Let’s stop using the word feminism. The movement, in its various iterations, ceased to struggle for equality some time ago. Two distinct pieces remain: women’s rights activism, with some champions like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and hembrism. We explore the latter here.
A quick search on “hembrism” yields few hits in the English language. The word derives from its Spanish language cognate hembrismo, a neologism yet to gain entry in the official dictionary. Nonetheless, we see hembrismo used far widely than its English counterpart. Why?
Spanish speakers don’t take offense to calling objects by their physical attributes. Overweight people get labelled “fats” rather than “body positive individuals”. Thus, acknowledging the existence of hembrismo comes without surprise. We must adopt this direct manner of discourse rather than dancing around issues, lest we fall prey to doublespeak.
A zero-sum game
Forcing the dichotomy of women’s rights activism and hembrism frees us from believing that feminists advocate en masse for equality, which includes men’s rights. When considering resource allocation, women tend to vote socialist, in their better short-term interests, in groups, and accounting for the feelings of those within the group — often irrespective to logic and the big picture — resulting in ever-fractioning teams due to identity politics. Taking the aforementioned into account, as a function of time, feminism, at its limit, without stewardship by men, contains a snowball’s chance in a furnace of achieving and maintaining equality:
limt→∞ ƒeminism(t) = 0
We observe the majority of prominent feminists not advocating for men’s rights — some campaigning against them — even if they espouse egalitarianism, at its core, due to that requiring some benefits repositioned from them, such as Section 8 housing, WIC, scholarships, etc, owed to the finite nature of resources. Though, no one needs another post deconstructing the unworkable nature of feminism. Nor must we elucidate how women in developed countries share as many, if not more, rights as men.
The question remains, “What can we do with all these people privileged with free time and money?”
If some wish to continue the struggle for women’s equality, do places exist wherein women enjoy substantially fewer rights than men? Indeed. Thus, United Shitlords propose feminists relocate to the areas of greatest need for women’s rights activists. Viewing semi-recent statistics on worldwide tourism, we can conclude a small likelihood of this occurring.
What of the rest? They may remain, as civilised tolerance dictates, and face increasing derision from a growing, discontented backlash as their narrative fades ever-quickening into the background. However, feminists don’t get to call their movement “feminism” any more, and “misandrists” lacks specificity in describing them. Henceforth, those whose philosophy, in practise, supports the forced redistribution of resources from men to women, to the greater detriment of society, while eroding the freedoms of men earn the title, hembrists, and their ideology, hembrism.