The Spectre of feminism


by Alex Thorne

I’ll begin this piece by clumsily using the first line from Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels’ Communist Manifesto: ‘There is a spectre haunting Europe; The spectre of Communism’ [1]. For the purpose of today’s idea, I’d like you to replace the word ‘Communism’ with ‘Feminism’. Sounds ridiculous right? Yeah, definitely, but hear me out if you will.

Sounds ridiculous right?
Yeah, definitely, but hear me out if you will.

The original line itself was a mocking jest of the fear surrounding what sounded like a perfectly egalitarian idea on paper: equal share of property and wealth between all men. If you were against this idea, then you were just some kind of “capitalist pig dog” in the eyes of Marxists. Similarly, if you were to express some doubts about Feminism then you would recieve the same kind of giggling, mocking contempt from Feminists (“How can you be so against equality!? You’re such a misogynist!”)

While I’m certainly not saying that Feminism and Marxism are particularly the same ideology, there are some remarkable similarities that cannot be ignored, which I will outline.

“…What do you mean they have simila…..oh…..”

First, I want to give some explanation as to why I do not support the ideology of feminism, and as a caveat I’m just going to use this article as an outline rather than go into any real depth, because trying to explain every point I want to make here with sources, links, and in-depth analysis would probably take at least 30 pages of writing. I’m pretty sure you haven’t got time to sit through an essay that would endanger a small rainforest if I wanted to print it, so these are all points I will return to in more detail in later articles.

With the in mind, let’s get rolling.

If I were to say the word ‘feminism’ to you what would you immediately think of? Gender equality? Women’s rights? Female empowerment? I guess if you were to look in any dictionary that happens to be at hand you would probably see a definition that reads as follows:

“…The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes…”[2] – Oxford English Dictionary

It sounds great, and I’m all in favour of creating a level of equality between men and women, and social class, races, religions, sexual orientation and preference and all of that. Why not go the whole hog? Well, as I said at the start the topic of equality (and many others that I’ll make reference to) is something that deserves its own article to focus on, so for now I’ll just give a quick encapsulation of my thoughts on that.

Basically, absolute equality in every aspect of life between people of different backgrounds and circumstances is an impossibility. The very least we can try to accomplish is equality of opportunity so people can strive and become the very best they can be within their circumstances.

In regards to the topic at hand I would say that my main gripe with feminism is with those who purport to represent it, in particular those who call themselves the “3rd Wave” and “4th wave,” and the mantra they want to push onto women. According to these feminists, western society and all of western history is based upon a structure of female oppression by male oppressors in the form of “patriarchy.” Because of this oppression by the “patriarchy” women are ultimately powerless objects who have no agency, therefore only Feminism can save women from oppression by smashing the “patriarchy” that keeps them firmly under its jackbooted heel.

“…Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently
dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence…”[3]-Understanding Patriarchy, B.Hooks Louisville Anarchist Federation

“Patriarchy, Fuckface!”

In a nutshell, the notion of an oppressive “patriarchy” going out of its way to subjugate women is utter nonsense.

And that’s before we even get into one of the other main pillars of feminist thought. Alongside the idea of an oppressive patriarchy boogeyman, feminists also constantly trot out the line that western society has a deeply entrenched “rape culture,” an idea which purports that the act of rape is not only unpunished by the legal system, but is actively encouraged as a social norm as part of an oppressive male dominated society.

To once again put a brief assessment on the subject of rape culture I would say that there is a good case to be made that rape cultures do exist in certain parts of the world, but in western society? Certainly not. In The US and Europe at the very least (where most of these 3rd and 4th wave feminists come from) rape is considered one of the most serious crimes you can commit and carries high penal repercussions if you are convicted. Again, more detail will follow in a later write-up, but keep this name in mind; Mary P. Koss.[4][5].

So, on to the reason why I find feminism to be flawed and why I find 3rd and 4th wave feminists so unpalatable.

First, the sheer hypocrisy of these feminists is mind bending. For example, a lot of these feminists will appear on a very popular news program viewed by millions of people or write articles for a national newspaper that has millions of readers talking about how women have no platform to speak, how men are actively seeking to keep women down as a subclass, and all of that piddle. “Women have no voice! We are oppressed and silenced!” trumpets the feminist from her pulpit to millions of people. Yeah, sure.

Another line we hear from feminists besides “We are oppressed and silenced!” is “Men are the cause of all the worlds problems! Women don’t need men to be strong and independent!” Alright then, but when you then see UN funded campaigns fronted by Emma Watson named “He for She”[6] which flat out tells us that “Men are responsible for helping feminism, and the only way women can achieve equality and become strong and independent is with the help of men,” I begin to see a few cracks emerging in the ideological bent of feminists.

Second, alongside the hypocrisy and circular logic being employed is the narcissism and brazen selfishness of feminists. In a feminists mind, any issue must ultimately circle ’round to the main point that it ultimately affects women and makes them the victim.

Domestic violence against men and children? That’s an issue that affects women more than anyone else. Online harassment? Women are the only victims of that, to the point where it cause more post-traumatic stress than being in a war zone (according to this feminist and her twitter followers at least [6]). Violence and sexual assault? Mostly women are the victims of that.

PTSD victim Melody Hensley threatening victims of PTSD (April 13th 2014)

Women, women, women, victim, victim, victim. The constant drone of the victim narrative is just so much white noise that simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when you examine it in any depth (which is exactly what I’m going to do in due time)

Third point; feminists have a strange tendency of monopolising discussion and claiming ownership of certain words and subjects. I have, on three separate occasions at least, come across people who have said things to this effect:

“You want equality for men and women, so I don’t know why you aren’t a feminist.”
“In my view, you are either a feminist or you are against gender equality.”
“You’re a Privileged Middle-Class Straight White Male, so we have the right to tell you how to think about feminism.”
“You should educate yourself.”

I’m not sure who decreed that ‘equality’ equalled ‘feminism’ or was a word that only feminists could use, I’m pretty certain that women are not a hive-minded creature who all share exactly the same thoughts and experiences, and I certainly don’t know what my background or biology has to do with my thoughts and experiences on ideologies either. The third example seems especially rich since the vast majority of 3rd and 4th wave feminists seem to be of a decidedly Upper-Middle Class Straight White persuasion, and that last one simply tells me that the individual in question is unable to have any kind of discussion (more on pseudo-intellectuals later…)

Fourth, and probably most pertinent to my mind, the quote from Bell Hooks gives a fine encapsulation of everything I find objectionable about 3rd wave feminists. They constantly speak of how women cannot help themselves because of the male dominated culture which objectifies them, pointing out increasingly ridiculous examples of supposedly oppressive male behaviours (look up terms like ‘Manspreading’, ‘Mansplaining’ and ‘sexist air conditioning’ to see but a few of these ridiculous ideas), and telling women that these oppressions inflicted upon them by men makes them powerless.

For an ideology that’s so hell-bent on empowering women they seem very eager to point out how weak women are, gleefully jumping on any example of supposed inequality they can find whilst simultaneously rejecting any examples which prove contrary to their idea that women are objects with no self-determination. That’s how feminists want women to be; powerless, helpless, fragile, weak. When we see strong successful women telling the media that they are not feminists but believe in gender equality, they are hounded and bullied by feminists until they change their mind and “become” feminists themselves. Kaley Cuoco is a prime example[9] and while she hasn’t necessarily succumbed to the pressure and “become” a feminist (note how her apology was very much tongue in cheek), Kirsten Dunst, Taylor Swift and Scarlett Johansson have all been subject to this sort of harassment by feminist ideologues and have not been so resilient.

You would think that feminists would love strong women who have made it to the top by themselves, but this is not the case. Remarkably, feminists actually loathe these women who have “…internalised their own misogyny…” (Hilarious as that sounds, this is something feminists actually say)

Subtitle: ….except for people who aren’t feminists

This tells me something about feminists. They aren’t interested in women, or women’s rights, or helping women become empowered. They only care about themselves and their ideology, using women as pawns (or objects if you will) to push their own sense of moral righteousness, and in some cases their careers.

So how is feminism like marxism (and to some extent the communism offshoot)? Well, think about the main tenets of Marks and Engels theory:

Peasants have always been a historically oppressed class, dominated and subjugated by the Bourgeoise. The Bourgeoise have exploited peasants for their own advantage. The peasants are unable to help themselves or recognise their own oppression because they are uneducated and need guidance. The revolution of Peasants against Bourgeoise can only be orchestrated by The Proletariat. Any who oppose the objective of the revolution must be considered an enemy of the revolution. Now what I want you to do is replace some of the words in this way:

Women = Peasants
Men = The Bourgeoise/Patriarchy
Feminists = The Proletariat

It’s funny what changing certain words can reveal, and this is exactly what feminists have done. Not to mention that Bell Hooks is also a marxist feminist writer. Rather than looking at oppression through a “class” structure, she replaces class dynamics with gender dynamics (women are the underclass, men are the bourgeoisie) but keeps the collectivist ideal that was pushed forward under Stalin .(Our idea of Feminism is the correct one. If you don’t agree, you are the enemy.) This idea has been fully embraced by the 3rd and 4th wave of Feminism and its proponents.

Using the original Marx quote in a serious sense now, there is indeed a spectre haunting Europe. Feminists would tell you that it is “Patriarchy” I would argue that it is feminism.


Twitter “PTSD”

[2] Oxford English Dictionary
[4] (a link to a PDF copy of Mary P. Koss’s original study. Download is free)
[5] (A brief summary of the study)
[7] veterans/
[8] (Australian Senator accurately summarises why the term ‘mansplaining’ is complete nonsense)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Reader Submission

Honey Badger Brigade publishes select reader submissions which are in line with our submissions policy. Publication does not constitute endorsement of the statements contained in published posts. Intellectual debate is greatly encouraged. Submissions may be sent to
Avatar art by Daniel Vancise, dvancise_arts on instagram, vantooner on youtube

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="154484">1 comment</span>

  • All ideologies have a basic structure that they all conform to. Feminism, fundamentalist religions, Marxism, anarcho-capitalism, etc. Not all followers of the above are ideologues, but many are. One defining characteristic of ideologies is the “us vs them”, along with twisting morality to their ideology.

    Personally, I’d say Marxism should be incompatible with feminism, as I don’t see how you can call the same thing wage slavery and male privilege. Marxist-feminists generally do reject liberal feminism as simply women trying to get into the capitalist system, but they fail to see what that implies for the role of men.

    And to go further, you could argue that a housewife is a capitalist, in that she is entitled to a portion of her husband’s labor, without partaking in that labor.

By Reader Submission

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather