Antifeminism’s Straw Man
“The feminist movement as we have come to know it in recent decades is fundamentally a “con.” It is as filled with falsehood, inaccuracy, and foolishness as astrology or parapsychology. As it is considered treasonous to criticise a sister feminist, no standards of accuracy or honesty are ever enforced. Hyperbole and deceit thus become the formula for success, “peer review” playing no role in reining in misinformation. Any would-be feminist who raises scholarly objections to the rampant misinformation (Christina Hoff Sommers , Camille Paglia , Elaine Showalter , Erin Pizzey , Elizabeth Loftus, etc.) is branded an ‘enemy of women’ and is drummed out of the movement.” —Robert SheafferIt would also be fair to add Sarah Palin to the list of women who have dared challenged traditional feminist views, and have thus been labeled ‘enemy of women’ by the so-called defenders of all women.
I spend the majority of my time living in a queer-friendly, grrrl-friendly bubble, but once in a while, I reluctantly emerge to smack some sense into the less enlightened. I seriously resent those who force me out of my happy place, but mostly, I resent having to engage in elementary debates with people who clearly haven’t done the reading before class.
Without further ado, I present to you Antifeminism, a blog for those who believe that those mean feminazis should stop picking on men and nontraditional “feminists” like Sarah Palin. The blogger believes that modern-day feminists are “angry” and “promote hate”. Who exactly these feminists are — they don’t care to name. This is a perfect example of a straw man argument (setting up a false representation of your opponent and then refuting that representation instead of your opponent’s actual position). But let’s not get bogged down in logical fallacies. I’m less concerned about how seriously the blog has misinterpreted feminism and more concerned about these misinterpretations representing what the mainstream actually believes feminism to be. And to be fair, perhaps this viewpoint comes from someone who’s taken a gender studies class and is well-informed on the issues. I kind of doubt it though, judging from how much the blog’s description of feminism deviates from my academic and political understanding of the movement:
WHEREAS, feminism only seeks to advance some women with a very specific set of ideals, and attack other women who disagree; and
WHEREAS, through the use of hate speech and angry misandry, feminism only serves to promote hate against men; and
WHEREAS, the quest of the modern-day feminist is to place women above men; and
WHEREAS, through their own vitriolic argumentation, feminists are everyday isolating themselves from mainstream society, while women realize the true nature of their cause; and
WHEREAS, the time to play identity politics, in order to advance an exclusionary agenda, is over.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this blog believes in true equality of opportunity for men and women, and seeks to unmask the hypocrisy of modern-day feminism.
I think part of the reason why people view feminism as a man-hating, angry subculture is because they fail to understand that it’s not just about women’s issues or an individual woman’s issues. People also think they know what “feminism” means without ever reading about it, which seems ludicrous given that you’d never go to a voting booth without researching each political party’s platform. (Well, I suppose plenty of people go to voting booths like that, but we can probably agree it’s no way to make well-informed decisions). Today, there’s no equivalent to The Feminine Mystique, which found its way into households across America and made feminism a topic of discussion. Part of the blame falls on the shoulders of feminist scholarship itself, which is frankly often inaccessible and esoteric, even more so than most academic literature. Still, though I find it difficult to make it through a Judith Butler piece, my inability to digest academic writing doesn’t mean I can’t refer to resources on the web and elsewhere to better inform my views.
Antifeminism claims that, “Feminism in the modern era has, unfortunately, turned into something very different from what it originally set out to achieve.” I’d argue that it’s actually evolved into a more inclusive movement today. Contemporary feminists recognize that the second wave emphasized the concerns of white, middle-class women. That’s not to say that workplace protections and reproductive freedoms aren’t valuable, but rather to suggest that we take a more inclusive approach from here on out. Feminism (at least in theory, if not in practice) has always been about equality across the board, and while feminism primarily aims to dismantle the social norms that define gender, it is ultimately also concerned with raising class consciousness and eradicating cultural imperialism, homophobia, racism, and the misuse of power to oppress those without it. In that sense, it is a far more self-aware and self-reflexive movement than it is often given credit for.
One last thing: when feminists argue against the “patriarchy”, they’re not suggesting that a matriarchy is any more desirable. What would be desirable is a society where no gender feels pressure to conform to roles and expectations. For a helpful introduction to what feminism is and isn’t, check out A Dudely Introduction To Feminism.
