People often ask why Women Against Feminism exists. One reader recently quipped that women being against feminism is like fish being against water. And yet the fact remains that most women don’t identify as feminists. Polls in the US show that as few as 18% of women there call themselves a feminist. In the UK, the equivalent figure for feminism is even more bleak at only 7% of women. This is despite more than two thirds of women in both countries supporting equality of the sexes.
Feminists are fond of dismissing results like these as irrelevant, saying the simple truth is that if you want a more equal society for women and men then you are in fact a feminist. The problem is, women simply don’t agree. The question then becomes unavoidable: What do women think feminism actually is?
Feminists would like us to believe that feminism = equality. They’d also like us to believe that “equality” means equality of outcomes, not equal human rights and equality before the law, as our parents and grandparents understood it.
If Women Against Feminism were asked if they believe men and women should have equal human rights and equality before the law, the answer would be a resounding “Yes”.
The problem is that this is not what feminism is about. Feminism is the advocacy of women’s rights based on the equality of the sexes, right? So we have 2 issues. Firstly, feminism only advocates for women; not equality. In areas where women have a clear advantage, feminism is either silent or actively opposing reform (eg. family law, education, mental health, etc.)
The second issue is that in order to grant equality for women, feminism speaks of “rights”, but they immediately reframe men’s right to work and vote as an unearned privilege of power.
By characterising men as having unearned privilege in this way, feminism has made women think that “equality” means that they should have unearned privilege as well. One of the worst effects of this is seen in the workplace. As women, we’ve been told to have our career first and then wait for “love”. We’ve been very successful in careers but found an absolute desert when it comes to our personal lives. Our male peers often have wives. It’s when men get married that they really start to increase their hours at work (in general). They have an incentive and this helps them achieve. For childless and single women, they’re working hard and wondering what it’s all for.
Feminism has led us to believe that men have it easier in the workplace. Women really believe that men are favoured and that’s why it’s usually men in higher levels. This makes women resentful. But there’s another way that feminist patriarchy theory plays into it. Remember how the theory characterises work as a privilege of power? Well women are doing these jobs and getting disillusioned because the work just feels like work! It doesn’t feel like an unearned privilege at all. Instead of realising that patriarchy theory was wrong about that, professional women are buying into feminism’s assertion that it’s somehow only work for women, but power and privilege for men. This is making women feel even more contempt for men, leaving them bitter about their entire lives.
It is time for feminists to come to terms with what Western women really want – and it’s not feminism. So what about in the developing world? Don’t they need feminism? No.
Here’s an example of a feminist law from India.
i) Section 498-A IPC:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
Is there any reason at all why only women should be protected from cruelty? Do we not also suffer when our brothers, fathers, husbands and sons are treated with cruelty? Of course we do.
What women want (and what the world needs) is gender neutral policies and laws. Feminism, by definition and by name, can never give us this. It can never deliver real gender equality. And that is what we all want.
By Chani Randazzo. Check her out on facebook!
I was looking for a thoughtful and coherent argument against feminism but this is pretty flimsy and selective (Particularly throwing that Indian law out there without context). Hoping your other articles actually carry some weight.
This was written as a Facebook comment in which I attempted to address confusion over what feminism is. The premise of the post I was replying to was that feminism was needed but has now become about subjugating men. “Feminists should go to countries like India and the Middle East where it is needed.”
Hyperlinks aren’t possible in Facebook comments (or posts, for that matter). Thus I didn’t reference the crucial way in which men’s right to vote is different to women’s.
Few people seem aware that in almost all Western countries, men won the right to vote about 10 years prior to women. It is only the US that I’m unsure about (and still researching). Prior to that, men could only vote if they owned property exceeding a certian value. In those same countries, men’s right to vote is conditional upon them registering for the draft.
Feminism claims victory for a movement that began as an egalitarian push for equal human rights, civil rights and legal rights. In fact, it started from the Suffragettes, which themselves spun off from the Suffragist movement. Suffragists were campaigning for universal suffrage for both men and women.
I believe this is the reason why most people don’t identify as feminists yet strongly support original egalitarian values like equal human rights, equal civil rights and equality before the law. A gender specific movement cannot grant equal just rights for all *regardless* of identity. It grants privileges *because* of identity.
That said, I believe you are right. This topic deserves an article.
Lol. This is what is wrong with feminism. You equate men getting the vote ten years earlier than women in western countries with the kind of crimes against women that are being perpetrated in India and the Middle East, not to mention almost any third world country. How insulting to western men who have laboured and died for their women, and value them so much more highly than other parts of the world. You want a cause, go the Middle East. Or Africa. Now.
Why are u so concern about women a only? A crime against a person is a crime against a
person.It does not matter who lives where.And Middle eastern people just go about beating women rather they are protected from abuse,Which they definitely will be if they are to roam
freely.
Why are u so concern about women’s only? A crime against a person is a crime against a
person.It does not matter who lives where.And Middle eastern people just does not go about beating women rather they are protected from abuse,Which they definitely will be if they are to roam freely.
Who gave you the right to constrain women ‘for their own good’? Again, a woman’s word is worth only half a man’s. Why is this? You are truly primitive, benighted mortals.
As a man and a believer in equal rights (in other words, not a feminist), I really appreciate the attempt, but this article or Facebook post or whatever you’re calling it isn’t even well-written. I’m sure we can do better than this.
“A gender specific movement cannot grant equal just rights for all *regardless* of identity. It grants privileges *because* of identity.” Sorry, what? If genders were equal, there would be no need for a gender specific movement. When one gender is subjugated, it needs to have its status raised BEFORE it can be equal.
“If genders were equal, there would be no need for a gender-specific movement.”
While the quote is true, your assessment of it is flawed. NEED does not affect the WILL TO POWER. They are not searching for a need here, but more gender-specific privilege.
Women in America are the most privileged beings in human history. So naturally they want MORE of the same. That’s not about need. It’s about entitlement and privilege.
Need does not determine the creation of special-interest groups like feminism.
The desire for additional privileges is all that is required.
Women are SUBJUGATED in America??
Please. They’re the most privilege populace in human history.
Feminists did that in the ’70s. Modern feminists are no better than self-interested lobbyists.
Great reply. I am definitely going to quote you from now on. Thanks a lot!
Seriously? We know when.. we know how.. we KNOW the struggles.. done. Enough. That issue is over. Women can Vote.. moving on. As a woman, I can’t stand when women stomp in a room shouting “The Vagina is Here! Respect Me!” The worst part is when the Woman next to her shouts “Me Too!!”. This world is done. No fixing it.
I am victimised by 498A and I feel this article provided a good overview
It’s hard to present “a thoughtful and coherent argument against feminism” in less than 300,000 words.
I could tell you that much of modern ‘feminism’ is synonymous with misandry, double-standards, myopia, pettiness, deception and having a victim mentality, and I could back my claim up with 100 examples.
How long have you got?
I like this post. However I have 2 comments about the 2 issues raised. First, feminism advocates to women only is not equality. That is true when you start from an equal position. The position of women are inferior to men. They do not start at a neutral point, and so advocating to women only will only act as counterbalance in the hope to reach equality. Second, feminists talk about rights which have been purposefully denied to them to keep power dialectics unequal.
“feminism [advocating] to women only is not equality. That is true when you start from an equal position.”
You’re right. It isn’t equal. Media, publishing, entertainment, marketing, teaching, biological sciences, social services and many others fields are all female dominated. It is no coincidence that feminism is a common strain in these professions. One that seeks to eradicate men.
“The position of women are inferior to men.”
Not in the growing list of fields mentioned above.
“feminists talk about rights which have been purposefully denied to them to keep power dialectics unequal.”
This country is the first in recorded history in which women have reached 50% of the workforce. No rights have been denied since the original suffrage movement. There isn’t a woman in the world who wouldn’t trade places with an American woman in a heartbeat. Bear in mind the suffrage movement began with the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire – an occupation most modern American women would avoid (as it is beneath them).
(What women want (and what the world needs) is gender neutral policies and laws. Feminism, by definition and by name, can never give us this. It can never deliver real gender equality. And that is what we all want…..)
You cant just go from a patriarchal society to a gender neutral society. There is no way anyone would let that happen
It needs to be gradual as to not shock “the system” imo
“You cant just go from a patriarchal society to a gender neutral society.”
“It needs to be gradual as to not shock “the system” imo”
Consequence free sex is the cornerstone of feminism. Since sex is no longer a life altering decision for women, they can habitually dangle the potential for sexual opportunity in front of men. Without promiscuity, or the illusion of promiscuity, feminism cannot exist.
In that respect, the “patriarchy” has always been partially fostered by women. Women made sexual choices carefully, rather than casually. Passing on favorable genes to offspring was actually a thing, and the decision to find and hold on to a worthy mate was paramount in a woman’s life. Being pregnant 20 times with 20 different men would have eliminated our species ages ago. Now that pregnancy is irrelevant, we get feminism.
This is you;
http://www.npr.org/sections/npr-history-dept/2015/10/22/450221328/american-women-who-were-anti-suffragettes
This is not you;
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2011/03/21/the-fire-that-changed-everything/
Coincidentally, the location of the fire is now luxury condos. Oh, the humanity.
The women who opposed the suffragettes did so because they honestly believed they would be required to register for the draft in order to register to vote – as men do.
The women who opposed the suffragettes also supported the Suffragists – the group who lobbied for universal suffrage. Remember there was a time that only men and women who owned property over a certain value were allowed to vote. That is why half the British men who died in WWI had no vote at all.
I do not condone anyone being denied the right to vote due to their gender.
If you’d care to read the article, it says, “If Women Against Feminism were asked if they believe men and women should have equal human rights and equality before the law, the answer would be a resounding “Yes”.”
If feminists are asked the same thing, I see them instantly start to mischaracterise men’s rights as unearned privileges.
Before we can ask the question of what equal rights and responsibilities looks like, we must first examine what rights are just. We need to determine what basic human, civil and legal rights consist of. Then we can ensure that all humans are able to access these rights *without imposed barriers*.
Feminists have started with a different approach. They have determined that sex differences are exploited by men in order to oppress women for the purpose of extracting babies and services, including sex. They have started with the threat narrative and then set about neutralising “the threat”.
Unfortunately for humanity, that results in feminists claiming to be working for gender equality while simultaneously prejudicing half of the population based on an immutable identity trait, ie. maleness.
Thsnk you for this sharing this thoughtful perspective. I learned something new!
Hence the phenomenon of the “weathergirl”. Young, attractive, surgically enhanced, white women replace the Al Roker’s and Mr. G’s and point at jet streams on a screen. There are few, male weathermen. Men were replaced almost entirely in less than a decade. And they weren’t outcompeted, they were outpaced. That is not equality. It’s cleansing.