Michael Eriksson
A Swede in Germany
Home » Humans » Women » Feminism | About me Impressum Contact Sitemap


In most “modern” countries we have reached a point where women have a clear advantage when it comes to discrimination—men, not women, are the victims. This works in a variety of ways, including affirmative action of various forms, that men and women are not equal before the law (harsher punishments for the same crime for men, family courts that over-side with women, etc.), and severe prejudices of how men and women function, whose values and priorities are correct, and so on. All the while, feminists complain that women are the ones being subject of discrimination...


Note that I do not in anyway deny that discrimination against women exists—it still does, and where it occurs in unethical forms it should be fought. (The term “discrimination” has a wider and different meaning than in everyday use; here, to avoid an over-complicated debate, I restrict myself to the everyday use.)

The point is that discrimination against men is a larger problem and a growing problem. This being the case, we should turn our attention to this problem first; and the steady stream of complaint from feminists concerning discrimination against women is misguided, often even offensive.

One of the most insidious cases, which really angered me, although comparatively small effects were involved: Until recently women have paid higher health-insurance fees than men in Germany, due to the extra costs through pregnancies, unnecessary hospital visits, etc. However, due to Germany’s “equal treatment” laws, this was deemed illegal—and now we men have to pay extra to cover for the costs women cause. What angers me: Not the amount of money, not the principle, but the motivation—I would merely have been annoyed, had a less absurd reason been given, say “to distribute the burdens more evenly”. While the change may technically be equal treatment from a simplistic and superficial perspective, in that men and women are paying the same amount, it violates the very spirit of equal treatment by giving women an unfair advantage and men an unfair disadvantage. The original differentiation was made on rational and objective criteria, and resulted in a fair solution; the new version is an arbitrary and unfair redistribution of income. From my POV, it is the new regulation that violates, not upholds, the law—in an abuse of reason that is on par with referring to a communistic dictatorship as “Democratic Republic”. This kind of “equal” treatment is comparable to giving full- and part-time workers the same monthly out-payment (rather than the same hourly rate)—equality of outcome. (Which is incompatible with true equality, i.e. equal opportunities, equal treatment for equal behaviour, equality before the law, etc.)

Politics is full of similarly idiotic and unfair rules; however, typically these are at least brought to bear in a less blatant and less hypocritical manner.


What about the women who do not get pregnant, and do not run to a physician for a trivial cold?

True, the old system was unfair against them; however, a better solution could have been found, e.g. by giving them corresponding refunds at pre-determined intervals without a pregnancy (or similar). Notably, any insurance system will contain some amount of unfairness, have individuals who are incorrectly grouped with others based on rules of thumb, and similar. That is something we have to live with. What we should not have to live with it is the deliberate introduction of an unfair system with flaws that could easily have been avoided.

(Certainly, if different fees for men and women are considered unacceptable, then the same applies to almost any other difference in insurance fees based on groups—including that younger people often have to pay higher car-insurance fees in a blanket manner or that older people pay considerably more for health insurance. That specifically the difference in fees for men and women was ruled out, rather than the principle of group-based heuristic fees in general, is a strong sign that we have a matter of “gender-insanity” or a wish to please certain political groups without any true interest in fairness.)