Double Bind – This is what Feminist “Equality” looks Like

double-bindFrom Wikipedia:

A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, and one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation.

NerdWallet reported this week that although women now make up nearly 60% of college undergraduates in the U.S.,  there are still 4 times the number of scholarships for women as men.

This is what Feminist “equality” looks like.

There is no such thing as “equality” … either one group is in power, or another is. Equal rights may be an attainable goal, perhaps. But not equality of outcomes, or resources, or power. Such equality is always balanced on a knife’s edge.

It is a lesson as old as time.

People always want more, and given the opportunity, or leverage, they will seize it. All people have the propensity to do so, regardless of race, gender, sexual preferences, or nationality. Yet we in today’s world are not allowed to say so. Ironically, people are even cheered for their “virtue signaling” for saying the exact opposite …

The double bind.

The truly ironic thing is that Feminists and Progressives have often used the concept of the double-bind to decry female oppression … but all they are really doing is creating new, alternative double binds. Because a double-bind is really just a form of power.

2014 Pitchfork Music Festival - Day 3An interesting example of the double bind is the musician Grimes (aka Claire Boucher), who has railed against the music industry as sexist. The young Canadian singer is a self-proclaimed feminist, publishing “diss tracks” aimed at her male peers over her perceived aggrievances. And stating in a post that:

“I don’t want to be molested at shows or on the street by people who perceive me as an object that exists for their personal satisfaction”

Ironically though, Grimes has no problem using sex to sell her music, dancing around in a sports bra on stage during concerts. She doesn’t have a problem using sex when it suits her, but gets upset when other people see her sexually?

The double bind.

The reality is that if she wasn’t at least decent looking, she probably wouldn’t be a performer. People either need to be ridiculously talented (e.g. Adele) or attractive to make it in the entertainment industry. Often times both. And the simple matter is that Grimes’ appearance does matter. And she uses it and her sexuality on purpose to make a buck. It is a form of power, of influence, she exerts over other people. Yet she wants to bite the hand that feeds her.

The reality is that she, like all feminists, is purposely creating a double bind. A situation where nothing anyone does (i.e. read “men”) is correct. If Grimes really believed in the feminist stuff she is spouting, she’d dress like a nun on stage. But the reality is she wants to create a double bind to exploit the situation. It is a surreptitious form of power. The same kind that produces 60% of women are college undergraduates yet 4 times as many scholarships are for women …


The real problem with Progressives is their naïve view of power. They fail to understand that everything in this world is about power.

“Equality” necessitates taking power away from one group and giving it to another. It also necessitates a restraint on the part of those who are doing the taking. In short, it requires doing two conflicting things.

Rather than creating proper incentives for optimizing individual behavior, such “equality” depends on – wait for it – a double bind. An artificial construct to balance conflicting interests, rather than the naturally efficient mechanism of rational self-interest. Because a double-bind, by definition, has no solution … we must “create” one.

The problem is that equality produced through such a double-bind mechanism is essentially a hamstringing of some individuals’ self-interest in favor of a second group of individuals’ self-interest. And the reality is that second group, absent of any checks, will invariably end up exploiting the situation. The end result is not equality, but rather another form of inequality.

Such double-bind mechanisms also lead to inequalities in the sexual marketplace between men and women (i.e. operative social conventions), functioning so as to undermine the balance of the market, create distorted incentives, and ultimately lead to an inherently unstable system.

This is what Feminist “equality” looks like.

No true Liberal would ever advocate creating distortions in the market that limit the potential of individuals to solve their own problems, to raise themselves up. After all, the key underlying principle of Liberalism is about empowering individuals. Such principles necessitate an honest and realistic view of power.

The only solution for a man is to take on a stance of outcome independence towards these double binds. Whether you like it or not, you are engaged in a power struggle.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Double Bind – This is what Feminist “Equality” looks Like

  1. nargun says:

    good stuff – very pertinent

  2. CopperFox3c says:

    @nargun, appreciate that. Important topic I think.

  3. Yui Han says:

    There is a huge difference between being seen sexually and being molested or receiving rape threads, though.

Leave a Reply