Feminism as Mitigation?

Quoted from here:

Imagine there is a belief system that allows you to get away with any mistake you have ever made and promises you not only freedom from any negative consequences, but accolades and rewards as well.

No matter what you do, this belief system will be always ready to swoop down and defend you from the harsh realities of life, extracting concessions from soceity for your benefit. This system will protect you from all forms of judgement regardless of what you do, will always be willing to fight for your immediate interests, and will always be ready to come up with ways to deliver what you desire no matter the cost to others. It’s an ideology that seeks to provide unlimited benefits and freedom to you.

Wouldn’t it be great? Wouldn’t you want to believe in it? The bad consequences of everything you do will be mitigated.

There is an ideology that promises all that, all you need to do is to jump on the bandwagon.

That ideology is feminism. Feminism is mitigation.



Umm… wha?

Feminism is not and has never been about protecting anyone from any kind of judgement. It’s about ensuring that a woman can enjoy the same pay for the same work as a man, it’s about a woman feeling safe when walking home from work or an event. It’s about educating men not to carry out acts of violence against women, because of some false idea in their heads that how a woman dresses somehow entitles them to anything from that woman. The false narrative of protecting children (who do not have the worldly experience or education to no better) creates an incorrect dichotomy – and it is a silent appeal to say ‘men don’t have to change, or take responsibility for our actions, it’s all on the woman’.

This unspoken yet insinuated suggestion is exposed later on:

Feminism demands that you praise a woman if she acts like a slut and renders herself a poor long term relationship risk, painting her as a woman who is liberated and living it up while calling any criticism of that behaviour misogynistic.

The trouble with this argument is, we have as men been free to indulge in womanising without consequence for ages. Being a Lothario is seen as a good thing – yet when a woman does it, it’s to be decried. So it is misogynistic – not to mention hypocritical – to attack this behaviour in women. It is either unacceptable for both sexes or acceptable for both – yet this is a point that this sort of SJW rarely, if ever, makes.

Feminism demands that you call morbidly obese women beautiful and ignore that most of them got that way because they have poor self-control and can’t be bothered to take care of their bodies. Feminism further demands that you need to pay for the costs they will eventually incur on the medical system due to their obesity.

Feminism doesn’t promote obesity. What it does ‘promote’ is the idea that harassing people who suffer weight problems is wrong, which it is. It is a gross over-simplification to assume the problem is self-control (it certainly won’t be true for all cases), but even if it is self-control, no one wants to be obese. No one courts it, no one enjoys it, and slamming people who are is not ok. In fact, this is isn’t even a feminist notion – this is basic good behaviour 101 – don’t post harassing and cruel jibes on Facebook or Twitter, don’t point at people and mock them, and then try to call it ‘helping them’.

Feminism demands that you lionise single mothers as the bravest and pour your resources into helping them, never mind if many of them got that way though their own poor choices. Feminists will demand that you place them above mothers who have put the effort into making sure their children have been raised in a healthy, functioning traditional family units.

Zero mention of the possibility that the men in these relationships have abandoned their partners and children. Could becoming a single mother be the result of a poor life choice? Quite possibly. However, it takes two to tango, and the men seem to get a free pass in the eyes of Talon. Note also the idea that a single mother can’t possibly raise healthy, well-adjusted kids (I know for a fact they can, and I know for a fact of some of the circumstances a woman can find herself alone with children to raise. Talon, once again, over-simplifies).

Feminism will demand that soceity accept women virtually sterilising themselves by delaying childbearing and letting their maternal instincts atrophy in the name of careerism, and further request that men consider that these women who have virtually no value proposition in a marriage as the most attractive sort.


I mean… what?! Aside from the complete absence of any material data to support this conclusion, feminism doesn’t mean anything of the sort. Feminism is fundamentally about freeing up the options for women to have careers. Women are not merely vehicles for child-bearing and child-rearing, which is the implication of that particular paragraph.

Women may also choose to balance a work life with a home life – and men have this option too, except this is usually glossed over by those who would define masculinity in very narrow terms.

I’m not going to pick apart any more of the article, but I firmly encourage you, the reader, to take a look and dismantle it yourselves. Consider this homework people, let’s see the results in seven days!

Back to Feminism



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.