Pendulum Swung Too Far Fallacy

From Pro Male Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
A fallacious argument by feminism apologists

The pendulum swung too far fallacy is the false belief that feminism was a legitimate reaction to historical female oppression, and that this is why feminism went overboard in the modern era.

There are two problems with this belief[edit | edit source]

  • First of all, it assumes that females have been historically oppressed by men. (which is false, as will be explained)
  • Second of all, it assumes that if women do have any issues that need addressing, that getting them addressed via a hate movement is valid.

Early Feminism Up Until The First Second Wave[edit | edit source]

Even before women got the vote alongside working class men, women were petitioning the government and getting laws changed in their favor successfully. For example, women basically got control of the family unit in 1873, when the tender years doctrine was extended to 17.[1] Men had to pay to look after their families, but women were given complete control of the kids, This is a classic example of female privilege. Feminists will just bare faced lie and claim women were considered property in the 19th century, to try and spread a false victim narrative.

Belfort Bax[edit | edit source]

Ernest Belfort Bax was a late, 19th century-early 20th century MRA who observed and talked about female privilege in his writings.[2] Female privilege is not new, or a phenomenon that started in the 20th century.

Gender roles protected women and burdened men[edit | edit source]

In there past there were gender roles placed on men and women, gender roles designed to put burdens on men, and protect women, feminists falsely frame this as oppression of women. While there was some restrictions placed on women, you have to understand the context of the time.

Women could run up debts against husbands after leaving[edit | edit source]

Married women in the past could leave their husbands, remain married to them, and run up debts in their name.

Information about couture and the obligations men had towards women can be found in a peer-reviewed Cambridge study by Joanne Bailey here.

From the study:

A married woman could not contract debts in her own name. Instead, the common-law device of the law of agency provided her with the right to purchase necessaries in her husband’s name, according to his rank and wealth. A husband’s consent to his wife’s pledging his credit was assumed from the couple’s cohabitation. As The laws respecting women stated in 1772, ‘ the husband shall answer all contracts of hers for necessaries, for his assent shall be presumed to all necessary contracts, upon the account of cohabiting’.33 This implied authority meant that retailers and traders could deal confidently with a wife without checking whether she had her MARRIED WOMEN , PROPERTY AND ‘COVERTURE’ 355 husband’s permission to act as his agent.34 A wife therefore had the right to make purchases using her husband’s credit while they cohabited, even if she was known to be adulterous. The right still applied if her husband turned her out or if she was forced to leave her husband to escape his violence. Wives were not entitled to use it, however, if they ran away from their husbands for any reason, or if the couple entered into a mutually agreed separation and the husband paid a fixed maintenance.35

No economic protection for men, kidnapping of men, worse working conditions than women etc[edit | edit source]

There was no welfare state in the past, no state funded police services, and men could be kidnapped and gang pressed into Navy, or drafted into the Army against their will. Hyper fixating on the plight of women and erasing the plight of men is special pleading/whining on behalf of women.

Soon as society economically developed enough to allow it, women got more freedoms right away in a historical time frame. Women were freed from their gender roles, while men were trapped in theirs. This more of less proves that gender roles have always been designed to benefit women.

Women didn't care about elections and got whatever they demanded politically[edit | edit source]

The first wave of feminism used the vote as a pretext by women to whine and complain, and frame themselves as oppressed. (Bear in mind right after women got the vote in the USA, many women's groups backed prohibition, and used false propaganda about abusive men to justify their position) Yet men were getting drafted at the same time, and many working class men could not vote. Also it is highly doubtful that women would of been denied the vote without the suffragettes movement. There is a long history of women getting what they want soon as they demand it. Most women before the early 20th century did not really care about the vote one way or the other.

Mldwzwvs0p351 (1).jpg
Men working down the mines packed like sardines, while plump, smooth looking females look on.

Female privilege in action, women have always been shielded from dangerous work.



Second Wave Feminism[edit | edit source]

The second wave of feminism perhaps started with Betty Friedan and her victim mongering book, "The Feminine Mystique". The following is a quote from it:

"The shores are strewn with the casualties of the feminine mystique. They did give up their own education to put their husbands through college, and then, maybe against their own wishes, ten or fifteen years later, they were left in the lurch by divorce. The strongest were able to cope more or less well, but it wasn't that easy for a woman of forty-five or fifty to move ahead in a profession and make a new life for herself and her children or herself alone."
—Betty Friedan[3]

Yet another example of female victimhood being used to attack men.

Before and after feminism, women behaved as leeches, while spinning victim narratives[edit | edit source]

This Friedan claim that women gave up their own education to put their husbands through college is a barefaced lie, and wasn't happening in any significant numbers. Women do not do this now, and certainly did not do this in the past. What was happening is women gave up hard work, so they could live off their husbands via gender parasitism. To excuse this behaviour women framed themselves as victims of their own choices. If a woman chooses to leech off a man it is her own fault if she has no work history when she decides to divorce the man years later. (Most divorce is instigated by women anyway.)

The second wave of feminism is when the false narrative about rape culture, and domestic violence started to spread. When it comes to it's core set of beliefs, second wave feminism is not really any different to the third wave. Second wave feminism spun false stories about female oppression, just like third wave feminists do now. Also first wave feminists were spinning the same made up crap 100 years ago as well.

Radical Feminism/Third Wave Feminism[edit | edit source]

Radical feminism is when females decided to expand their social dominance over men even more. Mentally-ill, nutty women in groups could march on the streets and scream, "all men are pigs", with complete impunity, thus with their own actions radical feminists exposed their own victim narrative as a lie. Radical feminism took off after Valerie Solanas shot Andy Warhol. There was a split in The National Organization Of Women, between those who paid lip service to condemning the shooting of Warhol, and those who supported Valerie's murder attempt. Many of the women who condemned the attack soon changed their mind and started supporting Valerie, because they saw no females getting serious push back for holding violent hateful positions. Radical feminism was feminists discovering there was almost no social constraints placed on their actions.

The only major difference between radical feminism and "liberal" feminism, is one of tone. Radical feminism and "Liberal" feminism both share a core set of beliefs, they both believe in rape culture, the existence of the patriarchy and the completely debunked wage gap.

Women also had more rights than men when radical feminism started[edit | edit source]

Women had more rights than men in the 60s and 70s, yet these crazy women went around claiming they were systematically oppressed, this was just as excuse to hate on men, a hatred that was 100 percent unprovoked. If feminists were doing this 40 years ago, why should it be any different today? No one goes, "You know the Germans used to be oppressed 100 years ago, so therefore Nazism was valid, but it went too far and became extreme." Because anyone knows that Nazism has always been based on bullshit and lies. People wanting to give feminism this sort of pass is most likely due to female privilege. Men do not want to admit women can be hateful, and thus try and down play feminist aggression.

Intersectional Feminism/Feminism In The Modern World.[edit | edit source]

Intersectional feminism is basically radical feminism except it is mixed in with a hijacking of queer and racial issues. According to intersectional theory women are always the most oppressed group, even over poor black men. This is complete nonsense, as even black women outlive white men and have more rights than all races of men. Intersectional feminism must be rejected out of hand by gay men, and men of all ethnicities.

Women still claim victimhood regardless[edit | edit source]

Even in 2020 as I write this, when women have complete social dominance over men, complete control over the family unit, more legal protections, more rights, and more funding from the government, women are still claiming they are victims. They still claim that men abuse them, and use social media to incite violence against men, such as the Twitter hashtag: '#killallmen'.

So even a basic superficial understanding of feminism will show that feminism was never a legitimate reaction to 'female oppression'. The fact that many anti-feminists believe this, shows you how much influence feminism has had on our culture. even anti feminists take feminist lies for granted.

References[edit | edit source]

See also[edit | edit source]