Criticism of Feminism

@aidan,

My mistake aidan, it appears I did say "less than." I misspoke. What I was trying to say was that seeing such imagery is can have an effect, not that you believe or think it.

You used a word I was searching for: "Separatist." I think that's what I'm worried about--that feminism as a philosophy, under any definition, insulates gender issues. I've been interested in seeing examples of feminist writings to the contrary on this, but so far, I have one: The Penis Mom.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and feelings.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

You know, art, it might make things a lot more straightforward if you just state your grievances against the statements & actions of those you perceive to be "feminists".

I've shared my concerns. In short: I am skeptical that any feminist has provided a philosophy that can actually lead to gender equality. If you believe there is such a feminist philosophy that is promoted or even mainstream, I've also expressed great interest in reading what they have to say.

Gender issues incorporates topics that effect both sexes, and if feminism only addresses the issues of women, then it is incapable of creating equal rights/privileges/status. The prime examples I've chosen are military conscription and criminal sentencing. Both of these are demonstrations of gender inequality, but inequality that benefits women. Are there any prominent feminists that have spoke on these issues.

I don't have grievances.

msolga wrote:

You might get a more interesting discussion that way.

I've found the discussion plenty interesting. That said, I've already provided what you suggested in this thread. What else would you suggest?

msolga wrote:

Anything to avoid another video with that woman!
aghhh!

Certainly we can agree that even if you dislike or disagree with a person, you can endure there argument. Why prohibit her videos if you believe her ideas are so easily dismantled?

msolga wrote:

Look, anyone can go Google & come up with any number of pro or anti quotes on any issue going.
No particular skill involved.

Then again, the point of the video was to address the criticisms addressed to her on where she was getting her opinion. In making that video, even if you disagree with her, she answered that criticism. Knowing where her opinion is founded, you're able to comment as you do below...

msolga wrote:

But then to dress up a glad-bag of disparate quotes from women of all sorts, from different periods, as some sort of coherent "feminists are bad" statement & expect to be taken seriously?
I don't think so.

I think the point is not feminists are bad, even if she believes this is so. I think the point was to prove that the kinds of feminists she address do in fact exist--which was the criticism she was receiving: That they didn't exist.

msolga wrote:

(She's even included Valerie Solanas, from SCUM. The Society for Cutting Up Men. Who shot Andy Warhol. I mean, really .... just how many of us would have taken such a nut case seriously? She is hardly a major influence on any feminist I've ever known!)

That you don't take Solanas serious is immaterial. Some people have. Regardless, if we through this quote out, how many people and quotes are left? Are there no comments you're concerned with when you hear them out loud? Is there not a single person on the list you acknowledge has influence in feminist circles/academia?

msolga wrote:

I keep asking myself: why she is doing this?

Maybe she doesn't feel that her ideas are being well enough represented by others and felt the need to express herself.

msolga wrote:

Why does she, in her clumsy sort of way, feel the need to disparage what she imagines "feminism" to be?

Maybe she doesn't agree with or identify with the messages she received from feminists in her own lived experience.

msolga wrote:

What's in it for her?

Why must there be an self-serving agenda?

msolga wrote:

The only conclusion I can come to is that she wants to make her "name" in some particular circles?

Possible, but would that be wrong? Lots of people share their ideas and hope that they make a name in various circles. Unto itself, there's nothing wrong with that is there?

msolga wrote:

Perhaps to impress conservatives in her area?

Why conservatives? Aren't you assuming a lot here?

msolga wrote:

Does she plan to stand for local office or something & needs to establish her conservative credentials? Or something ..... ?

Or... she simply is expressing herself. Do you express your ideas to establish your liberal credentials? Are you running for office? I think these questions are reaching.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Hi Art.
Just saw your last post & will respond sometime later on.
Just waking up on this Saturday morning >blink< ... on cup of tea #2. Smile

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

I've shared my concerns. In short: I am skeptical that any feminist has provided a philosophy that can actually lead to gender equality. If you believe there is such a feminist philosophy that is promoted or even mainstream, I've also expressed great interest in reading what they have to say.

Do you need actual cites?

Speaking as someone who has thought about this a fair amount and has taken a lot of women's studies classes, my position is roughly:

Feminism is about removing the limitations of gender roles, maximizing opportunities for both men and women. While this means that as a feminist I advocate for women as CEOs and doctors and lawyers and many positions of power that were closed to them for a long time (and which still have limitations), it also means that as a feminist I advocate for men to be able to express their feelings without being called a "sissy" or "gay," to have equal access to their children, to be nurses and teachers and other typically female, "nurturing" professions if they so desire.

That second category of things are not just about men, they're about women too, because all of those things are negative in the sense that being female has been historically negative in many ways; women have been seen as inferior to men in ways large and small. When men engaging in typically female behaviors are not seen as behaving in an inferior manner, and when women engaging in typically male behaviors are not seen as freakish or inappropriate -- then people are free to make choices that suit them best, regardless of proscribed roles.

That doesn't mean that the roles must be upended -- a woman as the breadwinner, a man as the caretaker -- it means that each individual has options to take the path that works best for him or her.

2 Replies

@sozobe,

I decided to see how hard it would be to find a cite, Googled "Gloria Steinem equality" and this was the first result:

Quote:

Statement on Equality

By Gloria Steinem, WMC Cofounder and Board Member

The most workable definition of equality for journalists is reversibility. Don’t mention her young children unless you would also mention his, or describe her clothes unless you would describe his, or say she’s shrill or attractive unless the same adjectives would be applied to a man. Don’t say she’s had facial surgery unless you say he dyes his hair or has hair plugs. Don’t say she’s just out of graduate school but he’s a rising star. Don’t say she has no professional training but he worked his way up. Don’t ask her if she’s running as a women’s candidate unless you ask him if he’s running as a men’s candidate; ask both about the gender gap, the women’s vote. By extension, don’t say someone is a Muslim unless you also identify Christians and Jews, or identify only some people by race, ethnicity or sexuality and not others. However, this does NOT mean being even-handedly positive or negative when only one person or side has done something positive or negative. Equality allows accuracy.

(Emphasis mine.)

http://womensmediacenter.com/blog/2010/08/gloria-steinems-statement-on-equality/

Took approximately 20 seconds.

2 Replies

@sozobe,

This is pretty good too:

Quote:

“A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men.”
― Gloria Steinem

0 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

I decided to see how hard it would be to find a cite, Googled "Gloria Steinem equality" and this was the first result:

Quote:
Statement on Equality

By Gloria Steinem, WMC Cofounder and Board Member

The most workable definition of equality for journalists is reversibility. Don’t mention her young children unless you would also mention his, or describe her clothes unless you would describe his, or say she’s shrill or attractive unless the same adjectives would be applied to a man. Don’t say she’s had facial surgery unless you say he dyes his hair or has hair plugs. Don’t say she’s just out of graduate school but he’s a rising star. Don’t say she has no professional training but he worked his way up. Don’t ask her if she’s running as a women’s candidate unless you ask him if he’s running as a men’s candidate; ask both about the gender gap, the women’s vote. By extension, don’t say someone is a Muslim unless you also identify Christians and Jews, or identify only some people by race, ethnicity or sexuality and not others. However, this does NOT mean being even-handedly positive or negative when only one person or side has done something positive or negative. Equality allows accuracy.

(Emphasis mine.)

http://womensmediacenter.com/blog/2010/08/gloria-steinems-statement-on-equality/

Took approximately 20 seconds.

What do you take the bolded passage to mean in a practical sense? It took you 20 seconds, but what does it mean to you?

The second quote you shared is more direct, and it's wording is more firm. I like it much more. Thank you for sharing.

You just reminded me of an interesting TED Talk. It's Naomi Klein's extreme risk speech and it's very good.

There is something about it that seems weird to me. She at one point--perhaps for laughs--suggests that men take more risks from a sense of entitlement, and that maybe more women should be in charge. The audience chuckles. It's a mostly harmless joke, and for the theme of her speech, the idea of entitlement is perfectly fit to her thesis. What is interesting is that she specifically singles men out in a general statement, but later went on to the same kind of hubris displayed by Sarah Palin. No gender joke this time.

The speech itself is filmed at TEDxWomen, an offshoot of TED. Given the Steinem quote you provided, do you think that having a TEDxWomen conference is good? Would you care to speculate on how such an event is perceived by feminists? How do yo feel about it?

As it turns out, with 10 seconds of Googling, Steinem participated at the 2011 TEDxWoman. Does this square with the quote you provided? If in politics, you should not be a woman candidate; if we don't need a candidate to run as a man, should Steinem participate in TEDxWoman which needlessly genderizes to one group? Is she a female TED-talker or just a TED-talker?

I don't think there should be a TEDxMan. It's the kind of separatism that turns me off. Similarly, because there are feminists, I don't think out of some need for parity that a group of "masculinists" needs to form and have equal spotlight.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Do you need actual cites?

I'm very interested in whatever you think might be informative or interesting. You and I have posted on here for years now. I hope you believe that I'm being sincere. I've tried to meter my language specifically on this. I've not said these feminists don't exist, only that they are beyond my own experience, and so if others know better than I, I would care to read for myself.

sozobe wrote:

Speaking as someone who has thought about this a fair amount and has taken a lot of women's studies classes, my position is roughly:

Feminism is about removing the limitations of gender roles, maximizing opportunities for both men and women. While this means that as a feminist I advocate for women as CEOs and doctors and lawyers and many positions of power that were closed to them for a long time (and which still have limitations), it also means that as a feminist I advocate for men to be able to express their feelings without being called a "sissy" or "gay," to have equal access to their children, to be nurses and teachers and other typically female, "nurturing" professions if they so desire.

Thanks for sharing. Do you have a working definition of "humanism?" If so, or if you'd care to compose one, how would it differ from your position on feminism?

sozobe wrote:

That second category of things are not just about men, they're about women too, because all of those things are negative in the sense that being female has been historically negative in many ways; women have been seen as inferior to men in ways large and small.

We agree here. I think stigmatizing a man by making being a woman a pejorative has a dual toxicity.

sozobe wrote:

When men engaging in typically female behaviors are not seen as behaving in an inferior manner, and when women engaging in typically male behaviors are not seen as freakish or inappropriate -- then people are free to make choices that suit them best, regardless of proscribed roles.

I generally agree, but I think the water gets murky when we try to determine what is "typically" a behavior of either sex. That's a hard task to do without re-enforcing stereotypes. I'll give an example below.

sozobe wrote:

That doesn't mean that the roles must be upended -- a woman as the breadwinner, a man as the caretaker -- it means that each individual has options to take the path that works best for him or her.

Perhaps you didn't mean to, but something that I take from this is that embracing caregiver behaviors is feminine. I've been a caregiver in many contexts before, and in doing so, I've not felt like it was embracing femininity nor pausing masculinity. If care giving is my own nature, it is not a role reversal at all for me. I'm willing to bet many women feel the same about careers. It's a superficial binary, and I think we both can agree it's not about role reversal, but perhaps it's also not about making assumptions about each gender's nature (like care giving being a woman thing, and work being a man thing). We may assume too much about what we have to resist, who we fight against, or what barriers we're breaking down.

A
R
T

1 Reply

I'm interested too. I have to reread the thread of course.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Humanism is a much broader term than feminism, though it is itself ill-defined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Feminism is much more concerned with issues directly related to gender.

It could be called genderism I guess, but that's very close to sexism, which means something else entirely.

Feminism is the word we have and the word that is used.

Re: stereotypes:

I was just driving downtown, stopped at a light, and saw a guy on the other side of the street waiting for the light too. He was a strapping young fellow, early 20's probably, blond hair, big blond bushy beard. Looked a little cold in shirtsleeves and with his long black skirt swishing around his bare calves.

Is it a stereotype to say that it is feminine to wear skirts?

If so, does it disprove the stereotype if I see this guy wearing a skirt, and in fact I know that other men wear skirts, too?

Wearing skirts is feminine. I think it's awesome that he's transcended gender roles, and that he's wearing a skirt if he damn well pleases. Go skirt-wearing fella! Go onlookers who don't seem to care that he's wearing a skirt!

Being nurturing is feminine. I think it's awesome that so many men are now transcending gender roles, and are feeling free to nurture more than they have in the past.

I love seeing men carrying babies in Snuglis for example. It's become pretty common, far more common than a man wearing a skirt. But that alone was a sight gag in "Mr. Mom," a hit movie from not even 30 years ago. Look, a big tough macho man carrying a baby in a Snugli. Ha! How emasculating. Look how embarrassed he is.

Feminism has been a big part of why our view of a man carrying a baby in a Snugli has changed in 30 years. That's a very good thing, for men and women.

Does that mean that there is no more progress needed, and feminism is moot? No.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Humanism is a much broader term than feminism, though it is itself ill-defined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

I agree it's broader, but it is really any less loosely defined than feminism? More to the point I was making, If humanism is for the promotion of equality of people on matters of gender as well, but is not built from the vantage of one group.

sozobe wrote:

Feminism is much more concerned with issues directly related to gender.

It could be called genderism I guess, but that's very close to sexism, which means something else entirely.

Feminism is the word we have and the word that is used.

I wonder if that should change.

sozobe wrote:

Re: stereotypes:

I was just driving downtown, stopped at a light, and saw a guy on the other side of the street waiting for the light too. He was a strapping young fellow, early 20's probably, blond hair, big blond bushy beard. Looked a little cold in shirtsleeves and with his long black skirt swishing around his bare calves.

Is it a stereotype to say that it is feminine to wear skirts?

Sure.

sozobe wrote:

If so, does it disprove the stereotype if I see this guy wearing a skirt, and in fact I know that other men wear skirts, too?

No.

sozobe wrote:

Wearing skirts is feminine. I think it's awesome that he's transcended gender roles, and that he's wearing a skirt if he damn well pleases. Go skirt-wearing fella! Go onlookers who don't seem to care that he's wearing a skirt!

I agree, but comparing a person's taste in clothing and how it compares to the the population is a matter of choice.

sozobe wrote:

Being nurturing is feminine. I think it's awesome that so many men are now transcending gender roles, and are feeling free to nurture more than they have in the past.

I very much disagree, and I find this somewhat offensive. Remember:

Quote:

“A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men.”
― Gloria Steinem

Being nurturing is not inherently feminine and to say so is to deny men their full humanity. When I'm nurturing, I'm not embracing femininity, I'm embracing my humanity. I think comparing this to a man's choice to wear a skirt is absurd.

sozobe wrote:

I love seeing men carrying babies in Snuglis for example. It's become pretty common, far more common than a man wearing a skirt. But that alone was a sight gag in "Mr. Mom," a hit movie from not even 30 years ago. Look, a big tough macho man carrying a baby in a Snugli. Ha! How emasculating. Look how embarrassed he is.

I'm not sure what your point is. Did you think it was funny? If there has been a pervasive anxiety about gender roles, I disagree that it's about each gender embracing the other's traits. I think it's about embracing a person's full humanity.

When you see a man holding a baby, do you really think that in his head he's thinking "I feel like a woman."? If so, when you look at a women in a seat of power, do you think she thinks "I feel like a man."? I don't believe either of these.

sozobe wrote:

Feminism has been a big part of why our view of a man carrying a baby in a Snugli has changed in 30 years. That's a very good thing, for men and women.

I think that's fair, but you phrased this in a very important way. The view of this has changed "our view," not simply changing men's view. In the theater for Mr Mom, I doubt that only men were laughing and reinforcing the previous stereotype.

sozobe wrote:

Does that mean that there is no more progress needed, and feminism is moot? No.

I think my point here is very specifically that more progress is needed for gender equality. I never said feminism is moot, only that it can go only so far.

I'm still very interested in your thoughts on Stienem regarding the TEDxWomen conference. If...

Sozobe wrote:

Feminism is about removing the limitations of gender roles, maximizing opportunities for both men and women.

Then isn't the TEDxWomen conference anti-feminist by your definition? Isn't Steinem contradicting herself by participating since she believes she should be a presenter not a female presenter? TED offered equal opportunities for men and women, but the addition of TEDxWomen actually erected a barrier and provided more opportunities for women. What are your thoughts on this?

A
R
T

3 Replies

@failures art,

You're missing a very simple point here.

Feminine does not equal woman.

Men can do feminine things (I think that's often good).

Women can do masculine things. Check out my avatar just for example. That flexed bicep is quite masculine, and not incidental either, as it was part of a campaign to get everyone -- male and female -- comfortable with the idea of women doing "men's work."

Working in a factory soldering metal is masculine, yes. That doesn't mean that women shouldn't do it -- quite the opposite.

Again, it's about transcending gender roles.

I also think it's interesting that you bristle at being told that you are doing something feminine. That's one of those areas that still need work (in society in general).

Women have more freedom to be masculine than men have to be feminine currently. That cuts two ways.

On the one hand, in some ways men have less freedom (from gender roles specifically).

On the other hand, it points out how masculine = good in many ways (and feminine = bad).

0 Replies

@failures art,

I really hate the long nested quotes discussions, so I've been responding in a big-picture way that can be extrapolated to address specific things. But I'll take a few specifics.

failures art wrote:

I wonder if that should change.

It's possible. If you'd like to start a campaign for a new word that covers that which is currently covered by the word "feminism," go for it.

Quote:

I agree, but comparing a person's taste in clothing and how it compares to the the population is a matter of choice.

Non sequitur. Doesn't address my point at all.

Quote:

sozobe wrote:

Being nurturing is feminine. I think it's awesome that so many men are now transcending gender roles, and are feeling free to nurture more than they have in the past.

I very much disagree, and I find this somewhat offensive. Remember:

Quote:
“A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men.”
― Gloria Steinem

Being nurturing is not inherently feminine and to say so is to deny men their full humanity. When I'm nurturing, I'm not embracing femininity, I'm embracing my humanity. I think comparing this to a man's choice to wear a skirt is absurd.

Here's the bristling.

Nurturing has been considered a feminine trait for most of recent history, yes. That doesn't mean men aren't nurturing, or shouldn't be nurturing.

Eventually we may enter a post-gender-role utopia where the fact that something was considered "masculine" or "feminine" in the distant past will be rendered meaningless. We're not there yet, by a long shot. (Ask my friend who has a little boy who likes pink and purple dresses, the sparklier the better.)

Quote:

I'm not sure what your point is. Did you think it was funny? If there has been a pervasive anxiety about gender roles, I disagree that it's about each gender embracing the other's traits. I think it's about embracing a person's full humanity.

I thought it was kind of funny when I first saw it in 1983. I thought it was profoundly un-funny when I re-watched it recently, and my 11-year-old daughter thought the whole thing was idiotic. She's grown up in a world where it's perfectly normal for men to be taking care of kids and shopping and cleaning the house -- all of which was played for comic effect in the movie. He's a guy -- and he's a MOM! High-larious.

Quote:

When you see a man holding a baby, do you really think that in his head he's thinking "I feel like a woman."? If so, when you look at a women in a seat of power, do you think she thinks "I feel like a man."? I don't believe either of these.

Nor I. Which is why I never said that.

I've been pretty clear throughout that I think this stuff can be, is, and should be transcended. The moment that a guy carrying a baby in a Snugli thinks there's nothing at all weird about doing so is a lovely moment. It's a moment that arrived fairly recently.

Quote:

I think my point here is very specifically that more progress is needed for gender equality. I never said feminism is moot, only that it can go only so far.

What does that mean? Why can't feminism keep the ball rolling?

1 Reply

@failures art,

Hi Art & soz.
I hope I'm not butting in here, in the middle of your conversation.
Just a few points I'd like to make, from my own perspective:

Art said:

Quote:

I agree it's (the definition of humanism) broader, but it is really any less loosely defined than feminism? More to the point I was making, If humanism is for the promotion of equality of people on matters of gender as well, but is not built from the vantage of one group.

Here's a definition of humanism I can work with:

Quote:

.. A humanist is someone who believes that morality does not have some supernatural origin but that it derives from our need to live together in communities. This conviction leads naturally to a concern that our actions should contribute to the happiness and welfare of both ourselves and others. When someone who is a humanist comes to consider what is right and what is wrong (not just on a grand scale but in our everyday choices), the benefit or harm that it will bring to those around us, to wider humanity - including future generations - and the world are the only factors which matter. Individual rights and freedoms are important to humanists, but individual responsibility, social cooperation and mutual respect are just as important.

What is a humanist?:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-faith-column/2007/02/meaning-purpose-humanists

... a secular position, in which we take moral responsibility for ourselves & others by living & acting as ethically as we can. .

Of course there are other definitions, but using this definition I cannot see that humanism & feminism are mutually exclusive positions .... that it should necessarily be a choice between one or the other ...
To me it seems perfectly natural that all humanists would have advocated for women's suffrage, equal pay for equal work, adequate protection for women & children suffering from domestic violence, etc, etc. ... But looking back through the history of feminism, these battles were left almost exclusively to women, to fight & win. And of course they sometimes faced extremely hostile opposition in the process. ( But I mustn't get side-tracked here ... let me just say I am extremely proud that they achieved so much & that I feel a strong sense of gratitude to them, OK? Smile

)

Also, a woman can define herself a feminist, while also supporting other issues, other campaigns... like advocating for the abolition of the death penalty in countries in which it still exists (and which affects far more men than women), or for the rights of asylum seekers, the rights of the poor to proper healthcare, or advocate for the protection of certain endangered species, etc, etc .... the list could go on & on....

Most of the ordinary everyday women I come in contact with in my daily life who define themselves as feminists tend to be politically aware in a broad sense, & are sometimes politically active as well. Certainly few limit their concerns solely to "women's issues" at the expense of all else. Actually I can't think of any politically committed or aware woman who is quite so one dimensional in her concerns.

I disagree with the notion that the work of feminism is now all over & done with & we should all now pack up shop & adopt broader "humanist" concerns instead. Partly because I don't believe the work is all done. The issues change all the time & sometimes we are fighting simply to hold onto previous gains. (Like the challenges to abortion rights.)
And let's face it, if organized women did not fight the battles which directly affect their lives ,would the battles be fought at all? That's not how things have worked in the past, certainly.
So I can comfortably accommodate feminism as one of a number of worthwhile humanist concerns. That's not a difficult thing to do at all. And I don't see any contradiction in such a position.

2 Replies

@msolga,

Agree with your views there, msolga.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Thanks, osso.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Bristling? No.

I am not bristling over the thought of doing something feminine. I'm disagreeing that the nurturing behaviors are inherently feminine. I especially reject the idea that it is to be excepted as feminine simply because a bunch have people have thought of that way for a long time. That's an argumentum af populum.

I'm not talking about utopian gender transference. I'm talking about men being acknowledged for their full humanity no less. I don't think you man on the corner in a skirt example really works to support that such a generalization about the nature of a gender (in thi case nurturing) is sufficient.

The reason I think feminism can go only so far and the reason I believe it is limited is because it is a speaks to gender issues from the vantage of one o the genders. That is inherently biased and can only lead to overlooking the full scope of gender issues. By your argument, someone could say that masculinism is a philosophy of gender equality. Just because. I think you'd have your reservations, and so would I.

"Genderism" does sound awful. I'm campaigning for humanism. I don't think it leave anything behind for feminism to pick up and does better to neutrally address issues of gender.

A
R
T

3 Replies

@msolga,

I like the definition Olga.

I'm not throwing out the baby with the bath water. I've not said feminism hasn't done good things, and hasn't been a good fight worth defense. I simply believe it's approaching it's limitation. Gender equality is no less important to me today than yesterday, and it's no less important to me because I'm a man.

As it has been said: I can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

Which I suppose is how I've come to feel that feminism is lacking. While I have openly advocated for improved treatment of women, I feel there has been a lack of acknowledgement of gender issues outside of the issues that women face. In short: Women's issues has more become synonymous with gender issues. If feminists are out to address ALL gender inequalities, few speak to men's issues in front of me.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

I am not bristling over the thought of doing something feminine. I'm disagreeing that the nurturing behaviors are inherently feminine

Obviously, as both the tending of crops and the husbandry of livestock requires vast amounts of nurturing, and down history both men and women have done the job well. The argument that only women are nurturing is so ridiculous and biased that it must be considered slanderous towards men.

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

What do we assume about the critics of feminism?

Do we assume they are primarily male? Conservative? Old? What assumptions do we make about their life experiences?

I wouldn't assume anything about critics of feminism, anymore than I assume anything about feminists. The term "feminism" itself stands for a wide array of different ideologies. I myself support some of those ideologies and criticize others. I suppose people who criticize some other branch of feminism than I do, for reasons of their own, and who have nothing in common with me.

0 Replies

Criticism of Feminism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know