Not surprisingly, there are many blogs out there dedicated to anti-feminism. Because anyone can make a blog and there has been anti-feminism around as long as feminism has been around, it is to be expected that there would be anti-feminism blogs. But this doesn't make these blogs ok.
Because I am always interested in what anti-feminists are arguing, I thought I would collect some blogs and posts that work against feminism. It is important to know what the other side is saying in order to make an informed and effective argument against them.
*Note on the picture: for the lovely argument that all feminists are lesbians.
One of the biggest sites I found was Antimisandry.com. Misandry, according to the website, is the hatred of men, so the website is dedicated to fighting this hatred. They have a complete page of ways that men are discriminated against, such as health, circumcision: genital mutilation, suicide, domestic violence, local council, public libraries, radio, newspapers, advertising, marriage, lifestyle opportunities, family courts, parental alientaion, mother-headed households, fatherless homes, education, politicians, passports, taxes, pensions and benefits, safety, employment, criminal law, catering, wealth, and travel. I feel like this list of areas in which men are discriminated is just grasping at straws and showing that these men are just blind to their own privilege. Also check out thier page titled "Why Modern, Western Has Become a Bad Business Decision for Men."
Antimisandry is all about pushing women down even further so men can feel powerful. Their whole premise is that women are getting too powerful and therefore have a hatred for men. But the people on this site completely ignore the fact that most feminists believe in equality of the sexes, not in dominating men.
I also came across a site called AlphaBelle. While this site is not specifically dedicated anti-feminism, many of the posts on it are definitely anti-feminist. Three that stuck out to me were "Building a Better Breed of Feminist," "Women and Politics: An Ode to Testosterone," and "The Funeral of Feminism." In "Women and Politics," the author proclaims,
In order to survive in politics, a person has to be assertive, aggressive, dominant, and have the ability to compartmentalize emotion. Basically they have to be an alpha. Just like in a wolf pack, no one is going to follow someone who displays even the slightest amount of insecurity. This doesn't come easily to most women.What about the fact that women are trained by society to be beta, as she calls it? And what about all the women who are in politics right now? Women are obviously capable of competing in the political arena, it's just a matter of getting them elected. And why aren't women elected? Because of people who hold views like this; that women aren't capable of being assertive and getting things done.
In "The Funeral of Feminism," the author talks about the appreciation of men.
Over the years, my understanding and appreciation of men has grown. I imagine that is the way it is supposed to be as you grow into maturity. I listen to them now whereas I couldn't get beyond my own bullshit when I was 22. And in our society, being male (especially if you happen to be a heterosexual Caucasian male), you are pretty fucking far behind the 8-ball. No one cares about your rights.Again, we get the belief that feminism is all about pulling men down instead of building women up to the level of men.
And then there is the website Objectify Chicks. The name pretty much explains it all. This site is all about the faults of feminism and the oppression of women. There is a post on this site that is solely dedicated to this quote from Lionel Tiger, a professor at Rutgers University:
"There is an ideological commitment to the notion that any differences occurring between males and females represent a failure of society to create equal and perfect opportunities for everyone so that the sexes will end up the same. This is a mindless concept."This post was titled "Feminism: Philosophy of the Mindless." This shows that anti-feminists believe that feminists are mindless for challenging that status quo that the anti-feminists are trying so hard to protect. I would aruge that the anti-feminists are the mindless because they are just following the status quo instead of trying to change anything.
The final site I am going to discuss is The Counter-Feminist. In the post "Another Glimpse of the Real Feminism," the author argues that all people who chose to take the label feminist are man-hating bitches.
What's that you say? It's unfair to treat all feminists the way that radfems treat all men? Well I think its bloody ill-mannered of radfems to treat all men that way in the first place!I don't even know what to say. So I'm just going to leave it at that and let you make your own conclusions about it.
The anti-feminist websites that I have come across are all about the hatred of women, rather than the hatred of men (like Antimisadry proclaims). With the exception of AlphaBelle (which I'm assuming is written by a woman), the men that write these blogs, I feel, only feel good about themselves when they have control over someone and that someone is women. So when feminism promotes the rights and fights the oppression of women, they feel threatened. And as for AlphaBelle and female anti-feminists -- I don't really understand. I mean they are entitled to their own opinions, but how can they not see that they are discriminated against and oppressed? Are they just using the anti-feminist "wave" to get ahead? I don't really know.
And to end: here's some anti-feminist BINGO from Hoyden About Town!
Posts
9 comments:
I felt this post was written with too much of a knee jerk reaction to what you considered offensive.
As such you dismiss not only several different types of argument very quickly, but also seem to lump them all in together and make no attempt at a deeper diagnosis. I will attempt no such analysis myself, merely make a few points -
Firstly the idea outlined in "Women and Politics" is not so very far removed from what many feminists argue for themselves.
That is - not resignation to inferiority, but grasping a unique and seperate experience / history / consciousness.
Obviously it would be a trite assertion if i were to note that a seperate experience by necessity denotes a seperate consciousness, as in that form it is just as much an assertion for nurture as nature, but, why then do so many feminists resist the notion of nature as a part of their own experience? Furthermore the notion that nature is not just a precipitating factor for consciousness but intricately and inescapably involved in it?
And if this be so, then the psychologies upon being different would be judged by a higher arbiter of the context, the natural tendencies suggesting themselves in different facets.
Does such stubborn denial of this merely come from a vestment of envy? Because if that is so then surely this is a much more insiduous shadow of patriachal oppression than a lack of women in parliament. Women divorcing themselves from their own experience in the effort to be 'competitive'.
Or - on the other hand - If this isn't so shocking, then the OP is shocking only in so far that she is short sighted.
If female psychology and consciousness is not geared towards the game of power, the very structure of the game comes upon scrutiny and not the players.
The quote from objectify chicks is exactly along these lines. And again here i feel you are too quick to criticise. Women should embrace their own unique experience, and not the shell of the masculine if they truly want liberation. However, though alteration of the social/political structure won't create equal opportunities and people - there is no reason why it wouldnt provide a more harmonious situation.
The other two blogs are worth mentioning only in relation to - there are many reasons for being an anti feminist -
it could just reflect a vogue nihilistic trend, it could reflect bitterness about the feeling of western male guilt that has been pervasive in our culture for quite a while, it could even be quite a natural dialectic (in this compartmentalized secularized history) when the original movement becomes too diffuse, and unstructured.
And a lot of people do complain that feminism has become too spread out, that as the rights it fought for became more abstract, it splintered into various different movements each wanting different things, each claiming different things.
Some as i've said, will never accept the premise of a seperate psychology, some merely want higher wages in their job, some wont be happy till there is a seperate language, a few even seek empowerment through abject sexual objectification.
And finally a few will read this post and perhaps admit that there may be something of self imposed veiled penis envy in some of this feminist double speak, in claiming their nature and difference, yet refusing it as soon as it means being less in a particular context. Refusing in the end to accept, embrace and create their own existence.
"The final site I am going to discuss is The Counter-Feminist. In the post "Another Glimpse of the Real Feminism," the author argues that all people who chose to take the label feminist are man-hating bitches."
Well, you know, what i ACTUALLY say in that entry is far more nuanced than what you have suggested - especially if you take the rest of the blog into account, with the context it supplies: over 430 posts.
And that's a lot of context!
But hey, it's all good, considering that we are now in a state of WAR. And in war you cannot realistically expect "fairness" on either side, eh?
So yes, I understand the game to perfection.
By the way, our side is growing. . .
;)
Yeah, I read through the first linked article (about western marriage)... managed to make it through a lot of slanted garbage, right up until he started up on the rape apologism (it's OK to rape and abuse your wife 'cos you got a contract, see). If your sexual needs aren't being met, talk it out with your partner or split up and find someone else. Isn't this obvious? This should be obvious. What the fuck is wrong with some people, that they think it's okay to rape people they're supposed to love? I don't even want to touch the other articles. I'm too disgusted and depressed right now.
Tom, when men are deciding that women naturally behave THISAWAY, and women are pointing out that we are actually THATAWAY by nature, men's opinions don't automatically win out (and I honestly can't imagine how anyone could argue otherwise without resorting to sexist tropes). Most anti-feminists are men and most feminists are women, so this should really be a no-brainer. You have never met me, you probably never will, and even if you did, you still wouldn't be able to see the world through my eyes and to know me as intimately as I know myself. To assume that you know more about our intrinsic natures, our true wants and needs and thoughts and feelings, than we do is incredibly arrogant.
Fidelbogen seems to have some difficulties understanding basic set theory. All radfems are feminists; not all feminists are radfems. I would bet dollars to donuts that there are far more feminists who don't identify with radical feminism than who do, especially since radical feminism has recently developed a reputation for rampant transphobia. I guess it's no surprise that most of the anti-feminists don't seem to graduated high school, though. (Or is math optional now?)
Dear Casey,
If my comment gave the idea that i thought i knew 'what' womens nature and psychology actually was then i am surely remiss for letting my implicit attitudes colour my writing.
However all i wanted to convey was that the idea of women 'not' having one, that is psychologically and genetically conditioned (as well as culturally) is rather short sighted. I believe the rest still follows.
Hey Tom - good post. You received the normal FemRant from Casey, but nice job.
Casey - Thanks for being the consistent Fem and falling back on the normal "Guys just aren't smart enough or educated enough to get it" post. Unbelievable. Just because your Mom told you something doesn't make it true.
The Misandry that has been allowed to exist in the Feminist World of you and your sisters isn't going to be tolerated in the future. Expect foolishness like the OP and your comments to be to vetted against the same standards you apply to men.
Fidelbogen - thanks for taking the time to post. You are 100% right, MR is growing. It's all good.
It's obvious that the belief that feminism is all about man-hating is still alive and well in society. Which is truly sad to me. While there may be some feminists who hate men, that doesn't mean that all feminists do. The term "feminism" is a broad term that incorporates many value systems about gender equality and the end of sexism.
While to me feminism is about gender equality, I focus on women because women are obviously the ones with less power and the victims of sexism.
For more information on why feminism is NOT about man-hating, go to this link: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/faq-why-do-you-feminists-hate-men/
Laura,
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but unfortunately not all self-proclaimed feminists agree with your definition of Feminism.
If consensus could be developed on the definition of Feminism then there may be an opportunity in the future to get some "mainstream" men to find some common ground with you.
As it sits now, most "regular" guys continue to believe that radical lesbian feminists (or at least their views) generally control your world. I'm sure it must be frustrating for many feminists that this is the perception, but it's out there.
I really can't understand why it's so damn hard to work on freeing men's personal expression from rigid gender roles, stopping unacceptable procedures like non consensual circumcision at a young age and doing other things to reduce the effects of the patriarchy on men without saying a bunch of truly asinine bullshit about feminism.
I mean really. None of those laudable goals to protect men need to be dunked in the toxic mix of slander against feminists. Worst part is? You hurt the credibility of the guys and gals actually working to stop these issues for guys by associating such a movement with misogyny and slander.
Good job, folks. Good job. Fuck it up for everyone else.
"All radfems are feminists; not all feminists are radfems."
'Set theory' is not the issue here. The issue is, that Casey doesn't understand basic reading. Or maybe I should say, basic paying attention to what other people wrote!
So, setting the record straight: no, not all feminists are radfems, but all feminists are FEMINISTS.
And that is plenty bad enough all by itself.
As for the question of 'defining' feminism: feminists no longer have control over that. NON-feminists do.
Therefore,feminism is whatever NON-feminism says it is. Non-feminism is taking over, and feminism had better step aside.
Feminism has dictated the meaning of reality long enough now. Well the party is over, folks! ;)
Post a Comment