How do I know feminism is a religion?
Because it can take a five rapes and two sexual assaults, and through the power of the divine feminine inherent in the phrase “listen and believe” it can turn that meagre fare into a veritable feast of sexual violence.
This miracle is spectacular enough to pad the salaries and lade the tables of thousands of well-paid advocates, counsellors and lobbyists, and harvest votes by the hundreds of thousands for politicians who sing the appropriate hosannah.
Like Jesus fed the multitude from seven loaves of bread and a few small fish, feminism has managed to conjure into existence a pervasive rape culture out of such paltry nourishment as 80 reported sexual assaults at the University of Minnesota between 2011 and 2014.
How does feminism perform such miracles? Through its mystical numbers. Not 666, but 12 percent and 1 in 5.
A recent breakdown of feminisms’ own numbers by Mark J Perry at the American Enterprise Institute is demonstrative of this extraordinary faculty of feminist arithmetic, a faith in which 2+2 can indeed equal 5. Or 94. Or whatever number a feminist might wish it to equal.
1 in 5 is the proportion of college women who will be sexually assaulted during their 4 year undergrad.
12% is the percentage of sexually assaulted women who will report their assaults.
At the university of Minnesota, between 2011 and 2014, 80 people (we will assume they were all women, because faith encourages charity) reported a sexual assault. If indeed this number represents only 12% of all assaults, then approximately 667 sexual assaults, reported and unreported, actually occurred at this university during this 4 year period.
Yet what does feminism’s other mystical number, 1 in 5, tell us? Out of the 26,000 female students on that campus in any given 4 year period, 5,200 will have been assaulted.
How can this be? How can 667 = 5,200?
How can the numbers play out the same at nearly every other school? Not 1 in 5, but anywhere from 1 in 20 to 1 in 80? Using feminism’s own magical numbers?
How, I ask you? How is this possible?
Well, young ones, it takes faith. Faith in women’s own personal experiences. Faith in the righteousness of the cause. And more than anything, faith in the pure, unblemished knowledge that even when you’re wrong, you’re right—that even if what you’re saying is complete and utter bullshit, you’re starting a necessary conversation for a noble and necessary cause.
Epistemology is the study of how we come to know what we know, especially with regards to its limits and validity. Throughout history there have been two leading, often competing and conflicting, epistemologies – science (based on the scientific method) and religion (based on faith).
The Scientific Method describes the principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, the formulation and testing of hypotheses, the construction of theories, and the improvement of said theories based on new information obtained through the iteration of said principles and procedures.
Faith, on the other hand, can be described as the unwavering belief in a hypothesis or set of hypotheses that have failed the test of the scientific method.
Therefore, Religion is a personal set or institutionalized system of unchanging and stationary attitudes, beliefs, and practices that are held or adopted by subjects based on the faith that such attitudes, beliefs, and practices have been ordained by one god, multiple gods, or some higher power or authority.
From my observations, feminism operates inordinately more closely to a religion than it does to a science.
The crowning glory of all parallels between feminism and religion, however, is the good old unfalsifiability fallacy, which is when a theory or hypothesis is devised such that it cannot be contradicted by the scientific method. LogicallyFallacious gives a witty example as follows:
I have tiny, invisible unicorns living in my anus. Unfortunately, these cannot be detected by any kind of scientific equipment.
Typical unfalsifiable sophistry from some religious folks may manifest itself as follows:
Non-Religious Person: I have never seen, felt, or experienced God or the consequences of God’s actions on my life. Everything I’ve seen, felt, or experienced can better be explained through reason, logic, and the scientific method.
Religious Person: Well that must be because you haven’t accepted God into your heart.
However, the only way of measuring whether one has accepted God into one’s heart is if one sees, feels, or experiences God or the consequences of God’s actions in one’s life in the first place. Not only is this logic circular, but it cannot be proven wrong in any way.
Feminists seem to borrow such tactics from religious folks in the following way:
Non-Feminist Woman: I have never seen, felt, or experienced the Patriarchy or its consequences in my life. Nothing I’ve seen, felt, or experienced denotes to me that I am part of an oppressed class.
Feminists: Well either you have unconsciously assimilated your oppression and suffer from internalized misogyny, or you haven’t been properly trained to spot the patriarchy.
The parallels between religion and feminism must not be identified in order to denigrate people of faith. Personally, I don’t see any problem with holding personal beliefs that fail the scientific method, so long as it remains exactly that – personal. Epistemology – that is, how we come to know what we know – is a complicated matter, and the scientific method is far from perfect. However, it is the best method we have.
Most of western civilization has, quite successfully, established a clear separation of church and state in order to ensure that beliefs which fail the scientific method are not universalized and enforced upon others. Unfortunately, there is no such separation protecting us from the cult of feminism.
What is Religion? Sociologist Durkheim defined religion as a “unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things”. By sacred things he meant things “set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them”.
Why can Feminism be considered a religion? Let’s go over a list of doctrines that are shared between feminism and religious thought.
It has a list of blasphemous ideas that are disallowed. Believe in any of these concepts deemed as “blasphemous” and risk group expulsion and ostracization. Some of the more prominent of these ideas in feminism are Patriarchy and Rape Culture. Just like questioning if Jesus was really the son of God who performer miracles, the slightest hints at questioning the existence of Patriarchy is quick and sure way to be a pariah and apostate.
It calls for a unification of belief. “An apostate is the vilest of all creatures in the eyes of God!” Feminist apostates or even women who simply do not think of themselves as feminists are bullied and socially crucified until they repent and come back to the fold, no matter how famous of powerful they are. Prominent examples of this include Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Beyonce, Susan Sarandon, and Vanessa Hudgens. (Source) We the Honey Badgers, as the ultimate feminist apostates, and especially Alison suffered first-hand from exclusion and attack during Calgary Expo last year, and recently I personally was terminated from my position as a cosplay model for disagreeing with Rape Culture. Another prominent anti-feminist and political candidate Lauren Southern was put on a public enemy #1 list and nearly fired from her political party for disagreeing with existence of Rape Culture in the West.
It calls for unquestioning belief as proposed by Anita Sarkeesian’s call to “Listen & Believe” women instead of critically examining presented claims. Other feminists have taken it further and called for faith in absence of evidence, in what some would call is a landmark of Religion.
The idealized female and the monstrous man
by Doctor O
The idealized female as our one true God, is weak and strong, helpless and capable, morally superiorand without any semblance of accountability or agency. In fact it is not each or all of these qualitiesthat make her our true overlord. It is her tendency to constantly flux between the yin and yang ofthese opposing traits. This makes her infallible in a profound way.
The monstrous man is the devil. A violent, rape machine who thinks nothing of causing women painand seeing them patronized. If he protects her, it’s because she’s his prized possession and if he diesfor her, all he’s doing is denying her the dignity of dying for herself. Both his love and his hatred forwomen combine to form his composite strategy for punishing women.
Merriam-Webster defines religion as follows:
- 1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
- b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
- (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
- 2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
- 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
- 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
and religious as
- 1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity<a religious person> <religious attitudes>
- 2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
- 3a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
By these standards, a religion may be defined as a personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity. By this definition, feminism is most certainly a religion.
Its “ultimate reality” is the assertion that women are a uniquely oppressed class. It’s a belief the religion’s faithful adhere to and defend despite significant evidence against it, and around it they’ve built several other elements of the religion.
The ideology’s equivalent of morality is an existing social attitude, gynocentrism. It’s not named in feminism’s dogma, but is the underlying attitude involved in every aspect of it. Its gendering of human rights issues relies on presuming female experiences and interests uniquely relevant and meaningful, and women and girls uniquely deserving of relief or protection from adversity.
The ultimate good is represented by women, but not as a manifestation of deity. Deity is where the religious attribute the ultimate demonstration of agency, so according to feminist dogma, that would have to be men. Patriarchy theory, the religion’s sacred text, makes men evil gods, or both god and the devil; an entity with the power of deity, filled with malevolent intent, bent on preventing the ultimate good from realizing its full potential. They are portrayed and discussed as if responsible for everything; uniquely guilty of inflicting adversity on women, and yet accountable for providing relief from it.
Women are portrayed and discussed as hapless, helpless victims trying to get through life simultaneously dependent on the “deity” of male-run government and threatened by the “devil” of male oppression… making us feminism’s only equivalent of religions’ representation of humans.
The concept of sin, especially blasphemy, is covered by the term “misogyny,” defined as hatred of women, who remember, represent the ultimate good.
Feminist theory is treated as holy scripture – unquestionable to its followers and therefore taken for granted as irrefutable. Those who don’t subscribe to it are treated as heretics to be evangelized, assimilated, browbeaten into compliance, or ostracized for refusing the call. Arguments made to refute aspects of it are taken as illegitimate attacks on the church which need only be treated as sin/blasphemy, rather than rationally countered.
The institutionalized system is feminism’s own religious catechism and the academic body of work behind it; Women’s Studies. Safe spaces are its churches, Take Back the Night rallies and Slutwalks its tent revivals.
This combination of behaviors makes feminism an institutionalized, faith-based system of belief in an ultimate reality; a religion.
Religion and the Afterbirth of Authoritarian Ontology
You might say religion is the study of the unknown. You might then remind yourself that ALL studies are the study of the unknown. That’s what studying is. Both science a nd religion are studies of the unknown. So how are they so wildly different? Well, science is about deciphering which parts of the unknown are knowable – like why people get sick and how to make a building that doesn’t fall down – and religion is about deciphering which parts of the unknown are unknowable. Like God. And fee-fees. And if you’re a postmodernist, everything.
What that pesky science goes and does is fill in the gaps that used to be explained by God. This is why religion tends to shrink when science grows. And indeed vice versa, but science tend to overtake religion in a slow steady upward curve, and religion tends to overtake science in a sudden downward plummeting motion. The clues are there when you look at the Latin origins of both words. Scientia actually means knowledge. And the “lig” in religion is the same as the lig in ligament, because religare means “to bind.” “To tie up.”
…which is interesting.
And of course, no matter how much painstaking work the scientists do to fill in the gaps, it doesn’t stop social justice warriors coming along, kicking out all the fillings and claiming they were never there. And then kicking even bigger gaps than before.
So. Throughout recorded history there have been individuals claiming to be experts on things that are intrinsically unknowable. “Why on earth would such people exist Mike?” I hear you cry. Well, it’s probably no coincidence that the people who anoint themselves experts on the unknowable just happen to have very strict opinions on morality: On how other people should conduct themselves, what they get to say, who they get to sleep with, who gets to raise the children and which parts of your body you get to keep.
“But why would it make anyone an authority on morality just because they claim to be an expert on the unknowable, Mike? That doesn’t make you an authority on anything, Mike! It makes you a confidence trickster!” I hear you cry. And yes I know. Stop yelling at me, character device in my head. This is all very much the point.
You see, being a bully is actually a very difficult job. If you want people to do what you say and give you what you want for nothing, you will be met with a lot of resistance. We’re not the kind of species that will put up with that. You can’t just say “do this thing for me” people will just go “Well… why?” You can’t even just physically shove people around, someone will see you, and people will gather together and outnumber you and go “Hey, you’re ordering people around. On what basis are you ordering people around? What makes you so high and mighty?”
And at that moment, the bully faces the centerpiece of their existential crisis. You have a crowd of people stood before you. How do you justify making them do what you want for nothing? You can’t say “It’s because I have scientific knowledge.” They can simply respond “So do we. Science works the same way for everyone, that’s what makes it science.”
Dang, you got me. Okay, um….. if you don’t do what I say…. you’re hurting the great Juju!
“We don’t believe in the great Juju.”
Uh….. you’re hurting the desert spirits.
“We don’t believe in desert spirits.”
Um….. you’re hurting….. God?
“We don’t believe in God either.”
Oh. Well in that case…….
You’re hurting the women.