Demolishing Feminism and Equality

In this article I present the data-driven argument that feminism is a fundamental cause of unhappiness and dysfunction in society. Defeating it, and teaching our children a sound anthropology, is essential to restoring order and a healthy social life.

The crisis of our current social systems is inextricably linked to the rise of feminism. Feminism seeks to abolish the traditional understanding of family and citizenship and “disrupt the structure of society”. It also frames very dangerous theories (social structure, gender, engineering societies), Contemporary feminism claims that women by nature did not choose motherhood, family, modesty, and domesticity; that this happens due to pressure from men and patriarchy, or that they are forced to do so, in order to control them more easily.

Feminism claims that women must form independent identities through creative work and sexual liberation to fulfill their duty, and that if they do so, women will also become free and happy.

On the other hand, to us “feminist critics” this all sounds like an attempt to suppress, distort or deny women’s human nature with an artificial ideology. And that women in general would be happier with motherhood, family life, and home near the center of their lives.

We also believe that directing women to avoid childbirth and embrace sexual promiscuity and permanent employment will make women more unhappy because permanent relationships based on the traditional family will favor the mother rather than one-night stands.

The West’s experience over the past fifty years has shown us a new kind of woman. This new woman is more independent, less motherly, more athletic, and more promiscuous. This new woman is more independent, less maternal, more athletic, and more promiscuous. Which begs the question: is she also happier and more content?

Women in the post-feminist West have far more paid work than pre-feminist women, enter more job categories, control births, and have more higher education than men, according to some reports from official institutions.

In 1974 about one-third of women with children under the age of three were working; now that figure is close to two-thirds. More women are working as lawyers and doctors, and Western women are breaking into science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields.

And that women have not “kept up with men’s levels” due to the well-known gap. As women’s overall wages, measured in total, have not continued to rise according to the feminist reading, it seems we still have a long way to go with them from the empowerment farce.

But reality seems to be failing feminism even in the West. Studies show that there are two types of women: Professionals (about a quarter of women) or women who either want to balance work and family life or focus exclusively on family (the remaining 75%).

Many female doctors and lawyers work and prefer to work part-time. Polls in 2013 and 2015 show that most mothers with children under the age of 18 would prefer to work part-time or not work at all if they could change that.

It seems that women’s preference for part-time work or staying at home actually rises as income increases. Harvard sociologist Alexandra Kellewald found that at least 60% of mothers with children under the age of 18 do not work full-time. Most Dutch women prefer to work part-time.

Studies show the same thing in the Nordic countries, even as feminist journalists question and slap at the BBC about how this can happen in “enlightened” countries like Sweden.

The same gap exists in sexual promiscuity. It’s true that women in the West have more sexual partners over the course of their lives than they did before feminism

(about 2 partners for those born before 1930 to about 5 for most women born after 1950 – see Figure 2 of this study), but there is still a significant gap at the level of the number of sexual partners between men and women.

Some studies suggest that men have an average of 14.14 partners in a lifetime, while women have 7.12; most studies see men having twice as many partners than women worldwide.

A study of college students between 1965 and 1985 showed that despite increased promiscuity across the board, openness and liberalization, men still had far more sexual partners.

A 2003 meta-study showed that men around the world want to have up to 6 sexual partners continuously over a lifetime; while women’s desire was capped at two.

Despite increases in promiscuity and nudity in the West between women and men, women are still less interested in casual sex than men. Western women today who behave like men in this regard are less likely to be happy.

Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Ocker present data showing that women with more sexual partners are more likely to be depressed, take antidepressants, and cry every day than women with fewer partners. But the number of partners for men appears to have nothing to do with these factors.

The number of partners does not seem to affect men as much as women (see pages 140-141) in the study. They conclude that: “there is a link about sex and women’s emotional health” (p. 138). Another study showed that women with multiple sexual partners are 11 times more likely to show signs of depression than virgins.

Science shows a lot of differences. Science sees the full-time work gap and the promiscuity gap as expressions of natural differences. Such gaps will grow when societies enable women to follow their natural preferences.

However, feminism argues that such gaps and differences are the remnants of patriarchal education, and thus can be remedied if the government passes a stricter sexual harassment system or countries continue to give endless advantages to women.

Do these gaps come from natural sexual differences or patriarchal upbringing? Should we try to eliminate these gaps with greater feminist reforms or should we stop for science and recognize that this is the nature of women?

In the first part, we explained some of the fixed differences between the sexes and came to the big question, do these gaps come from natural sexual differences or patriarchal upbringing? Should we try to eliminate these gaps with feminist reforms or should we stop and acknowledge that this is the nature of women?

To answer this question, we have to dig a little deeper to see the levels of happiness and satisfaction of post-feminist women. Betsy Stevenson and Justin Wolfers noted the “paradox of declining female happiness” in an article published in 2009. Their findings: ”

Women’s happiness has dropped dramatically and proportionally to the level of men’s happiness, women no longer report being happier than men and, in many cases, now report less happiness than men, This shift has occurred in most of the industrialized world.” The number of women and schoolgirls reporting levels of happiness or a sense of fulfillment is dropping dramatically, according to the survey. Feminism seems to be in trouble, another gap coming down the road regarding human happiness against all feminist expectations, Even the harshest critics of Stevenson and Wolfers’ research can’t help but nibble at the edges of this relative gap, while acknowledging that women today are generally more unhappy than they were in 1970.

Women aren’t just less happy after the feminist takeover of Western culture: They’re even more depressed than they used to be. A 2017 meta-analysis, for example, found that about 10% of women are depressed, while only about 5% of men are affected.

Surprisingly, the depression gap was greater in countries that emphasize gender equality. “In the main depression meta-analysis, gender differences in depression diagnosis were greater in countries where women had more reproductive control, and held more executive positions.”

Researchers measure depression according to consistent professional standards, allowing for comparison over time. The numbers of depressed females can be as high as 22%, according to a 2012 study measuring major depressive episodes (MDE) in a single year.

MDE rates were much lower in previous generations, with rates ranging between 6.3 and 8.6%

The same differences were found in a 1989 meta-analysis of studies between 1960-1975, which found that women in developed countries such as the United States and Sweden were two to three times more likely to be depressed while there was no gap in more traditional countries, A similar study in 1992 found that newer baby boomers are at greater risk of depression, Europe and America have significantly greater rates of depression than Pacific Rim countries.The highest rate of female depression among older generations was only 3.7%

With depression comes the use of antidepressants. There are many factors that explain the use of antidepressants, including the development of more and better drugs. However, we see the same (paradoxical!) depression gap

The gap is growing between men and women and female use is increasing over time. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study showed a 65% increase in antidepressant use among Americans over the age of 12 between 1999-2014.

About 16.5% of women take antidepressant medications versus only 8.6% of men. Utilization is especially high among white females)

Suicide rates follow the same pattern. Males commit suicide more often, but the growth in female suicide rates is greater. While 21 males per 100,000 committed suicide in 2016, the comparable number for females is 6 per 100,000. However, male rates grew by 21% between 2000 and 2016 while female rates grew by 50%

Such a large increase for a small number may be misleading, but the overall trend is consistent with other indicators,

So are suicide attempts, which are difficult to measure. What some scientists call the “gender paradox of suicide” – which is another contradiction! – is that men commit suicide more often than women, but women attempt suicide more often than men. Three women try to harm themselves for every man.

This gap and these rates stabilized between 1990-1992 and 2001-2003. However, the severity of the attempts rose at the same time for females, with 153 emergency room visits per 100,000 people in the later time period, compared to just 83 in the earlier period.

But the number classified as urgent dropped from 95 to 70 during those periods. Most of the increase appears to have been among girls who are less likely to commit suicide.

Feminists have made arguments about why it’s important for society to embrace the New Woman’s vision. I’ve shown you how unsuccessful this vision is. Betty Friedan and other feminists in the 1960s and 1970s tried to liberate housewives, thinking that the happiness to come would be greater.

But the data seems to show that the offspring of these feminists are more likely to take antidepressants, and less likely to find their lives fulfilling, than their mothers.

The preference for part-time work, dissatisfaction with casual sex, female unhappiness, depression, or suicidal thoughts are, according to the feminist interpretation, because our world is not feminist enough, even though all these figures have been rising in tandem with the advancement of feminism in the West.

This is not just an academic debate. Our young men and women, who are more than ever immersed in the culture of feminist assumptions, should know that they are being duped. This soulless ideology, created by some leftists, directs our youth towards demagoguery and anger.

Their anger, fueled by the destruction of their families by elite ideology, which in turn has become a “weapon” targeting the family. Corruption and poverty, the cause of the greatest degree of our urban ills, are ignored, and all efforts are directed at destroying the family. These are real paradoxes – or rather, they can be seen as crying jokes!

By: Abu Osama

Link to the author’s account below