Why so many female critics of feminism?

Oops, just to clarify one of my earlier posts, any person who works towards the four numbered goals I listed is a feminist in my opinion. (not the turning women into men or man-hating etc! )

Prolesworth, thanks for the link to the anti-patriarchy blog. I'm off to take a look!

wukter, Nice to know I gave you a laugh too about my name acronym.

I'm glad to hear that the book details are of interest. The section of the book on the femininities is short but its points are very well made - quality rather than quantity. While I was reading it, I was reminded of that classic John Cleese/Ronnie Barker/Ronnie Corbett comedy sketch about "He looks down on me but I look down on him..."

There's plenty of other thought-proviking body-image discussion in other sections of the book too.

Meltedchocolate, I was interested to read your response to my original post. Thanks for taking the time to outline your opinions.

I hope you will stick around to explore the many issues in feminism, by building on the basis that clearly women and men do not have equality.

I too think men and women are different, but not as different as opponents of feminism have insisted over the centuries. For example, most work, sport, financial independence, fertility control, voting rights, education and so on that women now have are solely or largely the result of feminists winning the argument that women are capable. Even the history of medicalisation of pregnancy and chilbirth by male doctors is partly linked to doubts about women's ability to handle these natural female processes.

I struggle to see where any improvements to make the sexes equal can come from other than feminism. If there is another social or political way of improving the lot of women worldwide, then I am very keen to hear about it.

The forces that keep women down are the "Establishment", that set of priviliged powerful people and their structures which happens to be male-dominated, which is usually referred to by feminists as the "Patriarchy". They keep women down because it threatens their advantage. Ordinary men, our fathers, brothers, partners, husbands and sons are also kept down by the establishment, but that doesn't involve the sex issues. Men who are not at the top of the social heap tend be have a hard time at the hands of the ruling men through other means. It's a class struggle rather than a sex struggle. Disempowered men fight for improved conditions too. I say good luck to them. In contrast to the "trying to turn women into men" jibe that is constantly thrown at feminists, I haven't heard anyone with power accusing men of wanting to be like women because they want a pay rise or paternity leave or to be stay-at-home house-husbands? (Having said that, a man told me recently "There's only one thing more unwelcome in business than a woman asking for time off to look after her sick children, and that's a man asking for time off in those circumstances.") Rather than say "poor men, I won't fight against the establishment for women's rights, because I feel sympathy with men who have a hard time with the current setup", I say "men fight your battle, and I shall support you". Hey, I'm a woman, so I can multi-task! We are ALL being messed about! I'm NOT paranoid, the Patriarchy ARE out to get me! As some posts earlier in this thread mentioned, feminism is more anti-men-in-power than anti-men, but propaganda of the opponents of feminism is very effective. "Feminist" has been wrongly equated with "man-hater" for at least 40 years and counting.

Have any feminists personally criticised your own specific choice to stay at home? I am aware that feminist activists have criticised the decision of stay-at-home mums as a group to stay at home, but I have seen that in general society-wide terms not as an attack on individual women. The reasons for the criticism by feminists include factors like SAHM work not being valued or recognised by the patriarchy as significant a contribution to society as paid work outside the home. Where did your choice to either stay at home or work come from? Until about 1970, there was no choice for many women e.g. pregnat teachers were forced to give up their teaching career. Feminists campained successfully to make sure there was the choice that exists today.

Four of the aims of feminism are:

1. reproductive choice
2. access to childcare
3. equal pay
4. freedom from sexual violence

The list of objectives of mainstream feminism does NOT include turning women into men, turning women into man-haters, emasculating men for the fun of it, or making men superfluous to requirements. (Men are vital for the survival of the human race, forseeable future, because without them, with artificial sperm etc, we would die out as a species due to the severely reduced gene pool that situation would entail). There is so much anti-feminist propaganda out there!

Any person who works towards these goals is a feminist in my opinion, whether a woman or man. That actually links back to the last paragraph in my original post.

"I have respect for some women who are against specific "policy details" of feminism - it's a fair political/operational difference of opinion. Perhaps these women are not actually anti-feminist, merely unwilling to call themselves feminists."

If you can spare some time, I do recommend that you take a closer look at this and other similar threads in the forum because they might put more "flesh on the bones" of the issues for you.

Prolesworth, thanks for the reassuring comments. I've held back too much for too long and it got me nowhere.

Another tactic used against women is "make women internalise their problems". Another double whammy - men have less "whinging" or "nagging" to listen to and women are eaten up with low self-esteem and depression.

Better out than in!

Prolesworth, I hope my post did not come across as a rant. I wrote it very calmly, not in anger.

Checking my previous post, I feel I should share that, yes I really DO know how to spell "patriarchy", but then I actually have a hard time typing "feminism" some of the time, with noisy distractions around the room where I am typing my post, a phenomenon familiar to quite a few Mumsnetters, it seems. and

I think of an extremist as someone who is prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to get what they want. The goal they seek might be a just or unjust one and I could find myself agreeing or disgreeing with their cause, after judging it on a case by case basis. (I would never support hatred or violence as a tactic or goal).

I can't think of any feminists who are extreme in that sense. Feminists are labelled "extremist" by our opponents. I am saddened when someone who is neutral or unfamiliar with the subject has their view of us tainted by anti-feminists. The patriachy usually sets the terms of the debate, because they are the status quo and they hold the power. The labelling of feminists as extremists is difficult to recognise from within the feminist movement. I think we are capable of recognising an extremist when we see one and I think they must be very thin on the ground in feminist circles. Others may warn that there are extremists prepared to destroy (patriarchal) society within 45 minutes, but does that mean they exist? Let's send in inspectors to see if we can find them!

Do feminists listen more to what is said on the issues rather than how it is said? Most of us do, but some don't. Do some feminists like the sound of their own voice rather than others? Yes. Feminists are human! Sometimes feminists are right, sometimes we are wrong. Since when has social reform or politics demanded a 100% pass rate in the exam? Which political or social movement does not contain such people? Perhaps they are needed to enable others (the majority) to see where debate should be concentrated? I suspect the weakness of many of the arguments used by the anti-feminists/patriarchy leads them to personalise the argument and attack and discredit personality rather than policy. It's a diversionary technique used in many aspects of society. I'm not surprised that they attempt to discredit feminists on a personal level.

The opponents of feminism label feminists as extremists not so much for the tactics they use but for simply having the audacity to even dare challenge the patriarchy. I think such labelling produces a "double whammy". Stigmatising of feminists as extremist women also reaps the reward for the patriachy of poisoning the cause of feminism as a whole, because newcomers to the issue will be disuaded form exploring the ideas of these errant women.

One of the reasons that I started this thread is that I think many women underestimate the skill and ingenuity of the patriachy in turning women off the idea of feminism. They have had thousands of years of practice of repressing women. They are very, very good at it! EXTREMELY good in fact . They are experts at turning women against each other. It's classic "divide and rule" stuff.