Claiming to oppose “hate” might be today’s most effective political debating tactic. But it’s also an anti-rational one. It subverts rational discussion of whether or not true hatred motivates various positions. Opponents of “hate” rarely apply their “standards” with logical consistency—as exemplified by their failure to designate feminism a “hate movement.”
That feminism meets “hate movement” criteria has been demonstrated by prominent psychotherapist Tom Golden. Golden specializes in bereavement and male psychology. Observing the effects of anti-masculine bias led him into pro-male activism. His analysis listed six criteria for “hate movements” and showed how feminism meets each:
- “Propagates discrimination against the target group.”
- “Advocates lesser rights in law for the target group.”
- “Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral.”
- “Teaches that the target group is a threat.”
- “Uses lies including historical revisionism to spread these views.”
- “Tolerates violence towards the target group.”
Deliberate lying is probably less common than: 1) Uncritical acceptance and repetition of false information. 2) Unconscious misinterpretation of facts through the lens of prejudice. But there is proof that some prominent feminist thinkers deliberately misrepresent facts to serve their agenda.
With these qualifications, evidence shows that feminism meet the criteria listen by Golden. Such evidence includes:
- The fact that many more college scholarships and activities are available to female students than to males.
- “Standards” for “sexual assault” that make men “guilty until proven innocent.”
- Efforts to “combat domestic violence” which treat men as the primary perpetrators despite the fact that the majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by women.
- Advocating command economies on the grounds that it is dangerous for women if men have greater wealth.
- Insisting that unverified accusations by women against men should be trusted.
- “Forensic” methods which treat evidence that women are lying as evidence of their veracity.
- College disciplinary systems which exclude evidence exonerating male students from accusations made by females.
Leftism opposes what John Adams called society’s “natural” inequalities. These are inequalities based on: 1) Individuals’ differing abilities, commitment to achievement, etc. 2) The ability of more successful people to pass on their advantages to their descendants—without either aid or hindrance from the government. Such inequalities contrast with inequalities created and maintained by law (titled nobility, racial supremacy, etc.).
Radical leftism is defined by hostility to the “natural” inequalities of the class system. The existence of the upper and middle classes is considered “immoral” and “inferior” and “dangerous.” Destroying them is considered imperative.
Most leftists favor using some combination of persuasion and relatively gentle government force to “convert” the upper and middle classes into part of an egalitarian mass. Marxism would crush them through the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Some extremists have favored “liquidation.” Feminist attitudes towards men are comparable.
Laws, policies, practices and attitudes favoring women function like a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” This “dictatorship” is not envisioned as a state of equality. It’s considered a transitional state needed to create equality in the future. During this transition the upper and middle classes are subordinated to the lower.
The “conversion” approach is paralleled by efforts to lead men away from “toxic masculinity.” “Toxic masculinity theory” doesn’t just condemn negative manifestations of masculine traits like toughness and self-reliance. It considers masculine traits inherently negative.
Contemporary feminism often claims males can be good—by rejecting masculinity. Leftists believe those of upper class or middle-class birth can be good—by rejecting the class system.
Of course, feminism tries to justify its favored legal measures with a guise of “creating equality” or “protecting women.” Racists tried to justify racial supremacy under the guise of “separate but equal.” Legislators need to look behind such façades.