Why Feminism and “Women’s Marches” Are So Pitiful

The whole concept of a “women’s march” implies that women, as a group, are at war with some other group — presumably men.

Such a group-think kind of mentality is the epitome of poor mental health and irrationality. That’s why it’s no surprise when such movements quickly collapse into what we saw yesterday: hysteria, violence, unfocused rage, threats to blow up the White House, and all the rest.

To be against something you first have to be for something. For example, a lot of people were against Obama’s eight years in the White House. Many even hated Obama. Why? Because they loved the opposite of what Obama represented. They loved capitalism, economic freedom, individual rights, the right to bear arms, the separation of church-state undermined by Islam, the right to be left alone by the government, and so forth. When Obama said and did things to undermine all these values, it was logical to hate Obama — because of what one loved.

It’s not clear to me what these women marching in rage and violence actually support. I recognize they are against Donald Trump. Presumably they’re against his positions. But his positions on taxes, regulation, ISIS and immigration are positions held by both men and women. Why don’t they focus on what they’re for? From what I can tell, they’re seeking to impose a form of collective socialism on the entire population. They want even more free health care, more free education, more guaranteed equal pay for women and other protected pressure groups than we already have. How is this supposed to motivate men or women who don’t share their attitudes about capitalism, liberty, the Constitution and Bill of Rights? How is calling those of us who disagree names or threatening to blow up the White House supposed to change anything for the better, including from their own point-of-view?

It really boils down to feminism versus individualism. In a nutshell: Feminism is a form of group-think. It’s irrational and wrong. It fosters the false belief in women that their identity is primarily the result of their gender. This sets them up to be in conflict with anyone or anything not associated with their gender. And that’s not good for women any more than it is for men. When you define your entire self by your gender (or race, or any other genetic characteristic), then you lose your individuality. Your individuality is your very self, your actual soul. Soulless people act the way we saw these women act yesterday in the streets.

Feminism was supposed to be a rebellion against traditional thinking. What’s traditional thinking? The idea that men are rigidly one way, and women are another. For example: the idea that women are by nature emotional, while men are by nature thinking and rational. The problem with feminism? It has uncritically accepted the idea that women are by nature emotional while men are not. Instead of viewing women as inferior for being emotional, they go to the opposite extreme and maintain that women are superior. But they share the basic premise that women are emotional while men are rational.

That’s why feminism comes around to socialism, group-think collectivism and ultimately brute force, in the end. The reasoning goes like this. “Men are rational, thinking and profit-seeking. Woman are sensitive, compassionate and care nothing for profit or ego. Therefore, we’ve got to get rid of these male systems and replace them with superior female ones.” That, of course, is the democratic socialism/Communism these feminists always come around to demanding, in the end. It stems from their false belief — the same as the traditionalists — that women are by nature more feeling and sensitive than men, and that socialism (the social system of feeling) is therefore superior to American values of private property, individualism and economic freedom.

Feminists have it all backwards. Capitalism and economic freedom actually lifted women to the point where they’re able to do just about all the things men previously did. Better or worse? That depends on the individual. But the point remains that economic freedom liberates people. It does not enslave them.

When feminists shriek “women were denied the White House!” they imply that women, as a group, have a right to power and control over others. They also imply that there’s something intrinsically superior about woman, and that women should therefore rule over men. To them, power is all that matters, which is why the White House — the symbol of political power — seems to matter more to them than just about anything else in life.

It was never feminism that women needed. What they always needed, politically and psychologically, was what men need just as desperately: individualism. Individualism certainly means you can nourish your sense of femininity or masculinity as you opt to define these things, but your gender identity should not overtake your whole reason for living.

The ironic thing about successful feminists like the singer Madonna? They got where they did through the very things — individualism, capitalism, liberty, and other virtues commonly thought to be masculine — that they now retaliate against in unfettered rage. You’d almost think Madonna doesn’t want other women (or men) to gain the advancement in life that she gained through the very things she now seeks to obliterate.

How sad, and how tyrannical of these twenty-first century feminists. No wonder they’re so angry and cranky. What a pitiful bunch.

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1

Check out Dr. Hurd’s latest Newsmax Insider column here!

Dr. Hurd’s writings read on the air by Rush Limbaugh! Read more HERE.