Why do anti-feminists incorrectly reason that simply because the feminist movement inevitably contains ...?

Question

some 'misandrists' and radical fringe members that the entire movement is suddenly worthless or 'hypocritical'? From our friendly neighborhood 'non-' and anti-feminists:


Q: Isn't labeling anti-feminists part of the patriarchy a stereotype?

A: … Feminism is an honorable movement, and deserves much credit for the lives that women are free to live today. But as with everything else, it is generally not the movement itself that becomes corrupt or misguided, it is its 'followers' - the feminists. (And, of course, I am generalizing here...as I do not believe that ALL feminists are corrupt or misguided...but plenty are!)

I am, therefore, anti-feminist for the most part, not anti-feminism. …


Do anti-feminists actually think that the fact that a few of the movement’s 'followers' become 'corrupt or misguided' is somehow reason to discredit the movement itself? Apparently there are not plenty of radical crazies in the world religions.

... The religions' 'corrupted followers' are OK; they’re exempt from this logic. Feminism is not.


Q: Why not replace the term 'feminism'?
A: The movement should not be renamed; rather, the definition should be re-defined.

Many feminists are anti-male and misandrists, and thus, they do not promote *true* equality. They refuse to acknowledge the many areas in society in which women are given unfair advantages over men. In fact, many of these feminists support double-standards that favor women.


Oh. I guess probably we should 'redefine' just about every social phenomenon in existence. Big business, for example, and the fuel it provides our economy is not 'good' for people in general; in fact, many times it destroys the public good. Many times capitalism destroys the working class. Unregulated free trade destroys the working class; America has lost most of its manufacturing jobs.

We must then also 'redefine' most of the Christian faiths, which preach that all people are equal under god, but only the ones who are heterosexual, don’t ask too many suspicious questions, and belong to their church can get into heaven.

This anti-feminist reasoning immediately extends to all movements with radical fringe groups, particularly Christianity and Islam, and turns them, perhaps even more so than feminism because of their long, distinguished histories, into tremendous 'hypocrites.' Do anti-feminists know what they’re talking about when they throw around the word 'hypocrisy' as though it is the single most damaging accusation that can be made about a particular social movement?

Ruper, indeed. Thanks. This is not a personal attack. I did not attribute your words to you specifically so that it would not be taken as a personal attack. Did I quote you accurately?

"I am, therefore, anti-feminist for the most part, not anti-feminism ... " meaning, as I understand, we are anti-"corrupt minority", anti-"2% radicals", not "anti-movement." WHY do we feel a need to CONSTANTLY distinguish ourselves from the "corrupt minority"? Shouldn't it be obvious that 98% of a movement is NOT of the "corrupt minority"? Christians certainly do not wander around saying, "Hello. I'm Christian, and here is my very important disclaimer: PLEASE be sure to distinguish me from those weirdos who kill abortion doctors. Please please please. I'm not one of them! Don't shoot! Don't hate me!" Seriously now. Why is this self-deprecating crap required of feminists by the fools on this forum? I'm pretty sure it's not because they're sticklers for "accuracy" or open-mindedness.

Yeah, "modest proposer." I know about your "no such thing as tolerance" argument. It's been written by Stanley Fish over and over again. And you are wrong that all people think they are "right"; people CAN be aware of their own biases. This is called having a "raised consciousness": acknowledging how other people and how your society and culture have affected you.

I don't really see how, for example, struggling against the human-rights violation of rape, which the feminist movement does, is "uterocentric." I think not. Today we recognize these things called "human rights." Just because the colonial white men honestly *thought* it was OK to enslave blacks does not make the act of enslaving forgiveable and *not* a human-rights violation. Just because Pizarro honestly thought in his heart of hearts that god *wanted* him to slay Incas does not mean it was OK. Er. In any case, I really have no idea where you're going with this or what it has to do with feminism.

LMAO. Again, mathew, how is the "OMGZ feminizm has corrupt leaders" argument different from politics or religion or big business or anything at all? It's not. Our other leaders are peachy, you say? Oh. There are in fact obviously corrupt leaders in other areas of society doing far more damage to the world in general than feminist leaders. Check out African - if you're not content with American - government. Hey, we just "ousted" a corrupt leader from Iraq! Look how much better the world is now! Look how many lives we saved!

*publicly rejects George W. Bush and Jesus Christ*

You guys are so mired in garbage you don't know how to climb out.

Answer 1

There are many reasons for that behavior:
1) Anthropolocial/Predator Behavior: Predators cull the weak and young from the herd. Their target is not the body of the group. The goal is to isolate and consume/exploit the weaker individuals.

2) Military: "Divide and Conquer" is a strategy for weakening a group. The target is the entire group. The goal is to disintegrate the group into factions to consume / exploit / subjugate the entire group.

3) Political: Character assasination of a group's reputation is a political / power strategy. The target is the entire group. The goal is to mark individuals as a threat to their own group and then disrupt that group with that individually marked threat. For example, some large cats scent an animal with pungent spray in a general attack on a herd and then retreat. When that individual returns to the herd, it's own kind smells the cat's marking scent and panic. The herd attacks it, ostrosizes it, essentially backs away from it so that the cat can more easily consume it without threat from others in the herd. In human politics, the group can then be "disparaged" for turning on its own, for being "disorganized" and "directionless".

4) Purity/Intolerance: Purity concepts hail mostly from religions and are at the root of opposition to pluralism and equal rights and democracy. Within purity paradigms, life is a white paint bucket and "good" people, "chosen people" and elites fight to keep the paint white and free of added colors. Democratic paradigms see the bucket of paint from the physics perspective, that white light is comprised of all colors coming together in union, and that life gets "whiter" or better or healthier or more balanced the more colors that come together. Many people see differences of opinions and factions within a group as evidence of "impurity" and focus on that "flaw".

5) Cognitive Deficiency: The "Exception of the Rule" flawed thinking process. Rather than a deliberate political maneuver, this "Rule" leads people to genuinely believe a group is wrong if any one individual within that group is ever "wrong" or unacceptable or "too radical" or "crosses the line" even once. For example, although seatbelts may save, let's just say, 97 lives out of 100 accidents, people who suffer from this cognitive deficiency will be quick to dismiss that statistical advantage with a story about how their real estate agent's mother-in-law's gardener's poodle's vet was thrown from his car in an accident once and would have died if he'd been wearing a seatbelt. They think downward into the whiskers of the bell curve.

Answer 2

'Feminism' is originally an acknowledged medical condition where men take on female physical characteristics. The expression was taken up by the campaigners - originally known as 'suffragettes' - for the vote for landed, middle-class women in Britain during the early part of the 20th century. This was at a time when neither men nor women could vote unless they owned property.

Nowadays the precise meaning of 'feminism' has become obscure but it is in essence sexism and hateful bigotry against men and boys.

Not all women are feminists. Very far from it. But the feminista is a powerful vocal and politically influential minority and it is spreading throughout society like a creeping miasma. Strangely enough many of feminism’s most effective opponents are women rather than men. But perhaps not so strange because normal women know from their own experiences and observations that feminist ideology is laughably out of tune with women’s priorities and needs.

Yet, despite all this, many women still like to think of themselves as 'feminists'. After all, it sounds perfectly reasonable on the face of it - equality between the sexes, right? But if they knew what feminism is **really** about then they would perhaps be more circumspect.

We ought not forget that the founders of feminism were borderline psychotics with pronounced sado-narcissistic traits. Like attracts like and so disordered women continue to be attracted into feminist ranks right up to this present day.

And understand that there is no such thing as a 'halfway house' or 'reasonable' feminism. The feminista's stance is a ruthless and uncompromising 'you're either 100% with us or against us' and the line between feminism and homosexuality (also known as 'lesbianism') is blurred.

Feminists work hard to distort our reality in order to make their reality feel safer. Theirs is an all-pervasive personality disorder, aptly named because the minds of these people work differently from normal healthy women. The 'narcissistic' element in their sado-narcissism makes them obsessed with
their bodily parts, notably the t--- and the fanny - and gives them the illusion of superiousness. The 'sadistic' part of their condition manifests itself as abuse of and cruelty towards men and boys and normal women. Read about the ordeal the feminists recently put Erin Pizzey through.

Answer 3

In any worthwhile movements you will have a FEW way out on the fringe. We call these people extremists. They exists as violent animal protectionists, misandrists, religious bigots, NRA looneys, dangerous sports fanatics, you name the group and they exists. You can't throw the baby out with the bath water. Were it not for successful, accomplished feminists who would little girls look to for role models, barbie? Were it not for animal rights activists who would look out for Bessie? You should never assume that a few rotten apples spoil a whole bunch.

Answer 4

Oh dear another twisted question from a feminists. Of course we see your movement incorrectly because only you feminists are smart enough to to see any thing correctly I suppose. Nice try but no cigar.
Anti feminists correctly see your movement for what it is because that is what we see every day if your movement was about love and equality then fathers would either get custody of their kids 50% of the time or even better we would have shared parenting laws being the predominant decision in courts. Also I wouldn't have to hear how men are pigs all the time and when I watch tv I wouldn't see so many men being slapped,belittled and kicked in the groin daily.
Let's say you had a card that was green on one side and blue on the other if you only showed me the green side and asked me what color both sides of the card is. I am going to say green because that is all I can see. That is what feminism has been like to me I can only see what I have been shown so my judgement is based on that. If you don't like feminism to be veiwed this way then you as a feminist have to do something about it rather than demand that anti feminists see it your way.
Devils Advocate is a prime example of what men hear out of feminists all the time and heaven help anyone who disagrees with her and feminism.

Waswisgirl1 You are full of it I'm sorry but your arguments are off the wall. Women choose those jobs that are poorly paid not they choose the job and then it becomes poorly paid.
And as far as men staying home and being caretakers I am all for it unfortunately women insist men work full time as much as men do and women are usually the ones who tell the school to call them instead of dad. I had to go down to the school repeatedly because my wife at the time kept having them take my take my cell number off so only she would be called. So that tired excuse about men not pulling their share is BS and you know it. Many women don't like it when dad tries to be a parent more than she likes. You want it both ways. You want men to do the work but women to maintain control.

Answer 5

Its great to take up any noble cause that helps the evolution of all people. There will always be extremists and the people who hate them. Misogynists I truly believe to be 'broken people', probably incapable of human empathy on a global scale. They are not intelligent enough to determine that not all feminists are extremists. These are people who will generally actually HATE all people (and not just feminists) who don't share the same views. They are therefore, a very lost cause. Anyone who propogates hate is going to lead a sad, lonely life. Sure, they can partner with other 'haters', but there is still no 'love' between them, only a connection based on hate. Iam not Xian, but I do not 'hate' Xians. I am not ant-xian. However, I do know some actual non-hypocritical xians, (believe it or not!), who walk the walk and I respect them for it. They are not fundamentalists and I'm intelligent enough to be able to separate the two. Don't worry though, because I believe with natural selection mother nature will be able to sort out the turds. :)

Moderation is the key to life!!

Answer 6

And what really gets me about that is the fact that feminists have actually supported legislation and movements that benefit men as well as those that benefit women. For example, feminists have supported giving fathers a better shot in custody cases.

Answer 7

i have often asked myself that exact same question. within any movement there are some crazies. not to mention that any woman who thinks they are better than a man by virtue of being born female, isn't really a feminist.

i think it has a lot to do with being threatened. i think those that discredit feminism really feel as though they have something to lose if feminism makes any gains.

i also wonder why someone who hates feminism so much would spend so much time in a gender and women's studies forum :S

Answer 8

People associate all feminists with radical feminists because the feminists who aren't radicals don't do enough to speak out against the radical feminists.

Answer 9

I think you have it backwards... it isn't the 'followers' who are corrupt, it's the 'leaders' - the ones in government, (harriet harmen guilty of sex discrimination) and authors that other feminists followed (Andrea Dworkin wanting to see men beaten to bloody pulps), Mary Dale - sacked for sexual discrimination, a professor of womyn studies - displaying blatant disgust for men... they are the ones who corrupted your feminist movement, not the followers. The followers simply regurgitate what they're taught by the leaders.

When you reject - publicly - the misandrists, and such, then perhaps it'll be worth talking... but until you prove that 'feminism' (note the distinct hint at female only 'ism') is really about equality, there's little point in trying to find a middle ground.. because experience has shown feminism only wants equality when it is beneficial to women only... if something is beneficial to men, you leaders openly and loudly condemn it.

Want to pretend you're for equality - then damn well act like it.


ETA: You are misrepresenting my answer, please do not.
I am not interested in other areas, just as you are not. Are you a member of parliament or suchlike, no? So, why not if you can do a better job? Exactly... You aren't interested (enough) to get involved with that degree - neither am I. I am, however, interested in the misandry that feminist leaders (and a good amount of followers) submit to in order to pretend they're seeking 'eekwalitee'.

Answer 10

This is a great question and one would have to delve into the minds and thinking (I am giving them credit) of those who consistantly debase feminism. The fear that surrounds that term is due to the fact that in order for feminism to work those in priveledged positions would be usurped and given less power over others. There are very few that will willingly give up this to others and thus the muck raking and name calling that is evidenced even in response to your simple inquiry. When you consider who owns the media and most of the global corporations you can see what kind of groups are fighting against equality.
As was written in an earlier response there is no other interest group that is forced to spend equal time defending and volleying for the rights of the control group then feminism. Male interest groups are not made to defend their position nor are cultural, religious, or minority groups. I don't know whether you read this article but it certainly shines some light on the more outrageous allegations made against the theory of feminism. Kind of reminds me of when Galileo was labelled a heretic and look at the honour he has been given posthumously.

In dire contrast to patriarchy, feminism is described as an ideology that was established in order to change the social order in dictatorial fashion, which is reflected in anti-feminist accusations of feminism being fascist. Patriarchy is viewed as wrong and as the enemy of women. Feminism seeks "to establish social order by human plan rather than by evolution," an awkwardly-phrased statement indicating feminism is guaranteed to fail because it goes against nature. Following through on the biological predetermination stance, feminism disregards all biological differences between men and women except for those that affect reproduction. It advocates for men to make all of the changes in order to advance society, yet women are to remain fixed. Amazingly, the post said that feminism had much in common with religion, which is inaccurate in that religion supports biological predetermination whereas feminism does not.