Six Types of Women Against Feminism

I’m doing it. I’m writing a response to the Women Against Feminism tumblr. A lot of feminists saw this tumblr account and their first reaction was frustration and calling these people stupid. They claimed that these women don’t even understand what feminism truly is. While I agree that many missed the point of feminism, I don’t believe that makes them stupid. In fact, I agree with a lot of what they were saying. I just disagree that it’s an argument against feminism. Isn’t it feminism’s job to express coherently what our goals are? If people aren’t getting it, we have more work to do. These women held up signs saying why they “don’t need feminism.” The truth is, none of us need feminism, on a personal level. I sure as hell don’t need feminism. I can go about my day, earning and demanding respect where I need it, building interpersonal relationships, and being a woman, all without feminism. I’m not a feminist for myself. I’m a feminist because I believe the world could benefit from change. I’m a feminist for other people. I believe we need feminism for the collective happiness of society to increase. It’s not about believing in the school of thought for your personal betterment, but that feminism’s goals will better all of society. Other people have several reasons why they believe that isn’t true, however. These are the main six reasons I’ve come across why a person chooses not to take on the label of feminist.

  1. Egalitarianism vs feminism “It should just be called egalitarianism/humanism/equalism.” If you are against feminism for this reason, you believe you’ve found a better term for it. Maybe you believe, by having the root fem, feminism is inherently unequal. I’m going to tell you something that most other feminists won’t: you’re right. The feminist movement is not equal. We focus on the marginalization women and women’s issues. We need to do this in order to achieve equality. But I’d even go as far as to say, equality isn’t the goal. What? Did Oshitbritt just say equality isn’t the goal of feminism? That’s it. I’ll never be a feminist. Equality is idealistic and unlikely within a capitalistic system. To try to achieve it, we end up doing a lot of “equal opportunity” bullshit, campaigns like Ban Bossy, talking about the pay gap like it can be rectified legally. We can work all we want towards giving women things until they appear to have completely equal standing, but equal opportunity doesn’t mean that we cease to be oppressed. Just think of the concept of the glass ceiling as one example. Women may have the opportunity to achieve, but our attitude towards women has taught us we can’t – or shouldn’t. Feminism’s objective is to free women (and all people) from oppression. It is not egalitarianism, because we believe equal opportunity isn’t enough to solve the problem. Feminism comes from within a broken system and suggests we need to change it. Egalitarianism is an ideal view of how the world would be if we were all born with equal opportunity, but it ignores the specific problems in this society we need to fix. Feminism isn’t humanism, because humanism already has a definition that really has nothing to do with either equality or liberation. Humanism means humans can be morally good and still be secular. It’s anti-religion. Many feminists may also be humanists, but they aren’t the same thing. Feminism is not equalism. We aren’t ready to take the fem out of feminism. We feel that women still have the need or desire to liberate themselves from the oppressive forces of capitalism.
  2. "I am not a man-hater."

    “I am not a man-hater.”

    “I’m not a man-hater” If you are against feminism for this reason, you probably have an image of feminists as yelling at straight, cis, white men about their privilege. It’s true. A lot of feminists are frustrated with this specific group of people, because they (GENERALIZATION) often don’t understand their own privilege. They don’t get how their actions affect the marginalized people. For example, I’ve gotten frustrated – no, angry – with straight, cis, white men (or boys) who have used the term slut. They haven’t understood yet that that word traps and controls women. It tells us we’re unworthy and unhuman because of actions that are perfectly acceptable for men.[1] When people have hurt you, it’s hard not to feel disdain when they don’t recognize your hurt. Keep in mind, though, temporary frustration or anger is not the same thing as hate. Feminists typically hate the patriarchy or capitalism or whatever you want to call it, but we don’t hate men. Our hatred for the system will manifest itself as frustration towards specific people who, in our eyes, represent that system. Sometimes it’s extreme and sometimes inexcusable, but they are human emotions. We have to remember, the feminist movement is made up of individual humans. Humans are imperfect and so is the movement. Being a man-hater, however, is not a requirement of the club. You can be a feminist and not be a man-hater. You can even be a feminist and never get angry or frustrated about the system. Feminism is a way to analyze the world. It’s a more focused version of social justice. If you believe in the root causes of feminism, don’t be turned away because its members have emotions.

  3. “I don’t like angry feminazis telling me what to do.”
    "I don't like angry feminazis telling me what to do."

    “I don’t like angry feminazis telling me what to do.”

    If you’ve used the word feminazi, I want you to stop and think for a moment. Think about what the Nazis did. Maybe run down to your library and pick up a copy of Anne Frank. Watch The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. Now substantiate your claim that feminists are like Nazis. Beyond the term feminazi, I understand why people would have disdain for feminists who tout messages of what is right and, specifically, what women should do. This isn’t what feminism is about. Feminism, in theory, has its base in liberation and should never try to control the actions of others. With that being said, feminists believe that our actions have consequences. Everything you do has consequences of which you may not even be aware. Feminism has pushed for greater awareness. If you think about the #YesAllWomen hashtag, it’s all about sharing personal experiences. It has started a discussion on how others have hurt us. Those people may not have even realized the pain they were causing. People believe feminists support censorship. We’ve had a reputation of being unfunny and a buzz kill to particularly raunchy comedians. But it’s not true. Personally, I’m all for freedom of speech. I’ve mentioned it before; I think that’s one of the things our Founding Fathers did well. However, like I said, our words impact people. Feminists will call out rape jokes, because it could have hurt victims of rape. We’re not suggesting rape jokes be banished. We’re suggesting comedians and Freedom of Speech defenders think about how their words affect other people. Freedom of Speech never meant, “Hey let’s all be assholes because it’s our God-given right.” It means, “Let’s have an open discourse and come to greater understanding between human beings, because we have the ability for our words to be uninhibited by any other powers in our society.”

  4. "All feminists have victim complexes."

    “All feminists have victim complexes.”

    “All feminists have victim complexes.” Some feminists, quite honestly, do have victim complexes. It’s hard, when talking about social injustice on such a grand scale, not to try to bring it down to your personal level. By thinking about how the system personally affects us, we fuel our need to fight it. In turn, it looks to others like we’re playing victim. If you don’t feel like a victim, or you don’t want to feel like a victim, you can still stand for the things for which feminism stands. This is a great video that shows why feminism is necessary, beyond personal levels.

  5. “Women are already equal to men.”
    "Women are already equal to men."

    “Women are already equal to men.”

    As I mentioned earlier, equality isn’t necessarily the goal of feminism. Of course, equal opportunity is necessary and expected at this point. But we’re looking for something different. We want to be free from expectations of what our sex means for our behavior. We want to feel safe walking the streets at night. We want to be able to choose a life path that is right for us personally, and not dictated by our sex. We want society to view us as capable, emotional, intelligent, and full human beings. We want support for mothers (and fathers too). We want every individual to express his or her gender however he or she sees fit. We want to see more humanity in civilization. You can dispute any of these points and claim we’ve already achieved our goals, but most of these things are experientially based. Someone who doesn’t experience them can’t claim that all people don’t.

  6. “I believe in equality. I see the need for women’s liberation. I just don’t want to be political about it.” This reason for not being a feminist I completely understand. Some feminists may say, “You’re a feminist, then.” But it’s not up to them to decide what you are. It’s up to you. If you want to be a feminist ally, but not a feminist, that’s fine. If you don’t want to be associated with the movement at all, that’s fine. Some people are called to speak out against the system; some people are not. What really matters is your actions. If you are respectful of people, if you validate people’s personal experiences, if you’re conscious of your place in the world, then that’s enough for feminism.

If you liked my thoughts in this article, then you’ll love my upcoming book, A Man’s Right to Choose. Subscribe to my blog by email for updates. Or connect with me on one of my social media accounts: Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, or YouTube.

[1] Note: Certain clothes that would deem a woman a slut would also deem a man a fag or something along those lines. This is also oppressive and we shouldn’t tolerate it.

46 Comments

  1. You an annoying bitch.

  2. Madonna pretty much obliterated feminism and the rest of you are just finding things to bitch about.

  3. Here’s the problem – many of the things you’re complaining about are imaginary. Ban Bossy’s own statistics – which have been cherry picked to be misleading intentionally – show that things like “girls are told not to achieve” are complete lies. For example, the stats they use to support their campaign come from one specific 7th grade class; oddly enough, the 6th AND 8th graders reported even MORE girls being told they could achieve than boys.

    This notion that we’re still telling little girls that they’re lesser beings than little boys just isn’t true; it’s propaganda, to allow you to keep fighting an imaginary enemy. Women are more than 50% enrollment in colleges (since women have a harder time finding good-paying work without a degree), and all one ever sees are these strong, confident women talking about how women aren’t strong and confident because they’re being suppressed.

    The same goes for the gender pay gap; people keep quoting this “77%” figure, but it’s misleading; when correcting for industry and experience, the pay gap shrinks to about 5% (i.e. women in the same field as men, for the same amount of time). This, too, is unacceptable – but it’s far from a human rights crisis, or a state of second-class citizenry. Despite what the media might tell you, if you, Oshitbritt, decided to become a doctor, you would NOT make 23 percent less than a man on the same career path; if you were as aggressive in negotiating your wages (something that women ARE losing out on) as your male colleagues, as I have every reason to believe you would be based on your writing, then you’d probably be making 97-100% as much money as any man with the same credentials and time spent.

    I get that you want to believe that women are still struggling to exist in a man’s world, but in America, sorry, but it’s not true. Little girls growing up in America today are hearing as many messages that they can succeed and achieve (if not MORE messages) than boys. There are plenty of serious problems to address – like, for example, the sexual assault issue – but the idea that women have fewer rights and opportunities than men in a place like America is an outright lie.

    • I happen to not agree with Ban Bossy’s tactics at all. I never said anything either supporting or denying the existence of a pay gap either. What I did suggest is that even if we achieve all those things, the goal of feminism would still not be fulfilled.

      • There are no issues for women. Men are genuinely discriminated against (often directly because of feminist hate). Women are not. And I don’t mean “just” legally. or even “just” by institutional discrimination. Men are second class citizens and feminists want to keep it that way.

  4. Comments like these are proof that we need education reform. Or bring lobotomies back.

    • Comments like “these”? Which comments are you discussing? I see comments all over the board here. Either way, in your comment I read an assumption that people that agree with you are intelligent while people that disagree with you need lobotomies.

  5. Regarding this line: “We want to feel safe walking the streets at night.”

    You do realize, dear author, that men are at significantly more risk of being attacked on the streets, right? Like, “It’s not even close” kind of significantly more risk.

    • While that may be true, the difference is, when men are attacked on the street at night, it’s usually viewed as an unfortunate and tragic event. If women get attacked, in addition to being viewed as unfortunate and tragic, it’s often “Well, what was a woman doing walking alone at night? That isn’t safe and she should know better.”

      • The difference is when a woman is attacked it’s “Oh you poor dear” and howls of outrage. When a man is attacked it’s “meh, who cares?”

      • No, you are parroting feminist talking points like a silly minah bird. I have a friend (male) that has been stabbed on two different occassions. Once he was “meditating” on a sketchy beach at night and the other time was in his driveway. Most of his friends, male and female, have voiced concerns over what he is actually doing at night (alone) that has led him to be stabbed twice by strangers. Maybe he was doing anythiing foolish; but the point is that HE IS A MAN AND PEOPLE STILL GIVE HIM ADVICE ON HOW TO NOT GET STABBED BY STRANGERS.

  6. I’m glad to see you outing the feminist movement as the anti-equality, female-favoring bigotry and entitlement that it is. I can’t thank you enough for for your honesty, and I will be overjoyed when a generation of independent women look upon you and realize that you are full of shit, and simply trying to have your cake and eat it too. I hope they tear your movement apart form the inside.

  7. KiloDangerMike

    July 23, 2014 at 8:22 pm

    I agree with your key point, which is to say that it’s not so much policy that needs to change, but moreso the culture. Though, some may argue the policy came before the culture. Many gender stereotypes we have stem from early humans on the cusp of modernity. Women were needed for their maternal instinct and their ability to produce new humans, while men used their brute strength and testosterone to hunt and protect their own. If a man died, it wasn’t such a huge deal because they weren’t really losing any reproductive capital. The whole “Women and Children first”: attitude is kind of a result from this. Of course I am oversimplifying, but there are reasons why men traditionally feel the need to protect women and this whole “patriarchy” was crafted. But, when you look at it historically there is an (outdated, of course) reason for it and that was the protection of the species. Many feminists like to overlook that men also got the shit end of the stick in this deal. What if a man is a better caretaker than he is a fighter? Why does a man have to die in a woman’s place?

    The fact of the matter is nobody is 100% happy with the cookie-cutter roles society has printed for them. Instead of rallying under the banner of feminism, which advocates a destruction of the giant, evil patriarchy, many of us have chosen to rally under the banner of gender equality instead. Different means to the same end, if you will. The best way to get everyone to change is not to target a group of people and harass them, but to sympathize with all people and create a discussion that doesn’t (GENERALIZE) any group and respects all peoples equally. When you come from a foundation of equality, instead of a foundation of inherit hostility towards a specific group, more people will rally to your cause and fewer will shy away.

    Fighting generalizations by generalizing is like fighting fire with fire. You simply create the same atrocity you hoped to destroy.

  8. Thanks for being honest enough to admit feminists hate men.

  9. I have nothing against the general idea and strategies of most feminist movements.

    I have HUGE issues against how most University/college feminist clubs go about their business. That is all.

  10. “We want every individual to express his or her gender however he or she sees fit. ”

    Except men.

    You, author, seem pretty alright, but your movement in 2014, belittles and demonizes men and attacks women who have the temerity to disagree with what their ‘betters’ decree.

    • Modern or 3rd wave feminism, in its current state in developed, 1st world nations, is nothing more than an ill-conceived, inferiority-obsessed, despotic power-fantasy trying desperately to manifest and failing spectacularly.

  11. I can see why women would be displeased with feminism. It got fractured into multiple inner groups that created their own sub-doctrine. Instead of a movement in which people work in one direction towards a common goal, you have a bunch of people preaching opposing views. “Porn is enslaving women!” “No, porn means sexual liberation!” etc.

    I really feel for the feminists that are actually trying to adress serious issues like rape, and i feel even more for feminists in countries like India. Those women have a legitimate goal and try to do something good for the world. Stopping gangrapes, witch hunts, child marriage, genital mutilation and so on, but on the other hand you have women in the west bellyaching about how terrible is being called bossy/a bitch. Let me tell you, i wouldnt want to be associated with those weaklings either.

    For me personally it was the “teach men not to rape” campaign that sealed the deal. Usually you dont see a direct suggestion on how to fix a problem from the wide feminist circles, but when this solution surfaced, wow. It’s so simple it’s genius! We’ve been telling kids not to steal, lie or kill each other for milenia and thats why we have no thiefs, liars or murderers. That’s just fantastic.

  12. Feminists don’t want equality. They want equality +. In their view, being female should mean nothing but advantages, and being male nothing but disadvantages.

  13. feministborgia

    July 24, 2014 at 8:54 am

    Some very interesting points in here.

    Thank you for your clarification regarding the difference between ‘equality’ and ‘liberation’. There are those that would argue that talking about equality has hindered the feminist movement more than it has helped. I think when talking about the limitations of ‘equality’, this graphic is pretty useful.

    http://kathyescobar.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/equality-vs-justice.jpg

    To me feminism is about liberation for women from oppression.

    • That’s a really great graphic! I think it’s important to view justice/equality/liberation in the context of the past. Women, people of color, and all marginalized people were given less of an opportunity to succeed in the past and that still affects us today.

      I recently learn about and realized the need for liberation as oppose to equality, so I made some adjustments to my rhetoric. I’m glad to see someone appreciates it :)

    • Exactly what oppression are you referring to?

  14. veil_of_ignorance

    July 24, 2014 at 10:17 am

    You don’t seem to understand egalitarianism as a political and ethical concept and its importance for feminism. Feminism cannot exist without some superordinate categorical concept of fairness or justice. Before you can criticize the unfair treatment of women, you have to define what can be considered fair; before you can discuss oppression, you have to argue what is oppressive and what is not – you cannot have justice without having an idea of the just so you have to consider normative ethics.. And here, egalitarianism, either derived from Kantianism (Rawls, Habermas) or utilitarianism (Betham, Mill, Sidgwick), plays a central role. In fact, it were utilitarian philosophers like J.S. Mill and H. Sidgwick who were among the first advocates of feminism simply because they derived it from their egalitarian ethics. On the other hands, feminism needs an egalitarian fundament to make broad social claims to be taken serious by both men and women. Feminism has to be based on some kind of gender impartial, egalitarian conception of the just („here is an ideal society to which both males and females would agree“) and has to derive its claims by comparing the ideal state and current state of society („in comparison to a fair / ideal society, we see that women are worse off and therefore, we focus our activism on the problems of women“).

    Unfortunately, in recent decades, a priori normative impartiality and egalitarian ethics became unpopular due to postmodern emptyness and standpoint epistemiology – they were replaced by either nothing or an extremly gendered view of fairness. And this is what many people criticize. The problem with modern feminism is not that it is focused on women as far as social action is concerned. The problem with modern feminism is, that those claims are oftentimes clearly not derived from a non-gendered (= egalitarian) view of fairness. A good contrary example – an example of how to do feminism right – is Martha Nussbaum, who is probably one of the greatest living philosophers.

    Greetings from a Rawlsian

    • “Martha Nussbaum, who is probably one of the greatest living philosophers.” Really?

      Perhaps you should apply the same analysis to your comment that you did to this article. An analysis I might say I thought was very good.

      • veil_of_ignorance

        July 24, 2014 at 1:11 pm

        Seriously, what is the problem with Nussbaum? Of course, she operates using a virtue ethics which is essentially Aristotelian (although she oftentimes uses Mill as well) but she represents feminist positions from a decidedly universalist standpoint and is a critic of postmodern relativity and feminist epistemology. You can of course criticise her (and Amartya Sen’s) concept of capabilities per se but that goes well beyond her advocacy for feminism. The point is: Nussbaum’s feminism is clearly derived from a comprehensive, categorical and universal conception of the good and this sets her apart from a lot of the modern feminist movement.

    • “The problem with modern feminism is not that it is focused on women as far as social action is concerned.”
      Yes, it is.

  15. I really have a problem with the argument. You are separating the issue of equality from liberation. Equality does not mean we hire the same number men and women. It is of a societal concept and one that targets exactly the same broken society you assert is the problem. Equality is used in the same way it was used in the context of the civil rights battles of the past: skin colour does not determine ability and character. In the same way, a woman is equal to a man in the same way that a black person is equal to a white person. That is, a person is judged on their personal merit. This IS the goal. It IS an ideal, and a good one. In fact, there isn’t even a conflict of ideals here as you’d see in areas like economics. Saying that we shouldn’t aim for a goal because it’s idealistic is just sad. The question, in my view, has never been about the goal (it’s equality). The issue has always been how about we reach that end. You’ve seen all kinds of paths (some controversial, some good, some terrible) from laws on discrimination, employment “quotas”, and push for awareness. Unlike with the inital steps of the civil rights movement the enemy is not clear: there are no segregation laws.

    So why do people not want to get involved with feminism or the movement? For one, the larger community is absolutely rabid. When the vocal majority of your movement is misandrist, people are going to keep away. Hence, the “these are out fathers, etc.” quotes. Is this a problem with feminism? Not with it’s definition as “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men”, but essentially with implementation. I mean, communism reads lovely in a book but look at how the different implementations have turned out. The things that I have incredible trouble with is the shift of the term to reflect this skewed message. And then we so tangled up in sophistry we lose sight of the initial goal. It’s quite tragic how mangled a mess it has become, so much so that people can be so sincere in their blindness.

    In essence, I don’t alight with what you (vaguely) insist feminism is. If this is the agreed upon view then I’m not a feminist. Perhaps I can’t attach a name for my philosophical standpoints other than say that what I want is societal equality. So then, the question remains: how do we go about achieving this end. You say that “equal opportunity isn’t enough to solve the problem”. There is no one shot solution to find equality. Equal opportunity aims to help each person be able to carve a path to success mainly in the areas of employment and education. It’s simply one of many such possibly methods usable in tandem. Again, what “equal opportunity” entails in terms of laws and programs is a different story.

  16. I really have a problem with the argument. You are separating the issue of equality from liberation. Equality does not mean we hire the same number men and women. It is of a societal concept and one that targets exactly the same broken society you assert is the problem. Equality is used in the same way it was used in the context of the civil rights battles of the past: skin colour does not determine ability and character. In the same way, a woman is equal to a man in the same way that a black person is equal to a white person. That is, a person is judged on their personal merit. This IS the goal. It IS an ideal, and a good one. In fact, there isn’t even a conflict of ideals here as you’d see in areas like economics. Saying that we shouldn’t aim for a goal because it’s idealistic is just sad. The question, in my view, has never been about the goal (it’s equality). The issue has always been how about we reach that end. You’ve seen all kinds of paths (some controversial, some good, some terrible) from laws on discrimination, employment “quotas”, and push for awareness. Unlike with the inital steps of the civil rights movement the enemy is not clear: there are no segregation laws.

    So why do people not want to get involved with feminism or the movement? For one, the larger community is absolutely rabid. When the vocal majority of your movement is misandrist, people are going to keep away. Hence, the “these are out fathers, etc.” quotes. Is this a problem with feminism? Not with it’s definition as “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men”, but essentially with implementation. I mean, communism reads lovely in a book but look at how the different implementations have turned out. The things that I have incredible trouble with is the shift of the term to reflect this skewed message. And then we so tangled up in sophistry we lose sight of the initial goal. It’s quite tragic how mangled a mess it has become, so much so that people can be so sincere in their blindness.

    In essence, I don’t alight with what you (vaguely) insist feminism is. If this is the agreed upon view then I’m not a feminist. Perhaps I can’t attach a name for my philosophical standpoints other than say that what I want is societal equality. So then, the question remains: how do we go about achieving this end. You say that “equal opportunity isn’t enough to solve the problem”. There is no one shot solution to find equality. Equal opportunity aims to help each person be able to carve a path to success mainly in the areas of employment and education. It’s simply one of many such possibly methods usable in tandem. Again, what “equal opportunity” entails in terms of laws and programs is a different story.

  17. I enjoyed the reasoned tone and many of the points made in this article. However, correct me if I am wrong, after distilling everything down it is proposing an Equality of Outcome model over Equality of Opportunity. Due to human nature this is a Utopian dream that can only exist amongst slaves, and its dogged pursuit will result in Dystopia.

    Our world is complex and there is no achievable perfect steady state, Our control of our world is also far more limited than we think, at best we can locally nudge it here and there in the ‘right’ direction. Grand largely nebulous theories like feminism are helping us little in this regard.

  18. Feminism is bigotry.

  19. Not only is feminism sexism but as your article clearly shows, feminist are also racist. Three cheers for those young women speaking out.

    • Can you point out any specific instances of racism in my article? I would like to rectify that. My white privilege sometimes allows me to overlook certain things, but I’m open to learning and changing my behavior.

  20. Wow, this was a really great article and if the rest of the articles that are posted on this site are at all like this one I will definitely be coming back. Kudos to you.

    Yes to your belief that feminism does not equal equality, it equals liberation. I feel that when the Equal Rights Amendment was not passed in the late 70s, the feminist movement as a whole took a huge blow and is trying to redefine itself and get back to how it was pre-ERA. It has since split off and is having somewhat of an identity crisis. I wholeheartedly believe that if we were able to pass the ERA (still only 3 states away from ratifying!) 95% of the specific, societal norms that leads to sexism would be moot. So here’s an example of equality v. liberation:

    Abolitionists had one goal in common: To abolish slavery.
    Suffragettes had one goal in common: to get women the right to vote.
    The LBTQ et.al. community has been working on one goal: same-sex marriage.

    No where in any of those goals is there promise of equality, but rather to be liberated from specific, societal norms that were (are) oppressing one particular group of people.

    Finally, I will add that I respect and appreciate feminism’s embrace of the feminine, as opposed to equalism’s embrace of everything being equal. A huge part of women’s identity is their gender and their sex and to refuse to see that does a huge disservice to women who are proud of that. Again, it’s similar to when well-meaning people say “oh I don’t see color,” or “oh sexual orientation doesn’t matter to me.” While I appreciate their enthusiasm to embrace everyone based on the content of their character, by not acknowledging skin color, or sexual orientation, or as in the case of “equalists,” their sex, I feel that they diminishing these very important and irrefutable parts of other people’s identity.

    • Thank you so much! I agree with everything you’ve said. Feminism could definitely use some streamlining, if you will.
      I wholeheartedly agree with what you wrote about people who claim they’re “color-blind.” I actually wrote an article on this! Here’s the link http://oshitbritt.com/see-race/

      I really hope you keep coming back to my blog. If you want to connect with me on social media, my username is Oshitbritt on almost every account, except Facebook it’s Brittany Touris.

      Enjoy your day!

      • veil_of_ignorance

        July 24, 2014 at 6:08 pm

        Again, a short comment with an argument which I practically stole from the great Ronald Dworkin: in the „I see race“ vs. „I don’t see race“ debate, you again have to differenciate between the level of normative ethics and the level of social reality – between the ‘ought’ and the ‘is’. This argument was made in response to the question whether affirmative action was ethical (which it is according to Dworkin and I agree of course), but it can be extrapolated to many other similar questions. It goes like this: we as members of society should not be colorblind when it comes to the social reality (the ‘is’) because we have to be colorblind when it comes to the ethical level (the ‘ought’). Simply because we are colorblind on the normative level, simply because in Kantian terms “from the perspective of morality, we are to assess others and be assessed as rational agents simpliciter.”, simply because we assume that color should not play a role in (idealized) society, we have not to be colorblind when we evaluate society as it is. Or the other way round, as soon as we stop to be colorblind on the moral level (as soon as we stop to assume that all people are equal and deserve the same rights in society independent of color and race), inequalities between the races stop to matter anymore.

        I stress this distinction again because, similar to postmodern feminism, the non-colorblindedness which is essential when we evaluate social realities also tends to ‘contaminate’ the ethical now.

    • veil_of_ignorance

      July 24, 2014 at 5:45 pm

      I’m sorry that I have to interrupt here: but I don’t really get the feminine identity part. In my opinion, there is no feminine identity per se – from a biological (in particular a neurobiological) point of view, there is no indication that there are substantial differences between males and females which would lead to an essential feminine or masculine identity. You could at most say that traits which are feminine are more frequent in females and traits that are masculine are more frequent in males; resulting in a bimodal distribution with a huge overlap. But a general identity which encompasses all females does not exist in itself; it is instead socially constructed and transient – it as a product and a means of the oppression of women. As Simone de Beauvior famously said, one is not born a woman, but made one. Feminity was forced upon women as a means of oppression and control, and the only general feminine identity is thus the identity of the oppressed group, of the Other. This would in consequence mean that in order to realize liberation, woman need to give up the concept of feminine identity as all women’s identity. In a hypothetical world where there would be complete fairness between the genders, there may still be people who have traits which are considered more masculine or feminine today – but the strong demarcation between male – masculine and female – feminine (and therefore any essential identity which encompasses all females and/or all males) would cease to exist.

      • The same can easily be said that one is not born a man, but made one. In the current patriarchal system, there are very specific accepted/approved guidelines for what is considered “beautiful,” “pretty,” “girly,” “feminine,” and “female.” It is my belief that feminism as a philosophical movement is much more lax and inclusive as to what each of those words can be and who can encompass them. The choice is put back on the individual and she is not made to feel pressured to conform to any pre-determined status quo in order to gain self-worth. The third wave feminist ideology especially embraces this, which (IMHO) is great for individuals but not so great for accomplishing specific goals as a group (ex, ERA still is not ratified).

        I’m confused this point:
        “Feminity was forced upon women as a means of oppression and control, and the only general feminine identity is thus the identity of the oppressed group, of the Other. This would in consequence mean that in order to realize liberation, woman need to give up the concept of feminine identity as all women’s identity.”

        There’s a great book, Female Chauvinist Pigs, which discusses that very notion. By telling women to give up the concept of feminity, you’re just giving women a different status quo requirement. Additionally, how feminine a woman identifies herself as is not what keeps her oppressed. It’s how womanly she is perceived to be. There’s a reason why it’s called “sexism” and not “genderism.” Just because I don’t identify myself as feminine doesn’t change my sex; it doesn’t mean I’m suddenly going to be considered male by my boss and get a raise. The way the current system is, the oppressed group (women) do not have control of how they are perceived by the oppressor, which is why women feel that they must fit into pre-determined societal boxes in order to have self-worth and receive praise.

  21. Five Types of Feminists That Need To Explain Away Women Against Feminism:

    #1: Feminists that openly state non-feminist women are ignorant and or stupid and that not being feminist is proof of stupidity.

    #2: Feminists that belong to group #1 but won’t say so publicly. These feminists issue fake apologies that feminism just hasn’t done a good enough job explaining it’s positions. Translation: You are still stupid but we’ll pretend it’s our fault. We won’t do any legitimate soul searching; we’ll just patiently explain over and over until those of you that are too stupid to figure things out finally get it.

    #3: Feminists that think that fem-splaining to other women and explaining about internalized misogyny will be productive when it digs them deeper into the hole of being condescending and superior.

    #4: Feminists that think if they make lists of other types of people, readers will think, “Oh, I don’t want to be in that bad list. I will not question feminism ever.”

    #5: Feminists that see the threat posed by egalitarianism. These feminists see the tactical advantage of shifting the discussion away from equality and to other goals to stop people from asking uncomfortable questions. These feminists don’t see that this tactic won’t work since women against feminism don’t see themselves as oppressed.

  22. Telling the same lies and laughable falsehoods over and over and over and then repeating the same BS, only with different semantic choices, isn’t going to make them suddenly true nor will it magically make them defensible or justifiable.
    You’re a liar, aiding the agendas of bigger liars for a cause that was once necessary and noble but has long-since become a “perpetual motion machine of lies” for its disciples who’ve willingly and knowingly chosen to serve an ignoble cause for ignoble reasons.

  23. I love Women against Feminism.

  24. “Think about what the Nazis did. Maybe run down to your library and pick up a copy of Anne Frank. Watch The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. Now substantiate your claim that feminists are like Nazis.”

    I have considered your words. Now will you consider the legal ramifications and precedents that exist for women consistently getting lighter sentences and carte blanche to the family at the expense of the father who, if child support isn’t paid, is sent to debtor’s prison?

    • There is a great book about Nazi brainwashing through “public education (ideological indoctrination and mind control). Written by Erika Mann (daughter of Nobel prize recipient Thomas Mann) in exile from National Socialist (“Nazi”) Germany and published in 1938. “School for Barbarians: Education Under the Nazis.” The book is a stunner. Read it and it will become clear what has been going on in the past few decades in our own culture.

Leave a Reply

© 2014 Oshitbritt

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers:

Visit Us On YoutubeVisit Us On TwitterVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On Pinterest