A Treatise on Feminism and Social Justice

Hardly anybody can squeeze a fart into the wind these days without enraging the social justice advocates. They have evolved like a cancerous growth to all corners of the internet. I am not just referring to the Tumblr feminists, and the /r/ShitRedditSays crowd, but the so-called Men’s Rights Movement as well.  All these ideologies fit nicely into the category of social justice advocates. Both of these mindsets are equally ridiculous because they do not take into account the inherent biological differences between men and women. They make the mistake of viewing mankind as existing in a vacuum that is beyond the realm of the natural order. This must be given due consideration when discussing issues like sexism.

Feminists are always harping on about the pervasive sexism in our culture. Many of them have an almost militant fervour when discussing all the various ways women are being subjugated and marginalized. They point to various discussions on Reddit.com. Look, People are making sexual remarks about photos that girls upload of themselves. Sexism! Look, submissive males are complaining about being friendzoned. Sexism! Look, somebody asked a girl out for coffee in an elevator. Sexism! This naive interpretation of anything and everything as sexism is both hilarious and imbecilic. The feminists congregate en masse to forums and message boards where they pat themselves on the back for being the only ones to see all this sexism. They are only one step removed from tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists. It is amusing to watch this menstrual bukkake in action. It is equally amusing to watch how the feminists react to those who dare criticize their ideology. When anybody tries to tell the feminists that they are exaggerating, they retort by saying that the opinion of the dissenter is null and void due to their inherent privilege.

Social justice is the privilege game! Anybody can play. All you need is a list of things people make fun of you for. The more reasons people have to dislike you (maybe you are a bi-polar communist transvestite with a PCP addiction?), the less privilege you earn. Whoever has the least amount of privilege at the end of the game is the winner! Pretty shitty game, huh? The feminists and social justice clowns hold their lack of privilege as the arbiter of intellectual worth. If you are a winner of the privilege game and you claim no privilege whatsoever, then your opinion is infallible compared to a lowly denizen with a ton of privilege. In reality, basing the merit of one’s opinions on some arbitrary standard of privilege is not the way to engage in a proper debate. Regardless of what social privileges you have, it should be the logical consistency of your opinions that determines their validity, not privilege. The geocentric theory is still wrong if it is proposed by an obese transgender mulatto witch-doctor or a straight white athletic male.

 There is an eerie similarity between what the neo-feminists call privilege and the Catholic doctrine of original sin. Both privilege and original sin conjecture that you are inherently immoral and you can never fully shed this immorality. Instead of trying to improve yourself, the feminists claim you should “check” your privilege and devote your life to perpetual servitude of their whims and ideologies. The main comparison to original sin is that nobody can fully purge themselves of their so-called privilege, but must continually redeem themselves by subscribing to feminist doctrine and bowing before the might of their vaginal supremacy. Of course, all this talk of privilege is bullshit. It is nothing more than a circumstantial ad hominem argument employed by the feminists in order to evade the burden of having to reason their position. Why bother with logic and evidence when you can just claim your opponents have privilege and therefore they will never comprehend your argument? It’s a claim to infallibility. What if politicians used this same argument when making policies? The world would be a fucking mess by now. Feminists claim that one’s privilege prevents them from criticizing the standard feminists drawl. Remember what Voltaire said?

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

Back to the topic of sexism; does it exist in our society? Yeah, of course it does. But I don’t think it is anything to be too disgruntled about. If men asking girls out for coffee in elevators is the worst manifestation of sexism, then I fair to say it’s not a matter of earthy concern.

One of the biggest mistakes that the social justice advocates make when they talk about sexism is their ignorance of biological differences between men and women. Human beings are not simply blank slates at birth. We all come with a wide range of inherent biological functions and dispositions. Because the biological functions of females (giving birth, nursing children) differ from the biological functions of males (sperm dispensers, guardians), the inherent mental traits of women are different than men. Look at the animal kingdom. Read this article about the behavioural gender differences among animals. 

The article explains how female jumping spiders are more aggressive than the males and if the male is unsuccessful in convincing her to have sex, he will likely be eaten. Therefore, we can observe that the inherent difference between the female jumping spider and the male is that the female is more aggressive. Next, watch this video about the mating rituals of cheetahs.

The male cheetah follows the female cheetah for miles and miles until she finally submits to his advances and they fuck. Which mechanisms of social oppression have led the female jumping spider to eat her courters and the male cheetahs to stalk their females with such persistence? Is it the media? Do cheetahs have magazines or television shows like ours that give them oppressive delusions about sex? I don’t think so. Do the female jumping spiders indulge in a rape culture that justifies their devourment of the opposite sex? I’m pretty sure they don’t. These specific behaviours are the result of evolution. They are inherent to their respective natures.

It would be naive and ignorant to claim that natural selection has failed to bestow these sexual differences between males and females onto humans. It is demonstrated that males are naturally more aggressive than females and that females are more nurturing than males. This is not the product of social oppression or gender discrimination. It is the product of natural selection and these respective behaviours serve a very good purpose in human relations and reproduction. The aggressive sexual nature of men in elevators and on the internet is simply a manifestation of these inherent biological differences. It is not something that we could change or should change. That would be like trying to get rid of greed or laziness. It doesn’t work and would only end in disaster. Instead, we should embrace our sexual differences instead of trying to suppress our primordial nature and pretending it doesn’t exist. As the German philosopher, Oswald Spengler once put it:

In man and woman, two kinds of history are fighting for power. In the masculine being, there is a certain contradiction; he is this man, yet he is something else besides, which woman neither understands nor admits, which she feels as robbery and violence upon that which is holiest. This secret and fundamental war of the sexes has gone on ever since there were sexes, and will continue—silent, bitter, unforgiving, and pitiless.

The doctrine of feminism doesn’t just state that sexism exists, but that it is perpetuated by a social order that has the malicious intent of subjugating women for the benefit of men (patriarchy). The MRAs (Men’s Rights Movement) claim the opposite—that men are subjugated for the benefit of women. Both of these beliefs are equally fallacious when you comprehend that men and women are entirely different creatures with different tastes and biological dispositions. Just as with every animal species on the planet, the social order is a product of these biological differences and not the product of some malicious design on behalf of one sex or the other. Do these differences constitute sexism? Sure. But as I have already said, this sexism is a manifestation of evolutionary traits and nothing we can or should ever try to eliminate.

Another thing that must be addressed about the social justice clowns is their tendency to victimize themselves. This self-victimization is common between the feminists and the MRAs. They whine and moan about how they are a victim of this or that social institution and they chastise anybody who tells them otherwise (“check your privilege, shitlord!”). The thing about self-victimization is that it is not only a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it creates a cycle that is very difficult for the victim to break. The social justice crowd loves the hand-holding and belly-rubbing that comes with sympathizing with victims. They envy the attention and empathy bestowed upon real victims of rape or domestic violence and so they seek this empathy for themselves. More often than not, they don’t have any real problems that warrant such empathy so they make some up. They point to the aforementioned sexual differences between men and women and claim to be a victim of those. Help! Creepy men are making sexual passes at me on the internet! Woe is me. Self-victimization is a self-fulfilling prophecy because when you go through life acting like a victim, then people will tend to victimize you. When you act weak and submissive, then people will take advantage of you. Eventually, somebody will come along and abuse them in some actual way. The social justice advocate thinks this abuse has thus validated their twisted world-view and so the cycle continues ad nauseam.

The self-victimization of the social justice advocate is very similar to the mindset of a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist like David Icke or Alex Jones. They make up some sort of batshit fallacious reasoning to justify their oppression by the evil government, and then when people call them imbeciles, they reason that whoever is criticizing them is part of the government conspiracy. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Both the conspiracy theorist and the social justice advocate are impervious to criticism. They think that whoever is trying to argue with them has obviously been blinded by social privilege or by government deceit, depending on which brand of insanity the delusional victim has subscribed to.

I have tried to write as comprehensive of a treatise as possible to convey my opinions regarding the social justice crowd. People like them have existed long ago and will continue to exist for centuries to come. You can’t argue with them using logic and reason because that is not how those people function. The best way to deal with them is to either ridicule them or ignore them. As the philosopher Karl Popper would say; they adhere to an unfalsifiable hypothesis. They have arranged their platform in such a way that they can neither be disputed nor debated. All they seek is attention. Just like you shouldn’t feed bears in the woods, you shouldn’t give the social justice crowd their much desired validation by attempting to reason with them.

Bird is undergoing an existential crisis right now