 3:58 pm EST/EDT
  
  Maybe if the article expanded beyond the Western world and discussed the status of feminism in other regions like the Soviet Union (or modern-day Russia, whichever one is appropriate), we’d get a glimpse of how feminism was handled differently and decide for ourselves which one is/was healthier.
  
  Speaking of the Soviet Union, when did women there begin applying for men’s jobs, and did it lead to the “castration” of men or reduce birth rates?
Bruce Lee Marvin Gaye on March 07, 2021 · at 3:17 pm EST/EDT

Welcome to Planet Manpurse
- Gerry on March 07, 2021 · at 5:22 pm EST/EDT
  
  lol Bruce Lee Marvin Gaye
  
  You ever learn the lesson woman think with their emotions and after they’ve screwed the men in their lives it’s all tears, sobs and wailing I’m so sorry.
  
  That unfortunately is the other side of the coin isn’t it?
  
  O good grief.
Tommy Apeiron on March 07, 2021 · at 4:31 pm EST/EDT

“As we move into the third decade of the twenty-first century, we can undoubtedly claim, taking into account all the important elements of social life, that women have achieved equal status with men. Moreover, in some cases, women can justifiably be considered more privileged.” This has hardly been the case for most of our recorded history as the following article points out…

“For most of our history, we have been hunter-gatherers, and patrilocal residence is not the norm among modern hunter-gatherer societies. Instead, either partner may move to live with the “in-laws”, or a couple may relocate away from both their families. According to Hardy, a degree of egalitarianism is built into these systems. If they reflect what prehistoric hunter-gatherers did, women in those early societies would have had the choice of support from the group they grew up with, or the option to move away from oppression.

According to one school of thought, things changed around 12,000 years ago. With the advent of agriculture and homesteading, people began settling down. They acquired resources to defend, and power shifted to the physically stronger males. Fathers, sons, uncles and grandfathers began living near each other, property was passed down the male line, and female autonomy was eroded. As a result, the argument goes, patriarchy emerged.”

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831740-400-the-origins-of-sexism-how-men-came-to-rule-12000-years-ago/
Tyson B on March 07, 2021 · at 5:59 pm EST/EDT

I thought it was fairly well known that thanks to the Aaron Russo i/views (before his untimely death) of Nelson Rockefeller* that Feminism was instituted by the Elites :-

1. to tax the other 50% of the world’s population – via Personal Income Tax, and
2. as women were now in the workforce, children had to be sent to preschool / day school before reaching school age, so they could be indoctrinated at an earlier age of the psychological development (recall the words of a Pope who said ‘give me a 7 year old and I’ll give you a [Roman] Catholic for life’ )

What was known back in the 60’s as Women’s liberation (‘women’s lib’, for short) was in fact an opportunity for women to embrace their wage slavery

Ironic, huh?

This does not mean that women shouldnt be paid the same rate as men for work of equal tasks, nor that they should not have access to educational opportunity

* Rockefeller was US President Ford’s V-P
gatopreto on March 07, 2021 · at 6:31 pm EST/EDT

Slightly off-topic….we could create a Washington Syndrome for the obsession of the USAmericans with the USSR. The memory of the Soviet Union keeps hounting them. To the point that they are now imitating the Soviets with the recent behaviour of their government. .
lyy on March 07, 2021 · at 7:12 pm EST/EDT

Feminists: “patriarchy is oppressive, violent”

The West: female ministers of Defense, CEOs from military-industrial complex, heads of huge transnational corporations

The non-West: ‘Fathers of the Nation’ Kim dynasty, the CPC, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Ahmadineyad, Stalin, Tito…
Biswapriya Purkayastha on March 07, 2021 · at 7:37 pm EST/EDT

Rather an empty article from the point of view of a slum woman in Mumbai or Monrovia, who has no rights, no education, no skills and no way out but to do whatever she can.
- Nussiminen on March 07, 2021 · at 11:58 pm EST/EDT
  
  The article, without saying so explicitly, is a survey of First World feminism which, as you say, has very little substance from the point of view of poor, downtrodden, oppressed people in the Third World regardless of gender. Just like any other First World ”universalist” ideology — Marxism, Liberalism, Environmentalism, LGBTQ++, and, of course, fascism and neoliberalism — feminism (the First World variety) too sees the First World and its imperialist privileges as the norm. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Iran will have none of it, thank God.
  - Ljubiša Malenica on March 10, 2021 · at 2:22 pm EST/EDT
    
    @Nussiminen
    
    Thanks for clarifying. It was my presumption it was relatively clear this was a critique of feminism as it is in the West. However @Biswapriya Purkayastha I believe events now unfolding in the West can serve as a good learning experience for the rest of the world. I do not believe feminism as a phenomenon is or can be limited to the west. All the countries Nussiminen mentioned probably have feminist groups which would institute the same policies as seen in the West, if they were in power.
    
    This is a bit off topic, but I recommend an interesting, and from my experience very good, book from
    Igor Shafarevich (a rather interesting man) called “The Socialist Phenomenon” which tracks the appearance of Socialism thorough human history and observes it as a more universal phenomenon, though a negative one, found withing human societies all across the globe. I am of opinion that feminism is of similar nature, so it pays to be careful.
- Жељко on March 08, 2021 · at 8:32 pm EST/EDT
  
  What’s the position of slum man in Mumbai and Monrovia?
Beauregard on March 07, 2021 · at 8:04 pm EST/EDT

All four waves of feminism were corrupt folly.
drb on March 07, 2021 · at 8:09 pm EST/EDT

Good descriptive article. I do agree with other commenters that feminism is essentially a global finance project, but I also see Darwinism taking care of it in one generation or so. John Glubb (google “glubb fate of empires”, it is a 26 pages essay) specifically describes how feminism ended in Baghdad some 1000 years ago (it became too dangerous for women to go around alone at a time of social collapse).

I see no difference this time. In a collapse, single women are vastly over-represented among crime victims. Ask Russian friends and they will tell you the same thing. It is unfortunate, because women are supposed to be spared in times of war, but the people who spearheaded and funded feminism have no morals whatsoever. There should be some sort of Nuremberg trials for feminism, after the collapse.
Tyson B on March 07, 2021 · at 9:41 pm EST/EDT

Furthermore …

a quote from James Kurth, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Swarthmore College. His book, The American Way of Empire: How America Won a World – But Lost Her Way was published in DEC 2019

“The greatest movement of the second half of the twentieth century has been the movement of women from the home to the office …

This movement separates the parents from the children, as well as enabling the wife to separate herself from her husband. By splitting the nuclear family its helping to bring about the replacement of the nuclear family with the non-family.”
- Cybor_ikua on March 08, 2021 · at 4:46 pm EST/EDT
  
  “This movement (feminist) separates from the parents, as well as enabling the wife to separate herself from her husband. By splitting the nuclear family it’s helping to bring about Replacement of nuclear family with the NON-Family.” My emphasis).
  
  Such “replacement” with a “non-family” is called “marriage equality”, better known as “same sex marriage”, an Aberration many feminists support, reason for their political alliance with the so called “LGBT community”.
Anonymous on March 07, 2021 · at 10:16 pm EST/EDT

How is it in this so called age of woke, there are any number of names to call women with experience – slut, slag, trollop, floozy, ho, bike, etc etc

But there is just one name for a man with experience – Stud with a capital S.
White Whale on March 07, 2021 · at 10:51 pm EST/EDT

Confirming Tyson B comment that feminism was and is a CIA founded / funded / championed societal control narrative:

Gloria Steinem is CIA

Here a few quick picks/snippets from a “ Steinem + CIA” search.

……~ Steinem then set up an organization in Cambridge, Massachusetts called the Independent Service for Information on the Vienna Youth Festival(1962) . She obtained tax-exempt status, ……~ But most of the money came from the CIA, to be managed … in a “special account.”
The entire operation cost in the range of $85,000, a not inconsiderable sum in those years.
(Steinem’s organization, later renamed the Independent Research Service, continued to receive support from the CIA through 1962, when it financed an American delegation to the Helsinki Youth Festival.)
Steinem ended up working closely with Samuel S. Walker, Jr., vice-president of the CIA-funded Free Europe Committee.
Because the Austrians did not want to be associated with the Free Europe Committee, the Agency set up a commercial front called the Publications Development Corporation (PDC).
Walker was made president of this dummy corporation, funded in part by “a confidential one-year contract” worth $273,000 from the Free Europe Committee.
His job was to supervise the book-and-newspaper operation at the Youth Festival.
Source: http://www.namebase.net:82/steinem.html

Black Feminism, the CIA and Gloria Steinem
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2012/05/01/black-feminism-the-cia-and-gloria-steinem/

Gloria Steinem Discussing Her Time in the CIA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4HRUEqyZ7p8

How Gloria Steinem became the ‘world’s most famous feminist’
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/how-gloria-steinem-became-worlds-most-famous-feminist

> Steinem was editor of MS magazine. A CIA funded asset.
“Katharine Graham, arguably the most powerful woman in the world, was a stockholder in “Ms.” magazine even before the first issue was published in 1972.
“In a 1988 speech to senior CIA employees at Agency headquarters, Ms. Graham had this to say: “There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t.
“ I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.”
http://www.ainfos.ca/A-Infos97/2/0229.html

Gloria Steinem Exposed: Feminist Spy for The CIA
(FEDERALJACK)
“Not many people know that Feminist media darling, Gloria Steinem, was in fact working for the CIA – or that Ms. Magazine was a CIA funded publication.
>>Feminism Was Created To Destabilize Society, Tax Women and set up the NWO – Aaron Russo
http://www.federaljack.com/gloria-steinem-exposed-feminist-spy-for-the-cia/
ValhallaX on March 08, 2021 · at 3:23 am EST/EDT

As I have had the privilege to live around magnificent women, may I say that the writer and most of the commentators make the big mistake and mix women and cultural marxists, i. e. The Usual Suspects.

Women, those that I have lived with, are the salt of the earth and we, men, will only win by working together with them for the better future. Normal, healthy women are no feminists, they laugh at the whole idea of the current “feminists”. These cultural marxists are pure evil, they represent nothing else but psychopaths that want to present themselves as “feminists”.

I wish a Very Happy Women’s Day for everybody!
- Anonymous on March 11, 2021 · at 1:04 am EST/EDT
  
  Thanks for some sanity.
  I really have no idea who the “feminists” are that so preoccupy the author.
  Maybe he needs to get to know a few . . . women.
  
  Katherine
Rhisiart Gwilym on March 08, 2021 · at 4:48 am EST/EDT

As a ballsy heterosexual male, I’ve supported for most of my life, and still support, women’s liberation from any gratuitous handicaps laid on them by unjustified male dominance. For that entirely worthy cause, there’s still some way to go, in many parts of the world.

What this article could have said, much more briefly, is that the above statement is true, but in the over-rich, over-developed, world-raping imperial West, women’s liberation has gone toxic; as it seems have all the – basically fair and right – social-justice issues which also now have been engulfed by the current lunacies of identity politics.

So a collapsing empire gives rise – as is usual in the fall of empires – to toxic and basically crazy, but fashionable, theories, which give its bored, disorientated, under-employed (and doomed) bourgeoisie something to engage their vapid interest.

That’s to be called out for what it is, sure: intellectual dreck. But does that recent toxification of fourth-wave feminism negate the genuine injustices against the female fifty-percent which earlier feminists – of both sexes – struggled to abolish? Have these injustices been resolved fully, in all the disparate societies everywhere in the world where women have to live their lives as well as they can?

I don’t think so. There’s still some way to go for lots of women everywhere.

Dismiss the lunacies of id-pol for what they are, by all means. But notice that there’s still a live baby within that tacky and deeply ridiculous bath-water.
Igor Vuksanović on March 08, 2021 · at 5:30 am EST/EDT

Very well written. I would like to point out, though, that we always have atypical individuals. Observe women who excel in politics, business…They have more of male traits, they can be even more ruthless and agressive. In the past, society did put obstacles on the path of such (ambitious, outwardly driven) women, to stop them from attaining profesional succes. There was, I think, female US Supreme Court Judge (O Connor), who, upon graduating in law, was offered only secretary positions (in nineteen-fifties). Such things were and still are, where they occur, wrong. Everbody must be judged according to individual abilities.

But of course, most women will never strive to come to very top; 50/50 representation as grand social target is idiotic.

As far as sexual harrasment is concerned, I agree with the author (potential for many false accusations). However, it would be better to leave Weinstein and similar creeps out of it. They are typical case of rich old perverted men, exploiting systematically their position for sexual benefit. A fact that a young woman may manipulatively play her role here does not exculpate them: there is really vast social power difference here.
Rhys Jaggar on March 08, 2021 · at 6:02 am EST/EDT

One thing not mentioned here is the way that extreme feminist ‘women’ (they are barely women in more than XX chromosomes) start to treat men like ‘women’ too. They actively start saying that they ‘want a wife’, in other words, a man to be the equivalent of a submissive househusband.

The danger of such women is that actively target people who have zero interest in being treated like that, so they become pathological in destructive emotional terms.

>75% of such women that I have met never marry, abuse men emotionally for decades in ways which can be truly repulsive.

But there are no crimes on the statute books for what they do, even though their behaviour is wilfully destructive, lacking any sense of normal boundaries and restraint and often is accompanied by general conditions of being a psychopath and/or a sociopath.
White Whale on March 08, 2021 · at 6:18 am EST/EDT

International Women’s Day is never complete without a viewing of “The Misogyny Speech” delivered impromptu and impassioned by Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ihd7ofrwQX0
Anon on March 08, 2021 · at 7:11 am EST/EDT

i will add 2cent from dimitry orlov:

if i recall correctly, in one of his weekly pieces, 3-4 – maybe even more – years ago
dimitry said, and i am paraphrasing

“as the western collapse progresses, less and less attention should and will be given
to grievances of feminists and the like, because people will have to deal with real problems”

“as joblessness rises, people will revert to more traditional roles, women as caretakers – at home taking care of the kids and the household, while men taking the role of protectors and providers – protecting the family from
marauding thieves and working at a job that matters in the real world…”

“feminists will be left with noone to protect them and fall prey to marauders”

if i recall correctly, this orlov’s piece was about small sustainable commune, and the trend
where feminists try to impose their (non-)issues onto the whole commune and how they will be just ignored

of course, there was also one feminist, that couldn’t accept this, having to much invested of herself
and her life (she was already over 60) to change course

to summerize,
Ljubiša’s work is thorough but comes in late
the real vaccine to feminism is: ignore them, do not waste time on their grievances
- Anna FN on March 08, 2021 · at 8:17 pm EST/EDT
  
  “Ljubiša’s work is thorough but comes in late
  the real vaccine to feminism is: ignore them, do not waste time on their grievances”
  
  Dear Anon,
  I would suggest that you read “truthful” literature about the past religious, cultural, and sexist suppression of women that lasted for thousands of years in European and early American culture, to understand why women’s suffrage began to raise its angry head in defiance during the 1800s!
  
  A few examples of past patriarchal rule and dominance:
  
  1. According to the male-dominated Vatican in Europe, “women had neither brains nor souls, so were not worthy of an education”! If a wife and mother could not tolerate being beaten (like a slave) by her husband any longer, she had one option: leave him, but leave her children behind (they were owned by the father, not the mother); or, remain married, with no rights or protection from the law!
  
  2. During the Renaissance Movement in Europe, The Vatican (the official civil/religious ruler) declared that “men” (white only) could now be educated in the newly found “field of obstetrics” and declared that all midwives (who had assisted women in birth for millennium), were to tortured and burned at the stake as
  “witches” (in order to get them out of the way!). It is estimated that over 40,000 women and midwives were burned at the stake for over 300 years (1450-1750).
  
  This is why Feminism needs our support, not our criticism, for its growing pains!
  
  “Do not ignore them… and do take time for their grievances” !!
  - Anon on March 09, 2021 · at 3:57 am EST/EDT
    
    clearly if you had read Ljubiša’s words, you wouldnt pull up grievances from the past,
    but understand that those issues arent valid in this day and age.
    
    and i shall ignore them and i wont waste my time on others grievances,
    everybody has to fight for themselves.
    
    my only must is to live and enjoy life to the fullest. nothing else.
ChC on March 08, 2021 · at 8:38 am EST/EDT

Oh Please … if the social psychologists keep trying to explain what is happening there will NEVER be a solution or complete understanding no matter how many footnotes there are! This article is unbearable to read. This is a cosmic spiritual issue; it is a balance issue and not a psychological issue. I don’t judge any situation a person finds themselves in (it’s not my place to judge) no matter how they gender-identify themselves. Women having to behave like men in society in order to be able to have some level of respect, individual rights and earn a fair wage for work done is NOT equality. Know the phrase “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”? Well, you have women who have been stripped of their femininity and nature in order to compete (not like fully developed women do, but as men do) in the work place and some of them rise to the top of the corporate ladder. But have you ever had to deal with one them? Some of them are extremely fierce and that is a result of a level of scorn and not wanting to appear like a woman in front of their male colleagues. The understanding of what masculinity is and particularly how distorted femininity has become is what is causing problems in the workplace, at home, and in the community and cosmos at large. I can “bring home the bacon, fry it up in the pan, and never, never never let him forget he’s a man.” Oh Please!
- Snow Leopard on March 08, 2021 · at 1:12 pm EST/EDT
  
  Chc; I must agree with you completely. So much of this discussion falls into a cardinal intellectual error. That being to define a thing by its distortion. When one falls into the intellectual trap of “defining a thing by its distortion” then one completely loses the ability to understand that thing, or to relate to it properly. This is precisely what has happened to feminism in the West. Feminism is defined by its distortion and then that distortion is criticized as if it is the original thing in itself. In my opinion this original article, and much of the following commentary, gets lost inside a nightmare of distortion as a consequence of this crippling intellectual error.
  
  What creates the distortion? Mind driven by the impulses of egoism. The modern West is drowning in a nightmare of mental distortion as a consequence of the hegemony of patriarchal bourgeois egoism. The solution to the intellectual problem I have outlined lies in anchoring one’s understanding of a thing in a knowledge of its cosmic (or metaphysical or spiritual origins). Most things in the human world have their origins outside the purview of the mental ego. The difficulty is that the bourgeois era of civilization, which has now reached its terminal point, is predicated upon denying us any language for understanding the cosmic creativity that enriches our lives. The bourgeois class is absolutely fixated upon the primacy of atheist materialism and an egoism of power. Consequently when the bourgeois mind gets hold of a thing like feminism it must distort it in accord with its own power drive. And bourgeois feminists fall into this trap. Feminism just becomes another form of competitive egoism. A female version of spiritually alienated bourgeois patriarchy.
  
  If one steps outside this particular distortion one may find the real origins of modern feminism. But that would require having some insight into feminism’s “cosmic” origins. Feminism can only really be understood in spiritual terms.
  
  According to my research it goes like this; Around the year 1800 the divine feminine began its emergence from the European unconscious. This was not consciously recognized until 1970. Slowly but steadily the “Goddess” emerges to take possession of the European Enlightenment. Yes, that is right my friends. Real feminism is a manifestation of the loving Creator. This took the form of the organic union of Socialism, Feminism and Romanticism which survived until 1848. Then bourgeois counter reaction set in and Feminism and Romanticism were decoupled from Socialism in order to survive in the face of systematic capitalist reaction. This could only mean that both Romanticism and Feminism became increasingly distorted by falling ever more into the entrapment of an exclusively bourgeois outlook. So all that is really being criticized here is the hideous distortion of ego bounded bourgeois feminism. It is simply a cosmic impossibility to pour authentic feminism into a dirty and dying bourgeois bottle.
  - ChC on March 09, 2021 · at 9:32 am EST/EDT
    
    Good points and especially about defining the situation according to it’s distortion. Either gender expression, when out of balance, can become extreme in its behavior. You might like Gigi Young (dot come by the same name) and also on Youtube. She has a series in progress titled “ISIS Rising”.
John neal Spangler on March 08, 2021 · at 12:08 pm EST/EDT

H. .L. Mencken predicted this in his book In Defense of Women written in the early 1920s. With the labor saving devices women would want to enter the workforce, and get Congress to pass laws forcing companies to hire them. Remember in Geo. Orwell’s 1984 the Inner party member explained to Winston Smith ” you want to know the future? It will be a boot smashing on a human face and it will be forever”. The US women announced their program in the 60s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyAZQ45uww All hail feminist Socialism. FemSoc will rule the world!
‘
- Anne on March 11, 2021 · at 1:44 pm EST/EDT
  
  So Mr Spangler you believe females should be made to stay at home, doing all of the work therein, while their male partners are the only ones who should be able to enjoy the expansion and development of their thinking, abilities…And then they, the males come home at night and their maidservant female partners serve up the meals they so lovingly cooked, make sure that their hubbies are comfortable, warm and do not have to do anything else…Might I suggest you belong in some other, much earlier century and not in the UK? (And actually the reality was that females – married and single – had to labor outside the home, certainly in the UK, either in household workshops, making chains for example, or in woollen and cotton mills, in brickyards and so on and on…
  - Anonymous on March 12, 2021 · at 6:31 pm EST/EDT
    
    Anne: People like Spangler are trapped behind a middle-class view of historical reality. He an his ilk really think women are spoiled.
    
    The folk knew different: Please, all males on this thread, reread the tale of what happened when the man and wife traded places for a day:
    https://www.pitt.edu/~dash/norway010.html
    
    Katherine
Theodora on March 09, 2021 · at 5:10 pm EST/EDT

Some good points here but the article is not organized and statistics are not well sourced. The author claims that 90% of the time custody is awarded to the mother. A Nashville legal firm, Lackay and Lakay says that one in five single parents are male. Surely custodial decisions vary from one miileu to another across the nation.
It is easier to fathers to abscond and so mothers are responsible by default. In this age of drug addiction I have noticed that if the mother is the addicted one the father gets custody. A couple attorneys have told me they have been surprised that in many cases neither parent wants the kids. Very sad. There does appears to be more fathers as custodial parents now. I would like to see some quality research about custodial decisions where both parents want the children.