Why so many female critics of feminism?

[SweetDreamerGirl]

Are female critics against the entire concept of feminism or are they mainly against specific details?

I suspect that some of the anti-feminism-as-a-concept women have bought into the myth that feminists are trying to steal society from men, castrating men into oblivion. Stealing is bad and women should not do such a bad thing. After all, that would be so un-ladylike and un-feminine.

What motivates such a women to support her own discrimination/oppression? They seem determined to stick up for the rights of men who are not currently oppressed but whom they assume would become oppressed in a feminist people-centred (i.e. female AND male-friendly) world. They seem to expect feminism to contiue to make the mistakes of the patriarchal past, with dominance of one group over the other, but they lack evidence for that assertion. Perhaps they also mistakenly equate feminism with lesbianism with all the homophobia that entails? Personally, I equate feminism more with not wanting to be a doormat.

One problem I have with women dismissing feminism-as-a-whole is that it implies to me that men are seen as the legitimate owners of society in the first place. I challenge that and think men do not have legitimate ownership of the "man's world" that we find ourselves inhabiting.

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.

I'm not promoting the name Equalism, I'm just pointing out that Feminism, as a word, is seen as anti-men. It's semantics, but possibly goes a little way to explaining antifeminist viewpoints.

"Why should women pretendalong with men that what women do is in any way similar or "equal" to what men do. THey create life, and they should be respected for their work."

Last time i looked, it took both a man and a woman to create life.

And are you saying that what women do is not equal to what men do?

No, it's not equal at all. If you want to equate having sex with pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding, then you and I are living on two different planets.

Thanks for all your thought-provoking responses to my original post. I'm very glad that it has generated some discussion. I am a newcomer to Mumsnet and I only started posting messages one week ago. I have been very impressed and heartened at the passion of the feminist debate on this website. I think I've found a great "virtual consciousness raising group" and I'm confident that I'll enjoy my time here!

I rather like the "Anti-Patriarchy" name suggestion, but I also agree that whatever we might call ourselves, the new term is certainly going to be assigned negative connotations by our detractors.

Some women label other women as "undesirables" e.g. slags, whores, chavs etc. I suggest this is due to a lack of self-confidence, trying put others down in an attempt to feel better about themselves. For some women, feminists fall into one of those "at least I'm not a ...." categories.

I was reading a book about "classed femininities" last week and it went into detail about how the criteria of femininity for upper, middle and working class women have been very different, allowing women (and men) to make instant judgements about every woman. Women have been doing this to each other for thousands of years and feminism is/can be seen as being unfeminine.

The forces of patriarchy attack feminism with "women's equality is responsible for women's unhappiness." I regard that as a lie, but I can understand some women thinking "I don't want to be unhappy, therefore I'll steer clear of those miserable feminist wimmyn types'

If we did give feminism some kind of image change, do you think we should aim at women "doubters" first, to swell our ranks with converts, then move on to the men? Way back in the 1860s, John Stuart Mill said that women should concentrate first on bringing more women to the cause.

SWD, that book sounds very interesting, what's it called or can you link to it?

wutker, do you mean me? I got confused by the "SWD" at the start of your post. Thinking it was some acronym I didn't know yet, me being a newbie, I went to the acronym list on this website and the only abbreviation that came close was "SWI", to do with shagging, apparently. and Thanks for giving me a laugh!

The "classed femininities" text is a section in "The Body : A Reader" edited by Mariam Fraser and Monica Greco, published by Routledge in 2005. I hope that helps.

sorry I meant wukter not wutker

Prolesworth, thanks for the welcome. I have a feeling we'll be chatting quite a lot from now on.

So, Sakura, you are saying that women are better than men if we're not equal.

Soupdragon, interpret my point however you like. I'm saying that the contrubution that women make when it comes to perpetuating the human race is far far greater.

WOmen have always contributed more, and worked harder, than men.
Do you think that men have made scientific discoveries and great works of literature over the centuries because they're more intelligent than women?
I don'T. I think it's because they always got women to clean up the messes they should have been cleaning up themselves. Women were working: cooking, reproducing and doing the bulk of the work required to sustain civilization, while they were lazing around on their arses philosophizing.

And here's the thing. Some misguided women now apparently believe that if women want to be regarded as equal to men, they've got to work 'as hard as men', even harder than they already have done. Men have always had the cushy jobs that require no physical labor brainpower, women have always done the lowly, back-breaking labour.

So I would say that women and men are not equal, and men aren't doing much to change my perception of that. Not in their contribution, not biologically. I have not seen anything that proves to me that they are equal. Women now have the 'right' to equal work for equal pay. Whoop-ee-doo.

What about women's unpaid contribution of pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding.
I'll tell you how the patriarchy see it: they regard it as inferiour work.

no physical labour, just brainpower

Yes, Welcome SDG

THat sounds really interesting about being able to judge women by the mannerisms.

On that note, I do think there is hope in the fact that women are part of the problem in perpetuating patriarchy. I mean, it's hopeful because it's got to be easier to get through to them about these sort of things.

I can't stand it when a woman judges the state of another woman's house. God, that's playing into the hands of patriarchy if nothing else is. If the woman has a H, he is half responsible for the mess. BUt lots of women see housework as being women's lot: otherwise they're slack and slovenly.

equal pay for equal work

Sakura, you and I often disagree, so can I pop in here and say that I think your above posts are just brilliant.

Great first thread, and thanks for the book recommendation.

I find it interesting that you also get some anti-feminist thinking from women who have succeeded in traditionally male spheres. They made it there, and now they want to pull up the drawbridge, so to speak, and are worse to the younger women than many of the male bosses are. My thinking on this suggests that this is partly because when these women look back on the huge sacrifices they had to make and the rubbish with which they had to put up from men to get there, it perhaps seems unfair to see younger women not have to struggle quite so hard. It's sad that this is often the case.

And the "displaying sexuality" thing winds me up a bit. Too often I think that this is a case of women displaying other peoples' sexuality, if you see what I mean, like the way most new female pop singers seem to think (based on video clips) that they can't succeed unless they "dress for the lads". This appears to be getting worse, not better.

Yes that point about dispaying other people's sexuality is exactly right.

A lot of women are sufficiently educated and self-aware to know that men are not the root cause of all their problems.

Would you say that the women who have been raped, are kept out of pocket by selfish husbands, or beaten, or abused, the teenage girls who are accosted by randy od blokes or flashed at or assaulted when they are just trying to get to school, should not blame the men for these things?

If a man walks up to a young girl who he does not know in the street, and tells her that her appearance does not meet his expectations, is she not entitled to get pissed off about that? Or is it preferable that she goes home and has a good cry, and determines never to leave the house again with her hair like that/without her makeup/not smiling. So that she can avoid the disapproval of such men in future.

Oh bollocks wrong thread.

Still sort of makes sense though if you ditch the second paragraph

Sakura,I don't think that it is justifiable to say that men have always had the cushy jobs that require no physical labour - farmers,miners,trawlermen....could go on,but there are a lot of hard physical dangerous jobs out there,and historically men have been doing them.If you are comparing well off educated men and women then the men probably did have cushy jobs involving brainpower,the women had a domestic existence and servants.If you look at working class people,then a lot of the time everyone was doing lowly back breaking labour....it all depends exactly who you look at and when historically,surely?

I entirely agree though that it has been harder for women to achieve in science ,literature,whatever in the same numbers as men because the men have had domestic support,and the women have had babies.

Sakura just wanted to nod vigorously along with Tortoiseshell re your posts.

Men still have 15 hours more leisure time per week than women on average, last time I saw a figure for it. Still FGS.

Lisianthus, You seem to be missing my point about displaying sexuality, but that maybe because I haven't made it well.

I am well aware of issues around the sex industry and the very narrow way in which women's sexuality has been defined as a consequence of that industry becoming mainstream. So, yes, obviously the sexuality displayed is almost always not the woman's sexuality but the viewers.

Possibly it is clearer if we say that those women are not displaying sexuality - instead they have been sexualised.

But that doesn't answer my question. What examples can feminism give of women expressing their sexuality in a way that any of us would consider positive? While I appreciate SGB as an example, I doubt her posts on MN reach a wide enough audience to be a role model to young people!

So I am not criticising what feminism does or has done. I am saying that young women trying to develop a sexuality for the first time are trapped between being sexualised by misogyny or never really admitting to having a sexuality. So many of them are looking for role models and answers. That is essentially a feminist issue that feminism isn't supplying many answers to, so girls and young women will go elsewhere.

So when I ask for examples of positive displays of female sexuality - in films, books, real life, music, art, I am not asking it to prove that feminists are anti-sex. I am asking it because I am a mother of a daughter and an aunt to a niece, and they need an answer to that question.

But I suppose this issue really does need a thread of its own.