On the so-called “feminists”
When we talk about the problem of "feminism" we usually make the mistake of confusing at least three periods of feminism itself. And as it happens for everything, if we go to the bottom we find that even within these three waves we find very strong differences: they are differences in the type of militancy, in the way in which the militancy is manifested, and in the political instances that collect the consensus towards this topic.
So, I want to clarify that the discourse applies to the last wave of feminism, as it is occurring in "the West", with the highest points in the USA, whose political events inevitably reflect on the rest of the "western" world.
However, there are common logical errors that I cannot help but emphasize.
The first error, and the most obvious, is to confuse the sufficient conditions with the necessary ones. A condition is sufficient for a given proposition when the condition to say that the proposition is also true is sufficient, but the proposition could also be true without. "If it rains I bathe" is generally true, but I could get wet for other reasons too.
The necessary conditions are those that are required for a proposition to be true. In this sense, "if I am a female I give birth to children" is a necessary condition, as it is not possible to give birth to children unless they are females.
The world of modern feminism commits the catastrophic logical error of confusing sufficient conditions with those necessary, when it speaks of the "Patriarchate", or of the "male privilege".
Feminists do nothing but notice a fact: the vast majority of the rich and powerful are male. So far, so good. From this they deduce that since the privileged are males, then all males are privileged.
This makes no sense: if we look at the number of deaths at work, we find that 97% of deaths at work are male. If we examine the dead in the last two world wars, we find that if we count only the soldiers, 98% of the dead were males, and only by including civilians do we go down to a paltry 86%. Now this statement should contain some suspicion in itself.
The obvious mistake is this: the fact that all the privileged are males does not imply that all males are privileged. The first is a necessary condition, the other is sufficient: if we say that it is necessary to be male to be privileged (all the privileged are males) we are not saying that it is sufficient to be male to be privileged (all males are privileged).
This is a catastrophic error, because the feminists of the last wave continue to say that "one genre oppresses the other" starting from the assumption that all males are privileged, but if they knew how to use logic and distinguish necessary conditions from sufficient conditions , the conclusion would be different:
"There is an elite of males who oppresses, without distinction, almost all women and the vast majority of men."
This is more consistent with our experience, for example when we count the dead at work, or the dead in the war. It is difficult to think that a privileged class voluntarily goes to die: if all males were privileged, women would do the dangerous work.
This first logical catastrophe is the reason why feminism fails to get what it wants. It is not enough for the ruling class to do nothing but incite the remaining males against women, and the power of feminists is easily balanced.
This mistake, the confusing of the sufficient conditions with those necessary, is extremely common in their dialectic: when they say that all rapists are male in general, feminists close the speech by saying that "therefore every male is a rapist", and so Street. It seems almost as if their culture prefers this kind of error: after all, if I wanted to do it myself, I could say that since those who say "every male is a rapist" are feminists, then all feminists say them.
Another catastrophic error that today's feminists make is to rely on intersectionism as a theory that explains discrimination. Intersectionism says that if you are, that I know, lesbians you will be a victim of prejudices because you are lesbians, while if you are black you will be victims of prejudices due to the color of your skin, so if you are lesbian and black then we can calculate the injury as a linear combination two.
The problem with this theory is that, like all Anglo-Saxon sociology, it has nothing to do with reality. If we have a theory, it must not only explain what is happening in the US (unless it is a model of American society), but must explain what happens everywhere and at any time.
But it is not what we encounter in striking cases: when the Jews were exterminated by Hitler, they had only one symbol on them. Just like the communists and homosexuals had one. According to the intersectionist theory, sifting through the archives I should find people who had TWO symbols on them: Jew E communist, or Jew And homosexual. But things were not like that.
The same could be said of the Soviet and Chinese situation: repressive systems almost never accumulate accusations: one is enough.
On the contrary, if we look at reality we discover something much more basic: if there are more conditions to be discriminated against, we are discriminated against for the more obvious.
There is certainly a choice on the part of those persecuted on which condition to use, but the sum described by the intersectionists is completely lacking in reality. A homosexual black communist from San Marino will never be discriminated against for his homosexuality, but mainly for his skin.
So far we have not seen xenophobes infuriated with immigrants because they are homosexuals: the reason is the color of the skin. Have you ever heard salvini get angry for all the gays that land on the Italian coasts? Yet statistics in hand, at least 100,000 of those immigrants who arrived in the last 3 years are gay.
The consequence of this error is that of forcing people to cover themselves with labels: {negro, comunista, sanmarinese}, {woman, blonde, lesbian}, and so on. But all this in reality does not work for a reason: the problem does not lie in the reasons for which one is discriminated against. The problem is that you are being discriminated against.
The root of the concept of discrimination is that it requires that there be no equality. The opposite of a discriminating system is a system where everyone is equal. But a system where everyone is equal cannot require everyone to label themselves with a myriad of different symbols: when everyone is diversified, he has laid the foundations for discrimination.
A system without discrimination can only exist if it starts from the idea that everyone is equal in terms of rights, or if it intends to reach the conclusion that everyone is equal in terms of rights: but if we consider this, the labels of the intersectionists are counterproductive, because they introduce an even wider series of reasons why we are unequal.
If we intend to start from the idea that everyone is equal in terms of rights, then all these labels are useless because they only tell us how many possible discriminations can occur, but they do not help us eliminate them: at most they only help us to count them.
If instead we start from the idea that equality of rights is the objective for practical purposes, then all these labels do nothing but complicate the practice, since fighting "discrimination" as a concept no longer makes sense: it will be necessary to fight millions and millions of possible discrimination. An infinite job.
Even on the academic level, counting discrimination will also be useful, but on the political level there are only two systems: those based on equality and equity, and those that discriminate. Calculate how many types of inequities and how many types of inequality exist serves only to complicate one's life.
The last mistake is to not deal well with the problem of power. The problem with the latest feminist movement is that it merely observes the percentage of women who sit in positions of power to judge how "right" a company is.
This approach is catastrophic for several reasons. The first is that the positions of power and privilege are few. This means that it is possible to think of a system in which 5% of women occupy ALL positions of power, and 95% are oppressed by the first 5%. Exactly as now a 5% of privileged males oppresses, in addition to women, also 95% of remaining males.
The second reason why it is catastrophic is that it forgets a factor: happiness, or if you prefer well-being. If I go to judge in which country women are better counting in which countries they live in positions of power, obviously I will get the usual Scandinavian countries as a result. But if we go to measure in which country women say they are happy, for example, the result changes a lot, and I find myself at the top of the countries that are "surprising".
The crux of "power" is the reason why in the most "feminist" country in the world only 8% of women say they are feminists: since they are women who do not aspire to positions of power, they do not support political instances that demand more power, such as positions of responsibility or otherwise.
Finally, there is the segregationist point which is even worse.
Segregationism is the phenomenon for which if I say that a club does not accept women because we are "things for men", I am accused of male chauvinism, but it is possible to create a club of women who do not admit men because "they are things to women".
The problem with this segregationism is not only the "TERF" phenomenon: the problem is that you cannot add equality by giving women jobs that were previously men, if they do not allow men to do the work of women in parallel .
And so we are all proud of the fact that women are now in the armed forces (first job as men) but nobody notices that in the world of education 80% of teachers in Italy are women. In this sense, a club has been created that is only men, that is, the club of those who do not plan to be teachers.
The thing that these people do not understand is that, when you created a club where men cannot enter, you have also created a club for men only: that of those who cannot enter your club by definition.
All these logical catastrophes do nothing but convince people that this "patriarchy" they talk about will have a lot of flaws, but at least it's rational. This is certainly an aesthetic issue, but politics has nothing in common with reality, being a category of aesthetics.
And if today, in the most successful country, only 8% of women say they are feminists, there is a problem of consent, that is a political problem.
That is, an aesthetic problem.