Can a person genuinely oppose feminism and be authentically pro-women?

[danieldemol]

Can a person genuinely oppose feminism and be authenticaly pro-women?

This is the thread for discussing all types of feminism, and if it is possible to be pro-women and anti feminist.

From wikipedia;

'Feminism is a range of social movements, political movements, and ideologies that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes.[a][2][3][4][5] Feminism incorporates the position that societies prioritize the male point of view, and that women are treated unjustly within those societies.[6] Efforts to change that include fighting against gender stereotypes and establishing educational, professional, and interpersonal opportunities and outcomes for women that are equal to those for men.

Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women's rights, including the right to: vote, hold public office, work, earn equal pay, own property, receive education, enter contracts, have equal rights within marriage, and maternity leave. Feminists have also worked to ensure access to legal abortions and social integration, and to protect women and girls from rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.[7] Changes in female dress standards and acceptable physical activities for females have often been part of feminist movements.[8]'

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

It seems to me that at the very least most of what feminism teaches is equivalent to being pro-women, and I question how one can be rigidly anti-feminist yet still claim to be pro-women with a straight face, so please feel free to tell me if you think this is possible or not and why.

In my opinion.

 

[Laika]

Can a person genuinely oppose feminism and be authenticaly pro-women?

Not all women are feminists and many are conservatives who might be pro-life or support more traditional gender roles based on ideals of motherhood and domesticity. Whatever you might think of the man, Trump still won 42% of women's votes and feminism (which is typically more liberal) is not necessarily representative of all women's voices, opinions or interests.

 

[Rival]

This does not represent modern feminism, which I wholeheartedly disavow.

 

[epronovost]

Can a person genuinely oppose feminism and be authenticaly pro-women?

This is the thread for discussing all types of feminism, and if it is possible to be pro-women and anti feminist.

No its not. It's rigorously impossible to be pro-women and anti-feminist, but still many women and many men aren't pro-women. They would rather exchange their freedom for some safety, or illusion of safety more often than not to borrow a famous observation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Last internet survey I conducted, I found about 2 dozen
flavors of feminism. Some are oppressive. Some are
libertarian. So my answer to the titular question is "yes".

 

[Stevicus]

Can a person genuinely oppose feminism and be authenticaly pro-women?

This is the thread for discussing all types of feminism, and if it is possible to be pro-women and anti feminist.

From wikipedia;

'Feminism is a range of social movements, political movements, and ideologies that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes.[a][2][3][4][5] Feminism incorporates the position that societies prioritize the male point of view, and that women are treated unjustly within those societies.[6] Efforts to change that include fighting against gender stereotypes and establishing educational, professional, and interpersonal opportunities and outcomes for women that are equal to those for men.

Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women's rights, including the right to: vote, hold public office, work, earn equal pay, own property, receive education, enter contracts, have equal rights within marriage, and maternity leave. Feminists have also worked to ensure access to legal abortions and social integration, and to protect women and girls from rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.[7] Changes in female dress standards and acceptable physical activities for females have often been part of feminist movements.[8]'

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

It seems to me that at the very least most of what feminism teaches is equivalent to being pro-women, and I question how one can be rigidly anti-feminist yet still claim to be pro-women with a straight face, so please feel free to tell me if you think this is possible or not and why.

In my opinion.

I've noticed that feminism itself has changed and shifted over the course of my lifetime. If we're defining feminism as the basic ideal of equality based within modern concepts of human rights, then I would consider myself pro-feminist.

However, I also view that equality comes with an equal set of rights and an equal set of responsibilities; it's neither "pro-woman" nor "pro-man." (It also can't be "pro-white" or "pro-black" or anything like that at all.)

What does "pro-woman" actually mean anyway? If there was a dispute between a Christian woman and an atheist man, should I have to side with the woman in order to be considered "pro-woman," or can I still side with the person whose views I agree with?

 

[SomeRandom]

Not all women are feminists and many are conservatives who might be pro-life or support more traditional gender roles based on ideals of motherhood and domesticity. Whatever you might think of the man, Trump still won 42% of women's votes and feminism (which is typically more liberal) is not necessarily representative of all women's voices, opinions or interests.

Well I mean there were actual Jews who supported Hitler. Hell there was even a gay Nazi. (Ernst Rohm.) Just because a person supports certain politics doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to end well for them specifically, if you get my drift?

People are complicated and will support regimes for a variety of complicated reasons. And yeah one of those reasons is self preservation. To prove that they are “one of the good ones.”
This is an actual phenomenon with historical precedent. Not that I’m accusing anyone here of having that reason for their political choices, mind you. Merely an observation of the broader world.

To be clear I’m not saying that women who supported Trump are anti woman or whatever. Just pointing out that internalised misogyny is a common talking point for feminists. (Also feminists of most stripes tend to support a woman choosing to be a housewife, provided that it’s entirely her own decision.)
And that a woman can absolutely support a position that to other people seems rather “anti woman.”
Just for example look at a person like Blaire White or Dave Rubin. They have been literally insulted to their faces by their supposed political allies. Blaire White was in a chat where a woman, supposedly on her political side, told her to and I quote “grow a moustache.” (Blaire is a trans woman.) Dave Rubin had Ben Shapiro on his show, supposedly a political ally and Ben literally told him he doesn’t support his marriage. If anything Blaire got more support from her political adversaries. Dave garnered sympathy from his adversaries. Albeit begrudgingly. (Dave is a gay man.)

Again I’m not saying that any woman or even minority group who votes Trump is some sort of traitor or anything of the sort. People are perfectly free to form their own opinions. I’m merely offering an observation that minority groups in the past and present have absolutely supported regimes that would kill them given half a chance. Hell they literally have. Rohm got “night of the long knives-ed” last I checked. And the Jews who supported Hitler thinking he was just stirring up the masses and didn’t mean it really. We both know what happened to those poor souls.
Infinitely tragic.

For reference just in case people are thinking I made this up. Jeez I wish
(Hopefully I got the right links)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Röhm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews

 

[PureX]

Only if they hold a very narrow and obtuse concept of what feminism, is.

 

[Stevicus]

Well I mean there were actual Jews who supported Hitler. Hell there was even a gay Nazi. (Ernst Rohm.) Just because a person supports certain politics doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to end well for them specifically, if you get my drift?

People are complicated and will support regimes for a variety of complicated reasons. And yeah one of those reasons is self preservation. To prove that they are “one of the good ones.”
This is an actual phenomenon with historical precedent. Not that I’m accusing anyone here of having that reason for their political choices, mind you. Merely an observation of the broader world.

To be clear I’m not saying that women who supported Trump are anti woman or whatever. Just pointing out that internalised misogyny is a common talking point for feminists. (Also feminists of most stripes tend to support a woman choosing to be a housewife, provided that it’s entirely her own decision.)
And that a woman can absolutely support a position that to other people seems rather “anti woman.”
Just for example look at a person like Blaire White or Dave Rubin. They have been literally insulted to their faces by their supposed political allies. Blaire White was in a chat where a woman, supposedly on her political side, told her to and I quote “grow a moustache.” (Blaire is a trans woman.) Dave Rubin had Ben Shapiro on his show, supposedly a political ally and Ben literally told him he doesn’t support his marriage. If anything Blaire got more support from her political adversaries. Dave garnered sympathy from his adversaries. Albeit begrudgingly. (Dave is a gay man.)

Again I’m not saying that any woman or even minority group who votes Trump is some sort of traitor or anything of the sort. People are perfectly free to form their own opinions. I’m merely offering an observation that minority groups in the past and present have absolutely supported regimes that would kill them given half a chance. Hell they literally have. Rohm got “night of the long knives-ed” last I checked. And the Jews who supported Hitler thinking he was just stirring up the masses and didn’t mean it really. We both know what happened to those poor souls.
Infinitely tragic.

For reference just in case people are thinking I made this up. Jeez I wish
(Hopefully I got the right links)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Röhm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews

I think Hitler saw Ernst Rohm and the SA as a threat to his power, and some speculate it was also to appease the military and aristocracy that Rohm was done away with. The brownshirts were called "beefsteak Nazis," brown on the outside, red on the inside. So Hitler needed to rein them in to get the support he needed to gain absolute power.

Their shared ideology was nationalism, although they still didn't really see eye to eye on some things.

Any ideological belief can splinter and break off into different factions.

This also appears to be the case with feminism, which can overlap with other ideologies as well. I might find a lot of common ground with socialist feminists, but not so much with the capitalist variety.

And I'm still not entirely clear on what "pro-woman" or "anti-woman" actually entails.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think Hitler saw Ernst Rohm and the SA as a threat to his power, and some speculate it was also to appease the military and aristocracy that Rohm was done away with. The brownshirts were called "beefsteak Nazis," brown on the outside, red on the inside. So Hitler needed to rein them in to get the support he needed to gain absolute power.

Their shared ideology was nationalism, although they still didn't really see eye to eye on some things.

Any ideological belief can splinter and break off into different factions.

This also appears to be the case with feminism, which can overlap with other ideologies as well. I might find a lot of common ground with socialist feminists, but not so much with the capitalist variety.

And I'm still not entirely clear on what "pro-woman" or "anti-woman" actually entails.

Whilst I agree with your assessment. Can his death really be that divorced from the actual enslavement/genocide of gay folks during the Third Reich and anti gay rhetoric of the Nazi regime as a whole. Even when Ernst was alive.

Rohm was an avowed socialist and supported the Nazis when they pretended to be socialists. Hitler certainly made excuses for him to keep him around as long as he did. But he was a gay man who supported a now known homophobic organisation who killed him for being gay. Same with the Jews who supported Hitler. With them even being derided at the time with the slogan “death to you.”
Minority groups absolutely supported political parties that if given half a chance would murder them without second thoughts and literally did so. Is that really a controversial position to take in terms of historical study of this particular regime?

 

[epronovost]

IAnd I'm still not entirely clear on what "pro-woman" or "anti-woman" actually entails.

I personaly considered pro-women to be a shorthand for ''policies and ideology that favors women as a class of citizens access to happiness, flourishment, liberty, power and authority'' and anti-women as a shorthand for the opposite. I also considered the term ''feminism'' in that context as the general term dominated by what could be called ''mainstream feminism''.

 

[Stevicus]

Whilst I agree with your assessment. Can his death really be that divorced from the actual enslavement/genocide of gay folks during the Third Reich and anti gay rhetoric of the Nazi regime as a whole. Even when Ernst was alive.

Rohm was an avowed socialist and supported the Nazis when they pretended to be socialists. Hitler certainly made excuses for him to keep him around as long as he did. But he was a gay man who supported a now known homophobic organisation who killed him for being gay. Same with the Jews who supported Hitler. With them even being derided at the time with the slogan “death to you.”
Minority groups absolutely supported political parties that if given half a chance would murder them without second thoughts and literally did so. Is that really a controversial position in terms of historical study?

It's hard to say. Many people have speculated that J. Edgar Hoover was gay, but he also went after people and had them blacklisted or drummed out of government service if they were gay. Some have speculated that Hitler himself might have been gay. I've heard that many who were still in the closet might have exhibited very staunch anti-gay attitudes, and I can see how it can happen.

There were blacks who were labeled as "Uncle Toms," and yes, there were even Jews who supported Hitler. (To be fair, many Jews at the time didn't actually know that the Nazis were planning to kill them all, and many seemed to believe that their best chance of survival was to cooperate with the Nazis. I don't feel qualified to judge people in that kind of situation.)

 

[SomeRandom]

It's hard to say. Many people have speculated that J. Edgar Hoover was gay, but he also went after people and had them blacklisted or drummed out of government service if they were gay. Some have speculated that Hitler himself might have been gay. I've heard that many who were still in the closet might have exhibited very staunch anti-gay attitudes, and I can see how it can happen.

Indeed. I don’t completely buy it to be honest. But I appreciate the analysis all the same. Whenever I read about Hitler in all honesty his advisors seem more fanatical than he does. At least in the beginning. Which is kind of interesting. Maybe he legitimately didn’t care or he was gay himself or was just homophobic as that was the prevalent thought at the time.
I dunno. Still Rohm is an interesting case study.

There were blacks who were labeled as "Uncle Toms," and yes, there were even Jews who supported Hitler. (To be fair, many Jews at the time didn't actually know that the Nazis were planning to kill them all, and many seemed to believe that their best chance of survival was to cooperate with the Nazis. I don't feel qualified to judge people in that kind of situation.)

True. I am not passing judgement on anyone. Just pointing out that just because “insert minority group here” supports some political party doesn’t necessarily mean that said political party’s end goals is for the betterment of that group. In my opinion. Though such political parties do usually seem eager to jump behind their shield, as it were. Make of that what you will

 

[Yazata]

Can a person genuinely oppose feminism and be authentically pro-women?

Of course.

On one hand there's the idea that all people, male and female, need to be treated fairly, humanely and have equal opportunity whenever possible. (Males are always going to have trouble with childbirth.)

If that's all that 'feminism' meant, then the answer would arguably be 'no'.

But feminism goes far beyond that idea. At its most extreme, it introduces the idea that any and all subjects need to be "gendered", centering the idea that the fundamental variable in studying any subject whatsoever must be male and female 'gender'. So every subject is addressed from the a-priori position of favoring whatever idea or belief is perceived to be in the interest of women. We encounter things like 'feminist philosophy of science' and 'feminist epistemology'.

When feminism turns itself into a political and philosophical ideology, and when it is becomes an inherently biased engine for advancing one particular favored group in society, then one can easily oppose it.

 

[Stevicus]

Indeed. I don’t completely buy it to be honest. But I appreciate the analysis all the same. Whenever I read about Hitler in all honesty his advisors seem more fanatical than he does. At least in the beginning. Which is kind of interesting. Maybe he legitimately didn’t care or he was gay himself or was just homophobic as that was the prevalent thought at the time.
I dunno. Still Rohm is an interesting case study.

Rohm was an asset to Hitler in the beginning, but later on, he became a liability. In the beginning, Hitler needed Rohm to be the party muscle, so he was an asset in the early years. At the very least, Hitler might not have cared if he was gay back when he needed him. However, Hitler also had good reason to see Rohm as a serious threat, regardless of his orientation. The army wanted Rohm out of the picture, and there was a possibility they might have taken power by force. So, Hitler got rid of Rohm for them, but in return, they were expected to take an oath of loyalty directly to Hitler, thus sealing his complete hold on power.

True. I am not passing judgement on anyone. Just pointing out that just because “insert minority group here” supports some political party doesn’t necessarily mean that said political party’s end goals is for the betterment of that group. In my opinion. Though such political parties do usually seem eager to jump behind their shield, as it were. Make of that what you will

Elections are often looked upon as voting for the lesser of two evils, so regardless of what side someone supports, they're still not likely to be satisfied.

In the case of feminism, there is no "feminist party" (although there was a Women's Equality Party which was ostensibly started by Andrew Cuomo in New York State - Women's Equality Party (New York) - Wikipedia). Most feminists seem to align with the Democratic Party, although that's a big tent with a number of other factions.

But not everyone votes based on social issues; many tend to vote their pocketbooks. Those women who vote Republican probably do so for many of the same reasons many men vote Republican. If they work for a corporation, I imagine they would support policies which would make their company more money - because then they would make more money, regardless of whether it's good for women in general or in line with feminist ideals. If they're stay-at-home moms and their husband works for a corporation - then it might be similar logic in terms of how they vote. Even if they're not voting for what's good for women as a collective group, they would still say that they're voting for what's good for them and their families.

Sadly, a lot of people simply don't care about the collective public good. This is the "Me Generation" we're talking about, so it's all about me and mine and screw everybody else. This is especially evident when you see all these anti-mask and anti-vaxx people all about. They don't care about anybody but themselves.

 

[SomeRandom]

Rohm was an asset to Hitler in the beginning, but later on, he became a liability. In the beginning, Hitler needed Rohm to be the party muscle, so he was an asset in the early years. At the very least, Hitler might not have cared if he was gay back when he needed him. However, Hitler also had good reason to see Rohm as a serious threat, regardless of his orientation. The army wanted Rohm out of the picture, and there was a possibility they might have taken power by force. So, Hitler got rid of Rohm for them, but in return, they were expected to take an oath of loyalty directly to Hitler, thus sealing his complete hold on power.

I vaguely remember something about this during my old history classes
My teacher despised Hitler so we’d sidetrack her with random questions. Learnt a lot about the Third Reich as a result lol.

Elections are often looked upon as voting for the lesser of two evils, so regardless of what side someone supports, they're still not likely to be satisfied.

Valid point.

In the case of feminism, there is no "feminist party" (although there was a Women's Equality Party which was ostensibly started by Andrew Cuomo in New York State - Women's Equality Party (New York) - Wikipedia). Most feminists seem to align with the Democratic Party, although that's a big tent with a number of other factions.

Sounds like us with the Labour Party. Usually the socially progressives seem to align with them, maybe also chucking in a vote for the Greens and the Sex Party or Party Party if they want to go obscure or be snarky.
When in reality Labour is merely slightly better (arguably) than Liberals on social issues. Though that’s not always the case, I suppose.

But not everyone votes based on social issues; many tend to vote their pocketbooks. Those women who vote Republican probably do so for many of the same reasons many men vote Republican. If they work for a corporation, I imagine they would support policies which would make their company more money - because then they would make more money, regardless of whether it's good for women in general or in line with feminist ideals. If they're stay-at-home moms and their husband works for a corporation - then it might be similar logic in terms of how they vote. Even if they're not voting for what's good for women as a collective group, they would still say that they're voting for what's good for them and their families.

Ahh interesting

Sadly, a lot of people simply don't care about the collective public good. This is the "Me Generation" we're talking about, so it's all about me and mine and screw everybody else. This is especially evident when you see all these anti-mask and anti-vaxx people all about. They don't care about anybody but themselves.

Which generation specifically? I’ve been called the “Me Generation” but a lot of anti vaxx people seem to be from at least three generations. Boomers primarily, which I find somewhat ironic given their constant warnings to all of us re pandemics, Gen X/Millennials and a few zoomers here and there.

 

[Estro Felino]

If modern feminism is exclusively about imposing senatrix over senator...
Or it is about saying humankind instead of mankind, I do not identify with it.

 

[Stevicus]

I vaguely remember something about this during my old history classes
My teacher despised Hitler so we’d sidetrack her with random questions. Learnt a lot about the Third Reich as a result lol.

It's also an interesting analysis from the viewpoint of political science, to examine the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic and the system which was not able to prevent the rise of a fanatical dictator. Of course, given the widespread political and economic instability in post-WW1 Germany, it's not all that surprising.

One lesson that should have been learned from the various revolutions and dictatorships which have sprung up over the past century or so: Always be mindful of the needs of the people. The consequences of ruling class neglect and indifference speak for themselves.

Valid point.



Sounds like us with the Labour Party. Usually the socially progressives seem to align with them, maybe also chucking in a vote for the Greens and the Sex Party or Party Party if they want to go obscure or be snarky.
When in reality Labour is merely slightly better (arguably) than Liberals on social issues. Though that’s not always the case, I suppose.

There's a Sex Party (as in actual political party) in Australia?

Ahh interesting


Which generation specifically? I’ve been called the “Me Generation” but a lot of anti vaxx people seem to be from at least three generations. Boomers primarily, which I find somewhat ironic given their constant warnings to all of us re pandemics, Gen X/Millennials and a few zoomers here and there.

I was thinking mainly of the Boomers, of which I am part (although born at the tail end of it, right on the cusp with Gen-X).

 

[SomeRandom]

It's also an interesting analysis from the viewpoint of political science, to examine the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic and the system which was not able to prevent the rise of a fanatical dictator. Of course, given the widespread political and economic instability in post-WW1 Germany, it's not all that surprising.

This is true

One lesson that should have been learned from the various revolutions and dictatorships which have sprung up over the past century or so: Always be mindful of the needs of the people. The consequences of ruling class neglect and indifference speak for themselves.

This. I also wish more people would not pretend that they will never become another Third Reich. We should always remain vigilant and learn from the past. Lest we repeat it

There's a Sex Party (as in actual political party) in Australia?

There certainly is lol. Or rather was as they folded into another party fairly recently. Even have some seats in parliament every so often. It mainly lobbied/lobbies for sex workers rights as it was started by Sex Worker’s Unions if I remember my civics class correctly. They describe themselves as “libertarian” iirc. I think they’re also not a big fan of censorship. For obvious reasons

Though I think they’re called the “Reason Party” now lmao

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Sex_Party

We also have, no lie, a party called the Pirate Party lmao
Pirate Party Australia

I swear this country is way too drunk to do politics properly

I was thinking mainly of the Boomers, of which I am part (although born at the tail end of it, right on the cusp with Gen-X).

Ahh fair enough

 

[danieldemol]

This does not represent modern feminism, which I wholeheartedly disavow.

All feminism seems modern to me. What specifically about modern feminism dont you like?