Why People Hate Feminism

Why People Hate Feminism

A brief guide for feminists on why everyone else is fed up with you.
1642
views

So I recently read this article by yet another woman who chooses to reject feminism. Little to my surprise, the comments on this article are flooded with people telling her how ignorant she is about what feminism actually is. Comments about how "its about equality" or "without feminism you wouldn't have the right to vote" will be found along with attacks on the author.

Now I've been following feminist lunacy ever since August of 2014, and its become obvious that most feminists don't seem to understand why people don't like them. In fact, it seems kinda odd that only around 23% of the population identifies as feminist and yet a disproportionate amount of damage control is done to remind people that it's not about hating men. People are coming out in droves to oppose some of the batshit lunacy that comes out of the feminist/social justice schools of thought. But instead of being willing to listen, legitimate criticism gets written off in a variety of fallacious ways. So allow me to 'mansplain' to you why feminism is so unpopular.

1. Misandry

Stereotypes typically exist for a reason, and the stereotype of the man-hating Feminazi isn't as much a myth as some would like it to be. Most feminists I've personally talked to seem to think man-hating is exclusive only to the radical lesbian separatist's, and they'd be right to a degree. The most overt hatred comes from those types of people; however people like Andrea Dworkin, Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan were the thinkers of their time. Their ideas were the foundation from which some tenants and maxims of feminism were built upon, all of which can be traced back to some degree to Valerie Solanas' SCUM manifesto. All of them are on record saying some pretty questionable things even when taken into context. One of the core tenants of feminism during its second wave was essentially "make the personal, political" and as a result, feminism seems to appeal to some incredibly damaged and disturbed individuals, who are now influencing the next generation of strong independent fish who don't need no bicycles. Yet all of this is somehow justifiable when it's done ironically. I mean some people actually had the nerve to call the SCUM manifesto a satire despite the fact Solanas seemed willing to act on what she said in her book. Never mind the fact some feminists have no problem getting people fired for "ironic" misogyny. I'm aware that not all feminists hate men, what i have a problem with is the fact that much of feminist theory is rooted in someone's hatred of men.

2. "It's about equality"

Four legs good, two legs bad! Four legs good, two legs bad! Four legs good, two legs bad! Four legs good, two legs bad! Four legs good, two legs better! seriously read Animal Farm for an explanation of why people hate this one. I would like to remind you that the belief that women should be given equal opportunities to men is not exclusive to feminism. There are other more logical philosophies that hold that belief as one of their core tenants (I.e. egalitarian humanism) and it's really fucking creepy when you try to get people to use the feminist label. Tell me, if you believe that you should treat your neighbor how you would want to be treated, does that make you a Christian by default? No. So why should the fundamental human belief of equality be exclusive to feminism by default?

In reality, to the outside observer, feminism does not seem to fight for equality. In fact, there have been many organizations that represent different schools of feminist thought that have acted in ways that are antithetical to equality, if not downright supremacist. Take for instances state chapters of the National Organization for Women in; Michigan, New York, Florida, and many others blocking default shared parenting bills. This is incredibly strange since second wave feminism was originally for joint custody, even with people like Gloria Steinem championing it. And yet most feminists will tell me, with a straight face mind you, that it's because of the patriarchy that women are considered the primary caregivers in family court. You also have the fact that there is SIX TIMES MORE GENDER BIAS THAN RACIAL BIAS IN OUR COURT SYSTEMS IN FAVOR OF WOMEN, and yet even despite this feminist groups still find women to be the primary victims of discrimination in the penal system with some even suggesting women's prisons should close entirely.

3. But those aren't real feminists

May I ask what a real feminist actually is? Or what kind of feminism is the one true feminism? Who the hell is even the official leader of the feminist movement? I feel like we have this same conversation when it comes to religion, the only difference being we at least have a holy book to analyze with Christianity or Islam. This is pretty much the same kind of argument we have when it comes to religion. Modern feminism has become a cluster-fuck of not really Scottish people pretending to be straw men all living in a commune somewhere in Scotland, despite living in said commune in Scotland all their life, but trust them they're not actually Scottish, just listen and believe them when they tell you their not actually Scottish. It has gotten to the point where I can counter any feminist talking point by citing other self-identified feminists. So much so I could probably write a whole other article doing so. But really why is it that feminists like CH Sommers get booed and protested on college campuses for even suggesting that modern feminism has lost its goddamn mind? In fact, why is there so much vitriol directed at women who disagree with you? Feminists say they want women's voices to be heard...So long as they say what Feminists want them to say. Why is someone like Lauren Southern, a strong, opinionated woman who actually practices equality, hated by feminists to the point that they throw urine at her for questioning their ideas? And then cheer for assaulting her?! Seriously feminists, own your own crazies for once in your goddam life before you go lumping people like Roosh V or Elliot Rodger in with the people who advocate for men's rights, who according to feminists are the real hate group.

4. "But feminism helps men too"

No... it doesn't. Ideas like "Privilege theory" and "Patriarchy" are blinders to any struggles we go through as men, because it is assumed that all men are a class of people that are above women as a class of people, and then feminists go and tell women that they have a right to class hatred. when in reality that's only true for maybe the top ten percent of men. They very rarely talk about the fact that the very lowest ends of society are also a male-only club. Take for example the fact that men have made up a large majority of the suicides for at least half a century. And when they do, well...

I could easily go on about everything that's wrong with feminism, but I'll close with this: The only difference between medicine and poison is the dosage. Feminism crossed the toxic threshold at least 30 years ago and is now slowly killing us. Any ideology that uses circular logic as validation for why it needs to exist is proof of how destructive and totalitarian that ideology can potentially be, as in order for it to no longer be valid, everyone must agree with it. That should scare you to your very core dear reader.

Cover Image Credit: knowyourmeme.com

Popular Right Now

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Ilhan Omar Is at Best Foolhardy and at Worst, Yes, Anti-Semitic

Her latest statements seem to lack substance, motivation, or direction.

332
views

I find the case of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) to be a curious one.

Specifically, I am referring to the recent controversy over select comments of hers that have generated accusations of anti-Semitism. In all honesty, prior to doing research for this article, I was prepared to come to her defense.

When her comments consisted primarily of "Israeli hypnosis" and monied interest, I thought her wording poor, though not too egregiously deviated from that of most politicians in the current climate of bad behavior. After all, Israeli PACs surely do have a monied interest in the orientation of United States policy in the Middle East. Besides, if President Trump can hypothesize about killing someone in broad daylight and receive no official sanction, I don't see the need for the House of Representatives to hand down reprimand to Rep. Omar for simply saying that Israel may have dealt wrongly, regardless of the veracity of that position.

And yet, seemingly discontent that she had not drawn enough ire, Omar continued firing. She questioned the purported dual loyalty of those Americans who support the state of Israel, while also making claim that the beloved former President Obama is actually not all that different from the reviled current President Trump.

In short, the initial (mostly) innocuous statements about the United States' relation with Israel have been supplanted by increasingly bizarre (and unnecessary) postulations.

Those latest two controversies I find most egregious. Questioning the loyalty of an American citizen for espousing support for a heavily persecuted world religion and in defense of a refuge for practitioners of that self-same religion that has existed as an independent state since 1948, seems, in really no uncertain terms, anti-Semitic.

After all, is it not her own party that so adamantly supports persecuted Palestinians in the very same region? Is it not she and fellow Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) (who is not without her own streak of anti-Semitic controversy) that have rejected challenges to their own loyalty in being ethnically Somali and Palestinian respectively? Is her claim not akin to the "racist" demands that Obama produce proof of his birth in the United States, and the more concrete racism that asserted he truly was not? And (if you care to reach back so far) can her statement not be equated to suggestions that President John F. Kennedy would be beholden to the Vatican as the first (and to date only) Catholic to hold the presidency?

From what I can discern amongst her commentary, in Omar's mind, the rules that apply to her framework on race, ethnicity, religion, and culture as sacred idols above reproach do not extend to her Jewish contemporaries.

Oh, and may I remind you that over 70% of Jewish Americans voted for Hilary Clinton in 2016.

And yet, beyond even this hypocrisy, is the strange disdain Omar suddenly seems to hold for Barack Obama. Even as a non-Democrat, while I can find reason for this, it is still largely perplexing.

To begin with, I recognize that Ilhan Omar is not your prototypical Democrat. She would scoff at being termed a moderate, and likely would do the same to being labeled a traditional liberal. While she doesn't identify as an outright democratic socialist, one would have to be totally clueless to avoid putting her in the company of those who do, such as Tlaib or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

As such, she's bound to have some critical evaluations of President Obama, despite the lionizing that the Democratic establishment has and continues to engage in. Two points still stick out to me as obvious incongruities in her statement, however.

First, Obama and Trump are nothing alike. Again, this coming from someone who does not regularly support either, I can at least attempt to claim objectivity. While Obama might not have been faithful to all the demands of the far-left during his presidency, his position on the political spectrum was far from the extreme bent that Trump has ventured into.

Secondly, there is the style of the two men to consider. While Obama had his share of goofs and gaffes (I still think it somewhat juvenile that he often refused to say "radical Islamic terrorism" when referring to Islamist extremists) he pales in comparison to Trump. Every week Trump has his foot caught in a new bear trap. Obama is enormously tame in comparison.

And in addition to all of that, one must beg the question of Omar's timing. With Republicans emboldened by her controversies and House Democratic leadership attempting to soothe the masses, why would Omar strike out at what's largely a popular figure for those that support her most? There seemed no motivation for the commentary and no salient reasoning to back it up, save that Omar wanted to speak her mind.

Such tactlessness is something that'll get you politically killed.

I do not believe Barack Obama was a great president, but that's not entirely important. I don't live in Ilhan Omar's district; her constituents believe Obama was a great president, and that should at least factor into her considerations. Or maybe she did weigh the negative value of such backlash and decided it wouldn't matter? 2019 isn't an election year, after all. Yet, even if that's the case, what's to gain by pissing off your superiors when they're already pissed off at you?

You need to pick your battles wisely in order to win the war, and I'm highly doubtful Omar will win any wars by pitching scorched-earth tactics over such minute concerns.

Her attitude reminds me not only of that of some of her colleagues engaging obtusely and unwisely over subjects that could best be shrugged off (see the AOC media controversies), but also some of my own acquaintances. They believe not only in the myth of their own infallibility, but the opposition bogeyman conjured by their status in a minority or marginalized group. As the logic goes, "I'm a member of x group, and being so gives me the right to decimate anyone who has any inclination to stand against me in any capacity, tit for tat." So much for civility.

I initially came here to defend Rep. Ilhan Omar, and I still do hold to that in certain cases. The opposition to some of her positions is unwarranted. She is allotted the freedom of speech, as are all Americans.

And yet, in certain other cases she has conducted herself brashly, and, one could argue, anti-Semitically.

All I can say is that I am content living adjacent to Minneapolis, not in it. You'd be hard-pressed to find me advocating for leadership that makes manifest in such impolitic fashion.

Related Content

Facebook Comments