The Brightwork Dictionary of Modern Feminism - Brightwork Research & Analysis

Table of Contents: Select a Link to be Taken to That Section

Executive Summary

Feminism is filled with falsehood, and this is why a reality-based dictionary is required to understand feminism.

Introduction

Feminists are constantly lying about feminism. This article explains the real meaning of terms used by feminists.

Term: Big Red

Big Red is the archetypal irrational and hyper-aggressive feminist who shot to fame due to her YouTube appearances.

This is how feminists come across to many men. Big Red is well known for calling people “fuck faces.”

One of Big Red’s greatest quotes is..

Feminists hate patriarchy, we do not hate you….fuck face!

Term: Equality

This is what feminists say feminism is all about. However, feminism is not about equality. And there are many problems with making this claim. For example, when feminists propose that women have jobs such as police officers or in the military, they normally support lowering requirements so more women can be accepted. This is not equality, and it is preferential treatment. Women want equal access and equal pay in the job market (which they have largely received in western countries); however, they want a man that makes more money than they do. That is hypocrisy and not equality. Women want to be able to choose whether to have a career or to be a stay-at-home mother. However, they normally do not accept men who want to be stay-at-home fathers and call them “leeches” and “losers.” When women go on dates, they expect the man to be “chivalrous.”

None of these items, and there are many more examples, are examples of equality. The term equality is a term of propaganda when used by feminists. It is a Trojan Horse that no “reasonable person” can disagree with. The real objective of feminists is preferential treatment, which puts men into a subordinate position to women. This is very similar to what women say they want from marriage. They say they want an equal partner, but what they truly desire is the following:

The ability to flex to their family and friends with an ostentatious wedding is all about them and “their day.”
A man with more resources than they can access on their own.
A man who will be on board with having as many children as they want to have.
A man who will place their family (his in-laws) above his own family.
A man who takes to heart the phrase “Happy wife, happy life.”
A man who they can manipulate.

Women call the scenario I have laid out above “a loving marriage.”

Equality or Slavery?

One dating sugar baby profile that really caught my attention had the following text in the profile.

I’m not interested in your everyday SD/SB (sugar baby/sugar daddy) relationship. I can pay for my own vacations, I don’t care about traveling with you. I’m not just a young and beautiful girl to be by your side. I’m looking for a SLAVE, for someone to USE. I’m not interested in your allowances by taking care of you. I get money, without doing anything, just by existing and being myself. You have to understand that.

If a man had written this for his interest in a female partner, it would have been considered extremely sexist. However, if a woman writes this profile, it goes without commentary. And this is a primary objective of feminism, so set up a system of double standards where the woman benefits and the man loses.

Term: Mentorship

When women use the term “mentorship,” they mean men providing them with advantages versus other people in the workplace. It also presumes that men have mentorship, which I don’t recall obtaining in my career. Here Sherly Sandberg provides a false backdrop that men are constantly mentoring other men. Secondly, many women use their sex appeal to obtain some of this mentorship, which men normally can’t do (unless the senior member is gay), and this, of course, is entirely left out of this interview.

The Dark Side of Mentorship

Mentorship also has a little-discussed dark side, which is that it is a type of corruption. So do all employees get equal mentorship? Sheryl Sandberg, being a shark, would naturally demand to receive more mentorship than other employees at her rank. So “equal mentorship” is not going to fly with someone like Sheryl Sandberg.

Mentorship sounds remarkable, like cheating others out of promotion through ingratiating yourself to the boss. This is reflected in another observation about the profiles at Seeking Arrangements, which is that the profiles routinely mentioned the sugar babies’ educations and their plans for more education. The presumption is that the sugar daddies should care. This is a mark of egotism that the sugar daddies should take some type of long-term interest in the careers and aspirations of the sugar babies. Women are signaling that others, strangers, should take a constant interest in their career goals. I can say as a man that this is not something that men expect or receive.

Synopsis

Mentorship is a “quick pro quo,” as evidenced by sugar babies’ requests for mentorship. Sugar babies trade sex for mentorship (in addition to receiving other financial compensation). In the work setting, mentorship is normally provided to those that show loyalty to the boss. It creates cliques in the company.

Term: The Gender Pay Gap

This video attempts to prove a gender pay gap (again, in western societies, feminists seem only to be concerned with western societies).

This is an attempt to excuse away the reasons for the differences. However, the things that are attempted to be explained away are real. Men do work more hours than women. They are more dedicated to their jobs than women. Now one can come up with “reasons” for this, but it does not contradict the reality. Women earn more degrees than men, but not in as marketable fields. Very few women have any technical knowledge, and it is rare for women to be prominent in technical fields (I know as I work and research the IT field, where there are virtually no prominent women). Notice the video states that men and women have a pay gap for the same education level. However, that is not a useful measurement as it does not account that men have a higher percentage of more marketable degrees. The video makes the statement that the “jobs women do are valued less than men’s.” No, they enter fields that are less valued. The video argues that when women enter fields, the pay drops and chalks this up to sexism against women. Have the video producers considered that wages drop when more people enter a field and the demand stays stable?

In the examples given, it appears that feminists want women to be paid the same even though they don’t work the same number of hours or work as hard as men.

Synopsis

The gender pay gap is false, and it is illegal to pay the sexes differently for the same work. This video illustrates an issue: women seem to have a major disadvantage in analyzing men. The pay gap exists because men work in different professions than women, which is one major reason. Furthermore, women receive a major subsidy from men’s work, which is most true in the most technologically advanced societies. It is men that primarily build the homes and keep the modern infrastructure and technology working. It is unlikely that large buildings, much less skyscrapers, could be built with entirely female labor. Men, not women, invented virtually all modern technology.

Term: The Patriarchy

Patriarchy is this amorphous concept that can be used by feminists to blame virtually anything.

The explanation in the video above is a perfect example of how feminists move from assertion to discussion and skip the evidence part of the process.

This feminist scholar begins by defining the patriarchy as..

Patriarchy says that men should be in charge and women shoud follow along and do what men want men to do.

However, in western countries, no one says this. This scholar describes many regions of the world, for instance, Muslim societies or more traditional societies. However, this scholar is grafting a traditional society onto the society in which she lives, a western country. But even still, Muslim societies also have women exerting control over their husbands. It is not clear that there are areas where the man simply calls all of the shots and the woman does not have input. Even marriages in the 1950s in the US did not operate in this way. It did lead more to the man, but it was not binary as is described in this video.

She then goes on to say the following.

One of the most clear examples of patriarchy is the idea of a family or a marriage. In a patriarchial family, the father is in charge. The women is up there (below) and the children are below.

Where is the evidence that this is the normal structure of families in western countries? I have seen several families where the woman is at the top, the children are below, and the father is at the bottom.

As with most claims by feminists, the evidence step is entirely skipped — they move from a hypothesis to then expound on its impacts without even demonstrating that the hypothesis is true. This is why I question, and others have questioned, whether feminism can be part of the academic system, as they don’t exist within the realm of evidence and are generally not concerned with evidence.

The quote continues.

If the family is patriarchal with the dad on top and the mom underneath and the mom kind of following along then a patriarchal institutions that is not the family would look the same way.

Notice that the first assertion that the family is patriarchal was not proven. No evidence was provided for it. Only a hypothesis was proposed. This scholar then moves from one unsubstantiated hypothesis (families are patriarchal) to another hypothesis that seeks to use the unsubstantiated first hypothesis to support a second hypothesis, that non-family institution are patriarchal.

When the country (the US was founded) we had a patriarchal government structure, because women could not vote.

This quote is problematic from multiple dimensions. First, women had a traditional role at this time where they were primarily homemakers. There are no founding mothers. However, it is not clear that this system was patriarchal. It is a sign that society was segmented into different roles. Men indeed made more of the decisions. However, it is not clear that the modern society we have today was superior to the society of the founding of the US regarding the configuration of the roles of the sexes. Secondly, it is problematic that a scholar would not know that men, outside of property holding, tax-paying men (roughly 6% of the population) also did not vote. This enormous oversight would fall into the irresponsible category as it paints a false history to the viewer.

Understanding Voting Rights in US History

The US was set up as a republic, with nothing in the constitution or bill of rights about voting.

This is explained in the following quotation.

..the constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights during 1787–1870, except that if a state permitted a person to vote for the “most numerous branch” of its state legislature, it was required to permit that person to vote in elections for members of the United States House of Representatives.[1] In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction; in addition, states and lower level jurisdictions establish election systems,

By 1856, white men were allowed to vote in all states regardless of property ownership, although requirements for paying tax remained in five states.

A historic turning point was the 1964 Supreme Court case Reynolds v. Sims that ruled both houses of all state legislatures had to be based on electoral districts that were approximately equal in population size, under the “one man, one vote” principle.

The 19th amendment gave white women the right to vote in 1920, 64 years after men received the right. However, from 1776 to 1856, the vast majority of men in the US could not vote. Yet, in general coverage, there is no discussion of how most men were excluded from voting. If men are excluded from voting, it is not considered newsworthy, but if women or non-whites are excluded from voting, then it is an outrage and mandatory to present how these groups had to “fight for their rights.”

A major confusion is generated because most of the US population thinks that voting rights were given to all white men in 1776, and this is in part because people think the US was set up as a democracy when the term democracy is not found anywhere in the US constitution or the bill of rights (ratified in 1791, not 1776, and the rights were only offered to keep states from leaving the constitution).

This scholar provides the false impression that it was only women that were excluded from voting. In reality, voting rights in the US have been a gradual process of enlargement since 1776. And what is also left out of this entire conversation is that today, the political process is so rigged by big money that it makes little difference whether men, women, or livestock have the right to vote. Voting rights worldwide are used to placate the masses when the elites find other ways to control the outcome.

The quote from the video continues.

The men could tell the women what to do, and the women had no choice, they did not have the right to vote, they had to follow along.

What about the 94% of men that could not vote before 1856? Do feminists even realize this inconsistency and set of false premises in their argument? Does some type of tunnel vision take over when they read that non-propertied man also did not have the right to vote? When the men obtained the right to vote, did they do this by fighting the patriarchy also? Is that even possible as they are themselves male?

Where Do Billionaire Women Fit Into the Patriarchy?

Actually, this relates to another topic. Is the patriarchy the billionaire class of men, or all men? What if the billionaire is a female, but a man who works in a gas station has no elite connections. Is the man at the gas station part of this elite cabal discriminating against the billionairess, or is it the other way around? In countries around the world, is it the moneyed classes that conspire against the non-moneyed, or is it the men conspiring against the women? Do billionaire men associate with metal workers to perform this anti-woman conspiracy, or do billionaire men tend to associate with billionaire men (and women)?

This all illustrates how ludicrous the concept of patriarchy is. It is almost as if billionaires would like to fund feminists to create a distraction of male conspiracy against women to distract from the actual conspiracy of the wealthy against the non-wealthy.

The quote continues..

Like a work environment where the men are the bosses and the women are fufilling other types of duties but are not valued as highly.

Interesting.

Are there any men who are the workers, or are all the workers women and the bosses men? I have been in a lot of companies, and I have never seen this scenario.

The quote continues..

You might see a situation where it seems from the outside that the men and women have the similar types of jobs and the simlar amount of power in the space. But if the men actually get to do whatever they want and the women kind of have tolerate bad behavior or tolerate being called names, if it looks hunky dory, the while it looks ok from the outside actually its a patriarchal structure.

Let us take the example of Miramax with Harvey Weinstein, as we have a perfect example of what is described in this quote.

At Miramax, where a high percentage of the men doing what Harvey Weinstein did?

Probably not.

So the men that can do this and get away with it for decades tend to be at the top of the hierarchy.

Therefore, is this an example of patriarchy or an example of concentration of power? We have companies with no unions in them, where employees don’t have any say in the company, and where there is no restriction on the behavior of those at the top of the hierarchy. However, it appears that feminists would like to put this into the category of patriarchy. Yet, when Hillary Clinton was abusing her power with the DNC during the 2016 election (and Hillary and the DNC) stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders (who was and is a man), was that part of the patriarchy also because many people who colluded with Hillary Clinton (Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazil) were women. When Obama and the DNC conspired to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders in 2020, was that also the patriarch?

So when women are at the top of a hierarchy and behave as badly as any men, is that the matriarchy, or is that a testament to the fact that those institutions do not have any system of checks and balances or anything stopping elite abuse?

I am afraid this entire discussion is just too complicated for the feminist mind. They need to create a bogeyman called “the patriarchy,” They will not tolerate such questioning.

Synopsis

Patriarchy is a term used by feminists without evidence and never seems to implicate more patriarchal societies that happen not to be white. If there are genuine examples of male-dominated institutions that persecute women, such as in Muslim countries or in Latin America, feminists become instantly silent. Feminists only feel comfortable critiquing white societies, where things are the best for women.

Conclusion

Feminism is enormously based upon lying about what feminism is to a population that has not invested the time to understand the topic. As illustrated in the videos on the gender pay gap and the patriarchy, feminism mostly produces false claims and is unconcerned with truth. Feminists either have horrendous analytical capabilities are they are serial liars. In fact, just introducing an idea as being feminist is usually an indicator that false claims are about to follow.

Feminism relies upon shaming and the power of the mob rather than logic or evidence to gain acceptance. Feminism “must be accepted” by men no matter what the feminist proposes, or the man who disagrees must hate women (according to feminists).

This intimidation framework allows feminists to make virtually any assertion, and for these assertions to be not be questioned – less the person who disagrees face the critique of being “anti-woman.”

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

https://www.mcny.org/story/100-years-19th-amendment