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

Feminism as an extension of woman’s nature

Feminism can in many ways be seen as a collectivistic extension of woman’s nature. In particular, I would see the main explanation in a combination of typical female traits—aggravated by the principle “Someone who is not satisfied by little, will not be satisfied by much.” and the observation that an unnatural removal from natural roles leads to dissatisfaction (for which someone must be blamed), no matter how wrong these roles may seem from an intellectual POV. Feminism is, in many regards, just “being a woman” in an organized form.

Among these weakness, consider insecurity (in various regards, but mostly rooted in evolutionary survival fears); a lack of rationality and understanding of cause and effect; self-righteousness, egoism, and an inability to see others view points; and the tendency to form an opinion first, based on various emotions, and only after to try to reason (almost invariably resulting in too selective filtering of arguments and facts, non sequiturs, ad hominem arguments, and similar).

It is noteworthy than in “the days of yore” there were checks and counter-balances that have been removed by the increasing “liberalization” and PC-fication of society; and that the very distorted image of men and women, the absurd way many women behave, and similar, that is the rule today, only could bloom when these balances weakened. Consider e.g. that a man who was physically attacked by his wife could hold her down to prevent injury—whereas he today, in a worst case scenario, can find himself divorced, permanently separated from his children, and serving a jail sentence. Other such balances include that a woman needed a man to support and protect her; that a lower-class or farmer woman not pulling her weight might find herself starving; and that when a woman made comments lacking in reason, she could be ignored or even ridiculed with few repercussions, thereby giving reason a better chance.


Beware that these checks and balances, in turn, could be abused to give men an unfair advantage. That, however, is not relevant to this particular discussion.

Further, for most part, evolution had a led to an equilibrium where various characteristics of men, women, and society were balanced against and adapted for each other. What is happening right now is comparable to an environmental situation where a rabbit lover kills all the foxes, with the best of intentions, and sees the entire natural equilibrium thrown into disarray. Checks and balances...

A further factor that has made feminism possible, while otherwise mostly positive, is the modern ease of communication of thoughts and opinions, both between individuals and through mass media. The silent brain-washing that feminist controlled media in e.g. Sweden attempts is simply not possible without those media. If there were rabid man-haters like Andrea Dvorkin back then, they could spread their bile in a circle of a few miles—today it is spread world-wide and preserved for later generations. The global clubs of mutual admiration that exist among feminist, Cosmo readers, whatnot, would at most have extended to groups of a few dozen. Etc.

Alternatively, look at some similarities in the behaviour of women, in general, and feminists:


Beware that these behaviours are not exclusive to women. They are, however, much more prevalent and emphasized in women, when compared to men. Further, beware that some amount of stereotypization takes place—however, IMO, comparatively little.

  1. If a woman does something wrong, lands in trouble, has a misfortune, ..., her first step is often to try to find someone to blame—preferably a man.

    Under feminism this has been institutionalized, with the exception that it is not always an individual man, but “the patriarchy”, which is blamed.

  2. Women do not “fight fair”; neither does feminism.

  3. Women are often troubled by insecurities and, like humans in general, tend to act out, be aggressive, or project their perceived flaws onto others. Similarly, they often imagine that because they see a flaw in themselves, so must everyone else.

    Feminism is that same in that they often attacked their opponents, men, “the patriarchy”, ..., for the same flaws that they, themselves, show to a much higher degree. (Matthew 7:2-4e, anyone?) Consider e.g. that the most frequent and unbased cries of “Misogynist!” tend to come from the worst misandrists.

    Importantly, I have the impression that the entire feminist movement seems to go into intense denial on certain issues, e.g. by denying that certain behaviours that come natural to most women (and the feminists themselves are likely somewhat attracted to) are built-in preferences—even to the point of ostracizing women who show them.

  4. Women tend to lie at the drop of a hat—as does feminists.

  5. Men tend to keep problems between the involved parties; women tend to spread their side of the story to everyone who cares to listen, and to band together.

    The same applies to concerns about e.g. family politics, as can be seen by how feminism and various men’s movements go to work. Notably, the men’s participation is much lower, the tolerance for others behaviours is much higher, and even those who are active tend to be less bent on getting heard than feminists.

  6. Women want men to pay for them.

    Feminist policy is, to a large part, a semi-systematic attempt to divert money that men earn into the pockets of women.

  7. More generally, women tend to be very focused on their own POV, their own interests (be they financial, emotional, or other), and their own advantages; without giving the situation of others consideration, without looking at side-effects for them, etc.

    Feminism is just the same.


It is noteworthy that many of these flaws can be found even in very young girls, and that they have had ten to twenty years of “training” in e.g. lies and manipulation at the point where men start to seriously interact with them—while their male counter-parts lack this training and the awareness of the associated problems.