Categories
Uncategorized

On The Spearhead, the regulars reject women rejecting feminism

From Women Against Feminism
From Women Against Feminism

Are women turning against feminism? Over on The Spearhead, WF Price sets forth the proposition that “the younger generation of women [is] rejecting ‘feminism’ in stronger terms than I’ve ever witnessed in my life.”

His proof for this? A Tumblr blog called Women Against Feminism, featuring a couple dozen photos of women holding signs denouncing feminism. Or what they think feminism is, anyway.

Some of these women are fairly articulate about the source of their hostility against feminism: they’re traditionalists who don’t like being judged for their choices:

feminismtruewomen

Others seem to be reacting against stereotypical notions of feminism that bear little relation to the real thing:

feminismequality
feminismcook

Still others have somewhat more, well, idiosyncratic reasons:

feminismbodyhair

For whatever reason, quite a few of the women posting these pictures are from Poland.

At least here in the US, it’s not news that a lot of women reject feminism – or at least the feminist label. There are plenty of  traditionalist women who reject the central tenets of feminism. And there are many others who may share some feminist beliefs but don’t want to call themselves feminists, in part because of the bad rap feminists get in the media and, these days, online. Anyone who’s been a feminist for any length of time has heard women (and some men) announce that “I’m not a feminist, but …” and then follow that statement with a sentiment that is, by any reasonable definition, feminist.

Now some of these “I’m not a feminist, but” types are posting pictures like this, using what is essentially a feminist analysis to criticize what they see as a central shortcoming of feminism:

 

feministagents
Naturally, WF Price has a somewhat different explanation for this alleged trend.

What I think is going on here is that younger women need men more than their older, feminist counterparts did in their heyday.

And why is that? Because times are hard. And so even though men today are struggling, women are struggling even more, and so – in WF Price’s imagination, anyway — they’ve come to appreciate what men can do for them.

The less men have – and the less men there are in general – the more women need them. Without men or without men of means, there can be no surplus, no you-go-grrrrl feminism, no fancy restaurants and no nice houses. Everything just goes to crap.

Heck, Price argues, even men without jobs make better roommates for women than other women, because, you know, they can open jars and stuff:

[W]hat use could a man possibly be if he has no money to speak of? Only someone who has never lived with a woman could find that one hard to answer. A healthy young man with no money can drive, carry things, fix things, protect his mate, solve problems, save money, do chores — the list goes on. And when he gets a job, he will pay his way and do all these things, even if he makes less than his girlfriend. It’s a much, much better deal for a woman than a female roommate.

According to Price, feminism had whatever successes it did have in the past because the economy was booming.

What created this “independent woman” myth was the great prosperity of the baby boomer era, which lasted from roughly the mid 60s to the mid 2000s. Men abounded, and they were flush with cash. Businesses could afford to hire superfluous cute girls and give them nice salaries. Family courts could rob men blind and they’d still have enough left over for a reasonable lifestyle and a chance to start over. Men were harvesting the fat of the land, and there was more than enough to go around.

Huh. I lived through that baby boomer era, and I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t one giant materialistic orgy. There were, I vaguely recall, more than a couple of pretty severe recessions. And back in the heyday of second wave feminism in the seventies there was something called “stagflation.”

But let’s not get in the way of WF Price’s little fairy tale. In the baby boomer era, everyone prospered. Now, everyone is poor. Or at least the young people are:

When you’re poor, life is a lot easier if you can share with someone, and nobody shares more with girls than boys. So merely finding a man to share burdens is a considerable relief to young women. Is a feminist going to fix a car, carry a TV upstairs or take her to the hospital to give birth? Will the feminist voluntarily share any of what she earns with the young woman? Yeah, right…

Apparently in Price’s world “the feminist” is essentially a female version of Scrooge McDuck.

Male scarcity in either numbers or resources effectively prevents feminism. Surplus enables it. In a sense, one could say that feminism’s own downfall is built in to the ideology itself, because it contributes to male scarcity.

Wars between the sexes accomplish nothing in the long run, but they do highlight the complementary, interdependent nature of the sexes: when one sex “beats” the other, both lose. Today’s young women seem to understand that a lot better than their foolish mothers ever did.

In the comments, the Spearhead regulars are less forgiving of “foolish” women than Price is. Regular commenter Geographybeefinalisthimself suggests that antifeminist men should be something less than gracious in their (alleged) victory:

Even if women are in fact rejecting feminism (and I treat this with a lot of suspicion), I don’t see why men should not be vindictive since feminists were pretty damn vindictive to men (myself included, though I am well aware that I am not the only one) when male power was a myth.

Since young men got paid back for discrimination that wasn’t their fault, I don’t see why they shouldn’t turn around and do likewise to a subsequent generation of females. If feminism can come to an end now (and I am not convinced that it is dead yet), it also could have come to an end twenty years ago. I always take the attitude that if something can happen now, it could have happened many years ago as well.

Someone calling himself Lastango, meanwhile, indulges himself in some hypothetical Atlas Shrugging:

[T]he tide is going out and it’s increasingly obvious feminism has been swimming naked, keeping its head above water only because it could float on government money. Unfortunately for feminists, this is happening at the very moment men are increasingly aware of having been demonized and exploited during the past 40 years, and Atlas is starting to shrug… he’ll be staying dry, on the beach, instead of swimming out to rescue a drowning political tribe of privileged, entitled women who have been using him for their own gain.

The misogynists of the manosphere are never quite so happy as when they contemplate women being punished.

The women posting pictures to the Women Against Feminism blog might be surprised by how ungentlemanly these fellows really are.

NOTE: I cropped the pics from Women Against Feminism to save space and highlight the signs.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

361 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
emilygoddess - MOD
emilygoddess - MOD
6 years ago

I love that Daniela felt the need to post basically that same comment on multiple threads. Because David really, really needs to know that he’s fat!

I heard from my grandma that there was a black police officer and he was protecting the kkk members when they were speaking. I don’t know the exact details but…gosh.

Well, if objecting would cost him his job , maybe he had no choice.

@Anonymous Ibiza, please don’t flog your blog here, it’s tacky. Also, lol Illuminati tinhats.

Am I the only one who heard about that mom being arrested and immediately went “…She’s black, isn’t she?”

Nope, you’re not.

strivingally
6 years ago

Zie’s just trying to OPEN OUR EYES to the TRUTH but we’re too BRAINWASHED to see it!

Or whatever crap the conspiracy theorists are saying these days.

Anon-Ibiz: the music industry’s use of women as props and accessories is indeed awful and I doubt you’d find much argument here. But when you’re also saying that CLEARLY this dude is also a Nazi because he told the crowd to put one hand in the air instead of two, and also FREEMASONRY because OMG HAND SIGNAL (please don’t ever go to a metal concert) and ILLUMINATI you sound like someone who’s just picked something they don’t like and ascribing All Bad Things In The World to it – in this case, a particular club in Ibiza.

A club is crappy, tacky and overpriced. That’s pretty awful. But so’s putting together tenuous conspiracy theories that put you well into tinfoil-hat territory.

sparky
sparky
6 years ago

Looks like Anon Ibiza’s tinfoil hat is on a little too tight today.

ralmcg
ralmcg
6 years ago

I have some theories about traditionalist women. They don’t like feminism because it challenges traditional sex roles. They may expect some reward for letting men rule over them, either in this life or the next. They like traditional sex roles because it exempts them from “masculine” things, like working outside the home for instance.

I don’t want to hurt traditionalist women, especially their feelings. I just like to know why they want to limit themselves, and other women, to limited roles based on their gender.

Nitram
6 years ago

Cloudish and zoon, (can I blockquote from an iPhone?)
“@cloudiah

feminism is this giant wrong tree that everyone keeps barking up.
I approve of this sentence. Slightly too long for a tattoo, but I’m considering it.

I will actually literally really pay $5 to get someone on fiverr to hold up a sign saying this sentence and then post the pictures here. Or any other that the WHTM community can decide”

Glad you like it and thanks! Yeah, that phrase has been popping in my head since I discovered manosphere. I used to comment at avfm. It kinda went like this:
“You’re barking up the wrong tree! Hello!? Feminism cares about those issu….what? No! Feminists don’t stand for tha….huh?! I’m not fat! What’s that got to…What?! No, the whole point was so women wouldn’t be financially dependent on men for survival.
Nonononono, narrow gender roles, men have to be tough, not a feminist tene….wait, we’re emasculating you now? I thought that….Oh I give up.”

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
6 years ago

Well damn, I stay up until nearly 2am and still miss the troll excitement!

Freemasons? Illuminati? Hand signals? Tinfoil hats?

Sounds like Son of Owly.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
6 years ago

Nitram, did you see in the other thread that a kitty holding a sign with your feminism sentence was a Thing We Had To Have? I made a pic and grumpycatisagirl is using it as her gravatar. Sorry I didn’t tell you before, I couldn’t remember who said it to start with!

Here’s the original:

http://i.imgur.com/074wI0h.jpg

Nitram
6 years ago

Kittehserf,

That is so awesome! Don’t think I’ve ever been quoted for a sign before. Neato!

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
6 years ago

Yay, I’m so glad you like it! Use it however you like. 🙂

grumpycatisagirl
6 years ago

I hope you don’t mind me using your words in my gravatar, Nitram!

Greebo
Greebo
6 years ago

@EmilyGoddess- Yes there is another Greebo here. I am left the nanny ogg suit and became part of the David hivemind for 110% more feline misandry 😛 (Translation: Another Pratchett fan? Hurrah!)

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
6 years ago

::reads Greebo’s post::

::chokes laughing::

There are quite a few Pratchett fans here!

emilygoddess - MOD
emilygoddess - MOD
6 years ago

I am left the nanny ogg suit and became part of the David hivemind for 110% more feline misandry 😛

Thank Anoia, I swallowed my coffee before I read this!

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
6 years ago

I wonder if Anoia and Ceiling Cat are in league? Rattling drawers and finding stuff under sofas (how did it get there?) are very kitty things.

http://youtu.be/MtwGES59NY4

Julie (ᴍᴄ) Galliard (@mcjulie)

On the topic of patriarchalist women — something that occurred to me the other day was that a lot of the more extreme patriarchal limitations on women — footbinding, burqas, etc — were originally associated with the upper classes, even if they’re more widely practiced (or not practiced at all) now. Working outside the home is certainly something that only women with relative economic privilege were ever able to consider optional.

So… I wonder if the real underlying motivator of anti-feminist women is a kind of loose emotional association between patriarchal traditions and wealth.

emilygoddess - MOD
emilygoddess - MOD
6 years ago

Julie, that’s an interesting idea. Maybe some of the women who dream of being a SAHM do so because it represents a level of economic security they don’t currently have?

Julie (ᴍᴄ) Galliard (@mcjulie)

Emilygoddess — exactly.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
6 years ago

That’s a really interesting idea, Julie, I think you’ve hit on it. There could be a whole heap of “not having to work” (as in hold down a paid job in an uncertain economy, not as in not actually doing anything) there. I know I’d love to be wealthy enough to not need a job, though stuffed if depending on dude represents any sort of financial security (yes male parental unit, I’m looking at you).

Ally S
6 years ago

Patriarchy is entirely rooted in violence and women as constructed by patriarchy are fundamentally unable to find a place in a social order in which they have power and respect as human beings. (Think about how women face that “damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t” judgment by society.) Nevertheless, patriarchy is often maintained through discourses that emphasize the ostensibly good aspects of patriarchy. The aim is to make patriarchy appealing to women such that women become completely obedient to men. Control equals protection, manipulation equals guidance, objectification equals appreciation, and abuse equals discipline. And unfortunately many women find these ideas convincing, hence the existence of anti-feminist women who perceive feminists as trying to destroy the ostensibly most peaceful life a woman could have.

Ally S
6 years ago

That’s just the patriarchal aspect of all of this, though. I think there are definitely intersections of class and race as well. I can’t think of a single anti-feminist woman who idolizes the life of a poor mother of color (married or not) instead of that of a rich white married mother.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
6 years ago

I can’t think of a single anti-feminist woman who idolizes the life of a poor mother of color (married or not) instead of that of a rich white married mother.

Too right.

Falconer
6 years ago

Maybe some women expect that they’ll be expected to do all the housework and just nope out of having to work outside the house and inside the house, too.

Ally S
6 years ago

It’s a comfort to privileged women. While all women – regardless of whether they are white, cis, straight, thin, neurotypical or able-bodied – are structurally determined by patriarchy to engage in reproductive labor, nowhere is this reality more manifest and ugly than in the lives of women at the very bottom of society. Women of color doing childcare, domestic work, and so on are treated like garbage, especially if they are poor. Their sole purpose as mandated by white supremacist patriarchal capitalism (a term bell hooks use that I like a lot, even though I don’t like bell hooks) is to engage in the most degrading and miserable forms of reproductive labor. And society as it stands today needs this structure because it allows the people at top to fully enjoy their privileges.

Nitram
6 years ago

Grumpycatisagirl,

I’m tickled! Practically want to put it on my resume.

emilygoddess - MOD
emilygoddess - MOD
6 years ago

I can’t think of a single anti-feminist woman who idolizes the life of a poor mother of color (married or not) instead of that of a rich white married mother.

And as so many of us have pointed out, this is true of anti-feminist men as well. The “female privileges” they complain about tend to only apply to women who are cis/het, white and middle class, like a recent post complaining that a given woman shouldn’t be talking about “privilege” because she has a higher education. They remain conspicuously silent when asked how other types of women fit into the picture. Sometimes I think a lot of anti-feminist complaints (like “I don’t have privilege I grew up in a trailer!) are rooted in mistaking class privilege for “female privilege”.

Also, Ally, I would read the shit out of a book written by you.

PumpkinHeaded
PumpkinHeaded
6 years ago

“Is a feminist going to […] take her to the hospital to give birth?” Are they still talking about roommates? Otherwise the alternative is ‘get placenta on your carpet’.

Argenti Aertheri
6 years ago

PumpkinHeaded — that one struck me as weird too. They really think that if a woman is in labor, a man is going to be more helpful than a woman? Not to be completely stereotypical, but you know how when a woman goes into labor at home the husband was supposed to boil water? Do you know why? To keep him the fuck out of the way. Idk how true it is, but it seems just a bit odd to think than the female roommate of a woman in labor is gonna go “nope, get yourself to the hospital”.

Only way this could make sense is if they think women call ambulances, men drive, and the latter is massively more noble. Which, thinking about it, is about the level of dumb I’ve come to expect from MRAs.

Re: envy of SAHM — yep, most people picturing themselves being a SAHM are picturing hubby coming home for a nice dinner, being able to afford child care and choosing to stay at home instead, etc. They’re not picturing people like my (white, cis, able bodied) mother who worked from home when we were kids because even with an Italian grandmother a mile away child care was expensive (and we basically had a free babysitter, when our grandmother wasn’t herself working). And they certainly aren’t picturing women stuck staying at home cuz daycare costs more than their min. wage job pays in the first place.

(Side note, in some ways I am incredibly lucky she worked from home — I had a magical box I was never EVER to touch in the house back in the late 80s…aka “a computer”…I think I was interested in how the magic box worked before I could talk! And now, I’m back to making the magic box behind the Borg less of a coding clusterfuck.)

Falconer
6 years ago

Re: envy of SAHM — yep, most people picturing themselves being a SAHM are picturing hubby coming home for a nice dinner, being able to afford child care and choosing to stay at home instead, etc.

It’s so very Norman Rockwell.

Robert
Robert
6 years ago

I often think that the chief reason I enjoy being a SAHF is the twenty four years of working outside the home. My father always said that real life is what happens when you’re not at work, so getting on SSDI and staying home with our kids felt like a happy ending.* Now I don’t rush home to get dinner started after a day at the hospital, I’m already there.

*So to speak.

Ally S
6 years ago

Also, Ally, I would read the shit out of a book written by you.

That’s not a bad idea, actually, especially if there’s actually a way I can make a decent amount off of it. Options like that are appealing when you’re poor and trying to save up for transition costs. I just wish I knew what to write about.

nohwoman
nohwoman
6 years ago

I believe the references to Poland may be in response to an ecard that reads, “‘Feminazi’ Because wanting your gender to be treated like human beings is just like invading Poland.”

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/238339005250897667/

Skye
Skye
6 years ago

Ally, you could write about your experience as an Islamic trans woman (I hope the space is right) or your thoughts on feminism, patriarchy, & womanism. Given your comments on this site, I’d read your book too.

Cassie's Major Domo
Cassie's Major Domo
6 years ago

Long time lurker (who will probably go back to lurking) hopping in here to say:

Ally, you should ABSOLUTELY write that book. I’d buy it in a second. The immense opportunities with e-publishing today make it feasible you could make money from it. Maybe not huge amounts (although that sometimes happens), but you already have dedicated readers here who would help spread the word if you put a book out. I second Skye’s idea for subject matter.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

You can always start pulling writeathons like me, Ally! 😀

Ally S
6 years ago

@Skye

Ally, you could write about your experience as an Islamic trans woman (I hope the space is right) or your thoughts on feminism, patriarchy, & womanism. Given your comments on this site, I’d read your book too.

I can’t write much about Islam since I’m no longer a Muslim, but I have plenty of other ideas, including but not limited to the following:

-the relations between disablism and white supremacy
-the role of coercive gender assignment in disablism
-a critique of nature/nurture debates (invoking Michel Foucault’s critique of humanism)

Skye
Skye
6 years ago

Ally, I’m sorry. I thought you were; I hope I didn’t offend you. Those are good ideas for a book also. 🙂

emilygoddess - MOD
emilygoddess - MOD
6 years ago

I know there’s already a glut of intro-level feminist books, but I think you would write a really good one, especially with the radical feminist and intersectional analyses you bring to the table.

AL3H
AL3H
6 years ago

@Ally_S

I would totally buy/read the hell out of a book by you too.

Ally S
6 years ago

Intro-level books sound great, too. Maybe they’d be even better to write since into-level stuff is the easiest for me to write. I’d probably have a slightly difference focus, though: instead of talking about what patriarchy is, for example, I’ll criticize the assumption that men can only face gender policing if they are also oppressed on the basis of maleness.

Unimaginative
6 years ago

Go, Ally, go! Maybe Argenti can magic up a forum on the borg to be a workshop space when you get far enough for that. Um, if you find workshopping your writing helpful.

Henry
Henry
6 years ago

Trigger warning: any emotionally fragile feminist reading the following comment may suffer P.T.S.D. from seeing her twisted little belief system getting the shit stomped out of it. OK with that out of the way:

Actually these anti-feminist women are not misunderstanding feminism in the slightest. They’re seeing what you are unable to see as perhaps you’re too close to the problem to see it accurately or maybe you just can’t bear to face an unpleasant truth. But you’re not going to convince anyone worth convincing by simply pointing to the dictionary definition of feminism then folding your arms smugly like you just proved something. The problem is that there is an enormous gulf between the THEORY of what feminism is allegedly about (the dictionary definition) and the PRACTICE of what feminism really is and does in reality.

It is quite easy to demonstrate what I mean. You see, when your movement claims that it is simply fighting for equality with men, not special privileges above and beyond what men have, no silly, just equality, then your movement needs to explain why it still exists in the western world now that women have had all the same rights as men for quite some time now in addition to some female-specific special privileges on top of that which no man will ever have. Point me towards even ONE law in the U.S. for example which discriminates against women in favor of men. I hear crickets chirping. When you have already achieved all the same rights as men yet you still keep on playing the victim card to try to milk further gender-specific concessions out of society, guess what? You’re making it pretty damned obvious to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together that equality isn’t nearly good enough for you, that you’re a female supremacist movement unconvincingly dressed up as one that’s “fighting for equality”. (For crying out loud, even the movement’s very NAME gives away its purpose. If it was fighting for equality it would be called egalitarianism or humanitarianism or something quite a bit less narrowly gender-specific.)

If feminism TRULY was about fighting for equality rather than being a one-sided gynocentric superiority movement then ask yourselves why it constantly pooh-poohs any problems or injustices that aren’t 100% exclusively about women. Ask yourself why it makes no effort at all to redress any of the imbalances that favor women over men.

For example, where is the feminist activity on the issue of women being sentenced to 60% less prison time for the same crimes as a man? Why isn’t feminism demanding that women be held to the same standard of adult responsibility as a man who committed the same crime? Why is your movement content with such an egregious disparity in sentencing? Oh yeah, because it is a disparity that favors women over men, whereas if the situation was reversed with men getting let off with 60% less prison time than a female you bet your ass it would be a feminist priority.

Where is feminism’s activism about the issue of women getting awarded custody in about 90% of child custody cases? To the extent that the woman would have to just about be a practicing prostitute or a heroin addict in order for the man to be given custody. Funny but this doesn’t seem to make it onto feminists’ radar either, I wonder why…

Why is feminism content to see 93% of workplace fatalities being male with only 7% being female? If feminism is about equality then why isn’t feminism working to try to get more women into these dangerous jobs so perhaps we could start to equalize this extremely one-sided workplace death ratio? Oh yeah, because feminism is perfectly content letting men do the dirty, heavy-lifting, dangerous and hard jobs that keep society going and letting women get the air-conditioned office jobs… then bitching about how a secretary answering phones all day in an air-conditioned office is a “victim of discrimination” for not getting paid as much as a man 500 feet in the air dangling off a skyscraper installing window glass though of course we know they will NEVER be so specific in their criticism because it would risk revealing the vapid, dumbed-down, apples-to-oranges nature of said criticism. Far better to just make some unsubstantiated claim about your mythical “gender-based discriminatory pay gap” that magically disappears as soon as one adjusts for personal career choices, education and childbirth.

Why has feminism remained silent about the huge discrepancy in funding for male homeless shelters versus female homeless shelters? When the overwhelming majority of homeless people are men rather than women, why on earth should men’s shelters get short shrift compared to female shelters? This clearly isn’t a problem for your imaginary “patriarchial” government which routinely ignores men’s issues in favor of women’s issues so why isn’t feminism, the movement you never tire of telling us is not gynocentric but all-inclusive, fighting for equality not female supremacy, doing a damned thing to bring this to society’s attention? You can bet any amount of money if the situation was reversed with the homeless population being mostly female it would be a crisis of Biblical proportions, worthy of the government declaring a “war on homelessness” to solve it. Why is the feminist movement just as disinterested in this matter as the government?

Why is feminism content with men still having to pay alimony in 2014? Aren’t you the same ladies who constantly tell us how women are just as good as men, just as capable and just as independent? Then why the hell should a man have the responsibility of paying for the upkeep and lifestyle of his former spouse on an indefinite basis? Why did this issue only make it onto feminists’ radar (in Florida) when the infinitesimally small amount of women paying alimony to THEIR former spouses inched up a tiny bit while still remaining a mouse fart compared to men’s alimony payments? Where is feminism’s indignation that these supposedly liberated, independent women are entitled to being supported by a man that isn’t even living with them any longer? Why don’t you see this as an enormous insult and indignation? Oh yeah, because I suppose the convenience of getting a monthly check in the mail assuages your little feelings of shame and dependency, right? So long as it works in women’s favor instead of men’s it’s perfectly OK with the feminist movement.

Where is feminism’s concern with the issue of men committing suicide at rates astronomically higher than women? You know if the numbers were reversed there would be a colossal shitstorm until we got the numbers of women killing themselves back down to acceptable levels but yet with the numbers being what they are this, unsurprisingly, isn’t an issue feminists will lift a finger to work on.

And I have yet to hear a single feminist push for women having to register for the draft. Why does a man have to register at age 18 or else he isn’t entitled to any of the benefits of society, can’t vote, can’t collect Social Security when he’s old etc. yet no woman has to register for the draft in order to enjoy any of that? Why are feminists content to let women avoid adult responsibilities that men can never avoid? Oh yeah, because it isn’t a movement about equality at all but rather female supremacy, the same reason why the KKK never pushes for anything aside from matters that affect white people. As despicable as they are at least they’re honest enough to not pretend to be fighting for racial equality.

Or what about the biggest double standard on the face of the earth? By this I mean the elective abortion/mandatory child support issue. Let’s say a woman gets pregnant accidentally, neither her nor her partner intended for it to happen. If the man wants to be a daddy to that unexpected kid but the woman doesn’t want any parts of it she’s going to go to the abortion clinic and get that unborn human dismembered and sucked out of her uterus without having broken a single law in the process. That man will now be the proud daddy to a bloody little pile of severed arms and legs. But if the situation is reversed and the woman wants to keep the baby but the dad doesn’t want any parts of being a daddy? Tough tittie, he’s on the hook for 18 years of child support payments for a kid he will never see. The law simply doesn’t allow him to act like an irresponsible piece of shit at least not without facing the penalty of jail time for his irresponsibility. The law holds that man to his responsibility, forces him to act like a grown adult and take responsibility for his actions. Whereas the law makes no effort whatsoever to force the woman to act like an adult and take responsibility for HER actions, no, instead it lets her dance away from the consequences of her actions without a care in the world. When the man’s irresponsibility results in the woman not getting a monthly check in the mail and that’s illegal yet the woman’s irresponsibility results in the death of another human being (the unborn human) and yet THAT is LEGAL?? Are you effing kidding me?? This has to be the most horrific double standard the world has ever seen, yet I guarantee you that if anyone was to start pushing for ending mandatory child support payments or tying the continuance of legal abortion to the ending of mandatory child support it would be the feminitwits who would be leading the charge to make sure things remain as one-sided as they are now. When the woman is allowed to act like a magical sparkly princess with no more responsibility than a child even though her irresponsibility and immaturity results in a human being’s death and the man isn’t even allowed to skip out on child support payments for a kid he never sees, clearly this abortion/child support situation can be called nothing less than overt female supremacy. Not equality between the sexes. Not egalitarianism. Overt, in-your-face female supremacy and nothing less. Funny but I haven’t heard of a single feminist anywhere pushing for an end to elective abortion. Feminism seems perfectly content to let this terrible double standard remain in place and any comment made about ending elective abortion is immediately met with a lecture about how it would somehow be “oppressing women” to hold them to the same standard of responsibility a man is held to, how it would be “chaining them to the stove” or ensuring they are “barefoot and pregnant” or whatever other feminist propaganda bullshit they can come up with. Because this is one of the many double standards that feminists embrace, those which favor women over men. Another reason why few people aside from feminists themselves take feminists seriously.

So you want to “prove” your movement really is about equality and not female supremacy and special gender-specific privileges? Great, come out against elective abortion. Demand that it be abolished, demand that women are held to the same standard of responsibility that a man is held to, demand that women receive no preferential treatment in the court system etc. etc. Basically it comes down to a realization that not everything in life is a right or a privilege, that there are some things in adult life that are called “responsibilities”. If feminism wasn’t all about milking society for more benefits, more gender-specific set-asides, more quotas, more gynocentric advantages and actually grew the hell up enough to see that there are such things as RESPONSIBILITIES as well then maybe more people would take feminism seriously. As it stands right now only about 23% of American women identify as feminists meaning no less than 77% of women wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole the movement that is supposed to be designed around their interests. That is a spectacular failure so amazing words can’t describe it. Perhaps women are getting tired of being constantly told they’re weak, helpless little victims who can’t do anything for themselves without a movement behind them to keep them pointed in the right direction and protected from this cruel world. I suspect your average woman is quite a bit stronger than that and doesn’t appreciate being talked down to. But whatever it is, your movement is dying and I say good riddance. Let it be replaced with something that doesn’t try to drive an unnecessary wedge between working class men and working class women. Let it be replaced with something far more mature, grown up, sensible and realistic. In other words let it be replaced with something that is GENUINELY about equal rights for the sexes.

emilygoddess - MOD
emilygoddess - MOD
6 years ago

Henry, you started out strong with that knee-slapped about how you were going to atom the shit out of feminism with a single mighty blog comment, but the essence of humor is brevity, and I wasn’t able to slog through the rest of your comment for the punch line. Unless you were going for a shaggy dog joke, you might want to work on keeping your jokes a bit shorter. Thanks for the laugh, though!

sparky
sparky
6 years ago

Henry: Bullshit. All of it. Just bullshit.

Pretty funny you demand feminists be anti-choice to prove that feminism is about equality to the MRA.

grumpycatisagirl
6 years ago

I’m highly amused Henry seems to think we haven’t heard any of that before or something and that hearing it for the first time, we’re all gonna be quaking in our boots our something. CHECKMATE FEMINSTR, as one confused cat said.

The originality is not strong with this one.

vaiyt
6 years ago

@Henry

Point me towards even ONE law in the U.S. for example which discriminates against women in favor of men.

Theory and practice are only different when they suit you, right, Henry?

emilygoddess - MOD
emilygoddess - MOD
6 years ago

@vaiyt, also note the “in favor of men” he tacked on there. Now you can’t cite abortion restrictions or fetal personhood laws, because how are those benefiting men?

hellkell
hellkell
6 years ago

TL;DR, Henry. Did it take you the entire month to craft that masterpiece?

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

Wow Henry. You just totally blew up feminism. No MRA has ever made those points before and we’ve certainly never debunked those points. Congratulations. The AVFM coin is in the mail.

Unimaginative
6 years ago

Did anybody read the whole thing? Are shaggy dogs funny, or was it something else?