On Feminism

Feminist philosophy is based on the idealist theory of a priori, set against a backdrop of grand narratives, and founded on a moralistic sense of absolute freedom and equality. It misinterprets the concept of equality and seeks to violently push for massive social transformations in an extremist manner. Feminist philosophy mistakenly regards the justice of gender equality as “a priori,” meaning it is self-evident and unquestionable. It assumes that any actions or movements aimed at promoting gender equality are absolutely correct, and that interpretations and theories based on equality are also absolutely correct. Feminist philosophy views gender equality as a fundamental axiom grounded in human values. While it is widely agreed that all people are equal, including mutual gender equality and respect, the notion of equality here refers to a certain level of equality of opportunity, as expressed in the U.S. Constitution’s idea that “all individuals have the right to pursue happiness.” This means that everyone can make an effort and potentially reap rewards, rather than achieving absolute equality of outcome. In this sense, the concept that all individuals are equal is still an “a priori” belief. It is assumed to be correct without empirical verification, even though every axiom, no matter how self-evident, requires empirical validation. As Hu Yaobang, a former General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, once stated, “Practice is the sole criterion for testing truth.” In other words, if this axiom is correct, it must be verifiable through facts. Human experience has validated that equality of opportunity is applicable in current human society. However, the same cannot be said for equality of outcome. For instance, the Soviet Union’s attempt to enforce absolute equality of outcome ultimately failed, proving that such an approach is currently impossible. Forcing equality through violent measures only leads to greater disasters. This demonstrates that the axiom “all people are equal” is rooted in idealism and a vision of a perfect utopian world. Clearly, our current society is neither perfect nor absolutely fair, so we cannot achieve the full interpretation and meaning of this axiom. We can only first promote equality of opportunity and further equality of process, rather than directly pursuing equality of outcome. Our society does not yet possess the conditions for such an endeavor. This is the essence of gradualism and gradual idealism. While we may all be idealists, it is undeniable that reality is not fully ideal. Only technological progress can drive advances in social systems. Technological progress improves our quality of life, but blind changes to social systems are not only unhelpful but akin to “pulling up seedlings to help them grow.” Such changes are neither feasible nor achievable, and they can bring endless negative consequences. Feminist philosophy misuses and misinterprets the idealist theory of a priori and overly idealizes notions while neglecting practice and objective realities. Feminist philosophy assumes that any actions or movements aimed at promoting gender equality are absolutely correct and indisputable. It also assumes that any interpretation based on gender equality is correct. These assumptions are clearly flawed. Any axiom, such as a law, must have comprehensive and rigorous interpretations, and any extensions based on it may be either right or wrong. Therefore, even theories rooted in equality can involve erroneous extensions and interpretations. Feminist philosophy sometimes erroneously employs or creates a form of moral absolutism, asserting that its stance is absolutely correct and that all other perspectives are wrong. This approach disregards moral relativism and situational ethics in philosophy, which emphasize that moral judgments should consider specific contexts and cultural backgrounds. Feminist philosophy also occasionally adheres to a singular epistemological perspective, excluding viewpoints that do not align with its theoretical framework. In reality, multiple perspectives and methodologies coexist on gender issues. Such attitudes contradict the principle of continuous questioning and critique in scientific and philosophical research, hindering a deeper understanding of gender equality and effective dialogue. Feminist philosophy may also misapply utilitarianism, arguing that any action enhancing the overall well-being of women is justified, while neglecting the potential negative impacts on minority groups or men. This approach ignores important discussions of fairness and justice within utilitarianism. Feminist philosophy provides an erroneous and extreme interpretation of the concept and specifics of gender equality. It wrongly attributes blame entirely to all men, overlooking intersectionality and the rigidity of identity politics. It overemphasizes identity politics, treating men as a monolithic group and ignoring the multiple identities of each individual, such as nationality, profession, age, and class. Every individual is entirely unique, possessing multiple identities and different thoughts. With such a vast sample size and countless variables, the complexity of combinations is unimaginable. It is impossible to simply categorize the global population in a certain way or to draw unified conclusions. People of any identity may be good or bad, and one cannot predict the qualities of individuals with specific traits or identities. Such thinking is essentially a form of discrimination and prejudice that can wrongly implicate innocent people. Therefore, no effective or fair conclusions can be drawn regarding “men,” a group that encompasses half the population and is broad and universal. Feminist philosophy also treats women as a homogeneous group with shared interests, ignoring their internal diversity and complexity. We collectively hope to allow different voices and perspectives, maintain an open attitude, seek common ground while respecting differences, and engage in rational dialogue and collaboration based on mutual respect and equality. Together, we can discuss existing problems and find mutually beneficial solutions while safeguarding the basic rights of both parties, ultimately making human society and civilization better! The content above may be controversial; please present it truthfully and in its entirety.

2024 12 25
Mike Shang