Compulsive shopping woman

Rationally irrational feminists

Rational irrationality sounds like an oxymoron, but is actually a perfectly sensible concept. Roughly speaking, to be rationally irrational is to rationally choose to have certain irrational beliefs. People have preferences about which beliefs to hold—some beliefs are more comforting than others—so people may in some instances be happier holding irrational beliefs. Some false beliefs are very costly to hold—such as believing that cyanide is nutritious and water poisonous—but many generally are not, such as believing that Christopher Columbus discovered that the Earth was round.

The concept of rational irrationality was popularized by American economist Bryan Caplan in his book The Myth of the Rational Voter[1] to explain why people are much more irrational in their capacity as voters than they are in their capacity as consumers. Having correct beliefs about which products one likes is instrumental in choosing how to spend one’s money. The consumer directly decides which products he wants to buy and is immediately rewarded or punished through being satisfied or dissatisfied with the purchased item. Being wrong about politics, on the other hand, is largely costless, since a single vote is exceedingly unlikely to sway the result of an election. Hence, a voter can indulge in irrationality and vote for the party or candidate with the strongest emotional appeal.

Thus, Caplan casts irrationality as a consumption good. Like with any economic good, the amount consumed depends on price and expected benefit. If an error is cheap, people will consume more irrationality. Similarly, if the expected benefit is high, this will also raise consumption, i.e. people will be more irrational when it comes to emotionally powerful topics, such as religion, and more rational when it comes to practical matters such as how to repair a car. Of course, Caplan isn’t suggesting that people consciously choose to be irrational, but rather that they fail to make the mental effort of critical thinking on certain topics and instead just go with their natural prejudices.

I believe this model can also be applied to examine feminism. Feminists (and to a lesser degree most people in modern Western society) want to believe flattering things about women and they want to believe negative things about men. They also want to see men as patriarchal oppressors and women as their innocent victims. They are irrational insofar as they exaggerate the importance of evidence and arguments which support their prejudices (gender pay gap, low representation of women in parliaments and boardrooms, high beauty standards, unwanted male advances, “rape culture,” etc.), and ignore or downplay evidence and arguments which point in the opposite direction (lower male life expectancy, higher incidences of violent crime against men, harsher criminal sentences for men, biased education system, etc.).

This conforms well with the rational irrationality model. Views about sex, gender, and gender relations are highly emotionally charged. Feeling like an innocent victim of unjust oppression who is finally fighting back against her abusers can be downright intoxicating. For male feminists, there could hardly be a higher calling or a more righteous task than to resist the patriarchy that is perpetuated by all those other, unenlightened men.

Having these beliefs is not costly for feminists. Among many circles, espousing such views, especially in a moderate form, is socially rewarded.

Given this high emotional benefit and low cost, it is hardly surprising that most feminists and feminist supporters drink long and deep from the heady wine of irrationality—or perhaps more accurately, they fail to apply their rational faculties in favour of keeping intact their comfortable prejudices.

This irrationality manifests itself in most everything feminism does. Even if the goal of feminism would be solely to promote women’s welfare at the expense of everyone else, many of the means employed by feminists are unfit to attain this end. Take for instance maternal leave. Feminists favoured maternal leave because they irrationally believed it would help women. Laws forcing employers to grant their female employees maternal leave obviously help some women, so it is easy to see why an irrational or partially rational thinker could come to the conclusion that such a law helps women.

But a dispassionate analysis of the economics involved shows a very different picture. Employers are not charities, so an employer hires an additional worker only if he believes that the added productivity of the worker will bring in greater revenue than her cost (primarily in the form of wages). If employers are punished for hiring female workers through a law forcing them to reserve a job for years on end whenever the worker becomes pregnant, this means that the cost goes up. Hence, the demand to hire women of child-bearing age will go down, leading to reduced wages. Moreover, employers will be less willing to promote women into leadership positions. After all, the higher up an employer is in a firm’s hierarchy, the more difficult it will be to find a temporary replacement for her during maternal leave.

What happens in effect is a redistribution of wealth from childless women to mothers. Women who don’t have children and have no plans of having children are unfairly punished. Those who do have children and take advantage of maternal leave receive this privilege at a discounted cost. But even they do not necessarily benefit from this arrangement, because some of them would have actually preferred getting full wages even if it meant giving up a right to maternal leave. There is also a general loss of efficiency that always accompanies such governmental intervention in private contracts. Instead of being free to work out whatever contract is acceptable to both parties, the state limits the range of alternatives, which means that some mutually agreeable arrangements cannot be legally made. This also hurts employers and indirectly also male employees and older female employees.

Maternal leave is one of the many reasons for the oft-bemoaned wage gap. This gap, seen through the eyes of feminist irrationality, is just the sort of thing to justify fantasies of patriarchal oppression. Sober analysis of the situation would of course lead to the conclusion that the gap is primarily due to women’s choices[2], but accepting this sobering reality would not be emotionally fulfilling. And so the explanation must be misogynistic discrimination.

Seen in this light, the gap must of course be challenged. This has led feminists to clamour for laws which ensure “equal pay for equal work,” never mind the fact that there is no objective way of measuring what equal work is[3]. If the story of patriarchal oppression were actually true and the wage gap were the result of misogyny, then there could be nothing more destructive to women than a law mandating equal pay. In such a patriarchal fantasy land, the only thing that entices sexist employers to hire women at all is that they can get away with paying them less. If you then managed to mandate equal pay, then no employer would continue to hire women because now discrimination is free.

Reality is of course a different matter. Most employers are not sexists and are quite happy to employ women who have the right skillset. However, such laws lead to women becoming less attractive to employers as they must fear litigation if they don’t promote their female employees often enough or if they pay them less than their male colleagues, even if such pay differences are justified by different performance. All of this stifles economic output, which hurts everyone in the economy, including women.

Thus we can see that many programmes promoted by feminists which were aimed at helping women, are actually harming them. Rational irrationality gives us a good explanation of this phenomenon. Individual feminists and feminist-friendly voters want to help women and have certain pre-conceived notions of what could be done to help women. When such a policy is proposed, they want very much to like it and support it. They prefer believing that the plan will be effective. Deeper questioning and analysis would reveal the plan to be misguided, but the beliefs of any individual feminism-supporter have a negligible influence on whether the proposed policy will be implemented, so the individual cost of irrationality is low, while the collective cost is high. Hence it makes sense for every supporter to be ignorant, even though everyone would be better off if all feminism-supporters faced uncomfortable truths with all of their rational faculties engaged.

So if this explanation is true, what can be done about this sorry state of affairs? Unfortunately, the rational irrationality model doesn’t give us cause for hope. It suggests that feminists are not merely incidentally irrational, but are irrational for good reason (hence the label “rational irrationality”). Throwing arguments and facts at feminists will not work, since it’s not in their interest to engage in a rational examination of the counter-evidence. Neither will we have much luck convincing politicians. As Upton Sinclair put it, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Once we have an anti-feminist society, we will have anti-feminist politicians, and no sooner.

Instead, we need to focus on the underlying economics of feminist irrationality. We need to raise its price or lower its benefit. I don’t see any effective way of achieving the latter. We can’t control other people’s feelings. But there are a number of ways to raise the price of feminist irrationality. Ultimately what we need is to make expressing feminist opinions socially unacceptable. We’ve won once society treats feminism similarly to racism. There would still be feminists out there, but at least they’d keep their bigotry to themselves.

We are still far away from that point, but we we’ve already seen first signs of this on the internet. Increasingly, feminists are called out on their hatred and irrationality in comment sections, forums, and blogs. There are also many things we can do in ordinary life to make feminism costly. We can refuse to associate with people who are vocal about their feminism. In particular, we should avoid any and all romantic involvement with feminists. We should also advise our family and friends to stay away from dating a feminist. No matter how much feminists rant about needing a man like a fish needs a bicycle, at the end of the day, most of them still seek male companionship (and male resources!). If being a feminist significantly narrows down the pool of available men, this may get some feminists to re-evaluate their positions.

Lest we get too smug, we should realize that the rational irrationality model also applies to us. We, too, are vulnerable to believing comfortable myths, especially when it comes to emotionally charged topics where there is little or no punishment for error. We must be especially vigilant in these areas. We want to think the worst of feminism and feminists, so it is of particular importance to always second-guess our knee-jerk reactions.

In summary, the lesson of the irrational rationality model is this: combating feminist irrationality through political means or through appealing to feminists’ better nature is unlikely to work. Rather, we should take a market-based approach to raise the price of irrationality.

This article is also available in Romanian.


[1] Bryan Caplan – The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies

For a shorter (and free) introduction, see Wikipedia and Bryan Caplan – Rational Ignorance versus Rational Irrationality

[2] See Robert O’Hara – Special report: BLS data do not support existence of “wage gap” and Lucian Vâlsan – Gender Pay Gap – Between numbers and propaganda

[3] Jon Gunnarsson – What Pay Gap?

About Jon Gunnarsson

Jon Gunnarsson is a student and writer living in Germany. Because he's fed up with the lies and propaganda of feminists, politicians, the politically correct media and other enemies of truth, he wants to make his own contribution to FTSU.

View All Posts
  • tango

    Great article. The maternity leave case is interesting – feminism seems to have created a legitimate women’s rights issue here – far from solving it!

    • Laddition

      Yes, but as this new issue is seen merely as another opportunity to add more beloved legislation, it’s all ‘good’ in their ‘mind’. Femininists are statists at heart, they know that they’ll get nowhere fighting biological reality without Big Daddy Government, armed with every legal weapon required, behind them.

      Another interesting post on this kind of issue is to be found here;

      Culminating in a killer comment (#90) which I think aligns nicely with this article.

      Feminism is cargo-cult masculinity. Adapting masculine roles and behaviors to mitigate their insecurities without first understanding how those roles and behaviors are understood by men themselves.

      Feminists want to eliminates their inate insecurity by obtaining not just resources but the power and esteem they see as attached to masculine attributes. So they do the following:

      1. Insist on voting because that’s how men exercise political power
      2. Insist on education because that’s a mark of status and refinement in a man
      3 Insist on working outside the home because that’s how men gain wealth
      4. Persue casual sex because that’s what men do ( the men women are attracted too most)
      5. Abandon traditional feminity because men aren’t feminine
      6. Strive to be strong and independent because that’s how they see men

      It’s all a giant game of dress up. We’ve fucked Western Civilization so immature adult women can play dress up with society.

      • Kimski

        That’s a really awesome comment you found there, L’addition. I’m stealing that one for later use.

        However, the way those 6 points plays out in reality goes as follow, and most women seem to fail on ALL of them, from my humble point of view:

        1. They tend to base their vote on hypergamy, i.e. the attractiveness of the political candidate, right down to which colour tie he’s wearing or his smile. This might also to some extent explain the female preference for voting for male politicians.

        2. They get their education, often through affirmative action programs nowadays, and then proceed on to use it as a means of netting themselves a husband. After having accomplished that, a considerable amount never enters the workforce again, but choose family ahead of career.
        By the time the kids are old enough for them to go back to work, (for the percentage that chooses so), their education is seriously outdated and they’re in need of reeducation, which puts yet another strain on society, financially and in terms of learning spaces available.

        3. A majority are doing the exact same kind of work they’d be doing at home, they just get payed by the state for doing it now. Nothing particularly liberating or empowering to see here. Move along, people.

        4. Thereby substantially lowering their value as lifelong partners. Nobody wants to marry a woman who has seen more pipes than an Arabian oil sheik, or has a long history of broken relationships, as some kind of third Gremlin partner.

        5. See point 4 for further clarification.

        6. While still clinging on to the traditional role of being vulnerable, in need of protection, and demanding men to remain in their role as provider and protector.

        I completely agree with the commenter, obviously.
        It’s a colossal display of make believe, made up as anything but. The 20th century will go down in history as “The Age of Shit Testing”, and the trust between men and women may be irrepairably broken because of it.

        If anyone know of a place where you can turn in these kinds of women, that don’t work like they’re meant to, I’d really like to know.
        I happen to have at least 3 generations.

      • Laddition

        Hi Kimski
        Yeah, I spend a lot of time on that blog (SG), but even by their usual very high standards, that comment was an absolute stand out for me. BadPainter nailed it.

        1) Certainly seems to be a move toward photogenic male ‘leaders’ in politics. Quality, ability, ethics, leadership and values appear to have little relevance in the anglosphere at least. So, I agree with you.
        2) Yep
        3) Yes. Politicians love this as they get to tax the woman working outside their home AND the other woman looking after the working woman’s kids and housework. Now I can fully understand women not wanting to live a life of housework (no return to the 50s advocated by me, nope. I don’t want to be a 50s’ male packhorse either)
        4&5) Yes, women seem to find it very hard to understand that men don’t value women in exactly the same way as women value men. As a firmly heterosexual man, I have no interest in a husband with bounteous baps and a va-jay-jay. I love femininity (which is not weakness or second-rate) in a partner. (I’m not interested in getting married again anyway, but my preferences are not unique to me). Ladies should think about this if they’re looking to partner up. It seems to be quite deeply wired in many women to want to do that – just sayin’ sisters.
        6) Yes again, this is the most unlikeable facet of feminists; they want it both ways.

        Perhaps we could repurpose football stadia for the turn in centres? They’re going to have to be able to handle mass numbers. On site cat handling facilities and wine bars would be useful too.

        I’ll be poolside (far away) with a beer and maybe a dog too (the type that barks, not in a bun).

        • Mr. Sungame

          1. I think this might be more the norm in America, as I don’t see the same happening in Europe. At least not everywhere. I really think the type of political system affects how people vote. In a system where party politics > Persons politics you will see less of this

          • Kimski

            No, voting for female politicians has become an ‘in’ thing to do in Europe, and is often more based on them being women than actual qualifications or merit.
            Very very few of them manage to get reelected, however.

          • Mr. Sungame


            Now I do live in Europe, Norway in fact, and I do not see this here at least. And I doubt anyone voted for our current prime minister just because she is a woman? Why? Because it is the party politics that matters more than who is on top. Obviously who is the candidate matters to some degree.
            At the same time the candidate is not selected each election, but rather is a candidate that work their way up the ranks within the party (Often the candidate is the party leader), this way you reduce the “photogenic leader” trope quite a lot.

            So political system affects how things work, and it’s not at all as easy as “it’s the in thing to do”, at least not where I live 😉

          • Laddition

            I’m in the UK. If you’d like to explain Blair and Cameron to me without reference to Kimski’s point, I’d be mighty entertained to see it… I don’t know all the names for the other countries, but some seem obvious to me.

            Note that that’s a ‘leader’ from the left and one from the right. This isn’t a party-political issue for me, it’s one about our entire political class, where ‘left’ and ‘right’ seem more labels to adopt than personal political core values. Both the men I mention appear to be empty suits with a pretty face. IMHO.

          • Kimski

            @Mr. Sungame:

            Well, I live in Denmark, and as you propably know we got our first female Prime Minister here a couple of years back.
            She came out of nowhere, had no qualifications to do the job acquired or anything to show for herself, and she has done a piss poor job up until now.
            Actually, the only thing she was known for were repeated cases of tax embezzlements, and I’d be REALLY surprised to see her win another election, even though shit is known to happen.

            Generally, female Danish polticians don’t last very long in positions of real power, because they usually get caught red handed doing things they’ve just made a law against themselves, or made public statements against.
            It happened with both the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Social/Domestic affairs only recently. The latter also tried to pass a law that demanded men to sit down while urinating, and that sort of put an end to her hopes of continuing a political career beyond the next election.

            So even though our countries are very close, there’s some radical differencies in how that tend to play out. They’re not Gro Bruntland around these parts, I can tell you that for nothing, and overt incompetence seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

            Edit: Oh, yeah, btw. She managed to get into position as party leader by way of a backstabbing coup in the top of “Socialdemokratiet”. How could I fail to mention that. 😉

          • Mr. Sungame

            Okay then. I guess I will agree with you on that part 😀
            We have our fair share of horrible female politicians as well, but I treat them as I do the male ones that are horrible.

            I think a big part has to do with “Do they get where they are because of their merits, or because of feminism or other factors?”
            For most of the successful female politicians in Norway, like our current Prime Minister, or Minister of Economy, I doubt they would say it’s feminism that got them there. They got where they are because the deserved it (Well I think they deserve it, I voted for one of their parties :P).

            @Laddition: I am not saying politicians might not be “empty suits” to the public. Hell I think that about Norways previous PM 😉
            But if they were voted on as “pretty faces” and if that is the norm in the UK how the hell do you explain the Mayor of London? I laugh just by looking at him 😛 (Not that I know more about him than that, I have just seen him a few times on TV when I was visiting)

          • Laddition

            @Mr Sungame
            Boris, the Mayor of London, is a genuine character. He has his bumbling fool persona which seems to work with the electorate. Most believe he’s pretty sharp behind the buffoonery. He’s also a potential replacement for the Caemmeroid. I admit to feeling that he’d probably be a slight improvement, but still one who will continue to ignore what the electorate want to talk about.

            He is amusing though, I’m happy to give you that… I’d prefer a Churchillian type myself rather than a comedian.

        • Kimski


          Get yourself a Siberian Husky, just like I have. Actually, I have two.
          They can carry your groceries in twin shoulder bags, they prefer beer over water, are great listeners, and they don’t bark.
          I sometimes forget I’m in a relationship with that kind of company.

          • Laddition

            Silent, loyal and attentive
            Practical attitude to shopping (as a task not a pastime)
            Mutually compatible sustainence over the three main food groups: red, meat and beer

            …cool stuff. You’re a lucky guy.

        • Bewildered

          Yes, women seem to find it very hard to understand that men don’t value women in exactly the same way as women value men.

          A simple glaring truth that only a mind that has been totally fucked up by ideology can miss .
          Bad news for extreme social constructionists : It’s biological aka natural ; pretend as much as you want and enjoy your cognitive dissonance !

    • Mr. Sungame

      Interestingly it’s only an issue when only the women get the leave. If men was given the same deal then we would not have the issue.

      But rather than pushing for that, it is used as a reason to make more “women is victim” speeches.

      That said in Norway men are given the option of taking 12 weeks off. (or was it returned to 10 weeks now? I can’t remember). And the acceptance for taking paternity leave is growing.
      There were of course princesses that viewed men getting part of “their” leave as being wrong… apparently it “wasn’t about equality” 😛

      • Laddition

        I’m sure that some of the issue about shared leave was more to try and close the employability gap between woman of that age range and men married to such women. If you can’t make such women more employable, at least drag the men down.

        It’s not like feminists show any concern about shared parenting after divorce, is it? Then they are very clear about the woman being the ‘better’ parent and men being un-necessary. iirc Harriet Haman was very clear about her priorites.

        • Mr. Sungame

          That said, give the men more interaction with the children early on, and you get less leverage for “he isn’t a fit parent”.

          All in all I see paternity leave as a really REALLY good thing in my Country. It’s the type of good egalitarian laws I want to see more of.

          It gives the men rights.
          It mitigates the “wage gap” argument
          It proves men can be just as good parents
          It does close the employability gap (and I don’t view that as a bad thing)

          All in all it’s a good thing imo

          • Laddition

            It gives the men rights – GOOD
            It proves men can be just as good parents – TRUE and GOOD. In fact they may well be better at raising socially functioning adults. A traditional couple certainly are.
            It mitigates the “wage gap” argument – I’d rather have an adult conversation; a rationally rational one about pregnancy and wage ‘gap’. Adding costs to employing married men is not my preferred route
            It does close the employability gap (and I don’t view that as a bad thing) – I’d rather have an adult conversation; a rationally rational one about costs of employment. Adding costs to employing married men is not my preferred route to reducing the excess employment costs of women of child bearing age.

            No one forces women to have kids. It is a choice that they make. Outside of childbirth and child care, women claim to equal men in every way except where they excel…fine! No more quotas, no more AA, no more forcing of some people’s personal cuddly social theories on employers or anyone else. You may regard me as a staunch feminist (if you believe that their claims of just wanting equality are anything beyond a twisted joke in reality). Oh and no more double physical standards either. I don’t care if the fire-fighter that comes to a house on fire is male or female – as long as they can do the job. People should not be dying in fires because physical inadequates are employed due to irrational social desires. That’s insanely irrational irrationality, but it’s happening.

          • Mr. Sungame


            ” I’d rather have an adult conversation” Yeah, me too… but right now that’s not what we are getting. Maybe after “In fact they may well be better at raising socially functioning adults.” we can have one 😀

            My point is that Paternal leave is very positive for the father and child. And you do see that men approach parenting differently (in my personal observations a lot more calmly than women, if this is true I don’t know).

            So any other benefits are just a bonus really.

            The rest of your post is more or less the exact same argument I always use. And having felt how physical discrimination almost denied me something I wanted I can say that yeah you shouldn’t be allowed to do a job that requires MORE of one gender than the other.

  • Jack Barnes

    ” Instead, we need to focus on the underlying economics of feminist irrationality. We need to raise its price or lower its benefit. I don’t see any effective way of achieving the latter. We can’t control other people’s feelings. But there are a number of ways to raise the price of feminist irrationality. Ultimately what we need is to make expressing feminist opinions socially unacceptable. We’ve won once society treats feminism similarly to racism. There would still be feminists out there, but at least they’d keep their bigotry to themselves.”

    How do we lower the benefit? In the same way we raise the cost.
    Most coffee shop feminists only feel the positive social benefits of feminism. Remember feminists are modern women, of the entitled little princess kind, and manginas/white knights. To these people social approval is more important than breathing. They are spinless slugs with no morals except those of the people they are with at any given time. Once society no longer approves of feminism these people will become the most outspoken anti-feminists in the world and will pretend to have never been a feminist in the first place. Once these people no longer support feminism it will dry up and blow away.
    Removing social acceptance is raising the cost and lowering the benefit at the same time. This is how we will win.
    Great article.

    • S. Misanthrope

      I think you’re missing what the author identified at the benefit. It’s not entirely or even primarily about social acceptance. When the movement started, it wasn’t accepted, after all. It’s about the positive feeling you get from believing you are right. The power of moral conviction. The average woman who carelessly calls herself a feminist is probably just in it for the social acceptance, but not the hardcore feminists or the original pioneers of the movement.

      It’s no different than any other movement: there are true believers and there are followers. The benefit of moral conviction (the fuel for the true believers) can’t be taken away, but the teeth can be removed by social pressure. The comparison to racism is apt- the “hearts and minds” aren’t changed, they’re simply driven underground, leaving the average folk saying “Oh yes, of course racism is wicked,” just as easily as they would have said “Oh yes, of course such-and-such a race is superior,” had the culture been another way.

      • Jack Barnes

        I agree with your reply to my comment. We will never change the minds of established feminists. We don’t have too.
        If we remove social approval the base that supports established feminists will fall. That base is those careless women and the male feminists that follow them. These feminists aren’t true believers. They only say they are feminists because it gains them social approval. They are not crusaders fighting for a cause. These people’s beliefs and moral convictions are dictated by the people they are with at any given time. The only benefit they see is social approval and they see no cost in labeling themselves a feminist. Established feminists depend on these people to keep feminism going. Once feminism becomes unpopular it will fall.

      • Mr. Sungame

        At the same time I think feminism moved from the “fringe movement” to the “mainstream” sometime the past 30 years.
        And it is now the “it” ideology. It used to be that saying “I’m a feminist” would give you the same looks as saying “I’m an Atheist” in the bible belt. Now saying “I’m a feminist publicly” is the same as saying “I’m Christian” in any setting in the West. Some people will look at you oddly, but most don’t view it as anything other than the norm.

        So once feminism is no longer “in” you will lower recruitment. A lot of people are more into being “political correct” than having an ideology, and right now feminism is as PC as it gets.

  • S. Misanthrope

    Fantastic article! As an economist, I appreciate the perspective. You’re absolutely right- political change only follows cultural change. That’s why the MRM’s efforts in universities give me so much hope. The same tactics that brought feminists, Progressives, and others to power can work for Men’s Rights as well. The feminists practically wrote MRAs an instruction manual for undoing their work.

  • angelo

    Perfect Jon.

    Latest market analysis shows MGTOW are raising the price of feminist irrationality. The evidence is there in a plethora of girl power (with obligatory peace sign) publications where they are currently wondering “where have all the good men gone?”

    Answer: Check out the MHRM. 😉

    • Kimski

      The only safe space left for males.
      Known for it’s quality beer, conversations, and free speech.

      • Lucian Vâlsan

        Free speech? You mean actual free speech?

        Well, no wonder fembots think the MRM is oppressive. Of course it is – it has free speech which creates bricks of logic. Oh, poor fembots – I can almost feel for them. Uhm… never mind…

  • John_mws

    I absolutely agree this is a worthwhile way to go.

    The price of the emotional problems caused are just as, if not, higher than the price of funding feminist policies cost governments.

    If we get women to see the emotional cost to them of their sons(and daughters) lives being destroyed or hindered by the non stop misandry being inflicted by feminist laws, if they can see the threat of no grandchildren because relationships are too toxic due to gender feminism, if we can get women to see pass the feminist lies and value others again, if fathers have respect again, if children are not treated as cash cows through unfair child support and welfare, if domestic violence can be tackled in a balanced way and thus reduced, if we can show there is a better way for men or women to have a career(or not) as well as a family, we can make the world a fairer and better place to be. Then feminists will have priced themselves out of the market and have to join us or lose out.

    • Jon Gunnarsson

      I think you’ve missed the central point of the article. If the rational irrationality model applies to feminism, then appeals to the bad consequences of feminism are useless in convincing feminists. The important difference here is personal cost versus social cost of supporting feminism. All the things you’ve listed are ways in which feminism is socially costly. But because an individual feminist has close to zero impact on these things(just like a voter has close to zero influence on his country’s policies), her personal cost of being feminist (NOT of the feminist movement as a whole) is very low.

      • John_mws

        I did not say appeal to feminists, so…. do not get your counter point?, I did say we need to appeal to the women in general, especially mothers. Woman does not equal feminist, 😉

        All the things I mentioned are personal costs that people can relate to due the social affects of feminist policy. We need to tie the effect to the policy. I think that would work hand in hand with the your suggestions to avoid relationships with feminists who do not want to change. Get the marketing right so to speak of the true cost of gender feminism will be shown.

        • Jon Gunnarsson

          “I did not say appeal to feminists”
          My apolopgies, you said women, not feminists. But I believe my point still stands. The things you mentioned are personal costs inflicted on women by feminism, that’s true. But the important point is that these costs do not change in any noticeable way if any particular woman–let’s call her Alice–supports or does not support feminism. It would be better for her (and for most women) if all women stopped supporting feminism. Thus the personal cost for Alice of supporting feminism is close to zero.

          If Alice is irrationally rational, telling her how much damage feminism does is unlikely to sway her. However, if Alice is romantically interested in a man who disapproves of feminism and who doesn’t want to get involved with any feminists, then this is a personal cost for Alice. Hence, she has an incentive to think more rationally and reconsider whether supporting feminism is actually a good idea.

          • John_mws

            Ok, in your last paragraph you finally got what I said. Alice does not even have to know feminism exists until some of the following real scenarios can happen. All she will have is an rational irrational belief that the government is taking care of women’s needs in a fair equatable way. The job we have is to make sure she knows this is not the case and it is the result of feminism. and the cost will be seen and be massive in her mind.

            Her son has a false allegation at college, his future could be destroyed. Alice or her daughter wants to date and maybe marry and have kids, as you say MGTOW is all she may find in future, or the men no longer have good jobs due to discrimination in education. Alice’s son decides to go MGTOW, no sign of grandchildren. Son gets divorced and he is denied custody of his kids, as a grandmother she may lose access to her grandchildren. So you see we are on the same page. Beliefs have to be challenged and personal costs are a very strong pull on women’s opinions.

  • dejour

    Liked it!

  • AntZ

    “Hence it makes sense for every supporter to be ignorant, even though everyone would be better off if all feminism-supporters faced uncomfortable truths with all of their rational faculties engaged.”

    Feminists do not have a monopoly on rational irrationality. You can find it in the MRM/MHRM also. I have often witnessed MRAs/MHRAs throwing out this phrase, which I believe is a security blanket for a hopeless situation, a comforting myth that has little place in an objective assessment of a man’s realistic options:

    “Lawyer up!”

    These words are thrown out in the “manosphere”, as though casting a large enough net into a lifeless sea could somehow yield a measure of justice. In truth, there is usually nothing that a man can do, once caught up in the maelstrom of man-hating feminist courts. Nobody wants to say the truth:

    “Kiss your ass good bye, buddy, you are doomed!”

    Feminists have no monopoly on comforting lies. Just my opinion, and maybe I should have kept it to myself.

    • brentlol

      Cognitive dissonance is a modus operandi no matter where you go. I don’t think you should have kept yourself quite because if anything this place needs some dissent more than minor quibbles about terminology.

    • Jon Gunnarsson

      Very important thing to consider. Finding irrationality in other people is always much easier than examining your own.

      • brentlol

        And what was so irrational about what I said? Or are you going to fain ignorance and suggest I’m implying something thats not their? If thats you accusation back it up.

        • Jon Gunnarsson

          What? Are you aware that I was replying to AntZ’s post, not yours?

          • brentlol

            Sorry, the comment section doesn’t specify.

  • Steve Brulé

    Great article. I particularly like your pointing out ways to make the practice more costly.

    Rational irrationality seems like a form of confirmation bias.

    • Fredrik

      @Steve Brulé “Rational irrationality seems like a form of confirmation bias.”

      I think it’s the other way around, as confirmation bias is just one of many forms of irrationality that could be left unexamined when it’s economically rational to save the effort that would be necessary to root them out.

  • brentlol

    Although the challenge of maternity leave had some nice valid points of contention I feel removing such a thing would be detrimental since rearing children a necessity for human progress (avoiding the current social quagmire surrounding it.) That last thing I want is the loss of employee rights especially since most employers are under some branch of a massive corporate conglomerate that only values its bottom often at the expense of their employees and considering the way some people rail against single mothers making it more difficult for them to obtain employment would make them more of a victim (feel free to add quotes around victim as you please.) Maternity leave has its place, if anything we need more things of the sort the benefit all employees regardless of gender. Unencumbered capitalism may make the divide in equality between the sexes smaller but the inequality between the halves and halve nots greater.

    Rational irrationality is something that feminists have certainly mastered but using the example of gainful employment, capitalism, the economy, and employee rights falls into the same claim of cognitive dissonance since that entire system is irrational long before feminism inserted their irrationality into it and trying to form some form of rationality from it is futile.

    • tango

      Another option is to let women to opt out of maternity leave. Sign a legal document when they start work with an employer.

      • Fredrik

        That would be a joke, given the gross discrepancy in negotiating leverage between collectivized capital and uncollectivized labor. Applying parental leave equally to men is a much better option, and not just morally.

        As a political tactic, it would force feminist politicians to either empower fathers or admit they’re against equality of the sexes, making heads explode all over the place, and incidentally removing it as a factor in the bullshit gender wage gap.

        • Jon Gunnarsson

          I have very little leverage against my local supermarket. If they lose me as a customer, they wouldn’t even notice. But I still get high quality products at very cheap prices.

          • Fredrik

            Right, because there are no up-front costs associated with employment, so you can just go work for three different ones at your whim, and then go try another one the next day.

            Seriously? You’re actually trying that old canard, that the relationship dynamic with an employee is the same as that with a customer?

            That’s it. I’m quitting the internet for the night, before I get so mad that I say something I regret.

        • Mr. Sungame


          Not to mention the “proof of patriarchy” cries we would hear if a system of ‘opting out of maternity leave’ would be introduced.

          Improving fathers rights, without directly taking anything away from women is a hard issue to argue against. Anyone that is for equality HAVE to agree to a law that grants equal rights, or else you can’t be for equality.

          At the same time (as I mentioned in another reply) paternity leave have so many positive side effects for men, so really equal parental leave should be the goal.

    • Jon Gunnarsson

      It’s not at all obvious that removing maternity leave would lead to less child rearing. After all, there was plenty of child rearing before maternity leave got introduced.

      “Maternity leave has its place, if anything we need more things of the sort the benefit all employees regardless of gender.”
      But the very point I made about maternity leave in the article is that it doesn’t benefit employees, but rather harms them. It makes employing women more costly, hence leads to lower wages and higher unemployment. My guess is that very very few women would want the right to maternity leave if they had to pay the full price for it.

      • brentlol

        I sorry I fail to see how removing employe benefits would improve anything. Maybe if minimum wage was a living wage. Maybe if their were more small business owners to instill greater loyalty and wouldn’t create a limbo if a women where to get pregnant and not know if she still have a job. Maybe if a families didn’t need to hold three or fours jobs between two people to support a family. Maybe if unions put more stock into who they represent than their political standing. Maybe if, maybe if. There are too many more imposing problems toward meaningful employment than maternity leave that until they get sorted out it wouldn’t benefit anyone. I’m doubtful most people would sacrifice their leave even if its detrimental in the long run because in the short run it is very necessary. If talking about high ranking corporate executives than sure maybe it would have a place but for the lowly working stiff that hold shit ass retail or service jobs and spend their working days stocking shelfs or dealing with belligerent customers than would good would that do? On a case by case basis it could work be then it’ll cause a lot of poor uneducated women to agree to something by an unscrupulous employer that makes her a “welfare baby maker” because she got knocked up and lost her job.

        • Jon Gunnarsson

          Let me answer by way of an analogy. Let’s say that tomorrow a law were implemented that forced supermarkets to offer a free cup of coffee to every customer who spent at least $30. Would this “customer benefit” help customers? Supermarkets would raise their prices to compensate for this measure. A cup of coffee isn’t very expensive, so the price increases wouldn’t be huge, but they’d be there. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and neither is there a free cup of coffee.

          Some customers wouldn’t want coffee, so for them the whole thing is clearly a loss. They get nothing, but have to pay higher prices. Then there are those who’ll take the coffee because it’s free, but they wouldn’t have been willing to pay for it. They get some benefit from the coffee, but not enough to offset the higher prices. Then there’s the customers who wanted a coffee anyway and would have been willing to pay. They probably benefit since the increase in price is probably going to be lower than the coffee would have cost (since their coffee is essentially subsidised by those customers who refuse the coffee).

          On net, the coffee law is a loss. If giving out free coffee to customers were a good idea, supermarkets would most likely already be doing it and no law is necessary. If it’s not a good idea. On top of that, the law is plainly unjust. It’s not anyone else’s business whether a supermarket wants to offer free coffee. Moreover, customers who don’t want coffee are punished by being forced to pay for those who do.

          This same analysis also applies to employee benefits, such as maternity leave. It’s not just a benefit that employees get, but also a burden. Having the right to maternal leave makes women less attractive to employers, thus lowering their wages. And there’s no way to waive those rights. You can’t not have the right to maternal leave. There’s no possibility of repudiating that right in order not to be punished for having it. In a world without maternal leave, on the other hand, you could contract to have the right to maternal leave. The fact that this almost never happens in times and places where maternal leave is not obligatory strongly suggests that for most women, these benefits are not worth their cost.

          • brentlol

            Thats a poor analogy because the coffee would be considered frivolous, where something like parental leave would be necessary for a soon to be mother. Yes there is a cost associated with it but its something I’m, and I’m willing to bet a lot of people as well (on this site is a different matter) are more than willing to pay even though maternity leave doesn’t benefit me personally. I’m helping someone which is more than enough for me and some things can’t be reduced to a monetary value.

          • Jon Gunnarsson

            Whether you consider something frivolous or necessary is an arbitrary value judgement. It doesn’t change any of the underlying economics. How do you know that you are willing to pay the costs? Do you know what they are? And how could you possibly know this about other people, most of whom have probably never properly considered the costs of maternity leave? ALso, most of the cost is not paid by men, but by other women. Employers can–and presumably do–discriminate against women of child bearing age because of the risk of being forced to grant maternity leave.

            And if you actually were so confident that lots of people would be willing to pay for maternity leave, then why aren’t you in favour of replacing coercive maternity leave with private charity? If people are willing to pay, why do you need a law for this? Could it be that you want the state to impose your preferences on all those people who don’t agree with your views?

          • brentlol

            I can simply, I don’t give a flying fuck about the economy. Money is a means to an end and has no value in of itself.

  • Mr. Sungame

    First off I like that you end the article with a “look in the mirror” warning. Because we are just as likely to fall into the trap of irrational thoughts.
    One of my biggest issues with feminism is their constant clinging to the “woman is victim” myth. Heck I have even heard ‘egalitarians’ complain that the MRM is just as bad as the feminists because we say “man is victim”. I don’t think we see ourselves as a permanent victim though, rather we focus on issues that are turning SOME men into victims. (There is a huge difference between becoming a victim, and being born a victim)

    “We’ve won once society treats feminism similarly to racism.”
    Sadly we are a long way from there. The internet might be speaking out, but is met with “the internet hates women” crap. Feminism is so ingrained in western culture at this point, that it will take a long time before Feminism gets lobbed in the same bucket as Racism and Sexism.
    But we should start pointing out all the sexism that comes out of the feminist mouth, and don’t ever EVER let them say “well because you are men it is true!” That is just like saying “White people can not suffer racism, because they are white.” (And anyone that don’t see the racism in a sentence like that should reconsider their stance on racism)

    I had a feminist tell me once “Violence against men doesn’t matter”, and when I asked if the person was a troll or serious the reply was “Violence against men doesn’t matter because of all the horrible violence men have done to women throughout history.”
    Not only is that reasoning wrong, it’s sexist and quite frankly a dangerous mindset, as it creates a difference between male and female violence… but violence should not have genders.