Do you think extreme feminists / 'militant' feminists have helped the feminist movement, or have they hurt it?

Question

Baba, that's what this forum is all about... please... educate us.

For clarification: I would describe Valerie Jean Solanas, as an example of an 'extreme' feminist.

I would describe a 'militant' feminist as one who's passion for women's equality, is only bested by her unrelenting hatred of men.

Answer 1

Feminists in general have done some good work, but they've done damage by their forcefulness. Extreme feminists have hurt the cause because they scare away any people.

The women responsible for the most of women's rights were strong, level-headed, intelligent women who actually went to the government to change things and worked to change the woman's place in society.

Answer 2

I Believe I Understand Somewhat It Is A Language Battle Amongst Others My Preference To The Extent I Can Engage In These Discussions Is To Assume That The Correct Label If Any Can Only Be Fairly Applied By The Labelee This Forum Suffers From A Surfeit Of Labellers

Answer 3

Women called the suffragets fought for women to have the vote and then the feminists highlighted that there were issues such as domestic violence and incest occurring in the home where women and children were the victims of male violence (the 70's was not just about burning the bra - feminists highlighted social issues that the male dominated government chose to ignore and the church groups turned a blind eye to) Incest and domestic violence was "kept behind clsed doors" and not talked about. Take a moment to think about someone elses pain and suffereng at the hands of their husband or father and there was no where to go. These women fought for women on a range of levels and today a lot of young women are reaping the rewards of lobbying wagered in the 1960's and 1970's by feminists. Young women can enjoy owning property, having bank accounts, education, not accepting sexual harrassment and sexual molestation in the workplace as something "one had to put up with". Young women can keep their jobs even when they get married instead of having to give up their jobs when they got married as many women had to in the 1960's. All these rights that women have in the workforce and in social circles were fought for and fought hard. Today women in domestic violence relationships can leave and get help.

I am not overally sure what you mean by extreme feminists/militant feminists. i certainly think that women in the 1960s and 1970's who were lobbying on the above issues had to be very strong and "out there". There are the extremists of anything and a lot of men haters were out there heaping similar abuse on men that they were objecting on women - i object to that. and thre were the lesbian feminists who treated young men quite appallingly and was doing to them what women have objected and fought agianst over the centuries BUT there are extremes in every cause.

I think that the feminist movement had died so to speak - certainly judging by the comments I read because women got complacent and lazy and no longer found the need to fight issues because they were fought by the feminists of the 1960's and 1970's.

A lot of feminists have just died off or feathered their own nests and got complacent or no loger could be bothered in fighting and the young ones enjoying the benifits of issues fought 40 years ago are not interested so I think things will slowing return to what they use to be until they are challenged all over again.

As for extremists helping the feminist movement - 2 wrongs dont make a right. I think the militant man haters are just as bad as the militant women haters.

All I have ever wanted is equity and to be free of gender violence and discrimination. All I have ever required from this world is to judged on my merets and my abilities and not the fact I am female. I don't wish anyone else to be discriminated against or humiliated. I want fair eduaction for my daughter and choices for all people regardless of gender.

Answer 4

They hurt it, as do militant, anti-femininst men. Extremists have lost sight of the whole subject, which has nothing to do with women becoming powerful over men.. thats the biggest load of bull ever. It's just about being treated as equals.
I don't aree with the views of extremists at all. They fail to see areas where women do have advantages, just for being women. I don't agree with that. We say we want equality, but men are discriminated against so women can have a "fair chance at a job". Maybe we won't ever be as strong as men, maybe greatening our chances through pc methods is the only way we'll ever get close to doing the jobs we dream of.. doesn't make us better. Standards have dropped for us, yet the extremist still go on about liberation. Extreme feminists need to realise that there are good men out there.
On the other side, men need to accept that values are changing with the times, and that many women are no longer prepared to just sit back and be obedient little housewives.

The true meaning of feminism is about being valued as an individual, not being judged for your gender and being lumped in with a crowd and labelled as a second rate person without getting a fair trial first.

I'd spit at extremists of either gender, as all they really display in their fits of outrage is fear and ignorance. People should really take time to learn more about the opposite sex before spouting hatred and making up all sorts of demeaning accusations.

Answer 5

Can you please define extreme/militant feminists? What do they stand for? What have they done?

I'm just wondering, because I take Women's Studies and read feminist blogs and I think it's completely rational and fair. Am I missing something?

EDIT: Okay, I just checked out Valerie Solanas. Through my very limited research, here's what I think.

First of all, I don't blame this woman for being mad. If I lived in that time period, I would be pisssssssssssssed off. With that said, it does seem she had an irrational hatred of men (though I did read that she claimed her book wasn't meant to be taken seriously, which I would like to believe - it's *very* out there). Also, apparently she was literally crazy - in a mental institution later in life.

The bottom line is, irrational behaviour or thought will never have political clout. People make changes for the better in this world for being RIGHT and having truth on their side. Would any (rational, left-wing) politician or person in power take hate discourse seriously? No, of course not. So any hatred spewed by any militant feminist wouldn't make a difference, politically, anyway. In that sense, it couldn't have harmed the feminist movement.

I'm sure anti-feminists are all over her, and other militant works, and I suppose that harms the movement. But to be honest, any intellectual person knows better than to read one little thing and have it represent an entire movement in their mind. And quite frankly, who CARES what anti-feminists thinK? They're intellectually lazy. They're wingnuts. They have no political clout. No person with an IQ over 80 listens to anything they say - and that goes for men, women, feminists, and people who do not define themselves as feminists.

In a nutshell - militant feminists may have damaged feminism's reputation, but only to those too lazy to do more research. And those people don't matter in the bigger picture anyway.

And sometimes shock value is the only way to get people to listen.

Answer 6

Yes, the extremists have hurt feminism. Let me give you a historical analysis:

In the beginning, the leader of the women's movement, Betty Friedan, promoted a truly egalitarian style of feminism that I follow today. Unfortunately, she was overpowered by the likes of Kate Millett and Gloria Steinem, who focused too much on abortion rights and ending anti-lesbian stigma — important, yes, but not as much as the original goal, which was employment. Also, Valerie Solanas, Robin Morgan, and Andrea Dworkin, who were all full-fledged misandrists. The extremists got into the news and eventually were considered representative of all feminists. If they had listened to Friedan, feminism wouldn't look as bad as it does. Yes, feminism helped more than it hurt, but some of the women speaking on behalf of it did not.

We are not all "angry, nut-cutting lesbians," as my father refers to the feminists he knew at university. Many of us do think women and men are equal, or at least should be. All doctrines have good intentions in the beginning. Some just follow them too closely.

Answer 7

I disagree with most of the comments here, since I believe extremists perform an important role for their movement: they get lots of attention and sometimes scare the heck out of the powers that be! Then when the more reasonable people come along, the moderates, they're the ones people depend on to actually work on the issues, and come up with solutions. Finally, every movement has a backlash, when the pendulum swings the other way, and the anti-movement people say equally ridiculous things to prove their point, and rile people up again.

I think the religious right has been very effective at getting their word out via crazy sounding extremists, so when very conservative, yet not totally hateful people come round, they are listened to and negotiated with as "moderates". They effectively changed the climate in America to the point that people who would have been considered very conservative in the 70's are thought of as moderate today...

Answer 8

I think they've hurt the cause. Extremists of any kind are never good. They always hurt the cause they claim to be fighting for.

Extremist feminists don't want equality. They want women to have privileges over men and many of them come across as men-haters. That hurts the cause for the majority of women who truly want equality rather than special treatment over men. Men get defensive when they get the feeling all feminists hate men and want more rights than men because they fear they will end up as the ones being discriminated against.

Answer 9

Extreme feminist have hurt themselves with scientists; not because they hate men, though. It is because of their post-modern, relativistic and ideological approach to the subject. We see this in social science, to a degree. Where such conclusions, however there arrived at, are incoherent. For instance; " the speed of light being " privileged " over other speeds ". Or the " feminizing " of fluid mechanics. Or, my favorite; " gender as a social construct ". Until reality is faced by these type of feminists, no one can take any feminist seriously.

Answer 10

Wow, good question!

Generally, I don't think extremists (of any ideology) do much of a favor to their cause because I think that it's best to convince people of your argument through understanding, not brute force (I'm speaking figuratively here, not literally).

Take Malcolm X vs. Martin Luther King, Jr. While I think Malcolm may have been a great rallying voice, I think that MLK's ultimate goal of trying to build bridges and cooperation probably better served his goal (which is why I think Malcolm started to change his tune towards the end of his life). Yes he encouraged civil disobedience, but did it in a way that didn't negate his teachings of love and understanding.

If you want to change someone's opinion, the best way to do it IMO is to appeal to them and get them to see your side of the story.