Some dude: "Feminism is illogical, unnecessary and evil."

Posted at 10:33 AM Aug 03, 2009

By Andrea Grimes

Feminism1.jpg

Looks like the folks at Psychology Today spent their Sunday arguing over whether or not feminism is "illogical, unnecessary and evil." Thank god somebody at a respected academic-ish publication has finally tackled this issue. Rush Limbaugh and the Quiverfull bunch must be thrilled with evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa. (Wait, is that the dude who changed my life with Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, you ask? It is!) His blog entry on the magazine's website argues that feminists don't understand history, their own brains, or the power of a nice set of tits. Mostly, his argument (if you can call wanky posturing an "argument") boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of everything to do with feminism.

Kanazawa writes:

"An insurmountable body of evidence by now conclusively demonstrates that the vanilla assumption is false; men and women are inherently, fundamentally, and irreconcilably different.  Any political movement based on such a spectacularly incorrect assumption about human nature - that men and women are and should be identical - is doomed to failure."

FAIL number one: feminists do not argue that men and women are identical. Feminists believe that men and women should be treated equally. But man, you'd have to Google "feminism" to find that out, so it's understandable that he could have missed it.

However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare - longevity and reproductive success - women are and have always been slightly better off than men.  In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring.
FAIL number two: sorry, ladies, you are not worse off than men, and you never have been. You live longer--even though you're likely to live unhappier, abused and oppressed lives--and you get to have BABIES! What the hell do you need feminism for?

And now, Kanazawa's pièce de résistance:

Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don't control these resources, because they don't have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.

See, ladies!? If you're young and beautiful, you're like Donald Fucking Trump! You don't need feminism! Fuck all those ugly old ladies, anyway, right!? All you have to do is use your sexuality to manipulate idiot men with boners for brains--don't you want to do that? Don't you want to fuck me to get ahead, my little graduate assistant?!--and you are on top of the world! Or at least on top of the guy who's on top of the world, and that's just as good!

For a far more moving, better thought-out rebuttal to This Asshole, check out Gina Barreca's Psychology Today blog entry in response, "Satoshi Kanazawa is just so cute when he rails against feminists!"

Comments

Jaime said:

Oooh! I think I get it now. We do have all the power because we get to control the men (we do?) who technically have all the power, so even though we don't have any power of our own the belief that what all women want is to control men rather than have that power ourselves leads to the assumption that this is what actually gives us all the power! Phew, glad I got that one figured out, I can quit with this whole pesky 'feminism' business.

Do these people just surround themselves with likeminded folk? It just confuses me that there was not one person who read that before it was published and didn't think to say 'erm hang on a minute....'

TUP said:

As I understand it, feminism is all about having your cake and eating it too if you're a woman. If you want to be a slut, then you can be sexually promiscuous, and simultaneously complain about all those guys who want to have sex with you. If you want to have high standards, then you can brag about being high class, and complain about the low number of guys who meet your standards at the same time. You can go on about being just as good as, if not SUPERIOR to men, and then complain when they don't make special concessions to you because you're a woman.

Bottom line, feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil, however I would never think to make feminists understand that, since they have an obvious self interest. When I see the large number of divorced people in the US, the unhappily divorced and married men, and the unhappily married WOMEN, that is more than enough to convince me that feminism is a crock of shit. You'll rarely see an unhappy divorced woman, because she has what she was after, kids and a child support check. You'll never see a happily married woman who has been married for more than two years, cause all men are pigs, and regardless of anything he's done for her, it hasn't been enough. And when you consider that the divorce rate in the US is 50%, with 70% of those initiated by women, and that number is going up due to the recession, that is proof enough that women don't marry for love, they marry for money, and if you're a man, you need to protect your interests, namely by keeping them away from women.

kris said:

Obvious troll is obvious.

Anna said:

The divorce rate (and the suspicious percentage of those initiated by women) is hardly proof that women marry for money. It's really insulting in the 21st century to say that a woman would regress to the status of women in the old days who couldn't earn money unless they were whores. Maybe, just maybe, the divorce rate has something to do with the fact that girls are inundated with the message that they have to get married to be happy. All that the 50% divorce rate proves is that message is bullshit. Neither young men nor young women today know what it is to share a life with someone and gamble your happiness on that partnership. Marriage means something else to my generation: even husbands and wives are completely disposable.

Mjx said:

Yep, another one who doesn't understand (or chooses to disregard/wilfully misunderstand others as disregarding) the difference between 'same' and 'equal'.
Unfortunately, this problem is incredibly pervasive, and affects pretty much anything to do with human beings. But anyone who insists on understanding feminism this way is clearly riding an agenda... what worries me is that this author's work will pass as science to many, simply because of his affiliation with a university.

Brittan said:

I'm going to go weep for humankind now.

Hannah-nator said:

Yet more proof that evolutionary psychology is not a real academic discipline, and the entire UT department should be dismantled, AND their entire budget given to us. (no, no, not self-interested AT ALL)

Ann Valentine said:

This is part of the anti-feminist backlash fueled by the misogynist branch of the Psychology discipline. Most of Psychology is misogynist and, as a department, they seem to have undertaken the noble pursuit of putting the women back in their place. They will not succeed not matter how much of a forum they give to ridiculous assholes like Satoshi. It is unfortunate; now women have to deal with a greater degree of male entitlement because of these publications, which leads to abuse and discrimination in the work force, and less peer support for the abuse and discrimination. But we aren't going to stop. We aren't going to throw up our hands and go "Oh well I guess those Psychologists were right afterall! Here is my paycheck". We aren't giving up our pay checks or our right to divorce or not even marry jerk men. Because eventually when we do achieve economic freedom from men, women won't even marry them any longer. What are men going to do? Change the constitution? America will fall before we give up our rights under it.

Mojito said:

FAIL number one: feminists do not argue that men and women are identical. Feminists believe that men and women should be treated equally. But man, you'd have to Google "feminism" to find that out, so it's understandable that he could have missed it.

You are misinterpreting what he said. He said that in feminism there is the ASSUMPTION of men and women being equal baring lifelong gender socialization and patriarchy. He never said feminism's position is that men and women are identical. Actually, what do you mean by "identical"? In his text it is obvious he is talking of biological and social identity. In yours I don't know.

FAIL number two: sorry, ladies, you are not worse off than men, and you never have been. You live longer--even though you're likely to live unhappier, abused and oppressed lives--and you get to have BABIES! What the hell do you need feminism for?

He didn't say women have not been worse off than men. He said that in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare women have always been generally better off than men. He's saying that when we compare how well off men and women are we always forget that we are different. I've seen feminists showing me graphs how salaries are on average lower for women as a problem, I haven't had one (not to say they don't exist) showing a graph on how men live less and succumb to disease and crime more often as a problem.

He's saying that it's hard to compare who is better or worse off because we are wired (biologically) differently. Scientific data shows that women live happier lives than men. Women are more oppressed and abused in some areas, while men are in other. Look at domestic violence statistics and then violent crime and drug use statistics. Don't make sweeping generalizations based on thin air, you don't help anyone, men or women.

See, ladies!? If you're young and beautiful, you're like Donald Fucking Trump! You don't need feminism! Fuck all those ugly old ladies, anyway, right!? All you have to do is use your sexuality to manipulate idiot men with boners for brains--don't you want to do that? Don't you want to fuck me to get ahead, my little graduate assistant?!--and you are on top of the world! Or at least on top of the guy who's on top of the world, and that's just as good!

Again, you failed to understand what is said. He is saying that in a large part the reason why females in most species (including homo sapiens) did not evolve to seek power and status is because power and status are used by males to impress females. It is a fact of biological life that beautiful young women have some sort of power over males, they possess something males want. It's also another fact of life that females are attracted, by basis of their biological evolution, to certain kinds of men, such as men with power or status. As usual you paint a cliche situation with the man as evil and the poor girl being tempted to use her beauty to get ahead. As if there's not plenty of the reverse -- a girl tempting a poor old man who can't get sex with her attractive legs. But of course, that idiot old man has a boner for a brain for feeling such a strong sexual impulse and succumbing right? It has nothing to do with his biology for sure...

You might wish we were not sophisticated monkeys, but we are.

Don said:

Mojito:

What he said was "feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil."

He isn't arguing a nuanced position. With that title, it's absurd to pretend he is.

You say: "He never said feminism's position is that men and women are identical."

But in the second paragraph, he says: "First, modern feminism is illogical because, as Pinker points out, it is based on the vanilla assumption that, but for lifelong gender socialization and pernicious patriarchy, men and women are on the whole identical."

I pretty much stopped reading your post there.

If you're going to be a troll, at least try to be an interesting one.

© 2014 Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy Policy