Gender Equivalence FAQ

Contents

Q: You say that you are opposed to feminism, doesn’t that make you a misogynist?
Q: Surely, you make general statements about ‘feminists’? Not all feminists think the same things.
Q: Hasn’t it been proven that there are differences in the topography of men and women’s brains?
Q My Mom says that men who oppose feminism and bitter and twisted because they can’t get a girlfriend.

Q: You say that you are opposed to feminism, doesn’t that mean that you are misogynistic?

No. This is a common misconception that affects many people who identify as anti-feminist.

The central principle of gender equivalence is that men and women are equal in all things.

I am opposed to any philosophy of gender politics that makes its assessments from the perspective of only a single gender. How could a such a system ever have any value? I would no more support a single-sided philosophy of gender than I would a ‘whites only‘ philosophy of race issues.

I feel that, when only women are allowed to make the arguments, this is bound to create a bias.

Q: Surely, you make general statements about ‘feminists’? Not all feminists think the same things.

If a person self-identifies as a feminist, they are ideologically opposed to my beliefs. Any philosophy of gender created from a single perspective is immoral and intellectually worthless. The fact that much of feminism is internally inconsistent, self-contradictory and that the different factions often disagree with one another, isn’t a very reasonable defence.

This point also highlights one of the mechanisms upon which feminism operates: the moving target principle. For example, a feminist might make the claim that women are being oppressed in a situation in which women are under-represented in a desirable job. Why is this evidence of oppression? Because “men and women are equal”.

However, what happens when this is applied to the fact that men are over represented in the prison system? Typically, the feminist will explain that “it’s been shown” that men think differently and that  men’s brains are different in some way. So now, they don’t think that “men and women are equal”.

I can think of no explanation of a difference in men’s brains that causes them to be naturally predisposed towards criminality but that would not serve equally well as a explanation of why men might just be better at some types of job. If anyone reading this can come up such such an explanation please send it to me as it would be a useful addition to my research.

This is the important point: The above pair of self-contradictory arguments are not the the arguments of different schools, groups or factions of feminism. Both, opposing arguments could be employed by, and frequently are employed by, the same feminist in different contexts.

If a person doesn’t hold a set of beliefs that are characterised by an ideology or theory, why do they need to label themselves? If you don’t believe what the bulk of other feminists believe, how can you be a feminist?

For clarification, my book defines a Manifest or ‘everyday’ Feminism:

These notes relate to manifest rather than literary feminism. That is, the products of feminist thought which can be observed in everyday life. Manifest feminism is the type of feminism that people come into contact with on a regular basis and that directly shapes our culture.

A minority of people who identify as feminists, such as equity feminists or some sex positive feminists, probably hold views that are fairly compatible with my own.

Q: Hasn’t it been proven that there are differences in the topography of men and women’s brains?

I go into this argument in more detail in an article entitled “Defining Equality”. It’s available on the side menu, for those who are interested. In summary, some differences between male/female brain morphology do, provably, exist. This is what I term an “instrumental difference”. However, they are not significant differences.

Also, it’s also worth noting that the belief that “men and women’s brain’s are significantly different” is in opposition to much of feminism. How can a feminist claim, in one breath, that “a woman can do any job that a man can do”, and in the next make the claim that men and women have fundamentally different brains?

The differences that do exist are either not significant or the conjecture of a new ‘fad discovery’ that is selectively mined by the media from a pool of poor scientific research.

For example, some people have conjectured that the lack of female involvement in IT in the UK and the US is due, in part, to the fact that male brains are more suited to certain types of problem solving that are intrinsic to something like software development. To people who believe that, I would ask the question, “How can you account for the fact that, in a country such as the Philippines, the majority of IT workers are female.”

The premise that supports most affirmative action is that “men and women are mentally equal”. It is disingenuous of feminists to benefit from this principle when it suits them and to go on to claim that differences exist for the purposes of a second argument.

The strange affair of the Corpus callosum.

A good example of a “fad discovery” can be found by looking up something called the Corpus callosum. Basically, in 1982, a set of researchers discovered that the area of the brain called the Corpus callosum was larger in women. This piece of brain matter joins together the left and right hemi-sphere of the brain.

The media leapt on this discovery and began to conjecture on it’s meaning. The prevailing view became that the this difference was proof that women’s brains had a more developed connection between the left and right hemi-sphere. Further more, it was felt, this showed that women were better at what is sometimes termed, ‘multi-tasking’. In this sense, multi-tasking refers to a person’s ability to concentrate on more than one thing at once. It was felt that men might be better at pursuing a singular task where as a woman’s strength might be in the pursuit of a more eclectic task.

This is the view that, even to this day, exists within the minds of much of the general public.

In the mid 90s, another set of researchers began to re-examine the issue of the corpus callosum. They discovered that - wait for it - the corpus callosum is actually bigger in men than in women. The bulk of all current scientific opinion supports the view that the corpus callosum is (absolutely or relatively) larger in men. Look it up, if you don’t believe me.

In summary.Human beings are different from other animals: they have a far more developed faculty of free-will and introspection. Stone-age human beings and animals are perhaps driven around by instinct but modern human beings aren’t; modern human beings exercise free will and can decide what they want to do.

Q My Mom says that men who oppose feminism and bitter and twisted because they can’t get a girlfriend.

If you hold that view then, great. Thanks. That means that I’ve won the argument.

I think that it’s fair to say that in debate, when the other person starts to make personal remarks about you, rather than sticking to the issues of the debate, you’ve won. Would anyone who had a red hot counter argument in a debate hold it back and instead defer to a personal attack?

Once, it was even suggested to me that I wasn’t qualified to write a book on gender politics as I didn’t have a girlfriend!

Another great argument in that vain is the “I went to University and you didn’t!”

The flaw in the argument, “You aren’t qualified to talk about X”, is that I didn’t need a qualification because I didn’t need permission. If your qualification (whatever it may be) has equipped you with superior insight into the subjects under discussion, then you’ll be able to make the stronger arguments about the issues at hand.

It is sometimes the case, in debate, that the other person is so qualified that they know that they are right because they have the magic qualifications that ensure that they are always right. Unfortunately, mortals can’t always understand the righteous true Word that they understand. That is why such people can’t debate the issues, and instead, have to make personal remarks about the person who said the nasty things that were not true.

The other problem is that all such arguments tend to favour people who are successful under the current system. The people who get on well under the current system have the qualifications that qualify them to take part in the debate. It’s immoral in the same way that it would be immoral to forbid the poor to vote: come election time, the person who favoured the interests of the rich people would always get in.

In the same way, if I were to say that “I’ve never been much of a hit with the ladies”, and I was consequently disqualified from any debate on sexual politics, it means that only the successful people get a say; the people who are doing well under the current system would oppose any change.

If you really think that every man who is opposed to feminism is a bitter twisted loser, try a little experiment. Type something like:

uk anti-feminism

into google. Now, every movement has a few people who let the whole group down but do you find that the majority of bloggers and essayists that you discover through such a search are bitter, raving misogynists? Many of them are angry, but they have a right to be if they are debating issues which they consider to be unfair. Many of them are female. On the whole, when I performed such a search I found that most of the people to write in a calm, reasonable style.