by Ljubiša Malenica for the Saker Blog

As we move into the third decade of the twenty-first century, we can undoubtedly claim, taking into account all the important elements of social life, that women have achieved equal status with men. Moreover, in some cases, women can justifiably be considered more privileged.

According to research by Sonia Starr, men usually serve 63% more severe sentences than women who have committed the same offense. [1][2] An analysis from the United States found that the workplace death risk is ten times higher for men than for women. [3] According to a 1994 report by Andrew Knestaut, at that time an employee for the Office of Safety, Health and Working Conditions, “women are less likely to be killed at work because they hold far fewer jobs in the most dangerous occupational groups”.[4]

The statistics used by the author are related to the United States, but since feminism as a pathological process is most observable within the United States and other Western countries, the presented figures are useful as an indicator of influence the feminist notions have on shaping reactions of society and its institutions.

Women are far more privileged than men when it comes to acquiring custody of children during divorce litigation. According to statistics from American sources, within the United States, in as many as ninety percent of cases, it is the woman who acquires the right of custody over children. Moreover, in regarding the consequences of a divorce, women are likewise far more privileged than men.

The cases mentioned above are just some examples where the the privileged status of women is more than obvious. Some might point out there is a logical and justifiable reason for this state of affairs, a claim with certain merit. However, if we follow this reasoning, we then easily come to the conclusion that there is also a logical and justifiable explanation for the “privilege” of men in certain social spheres, which is according to the advocates of feminism, the essential problem.

If, for now, we ignore the cases of female privilege and reiterate the fact that in the eyes of the legal system, in a significant part of the world, women enjoy the same rights as men, it’s logical to ask what is the further purpose of feminism. All the great goals have been achieved. Women have the right to work, to participate in social and political life, they have the right to vote and be elected, they can start and develop their own business ideas. Furthermore, without any fear of legal sanctions, women can kill their own unborn children in cases where pregnancy, for one reason or another, is seen as a hindrance to the woman.

With a certain amount of irony we notice that women have gained right to independently decide, without any input from the father, on life and death of future generations, and yet, representatives of feminist organizations still act as if women are denied basic rights, given to them long ago.

For the purposes of this text, and in accordance with the title of the article, it is necessary to begin by defining both the term of feminism and that of social pathology.

Feminism did not always have the characteristics found within it today. There is an understanding on four different waves of feminism which, temporaly speaking, stretched from the half of the nineteenth century until the second decade of the 21st century. The first wave of feminism, limited to the 19th and early 20th century, encompassed movements fighting for women’s suffrage. The second wave, marked by demands for legal and social equality and the sexual revolution, affected a significant part of the 1960s. The 1990s were characterized, among other things, by the third wave feminism, while the fourth wave, since 2012, has been marked by extensive use of social networks and the alleged struggle against “violence towards women, rape culture and sexual assault”.[5]

For the needs of ideological consumption, feminism is defined as a movement for gender equality, that is, a theory of political, economic and social gender equality.[6] Integral part of the feminist narrative is the idea that throughout history women have been oppressed by men within a society branded as patriarchal, which itself is seen as an essentially bad form of social organization, without redeeming qualities.

The definition of feminism emphasizes the political, economic, and social dimension of women’s struggle for equality. In 2021, none of the three mentioned areas is beyond female reach. Within each exist women who found themselves there either through their own work and talent or through corruption and nepotism.

Women, since the category of citizens includes them as well, have the same rights before the law as men. In some states, given their specific biology, they enjoy benefits that are inaccessible to men, as noted earlier. In light of these facts, which are indisputable, it would seem that purpose of feminism today is perpetuation of victimhood narrative and through it, struggle for power.

The characteristics of modern feminism are deviation from objective perception of reality, aggressive attacks on current structures of society, demonization of men as a category and destructive effect on the ability of a certain society to renew itself, both in a purely biological and in cultural and national sense.

Regarding social pathology, it can usually be understood in two ways, either as a scientific discipline of the same name or as a negative social phenomenon.

One of the better known digital dictionaries in English, Miriam-Webster, defines social pathology as “a study of social problems (such as crime or alcoholism) that views them as diseases of the social organism”.[7] Wikipedia, the largest online encyclopedia, observes this phenomenon in a similar manner. An article dedicated to social pathology defines it “in the broadest sense as the science about a complex of facts related to disorders that are socially conditioned, harmful, unacceptable and undesirable”.[8]

Definitions relating to the very nature of the phenomenon characterize social pathology as “social factors, as poverty, old age or crime, that tends to increase social disorganization and inhibit personal adjustment”.[9][10]

The phenomenon of personal adjustment of an individual is explained within the sociological sciences as a process of “adaptation by an individual to conditions in his or her family and community, especially in social interactions with those with whom regular personal contact is necessary.”[11][12]

In the book entitled “Social pathology as a tragic form of human existence”[13], Professor Branko Milosavljevic defines socio-pathological anomalies as phenomena “which, manifesting as a form of aggression of criminal or suicidal type, drug addiction and social perversions, negatively affect life, conditions and developmental possibilities of individuals, small and large social groups ”.[14]

As we can see, there are certain characteristics common to all of the definitions given above. Regardless of whether we are discussing explanation of the science in question or the phenomenon itself, each of the offered explanations recognizes the existence of a certain process within the community and emphasizes its negative impact upon the degree of societal cohesion and development of individuals within the society in question.

If we accept this synthesis and the definitions which generated it, feminism, as we know it today, can be classified within the category of social pathologies.

Feminism as a process, in addition to the fact that its meaning is questionable in 2021, is stimulated by drives which affect the internal stability of a certain society in a degenerative manner. These drives include a specific form of historical revision, warping of legal principles and social norms, basing arguments on false premises, and one-sided observation of pathological phenomena such as, for example, domestic violence.

One of the basic claims of feminism, on which the justification for the whole movement is based, is the historical oppression of women by men. Proponents of feminism recognize this oppression in most spheres of social activity. From politics, through legislation, martial arts, military capabilities, art, science, to economics and religion, human history for feminists is a story of active efforts by men to subjugate women and prevent their full development.

According to Susan James, one of the prominent feminists from the previous century, the feminist movement is “grounded on the belief that women are oppressed or disadvantaged by comparison to men, and that their oppression is in some way illegitimate or unjustified”.[15]

Notice the use of present tense, implying women are currently oppressed and disadvantaged. Historically speaking, instances of female subjugations or male privilege did exist and no one can argue against that, however, we can notice here aforementioned kind of historical revisionism, resulting from the application of modern social ideas regarding the role and status of women, retroactively, to the complete duration of human civilization. The entire course of human history is observed and interpreted through the male-female dichotomy, where the negative connotations of the perpetrator are unreservedly attributed to the male sex, while the woman becomes a victim, without the possibility to change her position.

While observing the feminist understanding of history, there is an impression we are considering a kind of conspiracy theory within which it is assumed that the male population of any society actively worked to prevent women from reaching their full potential. To give additional weight to this narrative, it is suggested that women, regardless of the time period in question, were able to achieve much more than they did, if only there was no “patriarchal oppression” by men.

This approach to history neglects a large number of factors influencing the formation of human societies and creates an extremely distorted picture of history and gender relations in different periods. For the purposes of this text, we will look at two factors that, interrelated, provide a better insight into the reasons for the nature of history as we know it. The first of these factors is called sexual dimorphism, while the second factor encompasses a set of natural phenomena, in a global sense, that have influenced the development of human communities and social circumstances while remaining outside human influence.

Sexual dimorphism, most simply defined, represents differences between males and females of the same species in color, size, shape, and body structure, which are caused by inheriting one of two sexual patterns present within the genetic code. [16] Within the human species, this type of dimorphism is most easily observed when comparing the physical characteristics of the male and female body. A scientific paper published in early 2020, dealing with sexual dimorphism in the structure of human arms, points out that “similar to other great apes, human males fight frequently and fighting may be highly injurious or lethal. Selection on male fighting performance in humans has led to similar sexual dimorphism to that in other great apes: males have 41% greater fat-free body mass, 75% more muscle mass in the arms and, consequently, 90% greater upper body strength than females (as compared with 50% more muscle mass and 65% more muscle strength in the legs)”.[17]

Often, sexual dimorphism, as a biological reality, is associated with the notion of biological determinism, as its logical continuation. Proponents of biological determinism believe that human behavior is innate and determined by genes, brain size, and other biological characteristics. [18] The theory in question was under critique for certain conclusions in favor of racism, and later it was opposed by the thesis that culture, and other social phenomena, are in fact the real sources of human behavior.

Today, it is more than clear that biological determinism has an impact on the behavior of women and men and that it cannot be rejected as a theory without basis. [19] Moreover, a 2017 survey conducted in Sweden, the capital of progressivism and liberalism, discovered that young Swedes of both sexes, when enrolling in high school, choose occupations that are in line with traditional understandings of their gender role. [20][21] Regardless of the ideological needs of feminism, biological determinism remains one of the important factors while choosing a profession, and for behavior within the society.

When we accept the factual situation described through sexual dimorphism and biological determinism, we can observe the course of history with a higher degree of understanding and comprehend the roles the two sexes played in any given period. Namely, when we take into account the hitherto known history of human civilizations, one of the first conclusions which imposes itself, rightly so, is that mutual relations between different societies were often marked by brutality. From its very beginning, the history of Mankind has been marked by battles, wars, enslavement and killing, and it should be noted that genocide was not a foreign phenomenon in any historical period. It is enough to observe conflicts which built the great empires of the past, from Rome to Britain, to find historical moments characterized by a high degree of cruelty and lack of humanity, as we understand it today. The destruction of Carthage, fall of Constantinople, conquest of Baghdad by the Mongols, German offensive in the East, are just some examples of human brutality towards people different from themselves.

Even before our species began to develop its diverse civilizations, the need for physical exertion that favored men more than women was present in the form of fighting other primitive tribes and hunting wildlife for the survival of the community. Women, as physically weaker and that part of species that goes through pregnancy, were far less suitable for hunting expeditions or the brutality of close combat that has characterized warfare for most of human history.

The harsh reality of human existence and the necessity of struggle for survival, first of the tribe and then of the city-state, empire or nation, required reliance, first and foremost, on sheer force. Even in the cases where development of high civilizations occurred, necessity of struggle so as to preserve the achieved was clear and constant. It does not hurt to remind that barbarians were not stopped by a high degree of Roman culture and art, but by the naked force of the Roman legions.

As an exception to this historical course, although the brutality of earlier centuries did reappear, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries stand out. During these two hundred years, various processes have influenced the formation of a globalized human community, and one of the most influential among them was certainly the gradual formulation of legal norms guiding the interaction of all Humanity, both at the individual, national and supranational level. Unlike the tenth century, today it’s inconceivable for population of Scandinavia to plunder the coasts of the British Isles using their naval power.

Ideologists of feminism use every opportunity to point out that women fought for their rights, but what they overlook, accidentally or intentionally, is the fact that circumstances unrelated to the efforts of the first feminists favored the development of legal norms that applied not only to women but also children, and covered a number of other social issues as well.

The feminist view of history as subordination of women to men is very shallow and, for the purposes of its ideological construction, neglects a wide range of other relationships within different historical communities, together with a long list of women who have distinguished themselves in various roles of social significance. There are more indications that, throughout history, the relationship between men and women has rested on the complementarity of their roles rather than on alleged oppression. If it is really necessary to view history as a relationship between the oppressed and the oppressor, far closer to reality is the existence of privilege based on class, rather than gender. Regardless of sex, being a member of the elite meant, and still means, being privileged in comparison to the remaining society.

Alleged historical injustice is used within modern context as an appropriate excuse to violate basic legal mechanisms, laws and unwritten social norms.

One of the most obvious examples regarding abuse of legal rules to privilege women in comparison to men is the #MeToo campaign. Namely, during 2017, Harvey Weinstein, a former American producer, was accused for a series of sexual assaults, which led to his arrest and sentence amounting to 23 years in prison. [22] Parallel with the drama surrounding this case, the hashtag #MeToo became extremely popular on the American social network Twitter, and soon an increasing number of women began to describe their own experiences with sexual assault. Shortly afterwards, accusations against men in high positions began to emerge around the world, leading to a significant number of them losing jobs and reputation they had enjoyed earlier. This phenomenon became known as “Harvey Weinstein effect.”[23]

There is no doubt that we can all agree on fundamental wrongness of rape and other forms of sexual assault. Rape, as an attack on a woman’s personality, was negatively understood even in antiquity and the medieval period. The efforts of human communities to protect their female members from physical and sexual violence are not questionable, but with the advent of the #MeToo movement it has become partially questionable what constitutes sexual assault and even what is defined as rape.

After #MeToo movement reached its peak in 2018, a group of scientists from the University of Houston conducted research on its possible negative consequences. According to the Harvard Business Review, researchers first “sought to understand whether men and women held different views about what constitutes sexual harassment”.[24]

This implies existence of a certain undefined space when it comes to sexual harassment, that is, what sexual harassment actually is and what characterizes it as a social phenomenon. Carried by the moment of the #MeToo movement, feminists radicalized the space in question and this, consequently, led to the violation of legal norms. At the same time, this had effect of privileging women and thus further infantilizing them.

During the presidency of Barack Obama, colleges across the United States, under the influence of feminist theories, executed changes to internal legal regulations regarding cases of sexual abuse, making them far more skewed towards those who present themselves as victims of sexual harassment.

It was not long before results of such decision came into the spotlight. In September 2013, two students from the Occidental College in Los Angeles, after a night characterized by excessive alcohol intake, had an intercourse. Seven days later, the young man (John Doe) was charged with rape by a girl he had spent the night with.[25] Despite the fact that witnesses confirmed a significant degree of intimacy and interaction between individuals in question, John Doe was informed after three months that he had been expelled from college due to rape.

The girl, whose identity was kept secret for security reasons, pointed out during investigation that she did not remember intimate contact at all. However, despite her claims, investigators discovered messages on her phone clearly indicating that she was aware of the situation.[26] Despite both John and Jane Doe being under the significant influence of alcohol, and both, as far as it was possible in their condition, voluntarily entering into an intimate act, only the male student bore the consequences. As dean of the Occidental college himself admitted “during a heterosexual relationship, it is the man who must obtain consent and who bears the blame in the case when they are both under the influence of alcohol”.[27][28]

This statement, coming from the faculty’s highest official, would seem to be divorced from common sense, considering it treats women as completely devoid of responsibility for their own behavior, but cases like this are not unknown to American universities. During 2014, US media closely followed the accusation of gang rape by a female student at the University of Virginia.[29] Prior to the events at the University of Virginia, during 2006 and 2007, media covered the case of three Duke University students who were also accused of gang rape.[30] In both cases, the defendants turned out to be innocent.

One reason for this kind of behavior among young women is the feeling of shame, which, according to a joint study[31] by scientists from Scandinavia and the United States, is much more prevalent in women than in men when it comes to engaging in casual and short-term sexual intercourse. Worry, disgust, pressure, sexual gratification, sexual competency of the partner and taking initiative are a set of six factors that were monitored during the research. The results showed that most factors had a greater impact on feeling of shame in women than in men. The results of a 2012 study[32] conducted by the University of California demonstrated that women feel a greater degree of shame or remorse after a one-time intimate act, due to their specific nature, derived from evolution. Namely, the assumptions that led the research, and were confirmed by it, pointed out that “women, according to Hypothesis 1, evolved to regret mistaken sexual actions, which helped them avoid reproductive costs. Men, according to Hypothesis 2, evolved to regret mistaken sexual inactions, which helped them avoid missing reproductive opportunities.”[33]

If we follow the logic of the aforementioned research, which is in accordance with the principles of biological determinism and dimorphism, it is not difficult to notice that sexual promiscuity represents, for several reasons, a behavior that negatively affects women. Facts implying that sexes are different, that men want frequent intercourse, and that, given the possibility of pregnancy, a short-term intimate relationship can affect women to a far greater extent than men, are nothing new. Even without modern science, different cultures around the Earth and in different time periods were aware of these characteristics and accepted them as a natural.

The goal of social institutions that developed in response to these natural human tendencies was not to remove or suppress them, but to integrate them within the complex structure of a human community in order to reduce negative and strengthen the positive consequences of the behavior in question. The institution of marriage is one such adaptation, meeting both the needs of the individuals and social group at the same time. Through marriage and the closely related institution of family, the community ensures its own biological and cultural renewal, while men and women provide their own continuation through offspring, whereby women also acquire a safe environment within which they would not have to bear all the hardships of raising children on their own.

When you consider the possibility of contracting one of many sexually transmitted diseases, the possibility of pregnancy, development of other diseases and the impact on women’s psychological health, increased feelings of shame and remorse in women, after engaging in activities whose primary and sole purpose is immediate pleasure, appears as a natural and understandable feeling.

An illustrative example is the anonymous letter sent to the editorial board of the London Guardian[34] from 2008, which contains confession of a woman whose youth was marked by short-term intimate relationships with various men. A consequence of this behavior was the development of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, a precancerous condition. Part of the letter dedicated to her life at the time of the writing emphasizes that “only my closest girlfriends (and certainly not my partner) know the full details of my sexual history” indicating presence of shame and remorse for previous behavior, and a clear understanding that the truth would have very undesirable consequences for her life at that moment, a life of a wife and a mother. Given the anonymity of the text, the existence of this person may be called into question, but the consequences of her behavior are a real possibility.

Feminist ideology, which for decades encouraged the so-called sexual revolution, attacked the institution of the family as a negative creation of the “patriarchal” order, while reducing the act of sexual intimacy to mere satisfaction of physical need, can undoubtedly be characterized as the culprit for the current state of women. Under the pretext of freedom, feminism advocated acceptance of self-destructive behavior among women. Guided by the principles of feminism, modern women inevitably find themselves trapped between the Scylla of their own femininity and the Charybdis of the feminist notion what a woman should be.

One of the original women movement goals was related to the right of women on equal chances for employment and the alleged “liberation” of the female population from life spent in the kitchen. Possibly the most striking result of women’s entry into the labor market, largely paradoxical, is the statistically confirmed phenomenon of declining feelings of happiness and satisfaction within the female population.

According to a study, from 2009, by Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson, happiness among the female population in the United States has shown declining trend for the period of 35 years prior to research itself. Two experts point out how “measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging — one with higher subjective well-being for men”.[35]

During 2017, a new research[36] with a similar topic appeared, conducted by Adam Kozaryn and Rubia Valente. Unlike the previous study, Kozaryn and Valente explored the relationship of life satisfaction between women who chose a career and those who decided to become housewives. The conducted research determined “that, until recently, women were happier to be housewives or to work part-time than fulltime, especially, women who are older, married, with children, in middle or upper class, and living in suburbs or smaller places. The effect size of housewifery on subjective wellbeing (SWB) is mild to moderate, at about a fourth to a third of the effect of being unemployed. Therefore, we argue that one possible reason for the decline in average happiness for women was increased labor force participation. Yet, the happiness advantage of housewifery is declining among younger cohorts and career women may become happier than housewives in the future”.[37]

One gets the impression that, from the perspective of feminist ideology, a woman can realize herself only when she becomes similar to a man. The emancipation of women, if we follow feminist logic, meant emphasizing negative traits, which were previously attributed to men in most cases. Intemperance in alcohol, sexual promiscuity, indulgence in narcotics, and violent behavior, through the prism of feminism, have become key characteristics in achieving women’s alleged liberation from oppressive pressures and expectations imposed by the wider community. These social pressures and expectations, such as adherence to chastity, modesty, entering marriage and bearing children, were without exception, defined as negative.

The constant emphasis on achieving gender equality, understood within feminism as 50-50 representation in every sphere of social action, is a negative factor in social development regardless of its illusionary correctness. It is a clear and unquestionable fact that this ratio in every possible area can be achieved only artificially and through means of coercion, which in most cases are the monopoly of the state.

Legal norms of a state are usually changed to give this process a semblance of legitimacy. One of the illustrative examples from the author’s environment would be the notification by the Republic of Srpska Ministry of Internal Affairs calling for enrollment of 300 cadets at the Police Academy, where 20 places were reserved for women.[38] Regardless of the test results, after the male contingent was filled out, the rest of the place had to belong to the female candidates, and therein lies the problem. Principle of meritocracy becomes the first victim of feminist interpretation regarding the principle of equality.

Within the framework of modern legal norms, women have achieved right to equal representation before the law and to equal opportunities both in education and employment, and activities in other spheres of human activity. Anything that goes beyond these two principles calls into question the general stability of society. As we pointed out at the beginning of the text, the principle of equality before the law has already been violated in certain areas, which has led to the privileged position of women.

Given its pathological nature, with the ideology of feminism as it is today, it is not possible to debate or attain compromise through which feminist ideas would incorporate themselves within the social fabric without causing permanent damage or encouraging drastic negative transformation of the society. An illustrative example in this regard is the phenomenon of domestic violence. It is enough to listen to a feminist representative discussing about this topic or take a look at various advertising campaigns created within feminist NGOs, to get a clear impression of a narrative where women are always innocent victims while men are always the culprits.

As in the case of sexual assault, the definition of domestic violence is to be as blurry as possible thus covering as many situations as possible which would then be defined as domestic violence, whether they are truly domestic violence or not. It is inconceivable to question the established narrative of men as a source of domestic violence, and feminists are therefore uninterested in engaging in discussion on this topic, especially considering that research in this area and the professional literature present fairly different picture.

According to a study[39] published in 2010, its importance being in the fact it was a review of a larger number of scientific papers dealing with cases of domestic violence or violence within relationships where women were responsible for physical assaults, there are far more women who engage in physical violence towards their partners than the sterilized feminist narrative allows.

The research summary points out, among other things, that “in general, women and men perpetrate equivalent levels of physical and psychological aggression, but evidence suggests that men perpetrate sexual abuse, coercive control, and stalking more frequently than women and that women also are much more frequently injured during domestic violence incidents; women and men are equally likely to initiate physical violence in relationships involving less serious “situational couple violence…”[40]

Aforementioned research does not change the current social consensus which of the sexes has a greater share in cases of domestic violence, but at the same time provides an insight into the far more complex reality of this social phenomenon. It is clear that women bear part of the responsibility, as perpetrators of domestic violence, no matter how politically incorrect it may sound. Reasons for this behavior of women are numerous, trauma experienced during childhood or experiences from previous relationships, self-defense or fear, but the fact remains that women as aggressors in a relationship are not sporadic and indicate existence of deeper socio-psychological problems which can only continue to metastasize if the phenomenon of domestic violence continues to be viewed through a distorted and ideologically colored view of feminism.

A more recent review of scientific material related to violent behavior of women within intimate relationships, from 2012, based on scientific papers covering the period from the current decade to the eighties of the last century, suggests that in comparison to men, women are equally, in some circumstances even more, prone to physical violence in an intimate relationship. The total number of respondents from all papers included in this study amounts to more than 370,000 people.[41]

At the beginning of this article, we defined social pathology as social factors which tend to increase social disorganization and prevent individual adjustment. Acceptance of feminist ideology, as can be seen from the previous text, increases the disorganization in question through transformation of men and women into conflicting elements of society, as opposed to their natural complementarity. If we accept that feminism rejects biological differences between the sexes, and everything arising from those differences, we can conclude it is an ideological construction that refuses to accept the principles of reality itself.

In the long run, feminism harms women themselves by advocating behaviors contrary to the female nature. The feminist notion of woman’s progression through life, completely opposite to female biological reality, leads to a situation where it is often too late for family and children when these categories become imperative in a woman’s life. Sexual liberation, actually incitement to promiscuity, diminishes the value of women as wives and mothers, while distortions of laws make marriage undesirable in the eyes of men, leading to a reduced number of families, low birthrates and the slow but sure disappearance of a certain community. Given all of the above, it is not difficult to conclude that feminism has nothing to offer to either women or men. Moreover, given that consequences of feminist ideology have a pathological impact on the structure of the society, it is desirable to suppress the spread of feminism, both through individual initiatives, legal norms and educational content.



The Essential Saker IV: Messianic Narcissism's Agony by a Thousand Cuts
The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA