Photo credit (edited), fair use
According to one source, the idiomatic term “backed into the cake” may be described as, “Naturally inherent in or already incorporated into something. Usually said of negative traits, aspects, or behavior.”
As an example, if a person with a peanut allergy protests a bakery after ordering and consuming a slice of chocolate peanut butter cake, a rational response by bakery staff would be, “Peanuts are literally baked into the cake.” Thus, peanuts are an inherent and un-removable ingredient.
Given this fact, the individual who consumes something that later is perceived as dis-pleasurable or un-agreeable can assume personal responsibility and accountability for one’s own actions rather than assuming a victimhood narrative. With this in mind, in a blogpost entitled Feminism, I stated:
I was raised to respect girls and women [gender], as I’ve done so throughout life when such respect is earned. For a brief time, I identified as a feminist, because I thought being a good person meant supporting females [sex].
Countering my ignorance with knowledge about what feminism actually represents, largely due to misandry experienced during my MSSW [Master of Science in Social Work] studies, I’ve broken away from identification with feminism. I don’t need a label in order to be a good person or to treat people with dignity.
One of the main reasons for my departure from feminist ideology was its objective, however unclearly defined as it was, had little (if anything) to do with the definitional standard of feminism it claimed to represent—belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.
Rather, feminist history, doctrine, and adherents to which I was exposed appeared to have rejected equality of opportunity and advocated so-called equity—alleged equality of outcome. However, one needs only a cursory glance at feminist literature to discover truth of the matter.
Beyond sloganeering, feminism (as an ideology) appears to advocate the political, economic, and social dominance of females (girls and women) over males (boys and men). Rationally, I could no longer support a belief system that ostensibly advocated superiority based on immutable characteristics.
One important point of clarity may be useful at this juncture. When I critique, ridicule, or mock feminism and feminist behavior, I’m not making a global evaluation or values judgement regarding all girls or women.
Given my lived experience, I’m well aware that there are boys and men who identify as feminists. Likewise, it would be illogical and unreasonable to overgeneralize in regard to all females, especially those who don’t identity with feminist rhetoric in the first place.
Still, one could claim that my denunciation of feminism and feminist behavior constitutes an irrational and overgeneralized assessment in similar fashion, because not all feminists think, believe, or behave alike. Here, a second point of clarity may be useful.
I unconditionally accept that males and females who subscribe to the tenets and objectives of feminism are fallible human beings. Thus, I’m rejecting an ideology and highlighting behavior herein, as opposed to irrationally concluding that feminists are bad, evil, or otherwise.
Points of clarity aside, I recently learned of an article in which a woman who perceivably subscribed to feminist doctrine, as I once did, has apparently come to realize the error of her former worldview. I applaud her for being open to change her mind and to do so publically.
The author begins by stating, “Increasingly feel that feminism has failed my generation. It is a peculiarity of the West that it is divided into sets which differ profoundly in their beliefs.” Apparently, she observed similar inconsistencies in feminist rhetoric as I once did.
The author then addresses a key ingredient that is baked into the cake of feminism by admitting that “a woman’s career superseded by far her relations with the opposite sex.” Deconstructing the so-called patriarchy and dismantling nuclear families is inarguably an ingredient of prominent feminist authors.
As though she rationalizes her participation in feminism, the author claims, “Historically, of course, the feminist argument had valid points. In the old days, when members of my sex were bound first to their fathers and then to their husbands, they undoubtedly led disagreeable lives.”
Whether or not this oft-repeated rhetoric serves as misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation, I’m unaware. To be charitable to the author’s claim, I’ll credit her perception as a mistake of fact – or at least a point lacking context.
Prior to and up until the first wave of feminism, it wasn’t solely the case that females were oppressed by males. Men who didn’t own property, as well as non-white men, didn’t enjoy the same privileges and liberties as affluent white men.
Yet, historical misrepresentation of fact is arguably a separate key ingredient baked into the cake of feminism. One may even argue that identification of factual data, as outlined herein regarding non-white versus white privilege and liberty, is what led to intersectionality. Nevertheless, the author continues:
If a woman had a good education, however, she could make a comfortable living and remain independent of male approval. When the desire for marriage and children overwhelmed her, she would almost certainly lose her job, and in consequence become tied to her house, compelled to perform a thousand trivial and demeaning tasks unworthy of her ability.
Suppose man X was black and unwed prior to the time of the suffragettes. Who performed “a thousand trivial and demeaning tasks” unworthy of his abilities? Did his living quarters mysteriously clean themselves?
Imagine that man Y was a lower-class white and unwed man at the time of the suffragettes. Who cooked, cleaned, and tended to other necessary activities of routine living in his case?
The author’s framing of “demeaning tasks” is thus open to debate, given that these were common activities whether or not a male or female performed them. In any case, and questionable apologetics for feminism aside, the author then proposes a thesis statement by declaring:
But the world has changed in a way the early feminist would find incomprehensible and grotesque – indeed, she would view today’s flag bearers as hollow and preposterous nothings. I sometimes think the West has outgrown the feminist philosophy entirely and should cast it off.
Based! I have no critique of the thesis proposition, even though I recognize the element of demandingness by the author’s use of a should, must, or ought-type statement. Rather than an absolutistic should, I suspect the author’s narrative relates to a recommendatory should.
Even being charitable to the fallacy of feminism’s inception and its necessity for the lives of females which centers women as an inherent victim class, a push to imbalance masculine and feminine power structures is performed with ignorance of historical fact. Should this be the case?
Male and female roles have historically existed in unison with a division of shared responsibilities. Failure to fulfill these obligations could’ve resulted in the collapse of households, communities, tribes, and even entire societies of yesteryear.
Myopically looking through the distorted lens of feminist philosophy and concluding that women weren’t represented in specific power structures and therefore this perceived imbalance meant that women were oppressed serves as a denial of truth. At best, it’s a misunderstanding of history.
Nevertheless, the author moves from a plausible thesis statement to questioning, “Where, for instance, does it [feminism] leave women like me, when we have reached the age of 54, as I have, and find ourselves both single and childless?” This is an iss-ME, not an iss-YOU.
In other words, this is the author’s personal issue (iss-ME) and not the world’s issue (iss-YOU). Baked into the cake is the deconstruction of patriarchal and matriarchal structures, as well as the dismantling of nuclear families. Ergo, the author knew that the cake contained peanuts.
In a sobering moment of realism rather than idealism, the author claims, “One in 10 British women in their 50s have never married and live alone, which is neither pleasant nor healthy.” For those who ate the cake of their own volition, there are consequences for one’s actions.
Still, I have rational compassion when reading the author’s statement, “But the truth is that much of my depression sprung from a solitary existence that would be eschewed by a race of alley cats. I do not know one single woman of my generation who lives such a life and actually likes it.”
Despite compassion for the author’s expressed symptoms of an allusion to “mental illness,” my rational humanity isn’t absent of advocacy for disputation regarding irrational beliefs. Understanding that the cake contained peanuts and that one had an existing allergy, was it wise to consume a slice of cake?
From an ABC model perspective, rhetorical anaphylactic shock is merely an activating event about which the author likely retains unhelpful beliefs which cause unpleasant consequences. Thus, metaphorical epinephrine in the form of disputation is needed to address the belief-based issue.
Decrying feminism after presumably decades spent in support of the corrosive ideology – potentially influencing countless other girls and women to also consume the cake – may not be as healthy as first addressing one’s iss-ME. Apparently, the author has some insight regarding the impact of her former support for feminism, as she states:
Such people as myself lead twilight lives, afraid to go out during the day, commiserating with each other in the privacy of our homes. Now, thanks to Generation Z, we are the demographic that dare not speak its name. Readers may demur, but I have sympathy for Generation Z. I really do. Not for its idleness, but for its desire for emotional fulfilment; for its instinct that human affection and relationships are as important as work, or even more so.
If this proposal is accurate and Gen Z values reconstruction of patriarchal and matriarchal structures, as well as the repairing of nuclear families, perhaps there’s hope for humankind. This aspiration could replenish the devastatingly destructive effects of feminism which apparently correlate with despair, per the author. Candidly, she concludes:
Feminism made the error of telling us to behave and think like men. This error was a grave one, and women like myself are paying for it, like gamblers in a casino that has been fixed. We are not men, and in living the single life, with its casual encounters, we play for much higher stakes and have more to lose. I wish I had not been taught to throw the dice so high. Even Shakespeare’s princes needed someone to look after them in their old age.
The author’s conclusion is a bittersweet, though truthful, accounting of feminism. Baked into the cake of an intentionally cancerous ideology is the toxicity of feminine dominance to the detriment of girls, boys, women, and men.
Feminism doesn’t represent the belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. That’s merely an attractive layer of icing which masks the societally poisonous ingredients of an ideology concerned with superiority of females over males.
Perhaps you, too, have been duped by naïveté regarding this ideology. There’s no shame in that. Still, if you’d like to know more about how to dispute irrational beliefs – of which feminism offers plenty – I may be able to assist before you turn 54-years-old and experience metaphorical anaphylaxis.
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Cookie_studio. (n.d.). Portrait of beautiful pin-up woman holding cake in hands [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/portrait-beautiful-pin-up-woman-holding-cake-hands_7701778.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=27&uuid=09180142-f75f-48bd-8fad-701e914787de
Free Dictionary by Farlex, The. (n.d.). Baked into the cake. Farlex Inc. Retrieved from https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/baked+into+the+cake
Hollings, D. (2024, March 22). Based. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/based
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Denial. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/denial
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being
Hollings, D. (2023, February 9). Feminism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feminism
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2022, November 8). Information overload. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/information-overload
Hollings, D. (2024, May 27). Intellectual vs. emotional insight. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/intellectual-vs-emotional-insight
Hollings, D. (2023, July 12). Intentionally cancerous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/intentionally-cancerous
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2022, August 31). Iss-me vs. iss-you. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/iss-me-vs-iss-you
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, August 19). Life in plastic, it’s fantastic. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-in-plastic-it-s-fantastic
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Lived experience. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/lived-expereince
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
Hollings, D. (2022, October 22). On empathy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-empathy
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2024, May 25). People who live in glass houses. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ people-who-live-in-glass-houses
Hollings, D. (2022, November 7). Personal ownership. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/personal-ownership
Hollings, D. (2024, March 4). Rationalization. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rationalization
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2024, April 9). Shoulding at the supermarket. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/shoulding-at-the-supermarket
Hollings, D. (2022, November 9). The ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-abc-model
Hollings, D. (2022, July 11). Unconditional acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2022, November 25). Victimhood. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/victimhood
Hollings, D. (2023, July 7). When idealism doesn’t stack up to realism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/when-idealism-doesn-t-stack-up-to-realism
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Suffragette. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette
Wikipedia. (n.d.). William Shakespeare. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare
Wyatt, P. (2024, April 25). Feminism has left middle-aged women like me single, childless and depressed. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2024/04/25/feminism-has-failed-women-career-no-family-thatcher/
Comments