Who do you think has done the most damage to the feminist movement?

Question

One could always claim men have inflicted the most damage to the movement, or even the trolls on Yahoo. But, I think it is a self inflicted wound due to the likes of Dworkin and MacKinnon. What do you think?

Laela...so, we shouldn't blame Hitler for all the troubles he caused?

Answer 1

I agree Mary, the extremists have done a lot of damage - and because there has never been any uproar (as there would have been if a man wrote about women in the same way), it is logically assumed that other feminists are either in agreement or unwilling to acknowledge Dworkin and the like were wrong, wrong & wrong.

IOW, their lack of opposing the man-haters is their responsibility.

Feminist organisations & politicians have done immeasurable damage too. For example, Patricia Hewett (British feminist politician) was found guilty of sexual discrimination by intentionally screwing a qualified man out of a job in favour of a less qualified (for the job) woman. I was on an interview panel for Social Services, and our feminist boss gave the job to a woman (who had received zero points) over the man who had all the points & qualifications. That aside, I enquired recently with my college's student union president (a feminist) and she refuses to allow a 'mens officer' while we do have a 'womens officer'.
I'm saying, not only have I read of feminist discrimination against men, but I have seen it happen with my own eyes as well.
Then, we have the likes of NOW feminists who insist on calling 'fathers rights' or 'mens rights' activists as being child abusers, wife beaters, etc. while simultaneously, they have gone to court & defended child abusers and husband killers. Also, Mary Daly refused to teach Womens Studies to a male applicant because... he was male. She was eventually sakced for discrimination (as well as claiming she had to 'dumb down' the lessons for men). A group of feminists put up an online petition to get her reinstated, however they did not tell the 'whole truth'. They worded it so as it avoided acknowledging that Mary Daly had discriminated. They claimed she had refused one 'student' because 'the student' did not qualify for the class. What that mean in layman terms was that he did not 'qualify' because he was 'male'. The attempts to trick people into signing the petition is a clear example of how feminists manipulate words in order to trick the masses - just as has been done repeatedly with 'rape surveys' (1 in 4 was a miscalculation by the feminist who conducted the survey - though SHE has admitted the error, feminists world wide insist on repeating it despite being debunked) and 'domestic violence' (they intentionally didn't ask men about their experiences of d/v - thus giving intensely skewed results). The list of misinformation goes on & on..

People are waking up the hypocrisies and hyperbole of feminism - and in turn, this is damaging feminism yet further.

Answer 2

I think that, in order to answer the question, we have to look at what damage has been done? I will make the assumption - for the sake of this discussion - that you mean the damage of a bad reputation within the mainstream society....

If thats the case, I don't think we can blame Dworkin and MacKinnon....because no one in the mainstream society knows who the heck they are!!!!!

The damage, as I see it, has been created by the 'off the rails' so-called feminists. Not the hardworking women and men who have commited their lives to providing equality and opportunity for men, but those who hide behind the name of feminism and take shots at men and their role/accomplishments in society. Blaming today's man for the suppression of women's rights at the turn of the last century is like blaming white men today for slavery....it just doesn't fit. Its a new day - with new freedoms and opportunities. Women have to stop looking back and blaming men for their past oppression....and look forward to how they can contribute significantly to the world we live in today! We've earned our rights - now, what are we going to do with them?

Answer 3

My opinion: Postmodernism!

Postmodernism, an intellectually bankrupt doctrine if there ever was one has been almost inextricably linked with feminism... with disastrous results. Let's see some examples.

Obsession with "social constructs": Um yeah, women and men definitely are given different social cues and all that jazz in life, but the extent to which this exists in a society where all around you you see people doing all sorts of things and chosing to live in all sorts of liferstiles (and can more or less freely take up any of them or make a unique one for yourself) and the extent to which these cues are powerful immutable forces to which human beings are helpless to is VASTLY overstated by feminism.

So instead of stressing the personal responsibility in this modern-day bombardment of all kinds of messages to be ourselves and do our own thing, feminism somehow ends up being obsessed with them! I have seen my classmates in the women studies class I took be able to take even the most benign, say, advertisement and "deconstruct" it into "patriarchical mysogyny" drawing conclusions and extrapolations one would usually need to be on some serious drugs to make. Truly breath-taking.

Sappir-Whorf hypothesis (and PC as a consequence): The idea thoroughly discredited by modern linguistics that language influences thought (Eskimos, oops, Inuit, have 300 words for snow, which they don't, and all that jazz). That switching from steward/stewardess to flight attendant will achieve... something (oddly enough waiter/waitress does not seem to be that big of a problem, why not "restaurant attendant"?)... because languages with more gender distinctions in their grammar obviously lead to more patriarchical and sexist societies.

Of course, any rudimentary study you do on the matter shows that the degree of gender distinctions in a language is in absolutely NO WAY correlated with the position of women in that society. Sapir-Whorf is BUNK! PCing a language accomplishes NOTHING! The only thing you get is white guys getting attacked for being sexist because they used the term "girl" for a woman in her early twenties or "black" instead of African-American or "retarded" instead of whatever the newest euphemism is and then associating this petty vindictiveness with feminism as a whole.

Obsession with group rights in lieu of individual rights: Along with this, very much an "us vs. them" mentality, abandoning humanistic feminism for gynocentric feminism (yeah, I know the lingo). The entire affirmative action business will in my opinion turn out to be a huge debacle that will GENERATE racial and gender hostility between groups in America as well as call into question the credentials of the very minorities this was supposed to help.

Association with radical left: The less said about this, the better.

Answer 4

Yes...I think you're absolutely right...it's people like Dworkin, but it's also the fact that feminists have not made a big enough (public) "fuss" over disagreeing with her, either. In other words, a huge public "veto" would be helpful. Many antis assume feminists worship people like her.....and yes, that hurts the movement.

EDIT: I also think that affirmative action quotas have done a bit of damage, too. The intent behind them was good, but the reverse discrimination that it causes only gives antis more ammunition against us...they think it's a conspiracy and that we're out to get them and that we're seeking "supremacy", "handouts", and special privileges. (Not true, but, that's the conclusion they've drawn from it.)

EDIT: Super Ruper makes an excellent point: people outside this forum likely have absolutely NO IDEA who Dworkin is... and I agree that men today did not "create" the social conditions or inequalities that exist today-- but they may be directly or indirectly (consciously or unconsciously) helping to sustain it. Inequality does exist, and it is a residual effect from times past, and we still have issues left to deal with. Perhaps we should shift our focus somewhat, from blame to action. We know where the inequality came from, and we can probably agree that today's men didn't cause it. But we also have to understand the effect that still resonates throughout society, and deal with it. We can't just say, "oh it happened in the past so it's no longer valid", because that would mean that everything is as it should be...and I don't believe that. We're getting closer to equality, that's true, but we are not there yet. And true, some groups of people are more oppressed than women, but women make up the largest group of people who are still oppressed today, even if the oppression is less than, say that of homosexuals, for example. If men today want to be viewed as people who are not contributing to (or sustaining) this oppression, than perhaps they can be more willing to accept women into traditionally male-dominated jobs. Perhaps they can recognize that "male privilege" does indeed exist, and become more aware of it and refuse to take advantage of it.

Answer 5

Extreme feminists - a.k.a Feminazis.

Its damaging. The original feminist movement is about equality. But a lot of women took the view point " women who aim to be equal with men lack ambition". So they just want to do the same thing to men that they did to women.

They should have just stopped at equality.

Answer 6

To an extent, it is self-inflicted, but I also fault those who made up stories about how feminism had failed and women were rejecting it back in the 80's.

Answer 7

Gender doesn't matter, nor where they are located (trolls are everywhere)...the majority of "damage" to regaining feminine structure is caused by those involved in this too-long process who have lost focus:
The ideal is to regain balance...that which was destroyed by the Patriarchy...this planet, our societies of species...all things...require balance before the true ideal is capable--"If all do well, all do well".

The female side of this balance, although having re-established themselves in Corp. World, religious sects, judicial & governing systems, military divs., etc., on a small scale...we have a ways to go. Unfortunately, because many of our women of power have had to meld so deeply into the "man realm", they have adjusted & become comfortable...competing against each other, rather than reeling in more of like mind...they have lost the purpose of the game...it is not to "win", but to "gain"...to pave the road for other wise women to enter the man realm & balance it's structure to "human realm".

Those of us on the outskirts of the structural changes must remain supportive, while enforcing the cause...ever reminding our Lady road makers of their purpose...reminding them to reflect their courage & knowing...to meld, but not become part of that which is, because they are there to create & expedite The Changes.

We cannot abandon our fore-Mothers, but they must be held to focus. We supporters of these Changes must retain strong & loud voices to those that waver in the process they are amidst...it is our only hope...and to fail at our efforts is to fail humanity as a whole...it is not an option.

Good Journey to us all!!!

Answer 8

Yes, I think that's right. Extreme people hijacked the movement and it destroyed its credibility and itself from within. (Not that that's a bad thing, all things have their sell-by dates)

Yes, masculism has played its part by exposing the fallacies of feminism.

As an equalist I believe that [quote] men and women are born different but equal, are of equal worth, and are deserving of fair treatment under just laws [/quote] so I shall not mourn the passing away of feminism and masculism.

Answer 9

No, you, the feminists have inflicted the damage onto yourselves; do not blame the men, the trolls or even do not attempt to blame it upon the anti-feminists, nor even McKinnon and or Dworkin. They are no longer among us, especially Dworkin; not only is blaming a dead person completely futile; it reeks of weakness.

Answer 10

Lesbians