Myths of Feminism

A myth here means a premise repeated as a settled fact and shielded from a contrary test. This is not about women’s right to equality. It is about a theory that assigns one sex the role of beneficiary and the other the role of injured party in advance.

“Men run society”

Men more often occupy the highest positions of power, but that does not give every man power. A president’s sex transfers none of his authority to a homeless man. An owner and an employee may be the same sex, but only one controls the capital.

Count the mechanism of power: property, office, connections, and lawful authority to compel. Replacing these resources with the word “men” turns the male majority into accomplices of someone else’s power. See the central argument for the full case.

“A gap favoring men proves discrimination”

A gap alone proves nothing. It raises a question about causes. To call a difference discrimination, show the rule or decision that removes an opportunity on the basis of sex.

Feminist rhetoric often skips that step for male gains and demands it for male losses. Women’s representation in power is treated as systemic; male mortality and educational failure become men’s own behavior. Apply one standard in both directions.

“Rights can be counted apart from duties”

A right without its price gives half the picture. A man may have formal access to an occupation while carrying a duty to serve, support a family, or perform dangerous work. Count only access and the duty disappears from the political balance.

Compare the whole legal status. Count conscription, pension age, criminal restrictions, and family duties beside civil rights. Russian examples appear in “Russian Reality”.

“Protecting women and obligating men both produce equality”

Special protection for women is entered as correction of injustice. A special duty for men is called normal. One sex gains another guarantee and the other another risk, yet both measures are described as care.

The test is simple: reverse the sex named by the rule and ask whether the rule remains acceptable. If the answer changes with sex, the rule uses a double standard.

“Family gives men power and women dependence”

Historical family allocated different resources and different duties. The male provider role brought authority, but also required him to maintain and protect the household and answer for its debts. A wife’s dependence on her husband’s income existed beside his dependence on her domestic labor and access to children.

That system could be rigid and unjust. Describing it as a one-way male benefit remains false. Modern family policy preserved the father’s financial duty while weakening his relationship with the child; “Family and Children” examines this result.

“Feminism already includes men’s problems”

The movement’s name does not prevent it from helping men. The 1966 NOW Statement of Purpose even rejected the rule that a man alone must support a family. Political priorities, however, appear in demands and attention rather than a universal sentence in a declaration.

Male problems routinely receive recognition only after translation into benefits for women: a father matters to a child, a healthy man matters to a family, and a boy must be helped for a future partner. Masculism restores the man as an independent holder of rights.

Replace myth with a test

Do not infer power from sex. Do not call every gap proof. Count rights with duties and apply the same test to both sexes. Much of “patriarchal privilege” then separates into class power at the top and the male duty to service the system.