I find no good reason to believe that women are uniquely downtrodden, or that their sufferings in life transcend the common lot of humanity. Moreover, I can see a strong case that men have it worse in many ways.
However, feminist theory maintains that women as a group are oppressed by men as
a group, and specifically names women as a "political sex class". Feminist preaching for many years has openly incited women to view themselves in such terms. The last half-century has witnessed a mushrooming growth of women's
advocacy groups, lobbying groups, government bureaux, and all manner of
special services for women both public and private.
it doesn't end with blind favoritism toward women. The state of
matters takes a malignant turn when you consider that female citizens
presently hold a disproportionate power to compromise the well-being of
male citizens. As simply as we can put it, women have the power to lie
about men with impunity, in a way that seriously harms them. And that
power, being vested in laws and institutions, becomes a political power
and makes women a political class.
To put this another way, it is not women, but MEN who are "oppressed". Oppression, as feminist theory informs us, is structural.
It is rooted not in the power of individuals, but in the power of
institutions made disproportionately available to some groups and not
others. When the disfavored group feels the institutionally-based
power of the favored group like a boot on its neck, only then may we
correctly say that "oppression" is taking place. Men (not
women) may be considered the oppressed group in today's world because the
power of women to harm men is embodied in laws and institutions -- in
other words, structurally. If we are to hold the feminists to the letter of their own law, we must insist that they acknowledge this.
we have related here tilts the political board against men as a group.
In light of this, we feel no hesitation in stating that men, as a group,
have no political obligation to go to bat for women as a group. Under
the circumstances, why should they? Rationally speaking, men would do
best to look out for themselves as individuals and to form contracts of
mutual assistance in order to multiply the benefit. No consideration,
either moral or utilitarian, can inspire me with any sense of duty
toward women as a group. This would be true even in the best of times, but is doubly true at present, when men are an oppressed class.
Therefore any individual woman I meet will get special consideration from me only as an individual,
and only if she proves herself worthy. And clearly, some will prove
themselves worthier than others. This way of thinking entails no
"misogyny" because it entails no opinion, either good or ill, about
women as a group.
Now, misogyny means disaffection
toward women irrespectively. Hence, even if you were to form a bad
opinion about every female person on earth, it would not entail
misogyny if you had weighed each case on its merits. You would merely
harbor a bad opinion about this woman, that woman, and the next woman --
but not about women.
I am far from having
evaluated every woman on earth, and I know my life is too short to do
that. So I am content to say that I harbor no opinion either good or ill
about the huge majority of women, but that as I make their
acquaintances I will evaluate them one at a time. Then, according to the
case, I will form a social contract binding myself to specific
behaviors. Upon that base alone, I will decide what, if anything, I
"owe" to the individual in question. In this, I do just as I would do
with any man -- I am entirely even-handed.
Yes. Characterization by merit
is a first principle, and it frames my conduct toward everyone I meet.
Nobody, man or woman, is "entitled" to anything save what I, by my good
pleasure, bountifully proffer -- and calculation of merit weighs
considerably in that dispensation. In short, I study the manifested
qualities of other people in living form, and work from there.
prudential considerations are always uppermost in my thinking, with an
eye to rational self-preservation grounded in a prescience of natural
consequences. My policy, then, entails a strategizing sense of the
Kantian hypothetical imperative: "If you want the world to be X, you
must do Y and Z." The reason is, that if you fail to do Y and Z, then by
natural consequence the world will not be X.
So in the
end, although my conduct is governed purely by a moral law within
myself, that moral law is framed by the considerations which I have
sketched above. I should add that it never hurts to get on my good side.
Deal squarely and rightly with me, and I shall be the truest friend you
could ask for. Otherwise, things might get sticky.
views women as an entitled class, and fails to hold them accountable as
individuals. I find this both pernicious and unworkable, and for that
reason (among many others) I reject feminism as a movement and as an
ideology. I disavow it. I disclaim ownership in it. I repudiate the
cultural narrative which it imposes and I wash my hands of any project
predicated on any aspect of that narrative.
Briefly then, I am not a feminist and no power in the universe will force me to become one.
Finally, no woman I shall ever meet may exercise any claim upon me in the name of feminism, or under color of feminism in any form. She is entitled to nothing unless she proves to me that she is worth something.
Such is worth-based entitlement.