Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past few weeks, you’re probably familiar with the “Women Against Feminism” meme that has been taking social media by storm. There have been several excellent rebuttals, but all too predictably, a fair bit of “both sides do it” as well. Perhaps you’ve seen the one on TIME Magazine’s website, dated July 24. I’m not going to link to it here, for two reasons: 1) it doesn’t deserve the attention that might draw to it, and 2) I have done my best not to have anything to do with TIME ever since that Ann Coulter cover story in 2005. But a friend of a friend of mine on Facebook did post a link to it today, which I have to confess I clicked on out of morbid curiosity.
Before I get to what the stupid article (and it IS a stupid article) actually says, there’s a bit of context I should add. The individual who posted it recommended it as “a decent perspective on all this meme business”. Now, I don’t know this person or his politics, so I can only guess as to just why he interpreted the article as such; but my best guess is that he saw it as a middle-ground, “the truth is always somewhere in between” piece. Which I guess you could say it is, but that does not in any way make it any good, does it? Sadly, though, it will likely find a very receptive audience among the far too many people out there who always fall for that sort of argument.
Which is why I feel the need to address it point by point here.
First and foremost, the author is Cathy Young, an editor at the libertarian-oriented Reason Magazine. That in itself speaks volumes. Naturally, though, TIME just presents Young’s work as if she were perfectly mainstream. Another under-the-radar point worth noting: while the title of the article is "Stop Fem-Splaining: What ‘Women Against Feminism’ Gets Right", the URL reads “women-against-feminism-gets-it-right”. I wonder if that might be an earlier title that was deemed too telling to use.
But I digress. The article starts off with what most people here will recognize instantly as a both-sides-do-it fallacy:
The latest skirmish on the gender battlefield is “Women Against Feminism”: women and girls taking to the social media to declare that they don’t need or want feminism, usually via photos of themselves with handwritten placards. The feminist reaction has ranged from mockery to dismay to somewhat patronizing (or should that be “matronizing”?) lectures on why these dissidents are wrong.
I’ve left in that one link so you can see that the “matronizing” lectures are in fact just setting the record straight on what the women in those photos think feminism as opposed to what it really is. But it gets much worse very, very quickly:
But, while the anti-feminist rebellion has its eye-rolling moments, it raises valid questions about the state of Western feminism in the 21st Century — questions that must be addressed if we are to continue making progress toward real gender equality.
So we’re not even out of the first paragraph before we can see where this is headed. And of course, that’s right where it does in fact go:
Female anti-feminism is nothing new. In the 19th century, plenty of women were hostile to the women’s movement and to women who pursued nontraditional paths. In the 1970s, Marabel Morgan’s regressive manifesto The Total Woman was a top best-seller, and Phyllis Schlafly led opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. But such anti-feminism was invariably about defending women’s traditional roles. Some of today’s “women against feminism” fit that mold: They feel that feminism demeans stay-at-home mothers, or that being a “true woman” means loving to cook and clean for your man. Many others, however, say they repudiate feminism even though — indeed, because — they support equality and female empowerment:
(Emphasis mine) Now, this is where a writer who really was interested in getting at the truth would simply point out that those repudiations of feminism are nonsense, and that the women holding those signs are simply demonstrating that they don’t know what feminism really is. For a brief moment, it looks like we might actually be headed that way…
“I don’t need feminism because I believe in equality, not entitlements and supremacy.”
“I don’t need feminism because it reinforces the men as agents/women as victims dichotomy.”
“I do not need modern feminism because it has become confused with misandry which is as bad as misogyny, and whatever I want to do or be in life, I will become through my own hard work.”
Or, more than once: “I don’t need feminism because egalitarianism is better!”
Again and again, the dissenters say that feminism belittles and demonizes men, treating them as presumptive rapists while encouraging women to see themselves as victims. “I am not a victim” and “I can take responsibility for my actions” are recurring themes. Many also challenge the notion that American women in the 21stcentury are “oppressed,” defiantly asserting that “the patriarchy doesn’t exist” and “there is no rape culture.”
That is a pretty fair assessment of what the anti-feminist women think. But rather than debunking their nonsense, we get…
One common response from feminists is to say that Women Against Feminism “don’t understand what feminism is” and to invoke its dictionary definition: “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” The new anti-feminists have a rejoinderfor that, too: They’re judging modern feminism by its actions, not by the book. And here, they have a point.
A very, very minor point, perhaps. Feminism, like any other social movement, does have its outliers and they do occasionally say some crazy things. But that’s not what Young shows us at all. Instead, she takes the all too typical step of portraying the reasonable as if it were extreme:
Consider the #YesAllWomen Twitter hashtag, dubbed by one blogger “the Arab Spring of 21st Century feminism.” Created in response to Elliot Rodger’s deadly shooting spree in Isla Vista, California — and to reminders that “not all men” are violent misogynists — the tag was a relentless catalog of female victimization by male terrorism and abuse. Some of its most popular tweets seemed to literally dehumanize men, comparing them to sharks or M&M candies of which 10% are poisoned.
Evidently Young has never heard of an analogy. (For those of you who have never heard of the M&M analogy, the point is that 90% of men are like those 90% of M&Ms in the bowl that are perfectly safe: a woman simply doesn't have any way of knowing with any certainty who the other 10% are.) Also note that she never even tries to debunk the “relentless catalog of female victimization”, even as she subtly implies that it’s overblown if not an outright lie.
Consider assertions that men as a group must be taught “not to rape,” or that to accord the presumption of innocence to a man accused of sexual violence against a woman or girl is to be complicit in “rape culture.”
As you can see if you click on those links, the first one goes to an article by a woman who made the mistake of trying to reason with Sean Hannity about the effectiveness of using guns to prevent rape. The characterization of her argument as “men must be taught not to rape” is at best a massive oversimplification of her pointing out that we do live in a rape culture and that teaching young men about it is a good way to change that. The second one brings us exactly one example of a person suggesting that according Woody Allen the courtesy of innocent-until-proven-guilty is complicit in rape culture. That’s it – one. To accord that view to all feminists is, of course, exactly like suggesting that all Republicans believe in “legitimate rape”.
Consider that last year, when an Ohio University student made a rape complaint after getting caught on video engaging in a drunken public sex act, she was championed by campus activists and at least one prominent feminist blogger — but a grand jury declined to hand down charges after reviewing the video of the incident and evidence that both students were inebriated.
In other words, either some campus activists and one blogger made a mistake that was extremely easy to make in light of how prevalent rape on campus really is, or a rapist got away with it because his victim was drunk. Nope, she still hasn't established that feminists in general were the least bit unreasonable. (One doesn't even really need to point out that it happened in Ohio, the site of one of a very prominent recent rape case in which the victim endured a great deal of slut-shaming.)
Consider that a prominent British feminist writer, Laurie Penny, decries the notion that feminists should avoid such generalizations as “men oppress women”: In her view, all men are steeped in a woman-hating culture and “even the sweetest, gentlest man” benefits from women’s oppression.
Even the sweetest, gentlest man
does benefit from male privilege; and if he really is sweet and gentle, odds are he’d like to do his part to change that if he can. And that’s neither here nor there with respect to whether it’s wrong to say “men oppress women”.
Consider, too, that an extended quote from Penny’s column was re-posted by a mainstream reproductive rights group and shared by nearly 84,000 Tumblr users in six months.
Yes, and that quote includes this bit: “of course not all men hate women.” It also makes it clear, in context, that Penny was not suggesting feminists should avoid saying “men oppress women”. She was merely pointing out that in the bigger picture, arguing over the fairness of that statement is often used as “a very effective way of getting women to shut up”. I guess reasonable people could disagree about that, but Young makes no effort to address that argument, or even to acknowledge it.
Sure, some Women Against Feminism claims are caricatures based on fringe views — for instance, that feminism mandates hairy armpits, or that feminists regard all heterosexual intercourse as rape.
Notice here how Young implies that “all sex is rape” actually has some support among feminists. She does call it a “fringe view,” but in reality it isn't even that. No one is on record as having made that argument. (I do think Andrea Dworkin could have been clearer in what she really was arguing; but the fact remains that neither she nor anyone else ever suggested that all sex is rape.)
On the other hand, the charge that feminism stereotypes men as predators while reducing women to helpless victims certainly doesn't apply to all feminists — but it’s a reasonably fair description of a large, influential, highly visible segment of modern feminism.
Which is so influential and visible that Young doesn’t bother to post any links in that bit.
Are Women Against Feminism ignorant and naïve to insist they are not oppressed? Perhaps some are too giddy with youthful optimism. But they make a strong argument that a “patriarchy” that lets women vote, work, attend college, get divorced, run for political office, and own businesses on the same terms as men isn't quite living up to its label.
Just how strong of an argument do they make? Young’s only evidence here is a link to one of the women-against-feminism entries arguing that “a real patriarchy” would not allow women to – among other things – get divorced, have a career, pass anti-rape laws, have Women’s Studies at every university, and, of course, get an abortion. In what parallel universe has there
not been a patriarchy fighting tooth and nail against every one of those things and then some?! Some “strong argument”.
They also raise valid questions about politicizing personal violence along gender lines; research shows that surprisingly high numbers of men may have been raped, sometimes by women.
Again, not a bit of evidence that feminists are dismissive of violence against men.
For the most part, Women Against Feminism are quite willing to acknowledge and credit feminism’s past battles for women’s rights in the West, as well as the severe oppression women still suffer in many parts of the world. But they also say that modern Western feminism has become a divisive and sometimes hateful force, a movement that dramatically exaggerates female woes while ignoring men’s problems, stifles dissenting views, and dwells obsessively on men’s misbehavior and women’s personal wrongs.
First of all, I don’t recall any of the Women Against Feminism acknowledging anything past generations of feminists did. If anything, they remind me of the (perhaps apocryphal) African-American baseball player who said, “I don’t owe Jackie Robinson nothing, I got hired ‘cause I can pitch and catch!” But even if Young were right about that, she then goes on to the old Fox News “some people say…” trick. Yes, anti-feminists have been arguing for decades that feminism is rooted in hatred of men. But there are people out there who will tell you the Virgin Mary straightened their wallpaper, too.
These are trends about which feminists have voiced alarm in the past — including the movement’s founding mother Betty Friedan, who tried in the 1970s to steer feminism from the path of what she called “sex/class warfare.” Friedan would have been aghast had she known that, 50 years after she began her battle, feminist energies were being spent on bashing men who commit the heinous crime of taking too much space on the subway.
Here we have a blink-and-you-miss-it example of how anti-feminists often dismiss arguments with “there are more important things than that”. It’s a great way to trivialize things that are in fact a perfectly legitimate reflection of a larger problem. Nor, of course, is anyone arguing that “mansitting” on the subway is a “heinous crime”. And that’s not even getting into the matter of how Cathy Young has any way of knowing what Betty Friedan would think about anything.
Is there still a place in modern-day America for a gender equality movement? I think so. Work-family balance remains a real and complicated challenge. And there are gender-based cultural biases and pressures that still exist — though, in 21st century Western countries, they almost certainly affect men as much as women. A true equality movement would be concerned with the needs and interests of both sexes. It would, for instance, advocate for all victims of domestic and sexual violence regardless of gender — and for fairness to those accused of these offenses. It would support both women and men as workers and as parents.
Yes, and that sounds like something 99.9% of self-described feminists I know would agree with completely. The only thing they might – might – object to is that it allows for a rather slippery slope into “but what about the menz?!” territory. Which, like it or not, is a valid concern.
Should such a movement take back feminism — or, as the new egalitarians suggest, give up on the label altogether because of its inherent connotations of advocating for women only?
Or should they open their eyes and recognize that men benefit too when we are truly equal?
I’m not sure what the answer is. But Women Against Feminism are asking the right questions.
What questions? Women Against Feminism isn't asking any questions; they’re perpetuating discredited stereotypes about feminists, and nothing more.
And they deserve to be heard, not harangued. As one of the group’s graphics says: “I have my own mind. Please stop fem-splaining it to me.”
And she might just as well say “please stop trying to make me see how there is still work to be done; it’s so much easier to just imagine everything’s fine.”
I do think a reasonable case could be made that feminism sometimes has a PR problem. I had a girlfriend about ten years ago who was a self-described radical feminist, and she and I had some awfully intense fights about our respective beliefs. While we agreed far more often than not, we did have a few fundamental disagreements. One of these was that I believed feminism as a whole could appeal to the mainstream without compromising its values and goals; we just needed to be a bit more careful about the phrasing on some issues. She, on the other hand, was convinced that misogyny was just too deeply rooted in society's fabric and there was no use in trying to appeal to the center. One reason why I disagreed with her was that her only rationale for that belief - or at least the only one she ever cited with me - was that she rarely found any support for some of her own rather outrageous beliefs (these included support for single-sex bookstores, as she didn't feel comfortable browsing in the presence of men, and "all men benefit from rape"). She was also prone to calling me a "men's rights" activist every time I disagreed with her on anything. In other words, in my opinion at least, she was mistaking rejection of her own extreme views as rejection of feminism in general.
As you've probably guessed, my ex was a living, breathing right wing stereotype. She was exactly the person someone like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh - or Cathy Young - wants you to imagine whenever the word "feminist" is uttered. Such people do exist. But they are just what I referred to above: outliers. They are not representative of feminism as a whole in any meaningful way. The problem feminism faces is not the existence of a radical fringe - as I said, all movements have that - but rather that people like Cathy Young can always be counted on to portray that fringe as the mainstream of the movement, if not the entirety of the movement. In other words, the problem she seems to be trying to address in that article is in fact a creation of her ideological soulmates, nothing more.
I know it's tempting to just say "What can we expect from TIME?", and indeed, I agree with that. But I also believe it's important that we do our part to counter the damage it and other media sources do when they take bunk like this seriously. I hope this comes in handy if any of your annoying relatives cite that article!
By the way, Cathy Young should never, under any circumstances, be confused with the beautiful and talented Kathy Young:
UPDATE: I see Ms. Young has rebutted me via Twitter: "Male lefty attacks me, actually insists NO feminist ever said all het sex=rape & Dworkin just expressed herself badly". Still no example from her end of anyone ever actually saying that, of course, or that she ever read the book in which Dworkin supposedly said that (I have). Want a cite, Cathy? Here you go! (Cue the righties arguing that snopes is a puppet of George Soros in 5...4...3...2...)
I am indeed a male lefty, but attacking? I'm reminded of a bumper sticker I used to own: "If you feel attacked by feminism, it's probably a counterattack".
UPDATE 2: Thanks everyone for the rec-list! And for those who just have to see the original article, I provided a link in the comments.