Feminism rests on three basic assumptions. For obvious reasons they express them simultaneously only when they think they can get away with it.
The first is that men and women are inherently equivalent. Deep down, we’re all fundamentally the same, save the pernicious effects of patriarchal socialization. The only reasons we don’t have as many female mechanical engineers as males is that women have been trained to either dislike engineering or have been taught to feel unworthy of even giving it a try. The only reason there aren’t as many male daycare workers as females is that men have been trained to see “women’s work” as unmanly. We can rectify such imbalances through society-wide re-socialization programs: teach boys and girls to both play with trucks and dolls, have lots of kid movies with badass female protagonists (for both kids and adults), encourage young women to enter STEM fields while simultaneously training young men to get in touch with their soft side, etc.
The second is that women are uniquely superior to men. Men have been responsible for the vast majority of economic oppression, wars, violence, and broken hearts since the beginning of time. Despite having only one inherent advantage (physical strength, which they admit only grudgingly), the world over men have used their uniquely evil lust for power to oppress both women and each other. Whereas women prefer sensitivity, community, cooperation, and egalitarianism, men prefer toughness, individuality, competition, and hierarchy. To properly evolve we need to forsake the latter in favor of the former, to base promotion and hiring decisions on touchy-feely notions like “corporate culture” instead of masculine merit. Men see only their own naked interest, but women instinctively understand what’s best for all of us.
The third is one they’ll never admit, but if we follow the Game principle of “watch what she does, not what she says”, we find that it’s also true that feminists believe that women are uniquely inferior to men. Although women supposedly have the same basic emotional makeup as men, only women require trigger warnings to keep them on an even keel. Although Ashton at the local Country Day school has far more opportunities to explore math and science as Billy Bob Jr. at the trailer park, only Ashton needs to have her hand held every step of the way on her way to becoming an engineer. Without government programs encouraging women to make the right career choices, they’ll invariably choose something stupid like “housewife.” Without government redistribution schemes, they’ll never survive the ramifications of their dumb mating choices.
Violent crime is horrific for all those who experience it, but only rape requires we re-program half our species to prevent it (when’s the last time you’ve heard a feminist fervently support any sort of “war on crime”?). Women need extra support groups and “women in business” luncheons to have any hope of competing with the men. Involuntarily celibate men are perfectly capable of just sucking it up, but involuntarily celibate women (usually obese) require infinite amounts of emotional support from everyone.
We often accuse the left (not only feminists) of equalism, the notion that underneath the surface we’re basically all the same. Whether we’re speaking of race or sex, I disagree. Indeed, the left often spouts an equalist rhetoric, there’s nothing about their underlying philosophy that supports the notion in the slightest that they actually believe in anything other than a strict system of hierarchy of value, rights, and responsibilities.
For example, take Retrenched’s description of modern entitlement:
The prevailing idea in the modern west is that women always have an absolute right to receive whatever it is they happen to want from men – sex, love, relationships, marriage, children, bullet shields etc. – but men must always earn whatever it is they want from women, whether it’s sex, love, marriage, or even the right to see their children post-divorce. Men’s worthiness must be continually proven, all the time, while women’s worthiness and perfection are just presumed by default, regardless of their character or behavior, and are never to be questioned under any circumstances.
This bias towards women’s inherent worthiness [compared to men’s relative worthlessness] is so pervasive that to even suggest that women must earn things like love and marriage the way that men must earn sex is considered vicious misogyny.
How can one reconcile such sentiments with anything even remotely resembling a view that we’re fundamentally the same?
You can’t, and I don’t think we should try. Not unlike the postmodernists who preach that all cultures are equal only so that they can later sneak in their true belief that Western Civilization is uniquely evil, feminists promote equalism only in hopes of securing special rights and privileges for women and women alone. To promote the idea that our enemy is leftist equalism is to posit that their rhetoric somehow matches their real beliefs. It doesn’t.
Yet we also mistakenly assume that the sense of entitlement stems only from a belief in the superiority of whatever group they’re hoping to support. In a sense it does, for they believe that women (or gays, blacks, etc.) deserve everybody else’s stuff. It’s more important for Chrissy to get her pills with your money than it is for you to keep what you earned.
However, coupled with the belief that Chrissy is more worthy of your money than you are is the unexpressed assumption that without you, Chrissy can’t cut it. White males sometimes go through financial hardship, too. On one hand, they don’t give a damn (unless it looks they might be able to get him to vote Democrat), but on the other hand they just assume that the white guy will be fine if we don’t do a damn thing to help him.
In my taxonomy of leftists, I divided the left into three basic groups. The Anointed believe that they’re fundamentally superior to the rest of us, sufficiently enlightened to know how the rest of us should run our lives, which of us need help and who should do the helping. In unscientific formula, this is written as I>U (pronounced I am greater than you) or I=G (I am G-d). The Benighted feel guilty, unworthy of their lives, they’re willing to give it all away. They’re formula is I<U, or I=A (all I am is dust in the wind).
But the feminist Entitled are a mixture, worthy of the fruits of your labor, incapable of surviving without them (most male feminists are Benighted). The Entitled believe both I>U and I<U, that they are both gods and victims. They’re just like men but uniquely superior, just as capable of any man but forever in need of extra help.
They don’t believe in the equalism of rights (equality before the law), nor equalism of human worth (we’re equal in value before God), nor equalism of ability, nor biological equalism. They believe women deserve and need special rights, women are uniquely gifted and morally superior, and women can’t make in on their own without men, even though they can.
Whether equalism is great, awful, or somewhere in between, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what feminists actually believe.