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.

Poggleswood,
Yes I felt a bit guilty about saying men in general haven't done hard labour. Working class men always have, I'm thinking of the coal-mining. BUt not in farming. Today, wOmen produce 80% of the world's food. but they own very little land. A tiny percentage. WOmen bend down all day planting rice, picking cotton or cacao, while men stand about directing them.

My point was mainly to show counteract some women's belief that being equal to men is something women have to prove, or fight for, by working. WOmen have always worked.
Even those working class men were only able to do so because of the physical labour of their wives (laundry, child-rearing, cooking). If their wives hadn't prepared their meals they wouldn't have been able to make it to the mines the next day. But they still lorded it over women, believing that because they were the wage-earner it trumped everything.

Samantha from sex and the city

Although the sex/sexuality thing is difficult isn't it, as each of us have our own hangups and desires and norms and etc etc.

So while I think that a character like samantha, who happily leaps from one man to the next, with an unashamedly voracious appetite for sex, is a good character to have on the television, another person might say that she is an excellent example of a women who has subjugated her "natural" female traits in order to "play men at their own game" ie treating sex in a way that is more stereotypically how a man behaves. Someone else might argue that she is unable to form relationships with men and thus was probably damaged at some point early on in her life and someone else might say, well I don't know what, but something

I think another thread would be good though. I suspect that this area is the one where we will all disagree with each other more than any otehr topic.

Coal mining was, for many years during and after the industrial revolution, a job done by women, men and children.

ISNT, I have been thinking about this since and I last posted and have decided I am sort of wrong about this issue.

The current situation with women's sexuality is a new problem. Or rather a new variation of an old problem. So it is really young feminists, the people who this issue has the most impact on, who will have to respond to it. While feminism in general has very little power and influence on mainstream media, young feminists have even less power. So it is not as much that there is no feminist response, but that we don't get to hear that response.

The only solution for young women is to meet other like minded young women and respond to this at a grass roots level. The extent to which young women can be exposed to that really depends on where they live and their access to other like-minded women.

So my answer to why some women are critical of feminists must be that people require a peer group - peers are important as role models. Many women simply won't know any feminists, which is why the actions of women (particularly young women and girls) and being prepared to stand out, be different and be a feminist are extremely important.

Ok,Sakura,I take your point - part of the problem I have in these discussions is keeping clear whether we are talking about the situation in this country,or worldwide,and how things are now,or how they were historically - in which case which precise bit of history are we looking at!

My reaction to your initial statement was the feeling that in this country,in the past,unless you were well off men ,women and children would all have been doing hard physical work.So while there was a split between what men did and what women did,I don't think it is a forgone conclusion who was better off - many men would have had little or no control over what they did.

"But they still lorded it over women, believing that because they were the wage-earner it trumped everything". - well maybe - At this point I start to think,well ok,I guess I'm not a feminist then! Some men probably did.Other men probably appreciated the benefits of having a wife who was a good housekeeper and able to feed and clothe the family with the money he brought home.How does it help to generalise?
(I'm sure someone will tell me!)

"...which is why the actions of women (particularly young women and girls) and being prepared to stand out, be different and be a feminist are extremely important."

Alright, I'm trying

Not being very brave it is hard to stick to what you believe in and challenge what needs challenging, day in day out. I don't know, I don't want to preach to people but in a way it is missionary-like in that just mentioning the truth about the way the world treats women is important. If you know that someone is talking bollocks about women falsely accusing men of rape, for example, you have to challenge it. If you don't, what's the point in knowing it?

Sometimes if I have heard something on the news and talked to friends or colleagues about it, people have responded really positively. A lot of women (and men) are actually feminists at heart, but haven't necessarily ever had a conversation that has made them think about it consciously. My brother for instance, with whom I disagree on almost everything political, was amazed at some of the things I was talking to him about recently. But - and it was a wonderful surprise - he believed what I was saying, read the things I sent him and would now call himself a feminist.

"Coal mining was, for many years during and after the industrial revolution, a job done by women, men and children."

Wow, was it?? I didn't know that. Makes sense though. I was wondering why men were ok to do that shit-job themselves. Now I learn they were sending women and children to do it. But they weren't allowing women to learn to read because that's too taxing, obviously.

I couldn't relate to Samantha wrt the sex part. It wasn't all the partners, I can sort of relate to the excitment of first-night sex over and over. It was the way she didn't care what the men thought of her as a person, and she didn't really care about them. For me conversation is a MAJOR part of foreplay. What's that advice sometimes given to men: your most important organ for pleasing women sexually is your brain.

Pogleswood, considering the fact that rich countries like Britain and hte US rely on the slave labour of women in third world countries to produce the food we put on our table, I believe feminism is a global issue and has been for some time. I'm not fighting for the right for me and mine, I'm fighting for all women. If there was no international trade, and we didn'T rely on poor women to do our shit work for us, then I would just concentrate on my own back-garden, but I can't get my head round the fact that the only reason women in Europe and the US can fanny about with nannies and cleaners and all the rest is because we are relying on the labour of women in other countries to do the necessary work of food production for us.

"Coal mining was, for many years during and after the industrial revolution, a job done by women, men and children."

Wow, was it?? I didn't know that. Makes sense though. I was wondering why men were ok to do that shit-job themselves. Now I learn they were sending women and children to do it. But they weren't allowing women to learn to read because that's too taxing, obviously.

I couldn't relate to Samantha wrt the sex part. It wasn't all the partners, I can sort of relate to the excitment of first-night sex over and over. It was the way she didn't care what the men thought of her as a person, and she didn't really care about them. For me conversation is a MAJOR part of foreplay. What's that advice sometimes given to men: your most important organ for pleasing women sexually is your brain.

Pogleswood, considering the fact that rich countries like Britain and hte US rely on the slave labour of women in third world countries to produce the food we put on our table, I believe feminism is a global issue and has been for some time. I'm not fighting for the right for me and mine, I'm fighting for all women. If there was no international trade, and we didn'T rely on poor women to do our shit work for us, then I would just concentrate on my own back-garden, but I can't get my head round the fact that the only reason women in Europe and the US can fanny about with nannies and cleaners and all the rest is because we are relying on the labour of women in other countries to do the necessary work of food production for us.

I need to think about feminisn globally deliberately,IYSWIM - it doesn't come naturally,even though in theory I know the facts.Must try harder

(Re:mining I got sidetracked into looking for info about women in coal mining and found this,amongst other thingsfreepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~stenhouse/coal/pbl/England/pre42lan.htm
-accounts from women who worked underground pre 1842(after that it was illegal).But the men were there too - as in many areas everyone had to work at whatever was available,didn't they? Then in 1842, it was decided that women and children shouldn't be employed underground,because the work was hard and dangerous,and because,for some campaigners at least,it was not work or an enviroment suited to femininity.So do we think that was good? Or should women have been allowed to keep on doing any work an employer was prepared to pay them to do? Because after the act was passed many women who had worked in the mines all their lives were unemployed...)

THis is a difficult one, Pogleswood.

Should feminists assert women's differences or get rid of them because those differences have always been used to keep us down?

I think the differences should be asserted, by women, personally. Men have always used our biological differences to pretend that they're the superior sex, which leads some women into the mind-set of "But I can do anything men can do"
Well, yes...women can to a certain extent. I've noticed that 60 year old women are much more physically robust than men of the same age. So men aren't always stronger than women.

But pregnancy and childbirth must be protected. After the industrial revolution pregnant women were working in the factories, just standing there on the production line It take a sadistic society to say that if she can't work alongside men because of her child-bearing responsibilities, then she is not equal to a man, or that she is infantilized, or that she can't handle it. The pregnancy, childbirth, post-partum period and nurturing a newborn by breastfeeding must be taken into consideration. BUt in the past it never was. Women were just weaker, and less able to work than men, for some apparently unknown reason.

I believe that it's because the strident, and sometimes debatable views held by some people who loudly proclaim themselves to be 'feminists' is what turns independent-women against the term.

I've recently made the mistake of posting on another thread in this board to meet with exactly that kind of 'feminist' - the type who doesn't debate but lectures, full of blame, hatred and lack of humour.

HTH

But activate, why would that put you off feminism?
The majority of muslims despair at the ramblings of a few Islamic fundamentalists but they don't decide to stop being muslim because of them. They just try to educate people that those fundamentalists are not representative of Islam.

Feminism encompasses such a wide area, including rape and DV, the media etc Why dismiss feminism just because you've come accross a fundamentalist?

But activate, why would that put you off feminism?
The majority of muslims despair at the ramblings of a few Islamic fundamentalists but they don't decide to stop being muslim because of them. They just try to educate people that those fundamentalists are not representative of Islam.

Feminism encompasses such a wide area, including rape and DV, the media etc Why dismiss feminism just because you've come accross a fundamentalist?

SweetDreamerGirl just catching up on this thread now, you genuinely made me laugh out loud. Sorry for getting your name wrong, I was posting while trying to capture a toddler.
Thanks for the book details, it's going on the wishlist.

Sakura, I think Activate's point is similar to the point I made upthread (sorry if I am putting words in your mouth, activate).
The most visible members of any movement are the extremists - most people are quite politically moderate at best, apathetic at worst. Extremism/evangelicism doesn't appeal. The message gets lost.

But Sakura is right, why would a few "strident" (a word that is only EVER used about women expressing opinions men don't like, never about men, or about women expressing opinions about things men don't care about or agree with) put you off a whole movement/ idea?

It's just anti-feminist nonsense.

Proles, I think extremist is anyone who doesn't accept the status quo.

And they're strident, as well, of course.

I have seen plenty of threads on here, and plenty of attitudes in RL that display a double standard against men. I see that as dehumanizing and pretty extreme, and as a feminist I can't agree with double standards in whatever direction.

Yes, Prolesworth.
A kind of default setting to put the worst possible interpretation on a man's actions, and a stubborn (and rather condescending) refusal to consider any other points of view/interpretations. Obviously this only applies where there is ambiguity.

There is an argument that this is only what has been applied to women for thousands of years, and it's only a drop in the ocean. Quite. It's not right though, regardless of who does it or why. As individuals we can only effect change in a very small way in comparison, and I believe the way to do that is to treat men and women equally, without preconceptions, in our dealings with them.

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.