The Lies of Feminism

By Zarina Macha

The Lies of Feminism

Feminism comes from the Latin words ‘femme’ (meaning women) and ‘ism’ (meaning doctrine or school of thought). It literally means ‘women’s doctrine’ (so no, Feminism does not mean ‘equality’). If Feminism was about equality (which it isn’t and never has been), then there would be no need for a Womanist movement (a movement for black women, whom Feminism has done nothing for), or a men’s rights movement. We wouldn’t have Feminists and Egalitarians, because these two groups would be working together.

Feminism is based on two key lies: the first being that gender is a social construct, and the second being that human civilisation has always been some oppressive patriarchy where women were viewed as second-class citizens.

Let’s look at the first lie. Gender is a biological construct (not a social one) based on sex (which is defined by gametes; male sperm and female eggs). Gender roles refer to the roles men and women play in the conception and raising of children. Both men and women have a mix of feminine and masculine traits, it’s just that men happen to be more masculine and women happen to be more feminine. This is a generalisation, and some men are more feminine and some women are more masculine (and they deserve to live normally and not be reprimanded for being slightly outside the norm), but it doesn’t change this simple fact.

Even though we are now all being taught the absurd lie ‘there are more than two genders’, there are only two genders: male and female, and both play an important complementary function in the raising and rearing of children. Men are typically better at certain activities (hunting, problem-solving, leading), and women are typically better at certain activities (facial recognition, emotional intuition, being community-oriented). Even contemporary Feminist writers like Kathleen Stock, Louise Perry and Julie Bindel are concerned with the erasure of female biology from contemporary discussions around women. (Ironically, it’s their movement that was lobbying for the dismantling of gender roles and erasure of women in the first place, so ‘TERFs’ are really just Feminist chickens coming home to roost.)

Most of the prominent Feminist thinkers (including Mary Wollstonecraft, Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, and Judith Butler) are/were women who went against the norm, and believed that women were ‘inferior to men’ for not being as interested in politics and intellectual discourse as they were. Instead of accepting that these women were different to the norm and perhaps not as interested in activities that most women liked (which every other non-Feminist woman has always done), they complained that they were being ‘oppressed’, despite being more privileged than most people who were on the planet at that time.

The second lie is that there’s a patriarchy oppressing women. As mentioned above, most of human society has involved men and women working together in complementary gender roles for the bearing and raising of children (because again, men and women are typically different). Structures were created to allow women and men to function together for the betterment of society (back when people were more team-oriented and family-oriented than the angry misanthropic Feminists of today).

Feminists keep pushing the lie that a wife was a ‘man’s property’. When a man gets married, his wife becomes the most important person in his life. Someone to care for and look after. Very few men are genuine misogynists (history is full of courtly love, chivalry, and men professing love for women). No good father is going to allow his daughter to marry a man who will be oppressive and cruel towards her (especially as that man is going to become his son-in-law.) Most people in the past cared about family lineage, and it’s highly untrue that most fathers would have sat back and allowed their daughters to marry some horrible oppressive misogynistic man. This narrative is horribly sexist and misanthropic, and greatly undermines all of the things men do and have done for women. Fathers giving their daughters away symbolised a blessing that she would be loved and cared for by her husband, and that he would protect her, as that transfer of protection from the father has now gone to the husband. This is the woman who is going to be the mother of a man’s future children and become the daughter-in-law of the family she is now joining. Why would she be viewed as ‘inferior to her husband’ or as ‘oppressed’? It just doesn’t add up.

Statistically, women are less interested in politics than men. Feminism views this as ‘sexist’ which undermines women’s agency and personal choices. Women have always contributed to society in various ways. Women in Medieval England worked as nuns, teachers, nurses, writers, and were even as active as men in agricultural activities. Their roles in society were just as important and respected as men’s roles (even though Feminists keep lying to women and telling us that we were being ‘oppressed’). Life was just as tough for most men of that era as it was for most women of that era. Men were every bit as ‘oppressed’ as women were.

Various ancient societies, including Rome, Greece, Egypt, all have examples of women contributing to society in various ways, in the domestic and public sphere (even though the Feminists have twisted it to make it look like those women had no rights and were being ‘oppressed’, while simultaneously contradicting themselves and talking about how women did have power, just not in the same masculine way that men did. This is evident of the internalised misogyny that most Feminists have, and lack of respect for women of the past and the roles that they played in contributing to human society).

Much of history has been re-written by Feminist historians to paint women as ‘oppressed.’ This article talks about how women ‘lacked any role in public life’ in Rome, which makes women believe that they were of less value to men. But that simply isn’t true. There are so many ancient Roman goddesses, and as the article mentions, the priestesses of Vestia were greatly worshipped and respected. Ancient mythology is littered with goddesses, from Hestia to Isis. The term ‘virgin’ (before Christianity) had nothing to do with sexual chastity and purity, it was about celebrating the maiden, which was simply a term for a young, unmarried woman (although again, Feminist historians have twisted this to make it look like women were being ‘oppressed’ even though this doesn’t make any sense).

All throughout ancient societies, women have been worshipped, for a woman is the bringer of life and creation. The masculine and the feminine are complementary in practically every tradition apart from Feminist social constructionism. What man would ‘oppress’ his own wife (a wife he would have, in most cases, loved and cared for dearly and provided for) and then go and pray to a female goddess? Again, this makes no sense.

Of course, some individuals have always been sexist towards women (just as some people have always been sexist towards men; women are as capable of domestic violence and criminal activities as men are), but this cruelty accounts for the minority. Human populations would not have survived if everyone was a horrible narcissist (which most people are not) and men were ‘oppressing’ women (most women would have simply risen up and challenged men anyway, for women have always been strong and capable). Even Louise Perry asserts on p.39 of her recent book that only around 10% of men have violent sexually predatory urges (a figure she cites that is also used by domestic abuse expert Dina McMillan).

What’s rather remarkable is that, even though most women are not as interested in politics as most men, this has not stopped plenty of female leaders (including so-called oppressed Feminists) from having roles and governance in the public world: Hypatia, Cleopatra, Boudicca, Yaa Asantewaa, Hatshepsut, Queen Victoria, Empress Dowager Cixi, and so on. So many women have contributed to society outside of the domestic sphere all throughout human history.

Where was the so-called patriarchy ‘oppressing’ these women? Any woman who has wanted to get into power has faced the same challenges as any man in her position. The only difference is that more men than women are interested in politics, so perhaps these women were viewed as exceptions, but instead of whining about being ‘oppressed victims’, they overcame adversities and became leaders. They were different from most women at their time, but they didn’t let this stop them. They didn’t view themselves as ‘oppressed’, they simply got on with things. They were aware of their privilege and used it for good, rather than to whine and complain.

Why do a small group of angry women (i.e. modern Feminists) get to put down everyone else and claim that their personal hardships (which I don’t doubt are valid, but have nothing to do with ‘systemic sexism’) are somehow more important than hardships facing those suffering from real systemic oppression and social injustice (most of the people murdered by police in America are men, particularly African-American men, whom Feminism has done absolutely nothing for – so much for ‘equality’).

The Enlightenment and ‘Proto’-Feminism

The origins of Feminism come from the Age of Enlightenment as part of a social reaction to institutional Christianity and imperialism. The Enlightenment (which lasted from the 17th to 18th century) was a period of European history in which many new inventions and ideas were being created. The period of human history from the creation of the Roman Empire until roughly the 16th century was mostly feudal. Democratic reform did not become commonplace in the West until the 19th century. While Feminists love to tiresomely insist that women were ‘oppressed’ due to not being able to vote, most men across Western feudal societies were also unable to vote.

Feminism technically began in France with the French revolution. Olympe de Gouges was one of the first to whine about rich white women being ‘oppressed’ and promoted misandric ideas of ‘perpetual male tyranny’ (that same tyranny that created social structures like marriage to protect this privileged class of women). She was living in a time when African-American men weren’t even viewed as human beings and Native Americans were being murdered and slaughtered, and she had the nerve to call herself ‘oppressed’? Oppressed by marriage, an institution created to protect and care for women (82% of romance fiction readers are women, showing that most women do desire love and the romantic love from a man, something which Feminism can’t reconcile itself with).

Feminisme’ as a term didn’t really exist until around the 1830s, when a utopian socialist named Charles Pourier invented the term (or so he has been credited). His ideas, along with the Marxist ideas around abolishing capitalism and the family, collectively inspired the later Feminist movements.

Engels published The Origin of the Family, Property, and State in 1884 in which he claimed that women were oppressed as wives under this so-called patriarchy (this is where Feminism got most of its ideas from about the family unit ‘oppressing’ women and women being viewed as second-class citizens, even though it’s ridiculous to even assume that most men would view their own wives and mothers as ‘second-class citizens’).

It’s true that Marx outlined many problems with capitalism. However, instead of offering reform, he offered revolution. He wanted to reshape society in some ridiculous communist utopia. He and Engels set about their manifesto that wanted to destroy the family unit, destroy the private ownership of property and land, and pushed the tiresome narrative that marriage and being a wife was ‘oppressive’ (something Friedan and Steinem later used to generate the post-1960s Feminist movement).

First Wave Feminism

Western Feminism was officially created in 1848 at Seneca Falls because a yet-another small group of white women believed that they were oppressed (while African-Americans were struggling with genuine oppression). Some of them did have genuine causes for concern, but the women who ran the movement (namely Lucrecia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton) were a foreshadowing of the hateful later Feminists that came about.

As for the so-called noble Suffragettes, they were indeed different to later post-1960s Feminists, and they weren’t talking about ‘destroying the patriarchy’ or destroying marriage, nor were they lobbying for abortion. However, the Suffragettes were just as militant, and angry as many of their Feminist foremothers and the later Feminists. They were not calm, noble, rational creatures — instead, they shouted over people, partook in the dreadful white feather campaign which involved the humiliation of young men, and even bombed churches and buildings.

They weren’t even lobbying for all women’s suffrage. It was voting rights for (yet again) a small class of privileged, wealthy women. Black people couldn’t vote. Most men couldn’t vote. By 1918, only 58% of men in the UK could actually vote (even this BBC article loaded with Feminist propaganda states that British men could only vote if they were over 30, owned property, and had lived in England for at least 12 months).

Meanwhile, men in the USA could only vote if they were conscripted for the war (and up until the ‘60s, the voting age in America was 21, so no, not ‘all men’ could vote). The contributions of women during the first world war led to more women becoming involved in public life (the anti-suffrage campaign wasn’t about so-called ‘misogyny’, it was about women being genuinely concerned about the necessities of women’s involvement in politics. Again — the fact that Feminists hate — women and men are different, and most women simply aren’t as interested in politics as men and have enjoyed different functions in society).

Plenty of women (including Florence Nightingale, Queen Victoria, and Mary Augusta Ward – all apparently ‘misogynistic woman-haters’ as Feminists keep tiresomely insisting) opposed women’s suffrage, not because of ‘sexism’, but once again, because men and women held different roles in society. They were simply voicing concerns about disruptions towards public life, but the angry Feminists didn’t (and still don’t) listen to the concerns of other people, being unable to see past their own privilege.

Mary Augusta Ward was a novelist and education reformer. Modern (Feminist) history would dub her a ‘sexist’ for being against women’s suffrage, but she did more good for women (and for men) than any Feminist. Her critique of women’s voting rights was based on how women were typically viewed at the time, and concerns that women becoming involved in public voting life would disrupt the harmony of society. It wasn’t to do with ‘sexism’ or ‘misogyny’ or the so-called patriarchy.

This article states: ‘Leading women voiced a wide range of progressive anti-suffrage arguments which they called ‘the forward position’. They claimed that women were as capable as men, if not superior in some ways, but destined to fulfil a different role in society. Their caring and maternal role rested upon their moral strength and emotional sensitivity.’ This isn’t ‘misogyny’, it’s just a description of how things were at the time. If anything, it’s the opposite of misogyny: the women at the time simply were not as involved in politics and public life as the men at the time. Voting just didn’t concern most women.

After millions of men died in the first world war, (white) women AND men over 30 in the UK got the right to vote. They got the right to vote on the backs of men who had died in the war and women who had worked in the public sphere, not because of ‘Feminism.’ The triumph of the vote in England was about the working-class, not privileged white Feminists. In fact, the Suffragettes abandoned their campaign to get involved with the war effort, so they are not even the ones to thank for getting women the right to vote.

(Note: I’m not at all endorsing strict gender roles. It’s a good thing that modern women can vote and be involved in public life, but this was all thanks to advancements in technology and social progress, not ‘Feminism’.)

Second-Wave Feminism

The second-wave Feminist campaign was triggered by the publication of The Feminine Mystique, published by (yet another) angry white woman who was unaware of her immense social privilege. Once again, she was upset because most women didn’t want the same things in life as she did, and instead of supporting and encouraging women to go for their dreams and do more with their lives than be a housewife and mother (even though being a housewife and mother is not a bad thing and Feminists have completely devalued this), she decided that all men oppressed women via marriage via this ludicrous ‘patriarchy’, expanding on Marxist theory (Friedan was heavily involved in the US Communist movement). She lied about women not being able to work; thousands of women worked during the second world war, but after the war, people wanted to re-enter a period of domestic peace and re-building society (because most people, unlike Feminists, cared about the common good).

Women in America got equal pay in 1963 as part of JFK’s New Frontier (pushed with the aid of a woman named Esther Peterson), and the National Organisation for Women was formed in 1966. What rights did (white) American women have that men did not have? What were Friedan and Steinem even lobbying for? Abortion wasn’t even part of their original manifesto and they didn’t include it until a man named Larry Lader suggested that they lobby for it. While I do support abortion rights to protect women from backstreet abortions, abortion has unfortunately become something of a celebration for Feminists, which the American pro-life organisation Feminists for Life rallies against, rather than an unfortunate yet legal necessity. The flippant modern Feminist approach to abortion greatly devalues human life and is deeply problematic.

Why have Feminists left pro-life women out of their ‘women’s’ movement? If Feminism is for ‘all women’ (which it isn’t), why does it ignore pro-life women and ignore the fact that most women prior to second-wave Feminism were anti-abortion? I’m not even on the pro-life side yet I don’t understand this at all. Most people are neither wholly ‘pro-life’ nor wholly ‘pro-choice’, they instead view the argument as more nuanced which again, Feminism simply doesn’t lobby for (showing yet again a failure on their part to actually help women).

Feminism has taken credit for the right to vote (which was more about class than gender), equal pay (which was more about the practicality of more women entering the workforce), contraception (which was invented by a team of scientists including Gregory Goodwin-Pincus, Charles Djerassi, Frank B. Colton, women’s lives improving (which was thanks to inventions like ovens, washing machines and refrigerators, giving women more time to pursue careers, higher education and start the second-wave Feminist movement), abortion rights (which in the US, were granted in 1973 on the basis of liberty by a Supreme Court full of men and in the UK, passed in 1967 thanks to the socially progressive Labour government to prevent women dying from backstreet abortions), and just about every achievement that someone else has granted women. Feminists should be thanking the men (and women) who fought to make our lives easier.

Phyllis Schlafly, a woman who Feminists hate, actually acknowledged her privilege (instead of using it to bully others) and rightfully stated that Anglo-American upper-middle-class women were some of the most fortunate members of society. While I disagree with much of her opinions, particularly on abortion, homosexuality, sex and what she says about people of other cultures, I respect her for a) being aware of her privilege and b) using that privilege to stick up for people who had been shunned and ignored by the Feminists: housewives and mothers, who Feminism has done absolutely nothing for. Second-wave Feminism tacked on to the civil rights movement, with a group of highly privileged women having the nerve to say that they were as ‘oppressed’ as African Americans. Schlafly called the Feminists out on this, and thus she is a villain in their eyes (and it is portrayed as such in the pro-Feminist docu-drama Mrs America).

The Feminist Legacy

Despite their promises of equality, unity and female prosperity, Feminists have yet to achieve anything actually worthwhile for women. Sex workers remain left out of mainstream Feminism, which allegedly supports women’s rights and sexual liberty (an obvious lie, as instead of lobbying for safer, decriminalised sex work which is what sex-positive advocates support, Feminists want to get rid of it and, once again, limit women’s personal agency).

Marriage has decreased since the 1970s and divorce has become more commonplace. Most abortions are carried out because the woman just chose not to have the baby, usually because of being on a low income. Why not build a world where no woman feels like abortion is her only option? To be in a position where one feels they must abort a form of life is a terribly sad thing for any woman to endure. Why don’t modern Western Feminists value human life? Why does mainstream Feminism say ‘my body my choice’ when it comes to abortion but not when it comes to sex work?

(Note: I do also think that an ideal world would be one without sex work, but right now, instead of making prostitution safer and better for sex workers, Feminists are simply punishing sex workers by putting them in the same categories as sex-trafficked women. Not to mention, they fail to even consider why men would visit sex workers in the first place, showing their continual lack of empathy towards men’s personal struggles.)

Feminists hold more power in society than the majority of men do. ‘Patriarchy’ just refers to a political system where most of the external power structures are held by (a small group of) men, but that doesn’t mean that women don’t/didn’t have any power. Our world is just as patriarchal now as it was a thousand years ago — something which Feminists keep on saying, which is rather ironic considering they claim to be all about change then claim ‘nothing’s changed’. Things have changed of course, though — the legacy of late 20th century Feminism is mass family breakdowns, rise of single mothers, rise in abortions, rise in divorce rates, incels, women being unhappier than ever, less people staying married and so on.

As for Intersectional Feminism (which I would need yet another long essay to truly unpack), all Intersectional Feminism has done is create yet more Marxist-based division and tricked black women into thinking that Feminism was ever for us. Womanism was created by and for black women. Intersectionality lumps all of people’s struggles into the same category by creating yet more social division and painting straight white men as ‘evil’ rather than seeing them as human beings. A small group of people control the world and they have nothing to do with the vast majority of heterosexual white men (heterosexual white men, who for the most part, have helped to create structures and inventions to improve society for the betterment of men and women).

Kimberlé Crenshawe, like many other black women, was greatly fooled into thinking that Feminism could ever be for women of colour. African American women (and people of Afro-Caribbean descent) have endured systemic hardships that no angry privileged white Feminist woman in the last few centuries has ever had to deal with or can even relate to. It’s a blatant lie that Feminism can be or has ever been for women of colour and black women really should not allow themselves to be taken in by something that was never for us to begin with.


It is Feminism that has told women that we are inferior to men and that women have always been ‘oppressed’ by some conspiratorial patriarchy.

It is Feminism that has utterly belittled, mocked, and shamed the women of the past for all they contributed to society, by distorting the narrative to say they were ‘barred from public life’ rather than accepting the (actual) narrative that men were involved in public life and women were involved in the private and domestic sphere.

It is Feminism that continuously contradicts itself by daring to call women ‘oppressed’, and yet citing amazing women in history who rose to the top due to their own merit, not because of ‘Feminism’.

It is Feminism which has taken credit for everything that other women (and men) have done to make life better for women, without even bothering to offer a word of thanks to the men and women who came before.

It is Feminism which continues to use Feminism as an excuse for enacting social change, when social change comes from individuals who work and cooperate together, not from some hateful misandric female supremacist doctrine.

It is Feminism which encourages women to shame, bully, and gaslight any man or woman who even offers an alternative narrative. If one has to resort to hateful name-calling to get their point across by calling someone a ‘transphobe/racist/sexist/bigot’ then their point clearly lacks any real substance.

Feminism has lied to women by telling women that we are oppressed, we are inferior to men, society is a patriarchy, gender is a social construct, and undermined the contributions to society by women of the past. I look at Feminists and wonder how they have allowed themselves to be taken in by such a hateful ideology which has done absolutely nothing to empower and uplift women. The actions of individuals based on compassion and reason are what lead to social change. I do not doubt that many Feminists do indeed do good things to help society, but their actions come from the innate goodness of humans and our desire to generate change. No single man or woman on this planet needs to attribute any desire to do good to the hateful, bigoted, toxic, misandrist ideology that is Feminism.

Zarina Macha is an author, YouTuber, and anti-Feminist. She discusses Feminism and social issues on her channel The Rational Female. She identifies as a women’s advocate, someone who advocates for women without being part of Feminism.

One comment on “The Lies of Feminism

  • Ulric Wolfshead Khan , Direct link to comment

    This is a brilliant article well written and explained. It’s good to hear a different perspective rather than the mainstream feminist narrative.

Comments are closed.

Follow by Email