Not long ago, I read Albert Camus’ brilliant essay The Myth of Sisyphus. That’s a book every man must read. According to Camus, those moments come inevitably and without warning wherein one faces the absurd: the unreasonableness of the world, our profound ignorance which seems irreparable, and the often ignored difficulty of finding anything in particular that makes life worth the effort. Camus’ goal in the book is to find a solid reason not to kill oneself in such moments, and his solution is to live with one’s eyes fixed on that absurd and to live in revolt of every reason the universe gives us not to. But when one is too weak to live in this way, rather than actually commit suicide, many resign themselves to an ideology and treat it as absolute so as to hide from the absurd. This is philosophical suicide.
As tradition loses its footing in the West, religion ceases to be the default avenue for philosophical suicide. Because this resignation is hardly a rational process, and because young people have been mollycoddled more in the last twenty years than ever before, what ideology could possibly overtake religion but one that promises protection for some and forgiveness for others for deeds committed not thousands of years ago, but one hundred? This is Third Wave Feminism.
No one understands egalitarianism.
I know this claim will be controversial: biological egalitarianism—that is, the belief in equality not as an ideal treatment under the law, but as the reality of nature—is senseless. As the great economist Thomas Sowell said, “Even the same man is not equal to himself on different days.” If a single person is not equal to himself, how can he be equal to anyone else? And if we don’t know what it means to be equal to another person, how can we possibly say that large groups—like men and women—are equal? The difficulty, then, is that any formal standard we try to impose to judge whether or not such groups of people are equal tends to be either very difficult to find and to judge reliably, or too vague or insignificant to be meaningful. Indeed, there seems to be much too little empirical basis on which even to investigate the notion, let alone to take a definitive stance on it. And this is a problem not only for feminists but even for the anti-SJW types who virtue signal the fuck out of every one of their arguments by reciting their egalitarian doctrine as it were a eulogy for intellectual honesty.
So, it seems to me that one cannot believe in this type of egalitarianism without committing philosophical suicide. If you are to succeed in your own life and personal goals, it should make no difference whether you are actually equal to anyone else; rather, the sort of egalitarianism you should honor and respect is that which treats everyone as individuals.
You are disadvantaged.
As Jordan Peterson explained in a recent talk, the objection to third wave feminism—and to postmodernism more generally—is not that no one is oppressed; rather, it’s that everyone is oppressed in some sense, and that to demand special treatment for it is impossible on a large scale and ultimately unhelpful to the individual.
Really, what has one to gain from a collectivist movement like modern feminism? All the righteous fights for women’s rights—at least in the West—have already been won. What is left to fight for on that front? Air conditioning, apparently. It’s a serious question, though. A movement that has little or nothing left to offer its followers cannot help but be malevolent. So, it cannot be any rational basis that draws so many to it, but something more poignant.
Feminism is religion in the worst possible sense.
The feminist politicians, celebrities, and journalists (I use that term loosely) who conduct the witch hunts against accused sexists, who set expectations for their devoted, and who decide which filthy men have adequately atoned for their original sin—this is the new clergy. The last century has given us the archetype of the Jesuit boy, terrified to doubt his faith lest he dies in his sleep, who matures into a poorly adjusted adult; consume any media or just talk to people, and it’s unavoidable. But I see the next half century giving us a new archetype, one parallel to the former: that of the girl convinced that she needs feminism to shield her from the amorphous, pervasive patriarchy, who grows up not understanding men—not understanding much at all—and, ironically, having nothing of the independence that was once a feminist ideal.
Maybe I’m optimistic to expect that archetype to enter the West’s cultural canon within the next half century. Others my age—college-age adults—I have seen undergo full conversions from devout Tumblr Marxists into free-thinking individuals. But the horror stories of teachers, for example, forcing kids to swallow the PC narrative make me worry that the young are being entrenched more deeply than I ever was growing up. The absurd, though, cannot be evaded completely, no matter how well one hides from it through philosophical suicide.
Live with yourself.
If it’s the case that we’re all oppressed in some capacity, then nothing will ever change that. As I wrote in a previous article, you will find little help from other people. If suffering and oppression are so fundamental to human existence, isn’t it an odd notion to expect a movement which consists of others in the same predicament to show one a way out? When you’re stuck in a philosophical grave, to catch a glimpse of the absurd can be a liberating experience. It’s a reminder that you can still revolt. And the revolt that makes it worth living with whatever oppression you inevitably face is not to be carried out by complaining or begging as feminism does, but simply by living as well as you can despite it—forgetting about salvation from outside because it will never come.