The language of radical feminism

So I have been, over the past few months or so, occasionally finding myself checking out the feminism movement. What I've wanted to find out is whether it is for me, whether I should take part and help, and what the problems are that they are addressing. What I found has been astounding. The feminism movement largely lacks rationality, and operates under the same fervour as religious fanatics, anti-vaccers and other screammy movements.

One thing that marks an irrational movement is the language in use. They often take terms and redefine them subtly to mean something else. The original emotional attachment to the word remains, but the actual definition has changed to something more benign. I will note some of the words here.

The Patriarchy

A monarchy is the rule of a single person over a nation, a kleptocracy is when thieves rule,  and a patriarchy is when men rule. About two hundred years ago it would have been clear that men rule. A great modern example is the theocracies in the middle east, where women do not chose their husbands, are not allowed to drive, and are often forced to have their genitals mutilated for whatever perverse reasons. Patriarchy in modern western society is hardly obvious. A great way to see how patriarchy is not a problem as it is in the middle east, is the fact that radical feminists get to speak out. They get to say whatever they want! Another great example is the rise of females in just about every field including women in the military, women in politics, women in engineering, science, etc...

Income gaps are also closing:

One important factor with rights movements and inequality is that rights movements precede equality, sometimes by long stretches of time. Those disaffected by the old systems, or still culturally bound by their membership in conservative communities make progress lag considerably behind the big wins of equality under law.


I have seen this term being kicked around by feminists and the definition has essentially changed from "sex without consent" to "sex with tenuous consent". For instance a rather strange definition I have encountered deals with inebriation. If both the parties are drunk, it is said that the women could not have given proper consent, and thus it is concluded that it was rape.

Sex is essentially made into a power struggle, where men are trying to force women into sex on every other occasion.  Whenever you disagree with feminists on their ever widening definition of rape, you are called a rape apologist.

Rape apologist

Someone who condones rape but does not take part in it. Keep in mind that the definition of rape has been mangled at this point to include as many as possible sexual encounters. This term is essentially used against any dissenter of feminist opinion, without any regard or serious treatment of the points made. Once someone has been labelled a rape apologist, it is more than likely that they will just get screamed at, and in the case of online communications their comments are deleted and they are banned from commenting again.

Engaging with your opposition in an objective way is important, demonizing your opponents only makes you look unreasonable. Telling someone that they are a rape apologist happens to be one of the worst ways of getting them on your side.

Male privilege

This is another interesting way of shutting down any objective discussion by claiming that male commentary comes from a position of privilege. There exists some male privilege in western society today, enforced by the backwards conservative views that seem to live on even after they have suffered the ultimate defeat under law and in the minds of liberally thinking individuals.

You would imagine that there are guys commenting on how it is important that women stay in the kitchen, that men get all the top jobs because they are naturally better at them or any other statements in that vein. However quite shockingly modern feminism is only too eager to cheapen their own terminology by using it on unsuspecting liberally minded male individuals.


Where does that leave the modern feminism movement? If you can picture women with bullhorns screaming catchphrases, you pretty much got the picture. Of course the equal rights movement chugs on behind the scenes trying to bring about subtle policy changes and also consists of women doing equal rights in a really shocking way: by showing their male counterparts that they are equally, and often more capable, instead of trying to force their place at the head of the table.

If we want a productive and forward thinking society we need all of humanity to take part in getting us there. We cannot relegate women to second place, nor can we try to shove them into the first place in order to make up for the past. This generation of males had no part to play in the oppression of women, why treat them with such contempt, and ignore their voices? The feminism movement is taking its greatest potential allies and throwing them out of their exclusive club. I can't imagine that the movement will gain any more traction than the previous radical feminism groups did.