Women Against Feminism: a contradiction?
Lately, there has been a whole lot of buzz about Women against Feminism – yes, I know. At hindsight, it sounds ridiculous: how can a bunch of women be against feminism and gender equality? But what the movement seems to consist of instead is a bunch of women who have narrow-mindedly misread feminism as some man-hating campaign, or a movement that aims to give women a ‘leg-up’ that they don’t deserve. Either that, or they have come to accept that the movement has become more like a political party with one set of ideas – Feminism rather than feminism.
The Women against Feminism movement is a vague cloud of ideas that seems to attract a range of supporters, but its main aim is inevitably deduced from its name – against ‘feminism‘. Perhaps this is just bad sensational marketing, for some of the movement’s largest supporters are in some way feminists too, just not mainstream Feminists. What Women against Feminism does not realise however is that by labelling themselves against ‘feminism’, they create an impression that they are against equality. This is potentially dangerous and detrimental to the movement’s efforts for ‘gender equality’.
As a result, what they have are supporters with placards saying:”I don’t need feminism because I am not oppressed” or “I don’t need feminism to give me a leg-up”. I would like to applaud these idiots who think that just because they themselves are privileged enough not to have experienced gender discrimination or because they have happily conformed to social expectations (which is not a wrong), assume discrimination in the modern world is ‘imaginary’. This is either pure stupidity or pure selfishness in my point of view. These women not only ignore the backward developments of gender equality for women in other countries, but also ignore the problems that women face closer to home in areas that women want to pursue such as sports and politics.
These women not only ignore the backward developments of gender equality for women in other countries, but also ignore the problems that women face closer to home…
On the other hand, I must admit that the movement does make one good point: men have problems too. Perhaps this is one flaw of feminism in the modern day – it implies a main focus on women. In a sense, men do have the ‘disadvantage’ of being expected to work, unlike women who have the choice to stay at home or pursue a career. In some ways, the problems that men have do contribute to the problem of gender equality for both sexes. For example, it is the expectations for men to work that forces domestic responsibilities on women.
I myself am not a mainstream Feminist – perhaps I am not completely against ‘sexual objectification’, perhaps I don’t believe that women are always the sexual victims, perhaps I acknowledge that men have problems too – but I would rather call myself a feminist than an ‘anti-feminist’. Even if I do disagree with some Feminist claims, I am for gender equality, so why would I want to support a group that appears to imply the alternative by being against feminism?
Comments (21)
Actually they’re not misunderstanding feminism in the slightest. They’re seeing what you are unable to see as perhaps you’re too close to the problem to see it accurately or maybe you just can’t bear to face an unpleasant truth. But you’re not going to convince anyone worth convincing by simply pointing to the dictionary definition of feminism then folding your arms smugly like you just proved something. The problem is that there is an enormous gulf between the THEORY of what feminism is allegedly about (the dictionary definition) and the PRACTICE of what feminism really is and does in reality.
It is quite easy to demonstrate what I mean. You see, when your movement claims that it is simply fighting for equality with men, not special privileges above and beyond what men have, no silly, just equality, then your movement needs to explain why it still exists in the western world now that women have had all the same rights as men for quite some time now in addition to some female-specific special privileges on top of that which no man will ever have. Point me towards even ONE law in the U.S. for example which discriminates against women in favor of men. I hear crickets chirping. When you have already achieved all the same rights as men yet you still keep on playing the victim card to try to milk further gender-specific concessions out of society, guess what? You’re making it pretty damned obvious to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together that equality isn’t nearly good enough for you, that you’re a female supremacist movement unconvincingly dressed up as one that’s “fighting for equality”. (For crying out loud, even the movement’s very NAME gives away its purpose. If it was fighting for equality it would be called egalitarianism or humanitarianism or something quite a bit less narrowly gender-specific.)
If feminism TRULY was about fighting for equality rather than being a one-sided gynocentric superiority movement then ask yourselves why it constantly pooh-poohs any problems or injustices that aren’t 100% exclusively about women. Ask yourself why it makes no effort at all to redress any of the imbalances that favor women over men.
For example, where is the feminist activity on the issue of women being sentenced to 60% less prison time for the same crimes as a man? Why isn’t feminism demanding that women be held to the same standard of adult responsibility as a man who committed the same crime? Why is your movement content with such an egregious disparity in sentencing? Oh yeah, because it is a disparity that favors women over men, whereas if the situation was reversed with men getting let off with 60% less prison time than a female you bet your ass it would be a feminist priority.
Where is feminism’s activism about the issue of women getting awarded custody in about 90% of child custody cases? To the extent that the woman would have to just about be a practicing prostitute or a heroin addict in order for the man to be given custody. Funny but this doesn’t seem to make it onto feminists’ radar either, I wonder why…
Why has feminism remained silent about the huge discrepancy in funding for male homeless shelters versus female homeless shelters? When the overwhelming majority of homeless people are men rather than women, why on earth should men’s shelters get short shrift compared to female shelters? This clearly isn’t a problem for your imaginary “patriarchial” government which routinely ignores men’s issues in favor of women’s issues so why isn’t feminism, the movement you never tire of telling us is not gynocentric but all-inclusive, fighting for equality not female supremacy, doing a damned thing to bring this to society’s attention? You can bet any amount of money if the situation was reversed with the homeless population being mostly female it would be a crisis of Biblical proportions, worthy of the government declaring a “war on homelessness” to solve it. Why is the feminist movement just as disinterested in this matter as the government?
Why is feminism content with men still having to pay alimony in 2014? Aren’t you the same ladies who constantly tell us how women are just as good as men, just as capable and just as independent? Then why the hell should a man have the responsibility of paying for the upkeep and lifestyle of his former spouse on an indefinite basis? Why did this issue only make it onto feminists’ radar (in Florida) when the infinitesimally small amount of women paying alimony to THEIR former spouses inched up a tiny bit while still remaining a mouse fart compared to men’s alimony payments? Where is feminism’s indignation that these supposedly liberated, independent women are entitled to being supported by a man that isn’t even living with them any longer? Why don’t you see this as an enormous insult and indignation? Oh yeah, because I suppose the convenience of getting a monthly check in the mail assuages your little feelings of shame and dependency, right? So long as it works in women’s favor instead of men’s it’s perfectly OK with the feminist movement.
Where is feminism’s concern with the issue of men committing suicide at rates astronomically higher than women? You know if the numbers were reversed there would be a colossal shitstorm until we got the numbers of women killing themselves back down to acceptable levels but yet with the numbers being what they are this, unsurprisingly, isn’t an issue feminists will lift a finger to work on.
And I have yet to hear a single feminist push for women having to register for the draft. Why does a man have to register at age 18 or else he isn’t entitled to any of the benefits of society, can’t vote, can’t collect Social Security when he’s old etc. yet no woman has to register for the draft in order to enjoy any of that? Why are feminists content to let women avoid adult responsibilities that men can never avoid? Oh yeah, because it isn’t a movement about equality at all but rather female supremacy, the same reason why the KKK never pushes for anything aside from matters that affect white people. As despicable as they are at least they’re honest enough to not pretend to be fighting for racial equality.
Or what about the biggest double standard on the face of the earth? By this I mean the elective abortion/mandatory child support issue. Let’s say a woman gets pregnant accidentally, neither her nor her partner intended for it to happen. If the man wants to be a daddy to that unexpected kid but the woman doesn’t want any parts of it she’s going to go to the abortion clinic and get that unborn human dismembered and sucked out of her uterus without having broken a single law in the process. That man will now be the proud daddy to a bloody little pile of severed arms and legs. But if the situation is reversed and the woman wants to keep the baby but the dad doesn’t want any parts of being a daddy? Tough tittie, he’s on the hook for 18 years of child support payments for a kid he will never see. The law simply doesn’t allow him to act like an irresponsible piece of shit at least not without facing the penalty of jail time for his irresponsibility. The law holds that man to his responsibility, forces him to act like a grown adult and take responsibility for his actions. Whereas the law makes no effort whatsoever to force the woman to act like an adult and take responsibility for HER actions, no, instead it lets her dance away from the consequences of her actions without a care in the world. When the man’s irresponsibility results in the woman not getting a monthly check in the mail and that’s illegal yet the woman’s irresponsibility results in the death of another human being (the unborn human) and yet THAT is LEGAL?? Are you effing kidding me?? This has to be the most horrific double standard the world has ever seen, yet I guarantee you that if anyone was to start pushing for ending mandatory child support payments or tying the continuance of legal abortion to the ending of mandatory child support it would be the feminitwits who would be leading the charge to make sure things remain as one-sided as they are now. When the woman is allowed to act like a magical sparkly princess with no more responsibility than a child even though her irresponsibility and immaturity results in a human being’s death and the man isn’t even allowed to skip out on child support payments for a kid he never sees, clearly this abortion/child support situation can be called nothing less than overt female supremacy. Not equality between the sexes. Not egalitarianism. Overt, in-your-face female supremacy and nothing less. Funny but I haven’t heard of a single feminist anywhere pushing for an end to elective abortion. Feminism seems perfectly content to let this terrible double standard remain in place and any comment made about ending elective abortion is immediately met with a lecture about how it would somehow be “oppressing women” to hold them to the same standard of responsibility a man is held to, how it would be “chaining them to the stove” or ensuring they are “barefoot and pregnant” or whatever other feminist propaganda bullshit they can come up with. Because this is one of the many double standards that feminists embrace, those which favor women over men. Another reason why few people aside from feminists themselves take feminists seriously.
So you want to “prove” your movement really is about equality and not female supremacy and special gender-specific privileges? Great, come out against elective abortion. Demand that it be abolished, demand that women are held to the same standard of responsibility that a man is held to, demand that women receive no preferential treatment in the court system etc. etc. Basically it comes down to a realization that not everything in life is a right or a privilege, that there are some things in adult life that are called “responsibilities”. If feminism wasn’t all about milking society for more benefits, more gender-specific set-asides, more quotas, more gynocentric advantages and actually grew the hell up enough to see that there are such things as RESPONSIBILITIES as well then maybe more people would take feminism seriously. As it stands right now only about 23% of American women identify as feminists meaning no less than 77% of women wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole the movement that is supposed to be designed around their interests. That is a spectacular failure so amazing words can’t describe it. Perhaps women are getting tired of being constantly told they’re weak, helpless little victims who can’t do anything for themselves without a movement behind them to keep them pointed in the right direction and protected from this cruel world. I suspect your average woman is quite a bit stronger than that and doesn’t appreciate being talked down to. But whatever it is, your movement is dying and I say good riddance. Let it be replaced with something that doesn’t try to drive an unnecessary wedge between working class men and working class women. Let it be replaced with something far more mature, grown up, sensible and realistic. In other words let it be replaced with something that is GENUINELY about equal rights for the sexes.
Wow Sr./Ma’am that was from top to bottom a serious reading, tip my imaginary hat to you.
Thank you sir!
Let’s clarify what “gender discrimination” really means. Is it similar to a one legged person being unfairly discriminated against because they can’t run as fast as a two legged person? Does it mean a blind person is unfairly discriminated against because they can’t perform well as a visual quality control technician? Does it mean a physically weaker person is discriminated against because they can’t manage to operate the heavy weight tools of a particular trade? Does it mean a person who cannot be relied upon to be committed to long term employment is discriminated against for being less preferred for expensive training? Is not the relevance of an argument about discrimination more about all the functional attributes of a “person” rather than a persons’ gender? I believe the WAF movement are serving both men and women well by essentially stating, “we are what we are”.
Kudos for having a more nuanced perspective on Feminism than most Feminists.
But you are broad-brushing and misunderstanding the Women Against Feminism.
1. A large % of them are egalitarian in perspective, and have rejected Feminism because Feminism is an anti-equality movement. (Some WAF are conservative traditionalists, & while they are welcome to share their opinions, their traditional views do not represent the whole.) If Feminism were about women’s choices, Feminists should allow these women to stand for egalitarianism if that’s what they want. Instead, Feminists (including you) bully and ridicule them.
2. Many of the Women Against Feminism acknowledge the need for progress in women’s rights in many countries around the world. As a male egalitarian, I certainly do, too. However, the ongoing need for progress in women’s rights overseas does not trump the bare reality that Feminism, as currently practiced, demonizes men and ridicules women who don’t tow the line.
Women’s rights are awesome. Men’s rights are awesome. Feminism is awful.
Hi, I just wanted to clarify the first point you made. Feminism is about recognising that women still face problems in society and are more commonly hurt in society. I’m not ridiculing those WAF supporters who genuinely want to work towards gender equality for men and women (as already mentioned), I’m ridiculing those who think that women no longer face problems in society and that a general patriarchy is ‘imaginary’ or no longer exists. In other words, these women give the impression that they think gender equality has been achieved, and nothing else needs to be done.
But I do understand your second point to some extent, though I think that Feminism ‘demonising’ men would be a bit of a strong statement to make.
How could these women possibly be against feminism?
Perhaps one reason is that when they think for themselves and display independent thought that–shock–disagrees with modern feminism this is how feminists treat them:
Their thoughts are declared “ridiculous,” “vague,” “potentially dangerous,” “pure stupidity or pure selfishness”
They are called “narrow-minded” “idiots” who are “privileged” and “selfish” conformists.
Keep on writing Ms. Yip. You’re making WAF’s point for them.
I don’t really understand where you are getting. Feminists don’t treat women who display independent thought with opposition, they treat thought they oppose (regardless of gender) with opposition.. It’s just what happens when people disagree with each other. I’m sure the Conservatives would treat the Labour Party the same way, same goes for Communists and Pro-Democrats. Besides, the same can be said for anti-feminist men to feminist men.
Also, I’m not sure if you read my article properly: for the terms “ridiculous”, “vague” and “potentially dangerous” are not exactly my responses to the thoughts of WAF supporters.
I used the term “ridiculous” when I said that the WAF at hindsight seems like it is against women’s rights. I used the term “vague” to indicate that the WAF movement has a range of supporters (the same goes for feminism, which is also a very vague movement). I said that WAF claiming to be ‘against feminism’ (or women’s rights) is “potentially dangerous”; I did not call their thoughts dangerous.
As for the rest of the terms you have quoted, yes, that was used to express my opposition to their thoughts. But then again, I don’t see the problem with disagreeing with them.
I suggest you do read my article properly rather than skimming through to pick out negative-sounding vocab.
So, it’s okay for you to be not a mainstream feminist, but not okay for those women to not be feminists at all.
And being against feminism, is being against gender equality, even though in depth interviews with women against feminism shows they are not against gender equality.
Got it.
Thanks.
Enjoy your college parties.
The issue is that if you dont agree with a Feminist – you will be shouted at, villified and maligned. Additionally, the patriarchy sounds very mystical, almost like a proxy devil to religions (you cant get a definition other than its “bad”. Feminists are so laminated to their ideals, they refuse to even consider others.
Look at the response to women against feminism (which is cultural Marxism) – they are dehumanized and considered “stupid cats” – is this what Feminism is? If you disagree with my (ideology? religion?) you are a stupid non-human feline. Choices define outcome – outcome does not define equality.
I see this as refreshing and positive, as the needle needs to swing to a more neutral and natural place. Blind feminism has backfired, causing a whole new different set of problems for women in society; in many ways some of them causing greater unhappiness than the overly oppressive issues women suffered before the equality revolution began.
We can all see it but are either turning a blind eye or being hushed by political correctness. Intelligent women encouraged to pursue careers, power and independent financial success are left without a handbook on how to deal with the repercussions of turning their back on their female genetic programing. Women in their late twenties/mid thirties, entering into a state of panic about needing a family and settling down, grasping for insemination by the best available male at their disposal (often leading to single motherhood). Women who spent years growing up listening and being indoctrinated to believe they should be independent of men, by pursuing careers as a better (fairer?) alternative to creating a family during their prime years of motherhood.
Conversely, men are told to encourage women to become career minded and to treat them as professional equals, while at the same time being chivalrous, protective and physically stronger. Nature however, is more powerful than any whims and fancies that humans may invent and has created immutable laws that we simply cannot change.
Hard line feminism is a [vulgar] over reaction to years of female persecution but does little to help women’s profile in society. Women against feminism is an obvious push back from those who recognize this and seek common sense attitudes and the pursuit of natural happiness in people’s lives. A middle ground which necessitates compromise from women as well as men.
Ann, how can you be so dishonest? In your second sentence you say “how can a bunch of women be against feminism and gender equality”.
See how you snuck in thosee last three words? Those women are against feminism – not against equality. Do you see #womenagainstfeminismandgenderequality anywhere?
They are against feminism precisely because they contend that contemporary feminism is not about equality but rather privileges and misandry. I have no doubt that you already knew they are not against equality, yet you chose to slur them as if they are. Why?
BTW, if you truly believed in equality then you’d be calling yourself an egalitarian and not promote a sexist moniker.
Thats what i do – egalitarian and choice defines outcome – outcome is not oppression unto itself.
Hi Terry, I don’t think WAF is against equality (in a fundamental sense), what I’m saying it that it seems like it is. But I see your point there because while you see feminism as being against equality, I see it as synonymous to gender equality. I however I don’t really understand why feminism to you would equate to being a ‘sexist moniker’. I have yet to meet a feminist who has acted in a misandrist way.
“I have yet to meet a feminist who has acted in a misandrist way.”
Then you must not have met very many feminists.
In the last part of the article you plainly say that “mainstream” feminism does not recognize that men have problems and always portrays women as sexual victims, two of the main things that WAF point to, yet you insist, as you have been trained to do, on name-calling and belittling these women. You seem to be operating under the ignorant notion that most people believe anymore that feminism has anything to do with equality.
It’s also amusing how you appropriate men’s problems, implying that they only matter because they MIGHT affect women.
You are mainstream. You are a feminist drone. Have the guts to admit it.
“Feminism = Gender Equality” AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA sigh ok ok Serious face now…..
So you are saying they are wrong in thinking your movement “Feminism” is not an aggressive, intolerant, elitist and hypocritical but you enjoy calling them, what was that… oh yea:
“I would like to applaud these idiots”
“This is either pure stupidity or pure selfishness in my point of view”
Very respectful of your part, like how feminist don’t look down women with different opinions.
“they create an impression that they are against equality”
On the other hand the only people who think this are feminist, no one else think that thats what they are saying but then again you think feminism is for equality so I can understand your confusion.
I understand we both have different impressions of feminism. To be honest, your impression of feminism depends on the types of feminists that you know or have met. I understand why you would think feminism is not for equality as it seems to be a movement which leans more towards female-centred issues (this I have addressed as a potential flaw in my article). No, I too don’t agree on all feminist views. But the difference is that I’ve chosen to stick with feminism in a general sense whereas you’ve just rejected it altogether. However, the radical opposition against feminism altogether can be problematic when you also neglect many valid female-centred issues – that’s my main problem there.
Also, I’m not sure where you are trying to go with my claim that women who don’t seem to experience discrimination assume that gender discrimination in the modern world is imaginary. My statement might have been a bit insensitive, but it is nonetheless true. I don’t look down on these women because they have a different opinion, but because they are, as I said, either lacking in knowledge of the world (okay fine, this may be a little more forgivable) or just plain selfish!
You mean WAF doesn’t leach on women suffering on far away countries as feminist do on every occidental country and therefore they don’t “understand” feminism?
I wouldn’t say that feminism ‘leaches’ on women suffering in other countries but that they are concerned about affairs outside their own country. But the main point is that WAF don’t acknowledge the problems in their own societies/countries (as mentioned).