Antifeminism

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.

Mar 30 2009
“ That makes it feel a little like feminists are inventing problems and forcing them on others.

Squasher (via antifeminism)

If you admit that sexism exists in the case of Sarah Palin, how can you turn around and argue that it suddenly doesn’t exist for anyone else? Is it okay for someone who is not a feminist to argue that they’ve experienced or seen sexism, but feminists, by virtue of being feminists, have to be making it up if they make the same claim? Again, how very convenient for you.

(via robot-heart)

Sexism absolutely exists. To say it doesn’t would be as atrocious as saying racism doesn’t exist. All of us, male and female, experience sexism from time to time. What we believe the OP was referring to was the habitual practice of some fringe groups to work on extremes. They fail to recognize their own radicalism. In other words, feminists make it out to be much worse than it actually is. Doing so helps keep a dying and increasingly marginalized ideology alive and in the mainstream.
Mar 29 2009
“ That makes it feel a little like feminists are inventing problems and forcing them on others. Squasher

Re: Sarah Palin and the Feminists: What went Wrong

Squashed, thanks for your response. However, we remain unconvinced. Your argument, albeit eloquent, essentially carries the same talking points we’ve repeatedly heard before. In fact, your argument further convinces us that feminism remains an exclusionary movement that seeks to advance some women with a very specific set of beliefs. Because of its ideological nature, feminism will inevitably leave out women who may have different ideologies, but who are equally as strong and independent as any feminist looking to have that ‘fair shot’ as Robot-Heart explained.

Both Squashed and Robot-Heart agree that just because someone is a woman doesn’t mean she’ll get defended by feminists. We’re a bit confused by this. Aren’t all women entitled to their ‘fair shot’ regardless of their ideology? And right here lies our problem with this brand of exclusionary feminism. It not only ignores women who happen to disagree with so-called feminist views, but many feminists go out of their way to smear and viciously attack those women. There is no need to go into detail of all the disgusting and sexist attacks that were thrown at Palin during the campaign. But we would like to point out that barely any of those self-described feminists came to Palin’s rescue. Whether you agree with her politics or not, some of the attacks were horrendously shameful. From the endless barrage of sexist attacks, to that famous t-shirt with the “Sarah Palin is a C#$%” slogan that so many people proudly wore, to that smear campaign claiming Trig wasn’t her son, and to that ridiculous claim from so many that she couldn’t properly run for Office because she was a mother. “You silly woman you, what are you doing with both a career and kids! That’s a man’s job!” The whole thing was just opprobrious, and regardless of your political/ideological position, one must admit she was treated as such solely because she was a woman… a Republican woman at that. Had this been a Democrat woman getting the same treatment, the feminist gods would have been evoked with all their furor and might.

We here at AF do not claim political affiliation. We are neither Republican, Democrat, liberal nor conservative. We were equally displeased with Hillary Clinton’s treatment during the Democratic primaries. Feminists, however, did come to her rescue many a-times as she would’ve surely helped advance the feminist partisan agenda. The Palin issue is simply an example, in a sea of many, where feminism proves to fall short from the justice it claims to stand by.

Mar 27 2009

We're back online!

After a full day’s of hard work at the AF Headquarters, we’re finally back to respond to a few reblogs and comments that have been going around the Tumblverse.

We would like to start with Squashed. We consider it an honor to accept Squashed’s challenge. We’re all big Squashed fans here and we strongly believe political discourse would be highly elevated if everyone followed his civilized, vitriol-free way of debating.

So as to not overwhelm our respective readers, how about we take it one point at a time?

Let’s start with our first point of our AF proclamation: our belief that modern-day feminism only seeks to advance some, not all women. There has been, for quite some time, the suspicion that feminism has been dangerously shifting towards a more partisan streak. We were particularly troubled by the treatment of Sarah Palin during the 2008 election. Now, before the wrath of the feminist gods is woken up by the mere mention of the name, let’s strip Sarah Palin of any political affiliation. Let’s strip her of any ideological affiliation. In fact, let’s have momentary amnesia and forget who Sarah Palin was altogether. Let’s just talk about Sarah P for a moment. Sarah P was this girl from a small town. Sarah P didn’t grow up poor but she was far from wealthy. She was just a typical girl from middle class America growing up with typical American values: work hard and you can achieve anything no matter who you are. She didn’t have much but she did what she thought best with what she had. She had a normal childhood and after high school she hit a rough patch when she entered college. Like many young people, Sarah P felt confused as to what she wanted to do with her life and constantly changed minds as to what she wanted to study, and even repeatedly changed schools. Finally, she finishes school and off she goes onto the real world.  She lands a sweet gig as a sports reporter at the local station. Sarah P loved her job but she was concerned with how her town was wasting money. Instead of remaining in a capacity of passerby and complainer, she actually picked up and did something about it. She ran for city council and won. She ran for the Mayor’s office and won. She ran for Governor and won. And when the opportunity came for her to run for national office, she ran and led a fierce and passionate political campaign unlike one we have seen in years. She gave it a good battle but she lost. Don’t worry, she took it well and went right back to work.

Sarah P is quite an accomplished and powerful woman, eh? One might say Sarah P is what everyone, not just women, should strive to be. Someone who can, someone who does, someone in charge of their own destiny, someone in control. What a woman!

OK, remember we don’t don’t know who this Sarah P is, alright! OK, ready? Alright, now you can remember I’m talking about Sarah Palin.

My dear feminists, you feel that hatred flowing through you? Feel that contempt? Feel that utter disgust at the mere thought of her?

Why is this? Why is there nothing but vitriol toward women who don’t necessarily carry a certain set of beliefs. Why has modern-day feminism been reduced to the advancement of women who agree with one another? Why has feminism turned into an ugly word when talking about equality? Why are the worst attacks toward powerful women always seem to come from feminists? Why and when did feminism stop being about the advancement of all women?

Thank you!

AF appreciates the great response and following this blog has already gotten. I suspect there are many out there with similar views but afraid to express them.

We’ll be responding to reblogs, particularly Squashed’s, later tonight.

Antifeminism Tumblr

jessicado:

This tumblr recently followed me. I am not sure who the creator is, but here is my response to the proposition made on their blog:

In defense of feminists, I would like to advocate that yes, there are some who fight for women being greater than men. Yes, there are some who look down on domesticity. And yes, there are those who despise makeup and choose to sport the “grungy” look. But in defense of the feminists who do not, including myself who promotes equality, supports domestic lifestyles, and wears makeup, we are not all as radical as your words make us seem. I quote, “that this blog believes in true equality of opportunity for men and women.” What would you call that belief my fellow activist? If feminism is not it, wherein any dictionary the definition screams just that, what are you advancing? You say as feminists, we are hypocritical and close-minded, unfair and untrue to our words. But perhaps that is not the fault of feminism, but the interpretation some women has given the idea.  If a duck did not quack, is it not still a duck?

I completely agree with your ideas of real equality, and I do not wish to argue our beliefs. This is merely to defend the feminists that I have come to know and love. The act itself is of good nature, even if the advocates are not.

—————————————————————————————————————-

We would call that belief… a belief in equality of opportunity. No labels required. Please note this is very different from the complete overhaul of social structures feminists wish to implement. There are many differences between men and women and these differences should be embraced instead of demonized as socially ill-constructed. We believe men and women should have complete and uncompromising equal access to the same opportunities. Whether it’s to deny or allow access, gender should never play a role in making such determination. Access should always be determined by the individual’s relevant attributes

AF respects the early pioneers of feminism and holds them in high esteem. As you noted, a movement is as good as its advocates and we believe feminism in the modern era has, unfortunately, turned into something very different from what it originally set out to achieve.

AF appreciates the above post.

Exercising the "block" button

jgh:

On a new Antifeminism tumblr. Byebye, morons.

ETA: Oh, and what Robot Heart said. You’re not attacking Feminism. You’re attacking Straw Feminism. That’s one big swinging e-peen you’ve got there - must feel good to reduce scarecrows and boogey-women to Funfetti.

Exhibit A for a typical feminist’s angry, intolerant way of “debating”. Note the use of name-calling and automatic dismissal of any opposing views as absolutely vital to the feminist way.

AF wishes calm, civilized debate was possible with modern-day feminists. AF suspects this isn’t possible.

“ Let me give the women of the West a clue – “liberation” means that you are free – free to think as you choose and free to create your life according to your efforts and your beliefs. Nancy Levant - Feminism and the Control of Womanhood
“ 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 Sheaffer

It 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.
“ Feminists who ceaselessly inveigh against their own oppression by men (often hardly specifying its exact nature) would ignore how they themselves have oppressed … feminine women. It oppresses a woman who could delight in domesticity to tell her that her domesticity makes her a parasitic inferior to men. It oppresses a woman who yearns to stay home with her children to tell her she is worthy only insofar as she achieves in the workplace. F. Carolyn Graglia
Page 1 of 1