Category Archives: Feminist language

Are women “oppressed?”

+Helena Handbaskit asks:

“[A]re women oppressed in the western world, and if no, was there ever a time when they were, and if yes to that, when did it change and what changed it?”

I claim that they are not more or less oppressed than any man is or has been.

This is how I’ve come to my conclusion.

How we answer the question depends entirely on the meaning of the word “oppressed.” gives us the relevant bits. (Feel free to use other dictionaries.)

1. Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority
2. The state of being subject to oppressive treatment
3. Mental pressure or distress (figurative)

What is “prolonged?” “Continuing for a long time or longer than usual; lengthy”

What is “cruel?” “Wilfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it”

What is “unjust?” “Not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.”

What is “authority?” “The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience”

What is “oppressive?” “Inflicting harsh and authoritarian treatment”

What is “inflicting?” “Cause (something unpleasant or painful) to be suffered by someone or something”

What is “harsh?” “Unpleasantly rough or jarring to the senses”

What is “authoritarian?” “Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom” or “Showing a lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others; dictatorial:”

So, using Oxford’s terms, oppression is the prolonged, unjust, willful causing of pain or suffering, or lack of caring thereof, by someone who has the power to enforce obedience (usually “men” or “the system”.)

Feminist claim that “women” experience this. This is their ideology’s foundational claim.

Does this sound like the average Western woman’s experience to you? One rarely hears a Feminist claim that they need Feminism because sub-group SG of country C experience, what essentially sounds like torturous slavery to me. We hear that “women” experience this. Let’s be generous and say that “women” is 50.1% of all women. Does this sound like what one-quarter of the world experiences regularly? Does this resemble general reality in any way?

This sounds like child soldiers in Sierra Leon. It sounds like some sex-slaves in the Philippines. It sounds like any man or woman during the Rwandan genocide. It sound like Jews in a Nazi concentration camp. It does not sound like the life of the typical university student who writes blogs and tries to shut down men’s therapy groups. It does not sound like any woman who expresses herself without fear for her life.

The claim is pure hyperbole, accepted as reality, because people are too lazy to look words up and think about them. And because such hyperbole is an excellent tool for inflaming the easily influenced into repeating the claims, or of raising money, or for scrabbling for a sense of moral superiority to brow-beat well-intentioned people into acquiescing to demands.

Do some women experience this? Without a doubt. So do, without a doubt, some men. Are there enough to justify that we say that a minimum of one-quarter of the world’s population experiences this?


People bandy this hyperbole, broadening the scope of a word until it loses all reality-based anchoring and has the simple, strong and naïve emotional impact of a taboo. These definitions point to severe conditions. The way that the word is currently used is to use a diluted version of the weakest version. “The office’s atmosphere was oppressive,” meaning “unpleasant.” The reason is simple: propaganda. We already have the instinct to protect women, as we would children.

There is arguably a hierarchy of care in our species: infants, babies, small children, children, young women, older women, young boys, men, older men. The further down the scale, the less we care, the less we do about. This is a constant in our species, across history, geography and cultures. We do not start willy-nilly sacrificing lives until we reach the level of young boys.

Was there a time in our history where women as a class were limited in their participation in the public sphere? There was. Were the reasons cruel and capricious? They weren’t. If we look at the reasons, the conditions and the intended outcomes what we’re likely to see is good intentions that worked well in certain contexts, and as contexts started changing, the behaviours became less relevant. Remember that all trends in history are curves not abrupt start-stops.

Was there a time when women were kept, fed, housed and provided for, but denied access to education or a voice in politics. Yes. Was this oppression? No. It was not cruel, nor capricious, nor malicious, nor, even intentional. Were women “owned?” Other than those who were explicitly slaves, no. Slaves of all races were (and are) of both sexes and all races. Were they cloistered? In a great many cases, surely. They were cloistered in the way that one safeguards one’s most precious asset. Men had the job of protecting women. How does a mother protect children? She supervises them, limits their environmental reach and sets rules so that she can perform her duty of protection. People, male and female, can be overprotective and beyond it’s need.

What Feminists call “oppression” was men having accepted their roles as providers and protectors even after we had created such a secure and wealthy environment that women no longer needed individual men’s protection, she could benefit from men’s collective protection and provision. We have no wild animals to contend with, a rigorous police force, and social programs aplenty.

A woman only needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle because men have created a near-ideal circumstance for the fish to flourish, unassisted, supported by his work, invisible in its aggregate. What Feminists are calling “oppression” today, is merely having to experience real-life, the princess complaining that there are too few mattresses over the pea.

Depictions of sexually appealing women in video games? “Man spreading?” Tweets as harassment? Please.

This is what I advocate: adult women should be treated as are adult men. They should be expected to handle life’s joys and rough edges just as a man would. Women, during the emancipation movement sought the freedom to have control over their own lives, not to have control over others’. She should expect no treatment that is beyond or below that which men receive. Having the right to freedom in the most advanced, the safest, the best-fed society the world has ever known, she should endure the same minor discomforts of living that men do. These are the simple duties for which the rights that are granted to all of us exist.

Does this deny a woman her power to voice her concerns? Not in the least bit. All citizens in our society are granted this right, and that’s all women are: citizens who happen to be female.

The only way that “women are oppressed” in the Western World, and I would claim in most of the world is if the term is completely redefined to mean “subject to the same nuisances and inconveniences as are men.”

A Term to Kill: Diverse

“X group is a diverse group.” One item is not diverse. Often a speaker will use an expression such as “Feminism is diverse” when the intention is usually to convey “A wide variety of types of people advocate for Feminist ideas.” Lately, the term diversity is used to express “A group of people who is composed of mostly non-white and non-male people.” Much as the term “People of Colour” means, quite literally, people whose race is not Caucasian, the term diversity has come to signify “a variety of non-Caucasian (and/or non-male) people.”

A more correct way of expressing the idea would be to say that “the board consists of people of diverse races (and/or sexes).” One should note that there is a pecking order, and the definition is usually quite fluid, and it’s exponents are adept at hedging and shifting goal posts.

A group of all white men is not diverse.

A group of all white women may be considered as diverse.

A group of men of many races lacks diversity, because it does not include women.

A group of all women of many races is diverse.

Bonus points if other characteristics such as sexual preferences or disabilities of any kind are criteria used as “diversity qualifiers.”

Why is diversity important? So that the group can be representative of the oppressed, or of those in need of representation. This is important so that voices may be heard.

Feminist jargon is, in large part, speaking using the passive voice combined with nominalizations.

Active: Mary threw the ball.
Passive: The ball was thrown by Mary.

Note that the first example portrays agent unambiguously acting upon an object, whereas the second example obfuscates the direct action.

A nominalization is the grammatical error of using a verb, or an adjective as a noun. Nominalizations are also known Zombie Nouns.


  • I need a change. (change = noun)
  • I will change. (change = verb)


  • The murder of the man was tragic. (murder = noun)
  • He will murder the man. (murder = verb)

When listening to Feminist jargon, take the time to re-read each sentence as though it written in the active voice and convert nominalizations into active verbs. Prepare to be surprised as to how little sense the language makes.



Tagged ,

On the issue of “representation” in positions of influence

Technically, it is not the population that “should” “be” represented, but the electorate’s interests. Not the people, not the voters, but the interests that they hold. The term “representation” is as poorly used as is the term “equality.” People are not equal; when people use the term “equal” they usually refer to impartial and equivalent moral value, used as basis to justify assigning equivalent rights and duties under law. As long as any individual does their best to work safeguarding and promoting the majority of the electorate’s interests, sex, race or any other variable is (or should be) irrelevant. The notion that “S/he is one of us” in no way guarantees correct performance of these duties.

Tagged ,

An excellent case study on Feminist use of language to frame thoughts

Feminists are excellent at is controlling the mental framing of an argument. Notice that in every instance that Mike made a point, that she immediately changed the scope of the conversation. She does not announce “I am now changing the scope!” She does it entirely by presupposition, in a fluid manner. This is the tool that all skillful Feminists use, I would guess, 80% of the time. The benefits is that it seems conversationally “natural” and that to to stop the technique, one must get bogged down by refuting the presupposition, point by point, where as a response she need only apply the very same technique to the rebuttal. The only way to counter this that I’m aware of is to be able to simultaneously shift the frame again in such a way that her presuppositions are refuted, presuppositionally, and to grab the frame back and hold it.

This highlights, what I think is a difference in classical communication style between men and women. People who have “a masculine mindset” tend to all make the same error when dealing with such people: we reach for the explicit. But, like sex that does not need words, acceptance of ideas is often based on the non-verbal, and being explicit is actually counter-productive.

This particular debate about sexual consent on the BBC’s ‘The Big Questions’ provides a text-book example of both the arguments, techniques used. There are also two members, a man with short and white hair, and the woman sitting next to Mike Buchanan who simply nail it.

This video is worth keeping kept as a case-study.

Tagged , , , ,

Feminist and Social Justice Warrior’s racism and sexism deconstructed

The term “privilege” is merely sexist and racist projection on the part of the gullible and the dishonest.

Yet another conversation with a Social Justice Warrior, one who smarmily attempts to appear just and fair handed.

Alexa said

It is important to hear and understand the point of view of individuals from the privileged group, regardless of whether or not they are triggering or offensive, so that we can begin to work together – because no matter what, eliminating racism and discrimination in the U.S. is going to be a group effort.

Alexa, this is such ideologically based nonsense. The notion of a “privileged group” is nothing more than an extension of Feminist doctrine, and whose roots reached out to the times of British Couverture laws. What the Feminists then, as the Feminists do now was to look at only one side of the story. I am no longer amazed at the complete lack of knowledge and thought by those who would bandy such quasi-religious terms about, and that they do not recognize the sheer entitlement and self-centeredness of their perspective.


"Privilege" from the Feminist Perspective


Alexa said

This completely invalidated the project for me and makes me believe that it was made for the wrong reasons.

In other words, as long as you thought that the project lined up with your ideology, you thought it was great, then you learned that the artist disagrees. Suddenly, the project was worthless. Do you know, Alexa, that the words “sexism” is patterned after of the word “racism?”

Do you what what the antonym for each is?

“Impartial, unprejudiced.”

You have shown yourself to be neither. “The privileged group” is a racist a term couched a smarmy and self-congratulating (and unearned) self-righteousness.

It is based on the false notion that the world is divided into two classes of people: oppressors and oppressed. Bad people versus good people. The term privilege is used to denote a class of people who have advantages and immunities that the other does not, and has the fabricated backdrop of historical abuse of one over the other. Thus, those labelled “privileged” are viewed and treated as abusers, bad people, and are treated as if they were morally inferior, while the so-called abused don the cloak of morally superior. When one refers to someone as “privileged” they are typically insinuating that the one who accuses another of privilege does not have the power to abuse, thus, has the social status of the oppressed as a justification to claim the moral high ground. It is the hypocrisy of the deceitful and morally lame who either do not have the mind to discern their own emotion-justifying thoughts, or the courage to forthrightly proclaim that the feel superior to someone, for no reason other than race, or sex. It is the indirect, snake-in-the-grass, hypocritical emotional manipulation of the morally corrupt who are doing little more than projecting their own racism or sexism.

Among white people, it is the liberal middle-and-upper class liberals who subscribe to the message that somehow all white people are guilty of the Original Sin of a small and most likely unrelated group of British Monarchists or Southern US KKK types. White people are so well-meaning that they self-flagellate to prevent your type from dumping shame on them.

Some of us have bothered to learn about the world, and have thought critically about it, and our place in it. We refuse to run the the corner like an abused dog every time an ideologue tenses up and starts bandying silly terms like “privilege” about.

Abandon your prejudices, Alexa. They reflect poorly on both your character and your intellect. Treat people impartially. That’s all you need to do.

Tagged , ,

Counter-argument: No way to be racist to white people

This little ditty of an assertion has been doing the rounds for sometime. It’s only occurred to me to address it now.

“One cannot be racist against white people”

There’s no way to be racist to anyone.

Racism is the belief that one race is superior to others. At most, one can hold racist ideas.

The correct way to phrase the assertion would “One cannot demonstrate prejudice against white people.” Once correctly phrased, we see that the assertion falls flat on it’s face.

Even the issue of holding a prejudice itself is not harmful, it carries no moral weight. The true issue is one of an act of discrimination that causes harm.

One can behave in a discriminatory manner against any person using race as an excuse. If this is your mindset, have at it, as long as you don’t act on your silly thoughts in a way that harms people, either though action or inaction.

Understand, however, that we who hear someone make prejudiced exclamations are quite entitled to dismiss them as a weak-minded individual of low character.


Check Your Dirt Poor 3rd World Male Privilege

Check Your Dirt Poor 3rd World Male Privilege

Lana Voreskova said:

At weekends, the teacher meets her friends and they all sit around wondering where all the good men have gone.
/me nods.

Slut: it ain’t about the numbers

From a facebook posting.


The person in this image has misrepresented the sense of of the word slut. She elides the sense that the word slut indicates many partners. Do you call your grandmother, who has had an active sex life with her husband for 60 years as a slut because she’s had a lot of sex? No.

Slut refers to someone who engages in sex indiscriminately with many and any partners,  as someone who lacks discrimination, sound judgment in their choice of sexual partners. The same term is applied to men, and is as much of an insult.

For better or for worse, the quantity of people that one has sex with is used as a factor to assess of how well the individual discriminates. With quantity comes a question of the individual’s judgment, and, those who might be considering having sex with a given person consider their personal risk factors: “Do they use a condom every time? I want to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, and there possibility of a lack of discipline may be indicated.” “If such a person sleeps with so many others, what will others think of me, who presumably knows of their lack of discrimination?”

And of course, all of this touches on our instinctive response to tie sexuality to morality and countless generations where fertility control was not available. The issue is significantly deeper than just pointing a finger and saying “Bad person called her a bad name.”

Tagged ,

Tired of Micro-aggressions?

Tired of micro-aggressions? Try NANO-AGGRESSION!

Tired of micro-aggressions? Try NANO-AGGRESSION!

Nano-aggression™ is smaller and more space efficient!

Nano-aggression™ uses homeopathic techniques to pack more outrage
into a smaller space!

Tagged ,

The Feminist Narrative

The Feminist Narrative

? said _”You have it backward: feminism says men are not “naturally morally depraved” at all, and this “toxic” behavior of being sexually aggressive in inappropriate situations, such as walking on the street, is taught to boys as part of their gender role conditioning.”_

Setting aside that Feminist Theory merely _asserts_ that people are exclusively, or at least primarily driven by “gender roles” without any solid evidence and the the contrary of evidence, consider the ramifications of such a statement. Toxic masculinity is the notion that men are have a sense of entitlement, superiority, they are dominant, violent, predatory–it is all the negative aspects of evil _humans,_ as applied to men as people, with sexuality as the trigger, and that men do this because… ?

1. Such negative behaviour is not intrinsically abhorrent to us: we are morally depraved by nature; or

2. We are too self-unaware of our own behaviour to recognize the effect that it has on others: we are too stupid to recognize or self-correct; or

3. We don’t care: we are psychopaths.

Try as one might, this polite-company, plausibly deniable and obfuscated definition boils down to the very same thing that the nut-cases shout out-loud. A polite rephrasing of the same ideas is merely assent of the core concept while trying to sweep the distastefully blunt under the rug.

_”It’s actually patriarchal types, like male religious leaders, who preach that men can’t control their sex drives, so women must wear burqas, or that if a woman is assaulted, it’s her fault for wearing a sexy outfit, because “what did she expect? You can’t wave meat in front of a tiger.” This is very insulting to men.”_

Consider what you’ve just said here: “patriarchal types.” “Male” religious leaders. These are the people that promote that which Feminists claim to be “toxic” masculine ideals.

What is hidden in your approach is gynocentrism: an exclusively female-centred point of view that fails to account for two things. The first is that there is also a male point of view, which is equally worthy, and bears no relationship to how Feminists portray it. Second is female agency–that of women’s active participation in the world. Feminism lays claim to the female point of view, but it isn’t. It is merely a political ideology. You’ve painted men as perpetrators and women as unwitting victims.

This point of view is not only insulting to men, but to women as well.

_”Feminism seeks to free both sexes from being taught to act out in these stereotypical ways, and allow each person to be who they are without having to live up to an imposed standard of “masculinity” or “femininity”. “_

But this is not so. In the real-world, Feminism is the advocacy for women’s interests, and uses Feminist Theory as a justificatory framework to explain how women are victims to men. And how does it collect funds? By portraying women as victims of men, who are perpetrators. How do they gain power? By promoting that female victims of men must be supported, encouraged, empowered, because don’t we all know, the poor, weak little empty-headed dears aren’t fully adults, so must be protected from the big-bad man-driven world.

The narrative is a simple one: “In the tennis match of life, women are the ball. Care to make a donation?”

Feminism lays claim to the female point of view, but it isn’t. It is merely a political ideology.

Feminism is the very poison that it claims to fight against. The video that Cappy commented on is merely one more example of the ploy of making women look like the victims of men.

Here’s the same experiment reproduced.

But that doesn’t really make for a compelling, fund-raising under-dog story, does it?

Feminism is the new Creationism.

Tagged , ,