Update 2018 08 05: Added graphs with trend lines that illustrate public interest over time for men’s studies, women’s studies and gender studies.
Marxism, Radical Feminism and other Feminist Factions — In 2007 I rewrote the introduction to Feminism? You want feminism? Which brand would you like? The result describes the consequences of an age-old principle for getting attention (not necessarily deserved): The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
The vast majority of the definitions contained in that web page illustrate the products of roughly 40 years of heavy, intensive social engineering promoted by women’s studies programs. Those studies programs are being taught by lecturers that consider themselves, and even often openly declare themselves, to be Marxist in their ideology, the ideology they promote and that drives them.
Marxism is a euphemism for communism. Karl Marx co-authored with Frederic Engels in Dec. 1847 – Jan. 1848 the Manifesto of the Communist Party (a.k.a. the Communist Manifesto).
Anyone who finds claims of the close ideological connection and ties between communism and feminism a hard pill to swallow needs to read the Communist Manifesto but also other writings by Marx and Engels. He will then have no problem realizing that feminism, especially radical feminism (a.k.a. socialist- or Marxist feminism) is nothing more than communism transformed, communism in drag.
Many of the terms used by feminists come straight from communist dialectics, and many of the slogans and ideas promoted by women’s studies lecturers are being quoted almost verbatim, and in many cases are exact quotes, from communist text books.
The feminist doctrine of women’s victimhood is the major cause for the overwhelming public interest in women’s issues. That imbalance in attention given to women’s issues existed for at least the last 200 years of modern history, but it received an enormous boost through the activities of the radical feminist activists that made their appearance in the mid-1960s.
Men’s rights will not be given an amount of public concerns equal to that given to women’s issues until at the very least an equal amount of concern is given to men’s studies as is given to women’s studies.
The following statistics compiled from search results using http://google.com illustrate how far the feminist ideology has spread and overwhelms academic thinking, the media and all of society:
|2006 08 28||24,100,000||602,000||340,000||686|
|2006 09 14||11,500,000||398,000||330,000||636|
|2007 03 24||2,770,000||296,000||269,000||594|
|2007 04 11||2,570,000||275,000||261,000||1,110|
|2007 07 14||2,160,000||465,000||238,000||1,060|
|2018 08 05||5,210,000||157,000||279,000||95|
It is tedious to update the preceding table, but Google Trends makes it easier to gain up-to-date impressions of those trends, provided it is satisfactory to see just relative trends, rather than absolute numbers, of Google searches. Consider the current status (2018) of women’s studies programs:
Two graphs are required. Otherwise, as the absolute numbers of search results for “studies” and for “studies programs” differ by orders of magnitude, the relative levels of interest in “studies programs” cannot be depicted at a meaningful resolution.
It is encouraging that the trend reflected in the statistics shown above is that the interest in women’s studies is on the decline and fell by 90 percent during the 2006-2007 interval. The interest in men’s studies has not seen a comparable increase in attention. Moreover, when one examines the search returns for men’s studies programs, it appears that those programs are permeated with a strong pro-homosexual bias by new-age men (a product of ongoing feminist indoctrination). It appears hardly possible that pro-homosexual activists acting on behalf of a population sector that comprises no more than about two percent of the adult male population will either have the interest or the necessary influence to revert the systematic deconstruction of the traditional nuclear family and the vital role of the father in it.
A cursory look at those comparisons may produce the impression that, now that women’s studies programs have been largely or perhaps virtually entirely shut down on account of lack of enrolment, further progress of feminist ideology with respect to additional feminist social engineering will come to a halt. Competition to fill job openings for women’s studies lecturers must be a lot tougher these days, given the cutbacks in women’s studies programs in Academe, but that is at best not entirely so.
Many women’s studies lecturers no longer teach, but many have tenure, still have regular incomes and, moreover, more time to devote to policing free thought and freedom of expression. Furthermore, gender studies programs are still going concerns. An indication of that can be seen in the respective relative levels of public interest over time in men’s studies, women’s studies and gender studies. Moreover, all those who attended women’s studies courses, graduated and secured employment in government, education, jurisprudence, the media and in publishing, still have those jobs.
About 98 percent of the general population comprise heterosexual interests. About two percent of the general population have concerns with homosexual or transgender issues (far less than that, when considering that only a very small fraction of those two percent comprise homosexual or transgender activists). It is a curious state of affairs that the agendas that drive courses in women’s or gender studies comsume a disproportionately large part of education funding, public interests and resources, while 98 percent of the population is in essence left empty-handed.
Far more than enough resources are being used up to assist the feminists in their search for problems befitting the solutions they devised. No wonder men are being made the scapegoats for every imaginable social ill. As the statistics in the preceding tables and graphs show, men don’t much talk back. After all, scapegoats don’t talk.
In spite of all evidence to the contrary, feminists found and assert that: 1.) all women are victims, and 2.) the perfect shoulders to put the blame on are those of men. Many men, affected as much by our feminist-dominated education system as women are, bought into those assertions. As a result of that, women gained many and enormously important concessions by society and politicians, for which they had to give absolutely nothing in return, while men, as always, have to foot the bill for those concessions.
However, what is it that the feminists really want? Maybe someone can figure out whether the complete re-engineering of society was worth the effort just to pursue the wildly aimless chase after Paradise on Earth for feminists. Can anyone connect the dots, are there any dots to connect? Other than indulging themselves in the urge to deconstruct society and to get all of society to support them in that effort, what is it that the feminists really want? Can you figure it out from the definitions provided here?
- The death of feminism at British universities
- Men’s studies
- Erin Pizzey interviewed by Dads on the Air
- History of Men’s Movement (and how to create a new social order)
- Why I don’t take feminists seriously, by Mike Adams
- Missing: Government funding to gain political power
- Second-wave feminism causes harmful Fallout
- Feminism destroys many aspects of society