I’d like to start by commending Kristie for standing up to debate in an environment where the most prominent feminist theorists fail to adequately engage with dissenting viewpoints and cloister themselves away in academia.  I genuinely wish to thank her for engaging in this dialogue.

Feminism is a social science and therefore naturally uses the social science method of asking people things to gather data. As you can imagine, this leads to data that is hard to measure twice.  When 270 scientists on five different continents decided to try to replicate 100 cognitive and social psychology experiments, 75% of the social psychology experiments could not be replicated. Even when the studies could be replicated, the results were consistently found to be exaggerated.

I’m sure one contributory factor is the extremely high amount of political bias in American universities. A 2014 study by the Higher Education Research Institute found that “59.8 percent of all undergraduate faculty nationwide identify as far left or liberal, compared with only 12.8 percent as far right or conservative”.  This bias is even more pronounced in the social sciences. A 2015 study found that 58 to 66 percent of social scientists were left-wing and only 5 to 8 percent right wing, and that there are eight Democrats for every Republican. For some reason, conservatives aren’t signing up in droves to do gender studies.

This has many effects on the social sciences, the first being on the very language used to describe the subjects. This is a quote from an article on Scientific American.

Duarte et al. find similar distortive language across the social sciences, where, for instance, certain words are used to suggest pernicious motives when confronting contradictory evidence—“deny,” “legitimize,” “rationalize,” “justify,” “defend,” “trivialize”—with conservatives as examples, as if liberals are always objective and rational. In one test item, for example, the “endorsement of the efficacy of hard work” was interpreted as an example of “rationalization of inequality.”

But the inability to objectively interpret arguments is just the beginning of the problems that are caused by political bias, the data itself is highly suspicious. The following is from an article published in Science Journal:

For some years now data drawn from social networks has been used by both academic sociologists and brand marketers to help them understand human behaviour. Many projects and proposals have been based on information sourced in this way

One major problem stems from the dubious reliability of information engendered by the networks themselves. Ruths and Pfeffer stress that members of a network are far from being truly representative of the general population.

The common use of networks on social media is even more likely to produce distortions due to bias. Consistent liberals are the group most likely to unfriend or block someone on the basis of opposing political views, leading to social networks that are deeply misrepresentative of the general population.

If a liberal professor at a liberal college passes around a survey on social networks trafficked only by liberals, your data is only representative of the opinions of liberals. It is unreliable due to political bias. If you can’t rely on it, you can’t draw any conclusions from it.

This applies to other identities too, for example, Pintrest has a userbase that is 80% women, and it certainly applies to the liberal college campuses with a focus on the social sciences, which are of course, where many of feminism’s surveys are carried out. Take, for example, the 1-in-5 students have been sexually assaulted or raped, myth.

Christopher Krebs and Christine Lindquist, the Senior Research Social Scientists at RTI International in the Center for Justice, Safety and Resiliance wrote an article in Time magazine where they say:

As two of the researchers who conducted the Campus Sexual Assault Study from which this number was derived, we feel we need to set the record straight. Although we used the best methodology available to us at the time, there are caveats that make it inappropriate to use the 1-in-5 number in the way it’s being used today, as a baseline or the only statistic when discussing our country’s problem with rape and sexual assault on campus.

They specifically say that the survey is not representative and includes not only rape but any sexual act that could legally constitute a crime and it was web-based, shared around social media with a 42% response rate. They literally say:

We simply have no way of knowing whether sexual-assault victims were more or less likely to participate in our study.

They specifically say that it isn’t representative, but that hasn’t stopped feminists the world over from misappropriating this dubious study to justify their crybully demands for safe spaces and special treatment.

Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and he has this to say on how trustworthy data gathered by social science is:

above all, we need to develop a much better sense of the severely limited reliability of social scientific results.   Media reports of research should pay far more attention to these limitations, and scientists reporting the results need to emphasize what they don’t show as much as what they do.

Given the limited predictive success and the lack of consensus in social sciences, their conclusions can seldom be primary guides to setting policy.  At best, they can supplement the general knowledge, practical experience, good sense and critical intelligence that we can only hope our political leaders will have.

Popular feminism, now newly intersectional and all-encompassing, is presented as a comprehensive world view with a magnitude bordering on the religious. It is based on data that is unreliable and draws conclusions that are deeply biased and declares them to be an accurate representation of reality to which we must all conform.

With foundations this unstable, what kind of person would build a career, let alone a society, on them?

Rebuttal 1 – Why does the patriarchy allow women to have rights?

Western feminists don’t want to talk about the actual rape cultures going on in patriarchies that actually don’t allow women rights and institutionally oppress them with laws specifically against women.

Instead, feminists convince themselves they live under a patriarchy by redefining the term.  No longer does patriarchy mean that women are the property of their fathers and husbands, now it is some omnipresent force that can never be accurately pinpointed, but can merely be hinted at in an infinite number of subtle ways that are coincidentally minor inconveniences for the feminist in question.

Western feminists redefine another hyperbolic word to describe the effect of this phallocentric conspiracy theory, oppression. When the patriarchy reinforces the gender binary by presenting girl’s toys in pink and boy’s toys in blue, our feminist considers this a form of oppression because other people accept this and might even hold an opinion on the subject.

This leads to first world feminists making media from the comfort of their warm, dry, plush rooms, wearing makeup and smiling at the camera while surrounded by luxury to make the ridiculous claim that they are being oppressed because sometimes they have to do something, all orchestrated by an invisible force whose sole purpose for existence is to make their life slightly less easy than it could have been.

Western feminists have the gall to redefine a word that describes the result of genuine systems of discrimination and subjugation and then appropriate that word to describe their everyday annoyances.

This is why people hate feminism.  It is for whiney, entitled, lazy, first-world women.  But the redefinition of words doesn’t stop there.  Next is sexism, usually understood to mean prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex. Well, thinks our first-world feminist, I certainly can’t claim that sexism is the reason my laziness and entitlement haven’t somehow landed me a job at a Fortune 500 company.

However, if a feminist redefines sexism to mean “the systems of the world in which I live are designed to prevent me from achieving that job through the patriarchal mechanism of high standards, then I can nag my way into positions of power by finding a company with people who are obviously not sexist and accuse them of sexism or worse, attacking them through their own good intentions and, most importantly, saving the feminist from doing anything approaching hard work. #BelieveWomen

But more than a vehicle for feminists to con their way into careers for which they are under-qualified, the redefinition of sexism has opened the door to unbridled and often repulsive man-hatred. This is achieved by use of the childish method of adding up the total number of men and total number of women in the workplace, finding that more men work than women, and deciding this is because men have set up a system to oppress women because in the highest-paying vocations are majority male.

By this logic, women “as a class” are oppressed by men all through history and into the modern day, which is why the wage gap myth won’t die. It doesn’t matter that men are working longer and harder for their money, in aggregate they earn more than women, and therefore feminists are demanding reparations #GiveYourMoneyToWomen.

This, of course, synchronises wonderfully with the redefinition of sexism so now not only are all men oppressing all women using sexist institutional power, but women can’t even be sexist in return, so no matter how openly bigoted and hateful they are towards men, it is totally justified because of their redefinition of the word patriarchy.

Feminism is Orwell’s nightmare come to life with a bright smile, rainbow hair and a jingle in the background, by people so pathologically entitled they actually campaign against other people’s human rights.

And let’s not forget that when we abandon the inverse-doublespeak of the feminist lexicon and return to standard English definitions, the only women these terms apply to are ones feminists are busy erasing so they can pollute the media with their own petty and selfish needs. #manspreading #mansplaining, #manslamming, #manshaming, #manhating

These are important issues, Kristi, which is why an anti-scientific, self-serving supremacist ideology is not the solution, please try to keep up and stop telling me how you feel. You can try and erase the reality of modern feminism but this wilful ignorance is killing feminism.

Rebuttal 2

Everything about feminism is logically inconsistent. Imagine believing that an overarching power was oppressing you, then haughtily appealing to that power to stop oppressing you. Why would they stop?

When complaining about the wage gap, if women really could be paid less because of their gender, why hire men? If women really are losing $400,000 dollars per year and becoming a poor, oppressed underclass living in a pink collar ghetto, why do they account for 85% of consumer spending?

Why are women treated like an oppressed minority when they aren’t? In the United States, a country with women’s rights, equality under law and universal suffrage, over 50% of the population are women, but if one were to look at Saudi Arabia, a place which is actually oppressive to women, they have a female population of only 43%. Bahrain has a female population of only 38% and the female population of the United Arab Emirates is only 26%, according to The World Bank, if you can believe it.

Now, I’m no fancy social scientist and I don’t know whether correlation implies causation here, but isn’t that what social science is for?  Shouldn’t feminists be looking at the data of what appears to be deeply oppressed populations of women, who seem to be actually suffering under their yoke? Don’t any of them think “this is the most important feminist issue. It’s even more important than the colour of kids toys in the toy store.”

Instead they are busy inventing conspiracy theories in the West about oppression where none can be measured to exist. And now that feminism is intersectional, it must consider the lived experiences of black, gay and trans people using the same logic.  Replace man with white and woman with black, straight and gay, cis and trans and voila, through the magic of feminist logic now everyone is oppressed.

White men hold most of the top jobs in majority-white countries?  White supremacy at work, despite there being a black president at the top.  Sorry, half-black, I’m sure that really matters to the racists who I presume must be voting for the white half. Are majority African countries black supremacist?  

Nothing about feminism or the intersectional monster it has spawned has any logical consistency to it whatsoever, so new and exciting explanations must be invented through the feminist’s second magical power, the ability to read minds.

More men than women in STEM? That’s because those men are misogynistic. They don’t hire women because they hate them.  More black people in jail than whites by proportion? That’s because the majority-white police force is racist and hate them. You don’t have any gay people on your television show? That’s because you’re homophobic and hate them.

This ability to discern the true motivations of people they have never met is nothing short of uncanny, and frankly, supernatual in its accuracy, to the point where they have identified that, and I quote “literally everything and everyone is problematic”.

This politically-correct witch hunt has left feminism pointing the finger at every single institution, cultural event, and individual for all of recorded history.  Then viewing the world through an intersectional “system of oppression” means there is nowhere to escape from one’s inherited privilege and no way of absolving a straight white male from the original sin of being born to the wrong gender, developing the wrong sexuality and receiving the genetic heritage of the wrong race.

What I’m saying is, if you believe that everything in the world is wrong despite all evidence to the contrary, then perhaps you should stop pointing the finger at others and consider pointing it at yourself.

Closing statement

Attacking the man not the argument. Feminism in the real world. Keep citing past glories all you like, but the future of feminism is bleak and it doesn’t surprise me that someone whose entire career is based on feminism is afraid of acknowleging that.


Feminism is not based on reliable empirical data, it has conclusions warped by political bias, it’s on the verge of collapsing under its own inconsistencies and requires Orwellian-levels of control to maintain via the suppression of other people’s rights.

Feminism is not good for the world because the world is where reality is, and reality is the mortal enemy of modern-day intersectional feminism.

I wouldn’t expect feminism to be able to produce an empirical fact even if it wanted to, and I certainly wouldn’t expect feminism to provide an analysis rooted in reason. And given that many feminists seem to draw deep emotional and spiritual comfort from feminism, it’s easy to see why they all seem to think the ends justify the means.

Feminism is a cancer. It will not stop until it has it all, and when it has it all too many people will have invested too much of their lives to simply bring it to a halt, so it will continue to invent new problems and new justifications for even more control than it already has over your thoughts, your speech, your actions and your livelihoods, and it will all have been done for a good cause.

I’ll finish on this quote from CS Lewis

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”



  1. 75% of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies not replicable
  2. Political bias of social science
  3. Social networks, unreliable
  4. Liberals unfriend over politics
  5. 1 in 5 is a myth
  6. Women “losing” $400,000 per year due to wage gap
  7. Women are 85% of consumer purchases
  8. Pink collar ghetto
  9. Female population statistics



Kristi Winters

1 CA 2 Feminism: A Very Short Introduction 3 Beasley, Chris. (1999). What is Feminism?,+Chris.+(1999).+What+is+Feminism?&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEv5bF07XMAhXpKcAKHTVoAsEQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false 4 Feminism: A Very Short Introduction 5
Feminism: A Very Short Introduction 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19