Millennial Feminism and the Internet Vlog Bubble.

The more I look at YouTube commentators (or Vloggers) the more I'm amused by the whole thing and really, really glad I'm not a part of it.

It seems to be entirely made up of different sides of arguments lobbing verbal bricks at each other. No debate, just "your viewpoint is shit, my viewpoint is better" school playgound type stuff.

The worst of the bunch seem to be the Feminist vloggers. It's a case of my viewpoint is correct: if you disagree you are evil and l will ignore you Nah, Nah, Nah...

Back in the Sixties and Seventies, feminism stood for something substantial. Yes, women had got the vote, but way back then there was still true inequality. Women couldn't do certain jobs, in some cases prevented by legislation from doing them.

Over the decades legislation has been brought in to even things up: Women can do any job they like backed by legislation, true wage inequality is a thing of the past.

Germaine Greer, a true feminist is the sort of woman that was an Icon of the movement. She's proud to be female and is determined that there should be full equality of the sexes. Very certainly not a victim, I'm convinced she could give as good as she got in any debate, wouldn't shy away from confrontation.

But that's where the previous generation of feminists differ from those of the millennial generation. Now all I see on YouTube are whiny feminists that bitch and winge about nothing. Literally nothing. God, they are a whiny bunch, it's hard listening to them. But you know, to be fair I've suffered and given it a crack. Germaine Greer I have lots of time for and she's a pretty eloquent speaker and has interesting and witty things to say on the subject. She doesn't whine, bitch and moan.

The millennials come across not as proud feminists, but whiny attention-seeking victims forever on the brink of tears if you don't listen to then, let alone criticise their viewpoint. They have no real platform to stand on, I would imagine because the hard work for feminism has already been done. Now aparrently all men are Satan, there's a patriarchy holding women back and they are all victims.

The recent issue about equality of wages in the BBC is a case in point: Aparrently some of the male celebrities get more money than the females. But that's only for males that are leading programmes and are bigger audience draws. That's the headline: males get paid more.

But no reporting on where two celebrities of equal status host a programme: no mention that they're on similar wages. Note I said similar: two humans with different career paths will eventually earn different salaries. It could be the woman makes more money than the man if she was the main draw to the programme. There's nothing to stop that at all.

The same goes in industry. A male and female following the same career path in separate businesses will end up with diffferent salaries. Two men or two women in different companies following similar career paths will still end up on different wages. It's not sexism, gender is not the defining issue but instead it's the different wage structures in the businesses that affect the end result.

It's a viewpoint that everything should be equal across the board, without understanding that differences in life are the things that motivate humans (of either sex). Want a higher wage? Move to XYZ across the road because they pay more.

The whiny feminists are already starting to insist that businesses pay identical salaries across the board, without understanding that what they are proposing is effectivelly Communism, or Marxism.

Marxist millennial feminists want identical wages regardless of any extenuating factors.

They also want equality without doing the work.

They also think victimhood is the way to achieve their aims.

They forget, no-one (with a spine and a sense of pride) loves a victim. Victimhood also not a valid political platform.

Neither is "You are male and therefore you are automatically opressing me by being male  in my presence". It's the sort of whiny, submissive, non-feminist, lazy sort of argument that someone who wants all the benefits without earning them would come up with.