Two letters on feminism as a religion

T

Feminism is an industry, not a religion.

Hi Badgers, I have frequently heard you describe feminism as a religion but I believe you are wrong. A religion is a dogmatic ideology, but the concepts are defined and the goalposts don’t move.

Feminism is actually an industry. It is rooted in manufacturing moral outrage, and outrage grabs headlines and sells. As an industry it is looking to constantly increase its market share, and this is why your goalposts are moving in every
argument.

Combating feminism on its ideas will do nothing to slow the growth of this industry. You have to combat feminism in reaction to how it is currently attempting to grow its market share. You have to look at it the way it operates, and you are correct to call it a cancer – because that closely represents its method of market share growth – it metastasizes and grows.

Feminism has its roots in Marxism. It is about defining gender as a class and setting up an oppression narrative. They have realized that wasn’t good enough in today’s standards since the law is not only equal for women’s opportunity but actually gives them advantage so they have had to generate an outrage that accuses healthy male behavior of being oppressive.

Then to grow outrage you have to intersectionalize it and increase the complexity of their class structure to include Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. They have infiltrated colleges, and targeted key degrees in order to get a iron grip control over media – Communications and Social Sciences in particular so they can control the narrative and poison/skew the data to support their Marxist strategy.

And its dangerous because it preys on key aspects of psychology – the desire to do the right thing and protect the innocent. And it grants people the ability to dive into a state of narcissism by allowing people to classify their own failures (such as being overweight or not being successful in their occupation) as the result of class based social constructs or people actively working to hold them
down. The only way to combat this is to take the same long road they took.

We have to take these majors back. And we can do this. Any college administration staff has to be in fear right now and be willing to insert less radical people into these roles and start grounding our students in reality – and it will become an imperative that they do this if they want to remain employed because the student revolts will continue as long as they work and they cave to these students.

It will take a concerted effort… almost a conspiracy… to infiltrate the campuses and erode the iron grip they have. And despite this being the antithesis of what people like us stand for, there does need to be an organized effort to combat this. We need our own pendants. We need a concerted effort to create a unified list of talking points. We need spokespeople and celebrities to parrot us. Its the only way to take back the market and suppress these crazy SJWs.

Anthony

Confirmation Bias

Hi Badgers

At last I detect a little confirmation bias with you! What you say?!

Its about this episode: Honey Badger Radio 38: Feminist Faith

Religion and the Afterbirth of Authoritarian Ontology
by Mike

“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.”

– Thats pure confirmation bias! This: If you read, actually read this time, then you will see that this is pure cherry-picking. This is what you accuse and call out feminists for. This is the one you may be ready for. There are of course more. What happened to: “consider carefully”?

Why did you not as a good fact-checking non-feminist fact-check this one? This one did you do exactly like “a good feminist”!

Kind regards, the Swede

Etymology (wikipedia)
The classical explanation of the word, traced to Cicero
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero> himself, derives it from *re-* (again)
+ *lego* in the sense of “choose”, “go over again” or “consider carefully”.
Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harpur> and Joseph Campbell
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell> favor the derivation from
*ligo* “bind, connect”, probably from a prefixed *re-ligare*, i.e.
*re-* (again)
+ *ligare* or “to reconnect,” which was made prominent by St. Augustine
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo>, following the
interpretation of Lactantius <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius>.[3]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio#cite_note-3>[4]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio#cite_note-4>
The problem with these etymologies, regardless of whether one favours *lego*
or *ligo*, is that the now-familiar prefix re-
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/re-> “again” is not attested prior to its
occurrence in *religio* and is itself in need of an etymological

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Badger Mail
By Badger Mail

Events

Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather

Support Hannah Wallen’s HBR Talk

Categories

Archives

Tags