Tweet

Radical feminism; it’s a problem, not an answer. “The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men,” you’ll never guess as to what that definition pertains. It’s the definition of feminism. Yes, believe it or not it sounds like it has good intentions, at least when it formed and started to become a big social movement. So, why do we have these radicals that treat men as beneath human and subpar?

First off, whatever definition people give you for radical feminism, if it’s not about the hatred of men, the belief in superiority to men or destruction of all male presence, then I’m not talking about those feminists. I have a favorable opinion of what some would remark as “true feminism,” (however fallacious that term may be) but the moment you treat men or anyone as unequal, I can’t accept your beliefs. Not as a man, but as a human being I cannot say that I believe anyone is superior to anyone.

The patriarchy, a lot of radical feminists believe in this only male powered, hierarchal structure. This may be the case in some less socially developed places in the world, but in countries like America, The United Kingdom and most parts of Western Europe, there is no patriarchy.
The U.K. has Queen Elizabeth, who’s been presiding over her people for over 60 years. Germany, a country infamously known for being anti-Semitic, has had a female chancellor since 2005. In more progressive countries, there is little to no patriarchy, at least not a formal system that controls the gender of elected officials. Hillary Clinton wouldn’t probably be even a thought for a presidential candidate if there was some supreme patriarchy here in America, but I guarantee if she doesn’t win that some will consider it a sign of patriarchy, of course I might too after hearing what Trump said in 2005…

In this day and age, a majority of people would say that chivalry is dead. A small portion would even go so far as to say a man can do no right and that men are even discriminated against at times. The moral gray area of what people believe is appropriate for the other sex to do is extremely hypocritical in terms of equality.

There are videos, littered with inappropriate and irrational responses that deserve no attention or support, of radical feminists saying that they are disgusted and triggered by things as simple as a hula girl. Yes, a little dashboard ornament that’s supposed to be a characteristic of Hawaiian culture, but not representative of it, can trigger one of these radical feminists. At this point, they should just be referred to as ridiculous feminists.

The last thing I’d like to note about is the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. To put it in my own words, it’s like when a person in a group has the innate ability to purify the group that they belong to by simply saying “Well, no true (Scotsman, Christian, Muslim, Feminist, etc.) would do that.” It allows for almost anything and everything to happen in a faction without the whole as an establishment taking blame for any false or morally incorrect notions. It’s a scapegoat way out of any repercussions.

Sure, a lot of feminists might not deem the actions of their peers as a highlight of morally intrinsic value, but that does not mean that they are not feminists. Simply put, they belong to another category of feminism, radical feminism. Radical feminism does not adhere to the common beliefs of those who seek equality. Radical feminism is a misuse of feminism and deserves no place in this already bigoted world.