Most men and women have known for a long time that there is something wrong with feminism. Something is just “not right” about it. That is why most people do not call themselves “feminists.”
But what is that something?
In recent times, the secret truth of feminism has become clearer than ever before. We have known that feminists’ demand for equality was brummagem at best, subterfuge more likely. Were feminism truly about equality between the sexes, then in those areas where women have it easier, somehow better, feminists would demand attention to (and redress for) men.
You know, for equality’s sake.
But that almost never happens. The hint is in the name: if feminism were about equality, many of us have been saying for decades, it would not be named by just one of the two sexes. Indeed, the mere naming throws in a prejudice, corrupting true sexual egalitarians into the mere promoters of one sex. The female sex.
On many issues, it has become quite clear that “the deal” presented by society is largely in favor of women in general over men in general. Most women get treated better — have even more rights, as Men’s Rights advocates will regale you with at length — at the expense of most men.
Feminists do not see it that way, of course. They are incredulous. They have trained themselves to be. It is a matter of narrowness of vision. What feminists do that they have trouble seeing is their own narrow focus on high-status men, and how they carelessly impute to all men the high status of those at society’s top. And it is from this skewed perspective that they then take the next step to demand equality with those men of high status, forgetting the homeless men on the street, the men in dangerous jobs, the high suicide rate, etc.
As I have stated many times before — and is extremely common in anti-feminist circles — feminism is not an egalitarian movement devoted to equality, it is a status envy movement.
And if you have any doubt, just look at the scorn feminists regularly heap on low- and mid-status men. Their pejoratives are astounding: “neck-beards,” “losers,” and worse. A man who works to provide for his family is said to possess “privilege,” when anyone with a lick of sense can see only the dubious privilege of serving a woman and her children. Which, as is now often noted by anyone who is not a feminist, a woman can take away from said man at whim. Even in cases where the children are his, too.
And men of low status? Their contempt is palpable in almost every instance.
This parallels the feminine mating strategy of hypergamy. Women tend to scorn men who make less than they do. Or who have less education than they do. Instead, for mates, they want the best that can be obtained, high-status providers.
Men, of course, tend to seek to mate with women in a parallel way, but on different standards. Definitely not wealth, power or traditional social standing. When a man seeks or obtains a high-status woman on the wealth criterion, or the power criterion, or the social standing criterion, he is looked upon by nearly everyone with suspicion at least, often with disdain. Most especially including by feminists. Men’s hypergamy is on one traditional track, where the standard is youth and beauty. Otherwise he is expected to be egalitarian. Women may be hypergamous on any count, but is expected to be regarding wealth and power.
It is actually worse than that. Traditional masculine preference for youth and beauty over other criteria is often tut-tutted. And among feminists, is commonly seen as a sign of masculine superficiality and worse, as a sign of “patriarchy.”
When feminists focus only on their fantasied equality with high-status men, ruling out “the losers” and criminals and even the plodding normies, they are merely translating standard hypergamous instincts to the society-wide playing field. And usually they expect to marshal the State on their side, as the instrument of social advance and wealth and security acquisition.
Just as war is politics carried on by other means, feminism is feminine hypergamy carried on by other means. Feminism is hypergamy collectivized. This is feminism’s secret truth.
And the State is the instrument of the social revolution feminists demand.
Feminism in this form is quite statist, and therefore dangerous. Even evil.
twv
Wirkman Comment 
There’s an extremely important insight in this entry, but you’ve buried it. Any discussion of something called “feminism” needs to begin by defining what that term is being used to mean. Part of the key to what success has been enjoyed by what you”re attacking is exactly that it has labelled itself with a word that every standard dictionary defines as meaning advocacy or practice of sexual equality. You need immediately to make it clear that you’re instead referring the to ideology and practices of those who most often self-identify with that term, otherwise, you’ve played right into their hands.
In any case, I don’t know how to get most people to attend to your point, because of the problem (to which you point) that not only those who self-identify with “feminist” but a great many others have been conditioned to reject out-of-hand any attempt to argue that the social structure has become actively biased against men.
By this point, everybody knows the standard definition of feminism as supporting equality of the sexes. I dealt with that as a given — and make that given clear, I thought, by saying “Were feminism truly about equality of the sexes”… but I know what you are saying. I will not reach ideological feminists. I am not trying to. I do not even really care about their defenses. They are cultists. But anyone with doubts, those are the ones who may be reached, and I thought I was clear enough for them. Maybe not. Try again.