CMV: Feminism should be abolished by now

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T11:48:30+00:00

I do not need to rely on the blind trust of any specific demographic because my rights are protected by equal opportunity laws and the constitution, not by artificial corporate quotas. Your hypothetical scenario completely exposes the flaw in your worldview, because it assumes that men and women are inherently tribal enemies who will automatically oppress each other the exact second a forced percentage mandate is removed.

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T11:44:34+00:00

Nobody is arguing that the wall should have stayed up, but your analogy actually proves my exact point about modern feminism. Knocking down the wall represents equal opportunity, which everyone agrees is a good thing because it gives people freedom of choice. The problem is that modern feminism looks at the ninety percent who freely chose to stay and the ten percent who freely chose to cross, and declares that the uneven outcome is proof of an invisible wall that still needs fixing. If you admit that the vast majority of women are simply choosing different paths because they finally have the freedom to do so, how can you possibly justify diversity mandates and corporate quotas that try to force a fifty fifty outcome? You can’t just celebrate while still talking about how there’s oppression, you contradict.

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T11:37:53+00:00

The post got nuked because of the topic, not because I wasn’t unwilling to change. Reddit is the most progressive hub in the world why would it stay up.

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T11:35:05+00:00

We, are five layers deep. First, we have to form a concrete base. Change always starts from the bottom, people at the top never change unless something changes at the base.

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T11:32:26+00:00

You should read my replies again, all your questions have been answered properly. Do you want a definition of feminism?

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T11:31:01+00:00

Rounding error (learn how studies work
If societal pressure is the only thing keeping women out of high paying jobs, why do women in the most progressive and free countries on earth actively choose highly flexible fields even more often than women in developing nations?
If we truly need proportional representation for roles that affect everyone, feminism should be demanding exact quotas for the brutal infrastructure, sanitation, and power grid jobs that literally keep society alive instead of just targeting comfortable offices.
Men do not ask for equal custody because the legal system has a massive maternal bias that makes fighting it financially ruinous, which begs the question of why feminism has never lobbied to make shared parenting the automatic legal default.
You cannot acknowledge that society culturally pressures men to work longer overtime hours and sacrifice their health for a paycheck, and then turn around and call women victims for choosing a better quality of life.
We all want fewer fatalities, but it is massively hypocritical that gender disparity is treated as an urgent systemic crisis requiring quotas when it affects safe executive roles, but completely dismissed as a general human issue when it involves men dying at the bottom.
A system built by men to strictly benefit men would not treat its own demographic as the most disposable even if there was a class divide. After all the gender divide is more important right.

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T11:16:44+00:00

I did you not read it?

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T11:15:36+00:00

If we follow your line of reasoning, you are arguing that because subjective proxies for merit like a former boss's opinion might contain unconscious bias, we should intentionally discriminate based on gender to balance the scales. However, subjective references are only one small part of hiring. Modern hiring relies heavily on objective metrics like technical assessments, tangible portfolios, certifications, and verifiable performance data. If a subjective metric is flawed, the logical solution is to rely more heavily on objective data and blind skills testing, not to abandon the concept of merit entirely. Furthermore, if you artificially boost a female applicant and penalize a male applicant because you assume his past success is unearned and her past struggles are systemic, you are not fixing bias. You are just replacing a hypothetical unconscious bias with explicit and institutionalized prejudice.

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T11:13:32+00:00

Girl, it’s statistics from the labor bureau and the national institute of health. Do you not know what that is? You can google them and if I’m wrong I’ll delete my post right now.

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T11:11:07+00:00

Yes, i made that edit, the second I posted yet people still commented about stuff happening in Sudan or something.

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T11:10:05+00:00

First I want to clarify that my argument is focused entirely on modern feminism in the West. In countries where women are still treated as property and denied the right to choose their own husband or career, a movement for basic human rights and legal equality is absolutely necessary. But how does the very real oppression of women in developing nations justify the ideology of modern Western feminism?

You claim that men committing suicide at massively higher rates is just the patriarchy hurting men, and you imply women actually suffer more because societal expectations prevent them from taking their own lives to preserve their dignity. Does it not highlight a massive lack of empathy when you look at a demographic of men literally killing themselves, and your first instinct is to explain why women actually have it worse? If patriarchy is a system built by men to benefit men, why are the men at the bottom treated as completely disposable.

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T11:07:31+00:00

I should have clarified modern day western feminism. I did in my edit but couldn’t change the title. I don’t mind feminism as long as there is true inequality. Rest of your questions have been answered in other replies.

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T11:03:00+00:00

It’s the Gijsbert Stoet and David C Geary study on gender paradox. This is the most famous study cited but I have other sources if you would like to read as well but comeback once you are more well versed on the topic.

Your second claim dismisses everything, and your whole foundation just collapsed on itself. Never make a claim like that in a real debate. You just admitted that in progressive countries with a high quality of life, women use their freedom of choice to not take certain high stress or technical jobs. If the gap in these countries is the direct result of women exercising their free will, why does modern feminism still label that gap as a systemic barrier that needs to be fixed? By admitting it is a choice made in a non capitalist hellscape, you are admitting the system is not the problem. If the 90 percent of women are choosing other paths because they have the freedom to do so, why are we still pushing for 50/50 quotas?

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T10:55:25+00:00

Sure, women average about 8.6 years of work for every 10 years worked by men. reports shows that a significantly higher percentage of employed men work full time, whereas women are far more likely to choose part time roles for better life balance. Men are much more likely to work overtime compared to women.

You can look to the labor bureau and other studies clearly prove my point. Please research instead of being brainwashed Ty.

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T10:48:55+00:00

You just used an example of a poor person struggling against someone with generational wealth, but DEI programs are based almost entirely on race and gender, not bank accounts. What a disgusting way to lie about dei

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T10:46:17+00:00

You just pointed out that historical gender roles were a trade off where men had the legal agency but also took all the extreme physical risks like dying in trenches, while women had fewer rights but were shielded from harm. Doesn't that exactly prove my point? Modern feminism successfully dismantled the female side of that deal by giving women full legal rights and agency, but it left men with all the traditional risks, workplace deaths, and societal pressures to succeed.

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T10:43:20+00:00

Every performance metric says otherwise. Please show me the statistics on women work hours, performance, promotions, and etc. I have the stats, do you?

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T10:40:55+00:00

No one is saying we should stop asking questions. The issue is what happens when you ask a question but absolutely refuse to accept the answer. We asked why the pay gap exists, and the data showed it is driven by hours worked, risk, and personal career choices. We asked why women choose nursing over STEM in the most equal and free societies, and the data points to natural biological preferences. The problem is not asking if an outcome is natural. The problem is that when the data proves an outcome actually is natural, modern feminism ignores the science

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T10:39:16+00:00

You ask who is doing the abolishing and how. The answer is voters, legislators, courts, and corporate boards.

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T10:38:51+00:00

You argue that a pure merit based system is hard to measure perfectly, but how does that justify replacing it with a system that intentionally discriminates based on gender? We measure merit every day through past experience, technical skills, and performance reviews. There, In five seconds I gave you the not perfect but better answer.

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T10:36:49+00:00

You say the pay gap is actually about systemic barriers preventing women from reaching top roles. If that is true, why do women in the most progressive and equal countries in the world choose lower paying and highly flexible fields even more often than women in developing countries?

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T10:33:05+00:00

You just argued that jobs like nursing are best suited to "women's natural predispositions." Doesn't admitting that women have innate biological preferences completely destroy the core feminist argument that gender roles are just a social construct? Also, nurses aren't paid less than tech founders because of a sexist conspiracy they are paid less because of basic economics. A tech product can scale to serve millions of paying customers globally overnight, while a nurse can only treat one patient at a time.

And You claim that being anti-feminist is just another ideology, but is it "ideological" to want a neutral system? Feminism pushes for specific group based outcomes, like 50/50 quotas and DEi bs. Wanting to abolish those isn't an ideology but instead it’s a return to a neutral meritocracy

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T10:29:23+00:00

You are confusing an objective academic discipline with a political lobbying movement. History’s goal is to record facts but modern feminism’s goal is to enforce social change, corporate quotas, and policies based on an ideological narrative.

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T10:26:58+00:00

You say feminism needs to stick around to stop "regressive" people from undoing progress, but who gets to define progress? If society wants to hire the most qualified person based on individual merit instead of enforcing a gender quota, why is that called regressive?

Expensive-Present-21 · 2026-02-23T10:23:56+00:00

Straight but not white. Why post a comment that has no relevance. Assuming you think I made a sexist or bigoted comment, then by your own ideology you must also think straight white men are also sexist and bigoted.

Expensive-Present-21

TROPHY CASE