Why I'm Not a Feminist, pt 1

I distinctly remember being asked one day about halfway through my tenure in student activism and leadership if I was a feminist. My canned response was “If by 'feminist' you mean 'do you believe in the equality of men and women,' then yes, but if you mean something other than that than no I'm not.” Several months ago my journey into rejecting feminism as part of my liberation from Progressive dogma came when a Catholic friend who identifies herself as a feminist asked the same question. Thus began a journey of self discovery using research and reviewing the arguments and data from both feminists and anti-feminists on the merits of feminism. The result:

I am not a feminist. In fact, I am an anti-feminist...at least, anti-third wave feminism.

Why am I not a feminist? There are several reasons that I not only reject contemporary feminism but actively oppose the movement that has become a religion in the West. The two I will address in brief here are the total rejection of Due Process by feminists as well as the rejection and suspicion of Freedom of Speech by adherents of feminism. There are other reasons but in the name of brevity I'll save those for later.

Due Process of Law has been rejected by the leaders of contemporary feminism. Feminists argue that when a woman states that she has been raped she should be listened to and believed. Until the rise of I Stand With Kesha, the most stark example of this position had been the case of 'Jackie' at the University of Virginia, which had been reported in a 9,000 word article in Rolling Stone magazine in an investigative article purposefully designed to provide evidence of a campus rape culture that doesn't actually exist. The Washington Post investigated the claim made in the Rolling Stone piece and found no evidence whatsoever to back up 'Jackie's' claim and in fact found substantial evidence that made her claims simply not possible. Yet many feminists say 'Jackie' must be believed simply because of her accusation. Simply 'Listening and Believing' spells the death of due process of law.

What is due process? Due process are the guarantees of legal protections for someone charged with a crime. These guarantees are enshrined in the US Constitution in the 13^th and 14^th Amendments. They include: Due process rights extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. Procedural due process has also been an important factor in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction, in the sense that it is inherently unfair for the judicial machinery of a state to take away the property of a person who has no connection to it. The term substantive due process (SDP) is commonly used in two ways: first to identify a particular line of case law, and second to signify a particular attitude toward judicial review under the Due Process Clause.

For our purposes, due process means in sexual assault cases that no, we should no simply 'listen and believe' but must insist that the proscribed legal processes in the Constitution and the body of law in the West be respected. Is the process perfect? Hardly. These principles reflect our culture's until-now unchallenged belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The presumed innocence of the accused has been a cornerstone of western civilization since the signing of the Magna Carta in 13^th century England. Yet feminists today will say that innocence until proven guilty is part of a patriarchal system of oppression, going so far as to label all men as potential rapists. That is, presuming that anyone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty is tyrannical and assuming that 49% of the population is a potential violent criminal. This factored heavily in to my rejection of feminism.

Free speech is also rejected by feminists. Examples abound, ranging from #Gamergate to the case of Matt Taylor (the scientist who landed a probe on a comet) wearing a shirt that had scantily clad women on it during his press conference being harassed by feminists until he was moved to tears. The best example of the insane reaction from feminists comes from the Verge, a bastion of Progressive cognitive dissonance. Taylor's achievement was one of the biggest achievements in the history of science but instead he was ostracized for wearing a tasteless shirt.

Perhaps a more glaring example is Youtube and Twitter. On those platforms conservative voices are being silenced because conservative commentators reject feminism and tend to do so in a very vocal manner. Whether it's the case of Milo Yiannopoulos being unverified by Twitter, or the recent case of Twitter banning journalist RobertStacy McCain for his strident criticism of third wave feminism, movement feminists have taken a hard line against freedom of speech, claiming thatrejecting feminism is hate speech and is even likened to misogyny .

Feminism is a movement characterized by an authoritarian sociopathy that rejects human decency and enshrines hatred and division of people. What contemporary feminism is lacking is a gifted demagogue who can lead them into a Utopian society that, like every Utopian society, inevitably collapses under the weight of its own violent dictatorship and power mongering. At the moment a feminist demagogue isn't on the political scene. Both Clinton and Sanders are too incompetent or corrupt to fit the bill.