London School of Economics evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa gets many things wrong in his "takedown" of modern feminism as "illogical, unnecessary and evil," not the least of which is the Cheris Kramarae quote at the center of his thesis.
Kanazawa's thesis about "modern" feminism is that it seeks to deny any and all differences between women and men, a thesis he indicates is demonstrated by the phrase, "Feminism is the radical notion that women are men." Um, actually, the axiom is — as any actual proponent of modern feminism knows — this:
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.
But, you know, there's no reason to learn anything about what modern feminism seeks to accomplish before indicting it, right?
First, Kanazawa argues that feminism seeks to deny biological differences, which he then argues are stacked in favor of women anyway.
However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare – longevity and reproductive success – women are and have always been slightly better off than men. In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring.
Does he provide a citation that more men then women end up with no biological offspring? Of course not! Evidence is for scientists!
Kanazawa also hilariously argues that men are the weaker sex.
It is also not true that women are the "weaker sex." Pinker documents the fact that boys are much more fragile, both physically and psychologically, than girls and hence require greater medical and psychiatric care. Men succumb to a larger number of diseases in much greater numbers than women do throughout their lives. The greater susceptibility of boys and men to diseases explains why more boys die in childhood and fail to reach sexual maturity and why men's average life expectancy is shorter than women's. This, incidentally, is the reason why slightly more boys than girls are born – 105 boys to 100 girls – so that there will be roughly 100 boys to 100 girls when they reach puberty.
Hmm, I recall reading that the leading cause of death among infants and kids — and particularly among boys — are accidents... and, well, I see that's still the case.
Kanazawa's next argument, such as it is, is that men are just in control of everything because they have to be in order to get laid. The world, in effect, revolves around women's ability to provide access to their sexual and reproductive organs.
It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don't control these resources, because they don't have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.
Is it just me or is Kanazawa starting to sound a little bitter?
Kanazawa — like Ross Douthat before him — asserts that feminism is just making women unhappy. Of course, he's just rehashing the talking points from the same study at Douthat did without reading it or bothering to understand what it really says but — again — why would a scientist want to read science papers when he can just rely on an abstract to make a point that feminism has forced women to content with divorce and single parenthood when we were ever so much happier being barefoot and pregnant?