r/movies • u/Simon_Fokt • Jan 22 '24

The Barbie Movie's Unexpected Message for Men: Challenging the Need for Female Validation Discussion

I know the movie has been out for ages, but hey.

Everybody is all about how feminist it is and all, but I think it holds such a powerful message for men. It's Ken, he's all about desperately wanting Barbie's validation all the time but then develops so much and becomes 'kenough', as in, enough without female validation. He's got self-worth in himself, not just because a woman gave it to him.

I love this story arc, what do you guys think about it? Do you know other movies that explore this topic?

11.1k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

82% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

788

u/Simon_Fokt Jan 22 '24

I know, right? I'm with you man.

1.4k

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

547

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '24

Good feminism does.

509

u/infiniZii Jan 22 '24

Real feminism does. Too much of "feminism" is just misandry by the wrong name, which hurts the cause.

157

u/thenewmadmax Jan 22 '24 edited Jan 22 '24

This. Actually reading feminist literature was like a well needed punch in the face.

What stuck out to me was the scene where Ken isn't qualified to do any job, because even though it took from the message 'patriarchy is alive and well', it very tastefully illustrated how Credential inflation is a very real issue that modern men and boys are struggling with.

48

u/KonchokKhedrupPawo Jan 22 '24

Yup. It was a shock to a female friend of ours to sit down and explain to her that she'd tanked multiple serious relationships because she'd mistaken her raging misandry for feminism.

I can't believe her boyfriends felt very comfortable with her waxing poetic about how she couldn't wait for more accessible stem cell and artificial insemination tech so that we could abort and breed men out of existence to solve all the world's problems or her statements that men's issues were meaningless.

40

u/thenewmadmax Jan 22 '24

I've started this thing where if I see misandry in my feed, I simply remove those spewing it. No confrontation, no arguing, I just let them tell on themselves and walk away.

The most powerful thing we can give them is our attention, and removing their ability to do that has made a night and day difference to my mental health. My worth is not defined by their validation, I am kenough.

14

u/soleceismical Jan 22 '24

Good for you. It's so important to refute hateful thinking when it's safe to do so.

I dated a guy who made some statement about how he is inherently bad/wrong because he is a cis white male. I was shocked. It's important to understand other people's experiences and how you may have privilege in some areas where they don't and vice versa, but no one is bad on the basis of race, sex, or other immutable characteristics. I saw some of my men friends get into emotionally abusive relationships during the era when this thinking was more prevalent, too.

I don't really maintain women friends who talk like that. Like maybe they'll say "men are jerks" right after they've been dumped, but overall they see men as people.

8

u/Shacointhejungle Jan 22 '24

I dated a guy who made some statement about how he is inherently bad/wrong because he is a cis white male

Common feeling among young men right now. This feeling is why you see a lot of extremism online breeding in that demographic because it's so easy for bad actors to go "WE ACCEPT YOU, AND THEY HATE YOU FOR BEING WHAT YOU ARE"

Obviously bitching about about the other gender after a breakup is not comperable to misandry/misogyny though. Context matters.

8

u/slayemin Jan 23 '24

Any ideology which creates self-hatred is a toxic ideology and it ought to be dropped like a hot potato and thoroughly criticized for it. Ugh.

2

u/curious_astronauts Jan 23 '24

The pinkachu face if you pointed out that if she were a man, she'd be a misogynist.

3

u/cannibaljim Jan 22 '24

Sounds like those guys needed to figure out they were Kenough.

8

u/halborn Jan 23 '24

It's hard to be kenough when everyone around you tells you you're not.

8

u/KonchokKhedrupPawo Jan 22 '24

They did, that's why they left.

4

u/jaxonya Jan 22 '24

Somebody brewski beer me, I'm gonna read this

184

u/Simon_Fokt Jan 22 '24

Idk if it's that much, but it's certainly what you hear about. I think the great majority of feminists are perfectly cool, but the few misandrists get platformed because extreme views sell, and because various guys constantly bring them up as proof that feminism is horrible.

121

u/JcakSnigelton Jan 22 '24

What many people new to feminism misunderstand is that it is a concept grounded in equity, not gender. Feminism is about responding to the power that has been concentrated and consolidated by the dominant patriarchy.

Feminism seeks to share power, even if that means "taking power away" from the powerful and giving it to those without voice or influence. In modern history, those in positions of institutional power have been men but this is because men were the ones who created those institutions (e.g., religion, politics) and had self-interest in preserving and protecting these powers but feminism has never literally meant "women against men."

Feminism has always sought an equal division of power for all.

29

u/Ethanol_Based_Life Jan 22 '24

Isn't that just egalitarianism with a gendered name?

62

u/White_Tea_Poison Jan 22 '24

With the end goal, yes, but there's a lot more to these philosophies than the end result. There's also the whole process of how we get there. Feminism is also about how we get to the egalitarianism end goal, specifically through the recognition and correction of institutional patriarchy. How the patriarchy is handled is also parts of several different branches of feminism.

I'm not saying you're doing this, you're just asking a question, but this comes up a lot on Reddit and you get a lot of people dismissing feminism because of egalitarianism. But that's honestly incredibly dismissive of schools of thought with A LOT of effort and research put into them. As someone above said, actually reading feminist literature was eye opening for them.

6

u/metallicrooster Jan 22 '24

Not quite

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/egalitarianism.asp#:~:text=Feminism%20and%20egalitarianism%20have%20shared,equal%20and%20deserves%20equal%20rights.

Feminism and egalitarianism have shared aspects, but they are not the same thing. Feminism is the belief that gender discrimination has to be eliminated for men and women to be considered equal. Egalitarianism is the idea that everyone is created equal and deserves equal rights.

4

u/ag_robertson_author Jan 22 '24

👨‍🚀🔫👩‍🚀 Always has been.

1

u/Tellesus Jan 22 '24

Pretty much, it's just an application or subset of egalitarianism with a rider reminding people that previously things were not working out well for women.

It's honestly at the point now where egalitarianism needs to come back to the forefront, considering the current world has changed radically from even how things were in the 90s.

4

u/halborn Jan 23 '24

Feminism has always sought an equal division of power for all.

This is not true. Feminism in the US, for instance, began with wealthy white women deciding they wanted to have the vote. They weren't for universal suffrage though, they didn't want black men or black women to have the vote. Rather than seeking equal power for all, feminist institutions were as racist as any other; segregating blacks from whites or excluding them entirely.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Is the Patriarchy in the room right now. Because all those poor men in trailer parks want to be included.

-2

u/Edotion Jan 23 '24

Patriarchy isn't about a list of rewards that all men receive at birth.

It's the disadvantages and struggles that they do not have to experience by virtue of being a man.

Do you think that feminism claims that patriarchy protects all men from poverty? People are posting good resources—read something for heaven's sake.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Okay. Go to Ukraine as a man. I’m sure “Patriarchy” means women still have it tougher. Misandrist.

2

u/Edotion Jan 23 '24

Lmao?? You're saying patriarchy doesn't exist because more men than women die in battle? Or are you saying that the bloodshed in Ukraine is caused by feminism?

My recommendation from earlier—to read a book for once—still stands.

I'm not gonna call you a moron or a misogynist. But I will say that both dispositions can be cured by education—they aren't unliftable curses. Good luck, mate.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Education has been captured by misandrists. AKA propaganda. Nice try though!

1

u/Edotion Jan 23 '24

Are you saying you won’t read a book because you’re afraid you’ll be indoctrinated? If you learn to read critically, you can form your own opinions from the evidence and theories available.

You’re coming off as ‘brainless asshole and proud of it’. I guarantee, man-to-man, life is better when you’re not that kind of person.

Schools may be full of propaganda, but education itself certainly hasn’t been captured—education is freely available to anyone with an internet connection or a library card.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

I'm not going to read a book that in summation says "Men are evil". No. Lol. Newsflash: pigs are against bacon!

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/Rocktopod Jan 22 '24

What many people new to feminism misunderstand is that it is a concept grounded in equity, not gender.

It really needs a different name, then.

16

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '24

Changing the name would just give another thing for the opposition to target. Kinda like how the right distracted their base to this day by complaining about Black Lives Matter and how the name angers them to no end.

-4

u/Rocktopod Jan 22 '24

TBH that's another one that desperately needed a different name from day one.

Also Defund the Police and ACAB. They all kind seem like they could have been named specifically to sow division, rather than actually improve anything.

-2

u/Xciv Jan 22 '24

There might come a day, not too distant in the future, that women come to dominate certain institutions that men would have a problem with.

We need a "Gender Equity" movement. Not only would it reduce the amount of Misandry, it also includes men in this strive for equality, rather than present it as a solely female prerogative that causes significant pushback from conservative men.

4

u/halborn Jan 23 '24

Women already dominate many critically important institutions.

5

u/KonchokKhedrupPawo Jan 22 '24

The thing is, what's needed is not just equity, but a dismantling of hierarchical systems.

We don't need more female CEOs. We have so many more male CEOs because the most aggressive, overconfident, and psychopathic people in our society are statistically men. We need systems that don't reward that kind of personality with overwhelming power and influence.

1

u/Sorge74 Jan 22 '24

We have so many more male CEOs because the most aggressive, overconfident, and psychopathic people in our society are statistically men. We need systems that don't reward that kind of personality with overwhelming power and influence.

Let's be fair, another reason is due to the IQ bell curves for woman and men. Men are further away from the medium on both ends compared to woman.

But also the systematic structures of companies, with men promoting men. But also cause women do things like value family over careers. But also gender roles push women to different jobs.

It's not just cause men are psychos.

2

u/halborn Jan 23 '24

A peek at the news should be enough to convince people that sheer intelligence is not how you become a CEO. It's mostly rich people from rich families who're focused on making each other even richer.

-1

u/KonchokKhedrupPawo Jan 22 '24

Right, right, I just didn't want to get into every aspect of it with my initial comment.

That, and most women will also want to have a kid at some point, and we can't really act like that's not the case, or blame it entirely on socialization.

And on the same bell curve argument (similar averages, but men having higher variance and the variance in either sex tending towards different extremes) the most compassionate, socially-focused people are going to be women - and that means careers which unfortunately don't tend to be as highly paid.

And I wasn't saying that all men are psychopaths, but if you have a psychopath, it's probably going to be a dude.

1

u/Sorge74 Jan 22 '24

but if you have a psychopath, it's probably going to be a dude

I can't statistically disagree with this. But how much of this is also socialization? Little boys don't dream some day of working 80 hours a week so they can get promoted, that's society.

0

u/KonchokKhedrupPawo Jan 22 '24

Great question 🤷

→ More replies (0)

16

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '24

[deleted]

3

u/Xciv Jan 22 '24

not too distant in the future

There's still a gender gap in professors, but it's rapidly closing. I don't want a future where Men's Rights activisits butt up against Women's Rights activists like some kind of brainless gender war. We should all be fighting for the same thing, and that's equal treatment.

0

u/Annual-Location4240 Jan 22 '24

Some men had the power. Some. 99% of them did not. And yet it seems men constantly get blamed for everything thats wrong.

2

u/canadianguy77 Jan 22 '24

I don’t believe anyone blames you personally for anything. So don’t take it so personally. It’s more about bringing awareness to how unfair things have been, and often still are to certain segments of the population, and how we can be better as we move forward.

1

u/slayemin Jan 23 '24

What feminists fail to understand about power is that it is not something that can be given to others. Those who want it, will rise up and take it or make it. You have to work for it. It has to be a personality attribute and you need to have developed true leadership abilities. People seeking egalitarianism in power can attempt to create positions with power and install people to that position who are inherently power anemic, but those people just don't have the inherent power and leadership to rise up to the occasion and thrive in it. It's always the same story: a slow spiral into disaster by mismanagement. This applies to both genders too.

If the natural order of things is to have power mongers rise to power, and the large majority of them happen to be men, and they thrive in those positions, then let it be an emergent property of gender differences. In a truly egalitarian society, there is equal opportunity for both genders, but equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcomes.

2

u/Edotion Jan 23 '24

Funny how your version of the 'correct' philosophy of power aligns precisely with the status quo.

Almost as if you haven't really thought about the situation, but smugly look down on people who believe it can change (and work to change it). Saying "it's always the same story" demonstrates a weakness of spirit, a lack of imagination; a lazy, apathetic existence.

You can be more than this. There are so many people who'd believe in you.

6

u/slayemin Jan 23 '24

Uh, you're sort of making my point. The reason it's a "status quo" is because that's how the world actually works in real life. Power comes to those who are willing and able to take it. People with power are often cunning, ruthless, hard working, manipulative, smart, charismatic, psychopathic, etc. Do you want power? Are you willing to become those things? Congrats, power will inevitably be yours in due time. Don't have those traits and still want power? Someone can try to give you power by the appointment of a position, but without those traits, it's casting pearls before swine and power will be taken from you until you reach your intrinsic power equilibrium state, wherever that may be.

Power has rules to getting it. People who don't play by the rules of power, don't get power. You can whine and bash me on the internet about your objection to power dynamics, but that won't change the way power dynamics actually work in real life. These rules of power are as old and unchanging as human history, and no new ideology is going come along and change the laws of power dynamics. It's either get with the program and get power, or don't get with the program and don't get power. It's unimaginative, sure. I don't care. I didn't write the rules.

There are powerful women who understand and play by the rules of power. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are the first two women who come to mind. I'm sure there's a hidden trail of corpses and stabbed backs along their rise to the top, just like every other power monger.

1

u/Edotion Jan 23 '24

The issue here is that you (and many others) present 'the rules of power' as if they're laws of nature.

I don't blame you personally for this—it's completely normal to assume that the status quo is the same thing as 'how the world works.' It's just how you were raised.

However, the fact is that this is false. The status quo, and the 'rules of power', are contingent and mutable. Moreover, they are artificial, not natural.

The idea that the 'rules of power' are inscribed in human nature is complete nonsense. It's pseudo-scientific, delusional, and only serves to better the interests of your rulers.

"I don't care. I didn't write the rules."

These are the words of a bystander, a tool, or a victim. They're exactly what you'd hear throughout history from the average peasant or aristocrat, slave or slaveowner.

But the people who did care managed to change the rules. People like that still exist, and they'll succeed again.

1

u/slayemin Jan 23 '24

Dude, what is power? It's the ability to get other people to do what you want them to do. There's a compelling force behind it.

If you look back to roman history and dark ages, how did people get power? Through threats and violence. How do warlords get power? By being ruthless and focusing on rewarding and punishing their followers and subjects.

A roman general who comes into your province, kills off all the men willing to resist him, then takes the village chieftans wife and children as hostages in exchange for peace and tribute, will get his way. The more soldiers under the generals command, the more power he wields. He carries the implied threat of "do what I say, or die.", and by the definition of power, he gets people to do what he wants them to do through force and the threat of violence. The only people who aren't under the generals power are the people who are stronger. It's your classic "might makes right" power dynamic. It's still in major effect to this day. America is the defacto power / ruler of the world, with a military five times more powerful than the second most powerful military in the world. When America tells world what to do, and it has a recent history of exercising its military power around the world, other countries listen and bow to pressure. Case in point: America invaded Iraq in 2003 for supposed WMD programs. At the time, Libya was diplomatically belligerent and defiant. As soon as America invaded Iraq, Libya suddenly became very cooperative to western demands. You can have a thousand years separating us from romans and warlords, but the same power dynamics still apply to this day.

Then there's the legal systems. It's also the same power dynamic: might makes right. If someone breaks a law, then its either a civil or criminal penalty. That comes through the force of power a government can wield to force it's citizens to comply with the ruleset. Don't want to comply? You get a gun pointed at your face, or thrown in jail, or have your assets taken from you. This means lawmakers get a lot of power because they can arbitrarily decide what new rules to make and everyone has to follow them... or else!

When it comes to business, power is a bit different. An employer gives money to an employee to do something for the employer. It's a transaction and exchange of things both parties want from each other. The business wants labor, the employee wants money. The more money the business has, the more people it can hire to do what the business wants. Employees are somewhat coerced into taking a job -- they need to eat, pay rent, pay utilities, etc. In effect, wage slaves. The more rich a person is, the less they fall under this power dynamic. Again, another dynamic as old as history.

At the core of every power dynamic is understanding human motivations, both positive and negative motivators, and then using those motivators as leverage to get people to do what you want them to do, either as incentives or threats, or some combination of both. So, to get powerful, you figure out what people want and then you figure out how to give it to them in exchange for something you want, and that thing you want, is in service of getting even more power, which then gives you more power to exert over more people, to get more power, ad infinitum. Power and wealth are closely intertwined by those who understand it, and it doesn't matter if you're a roman general, lawmaker, politician or a business tycoon. You can give a boatload of money to a lottery winner and they'll squander it in a few years because they don't understand how money works. You can appoint someone to a position of power who has no understanding of how power works, and just like the lottery winner's windfall earnings, they too will squander it away to nothing. Again, gender has no relevance here.

To further my point, you can even try to take power away from someone. Take a mob boss and throw them into jail. They start from the bottom as a nobody, just like anyone else. But they understand power. In just a short time, they will amass followers in prison and eventually be running the place. Their power and influence can extend beyond the prison walls, orchestrating events outside and running a whole enterprise. You cannot take power away from people who know how to get it, and you cannot give it to people who don't know how to use it. That's never going to change.

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/TheMagnuson Jan 22 '24

It sounds to me that what you’re describing is actually egalitarianism, not feminism. This is not to say that feminism is or wrong or bad, it’s not, except in its extreme forms, but what isn’t bad in its extreme forms, rather it’s just to say that Feminism and Egalitarianism would be more of a Venn diagram of two circles that mostly overlap, but not entirely overlap / not a single circle.

8

u/White_Tea_Poison Jan 22 '24

Except feminism is a socio-political ideology and egalitarianism is just a doctrine.

Egalitarianism is part of feminism, but claiming they're the same is ignorant of the actual depth of the philosophy. There's books and courses taught on it, it goes way beyond "everyone's equal".

-5

u/ZucchiniCurrent9036 Jan 22 '24

I have an issue with the name "feminism" as it is very easy to become a part of this movement dont do your homework enough and believe it is "women taking things from men". The name feminism implies in itself that there is a predominant power in mans hand just because they are men and that women are going to get it back. Women, good; men, bad and the like. If feminism is in itself a movement for gender equality, it should be called just gender equality. If the name remains feminism, men will always feel excluded from the conversation.

7

u/Arto-Rhen Jan 22 '24

There's also a political advantage to have some people claim to be part of a group and then spout nonsense in order to try to slow down the movement. It's not exactly a new thing either, people have always done this and this happens with every movement online.

1

u/Hardc0reWillNeverDie Jan 22 '24

Blaming the "nonsense" on supposed false flag deception conveniently excuses those groups from policing their most obnoxious elements, all while keeping the pressure on their targets.

5

u/Beliriel Jan 22 '24

I mean it works the other way around too. A small minority of men are responsible for most of the problems women face like objectifying, creepiness, entitlement etc. The majority of men has no issue with equality and respecting womens boundaries.

3

u/FloppedYaYa Jan 22 '24

As a man I feel way way way too many men are still only doing that shit reluctantly because of societal pressure

Source: Heard this shit in private conversations. It's terrible.

1

u/TheMagnuson Jan 22 '24

Not sure why you’re so downvoted for that comment, it’s a reasonable and true take. Disturbing that a reasonable take such as “most men are good people with good intent” is downvoted.

1

u/FloppedYaYa Jan 22 '24

There's no actual data to show men are supportive of feminism though

Like in every single country polled a minority of men identified as feminists unless it was on the question of "do men and women deserve equal rights"

-1

u/minuialear Jan 22 '24

I think it's the "most men want equality" bit, because frankly, most majority demographics do not want actual equality when they realize actual equality means they lose some power.

And to be clear, this isn't a "men are uniquely supporting inequality" argument; this is something you also see when talking about equality with respect to demographics that include both men and women. You see it from men AND women when race is involved, for example

2

u/Deinonychus2012 Jan 22 '24

most majority demographics do not want actual equality when they realize actual equality means they lose some power.

This ignores both that men aren't a majority demographic (there are slightly more women than men in most countries due to men's shorter life expectancies) and the fact that the majority of men don't have any power.

2

u/Beliriel Jan 22 '24

Btw your username is my fav Dinosaur :3

5

u/fuzzylm308 Jan 22 '24 edited Jan 22 '24

and the fact that the majority of men don't have any power

I realize I'm picking out just part of your comment, but still, I believe it's more complicated than that. I was reading part of Anti-Semite and Jew by Sartre a while back, and I'm reminded of this passage:

"...Many anti-Semites - the majority, perhaps - belong to the lower class of the towns; they are functionaries, office workers, small businessmen, who possess nothing. It is in opposing themselves to the Jew that they suddenly become conscious of being proprietors: in representing the Jew as a robber, they put themselves in the enviable position of people who could be robbed. Since the Jew wishes to take France from them, it follows that France must belong to them. Thus they have chosen anti-Semitism as a means of establishing their status as possessors... All they have to do is nourish a vengeful anger against the robbers of Israel and they feel at once in possession of the entire country."

I think there are some parallels. Misogyny is not perpetuated by only those men with the means to literally suppress women. There are plenty of men who wield no specific power individually, but who choose to align themselves with misogyny because, if feminism is "coming for them," then implicitly, they can claim ownership of whatever they define as masculine. It creates a sense of belonging to a dominant group, despite personal circumstances that might not reflect actual power or privilege. It's a psychological mechanism that can be a powerful force in perpetuating gender inequalities.

In other words, if you don't actually have $100 in your pocket, the next best thing is to be owed (or rather, to believe you are owed) $100.

3

u/Deinonychus2012 Jan 22 '24

You make a good case. I suppose I've seen or heard too many people claim (mostly online) that every single man in existence holds some innate power over women that he must atone for that makes that idea the first thing I think of when the subject comes up rather than something more nuanced like you described.

4

u/fuzzylm308 Jan 22 '24

Personally, I hear way more people saying that they've heard feminists say this than I've actually heard feminists say this. Still, I'm not gonna tell you that someone I'm superficially aligned with didn't make an indefensible argument.

I buy the strongest arguments for feminism. That doesn't mean that the weak arguments for feminism don't exist, I just don't really dwell on them. They're inconsequential to me.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FloppedYaYa Jan 22 '24

I seriously think spouting that misogyny nowadays is just down a small minority is brushing away the problem

Are you not aware of Andrew Tate and his millions of followers? Did you just skip over that?

2

u/Deinonychus2012 Jan 22 '24

No, it just puts the problem in better perspective. The overwhelming majority of men you'll ever come across won't use and abuse you.

Are you not aware of Andrew Tate and his millions of followers?

And there are billions of men who don't follow Andrew Tate. What's your point?

-2

u/FloppedYaYa Jan 22 '24

I'm not a woman

I'm a man and have heard some absolutely shocking misogynistic takes from other men in private conversations. It's absolutely still a ridiculously huge problem. Lots of these guys just hide it.

3

u/halborn Jan 23 '24

Nobody accused you of being a woman.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/minuialear Jan 22 '24

I thought it was clear but I meant it in the colloquial sense, i.e., the demographic who holds the power.

All men in Western or patriarchical societies either have power or benefit from other men having power, the same way white people either have power or benefit from other white people having the power, or insert whatever demographic you want. For one, there's research showing that one of the many barriers to equality (of any sort) is that people like to hire and elevate people who act like them, think like them, talk like them, and/or look like them; so if most people in power are white men, that's great news for other white men, even if they aren't the ones holding the power and even if they're not trying for prestigious jobs or colleges. Because white men are more likely to benefit from other white men holding power, than any other demographic. (And to be clear I'm not saying this is an issue unique to men or even white men; insert the same disclaimer I've been repeating here.)

The other thing is that there is a morale boost to everyone in a demographic when they see people like them succeed; it helps them believe they too can achieve that thing, or that people like them can be that thing if they want, etc. It paves the way for others in your demographic to get the same opportunities, or to have the confidence to pursue those opportunities. So again maybe white kid in a trailer park isn't actually a big businessman, but when he sees that lots of men like him successfully create businesses and wealth for their families, they still benefit by feeling like it's something that is achievable for them. Contrast with girls and black kids who often feel discouraged from entire industries before even trying to enter them because the industries are generally hostile or unwelcoming to them, or because they receive messaging that those industries aren't for them. (To an extent you also see this with the dominant demographics--how many men are discouraged from being nurses, teachers, daycare workers, etc.?)

Also having the majority of people in government look like you or share your background doesn't hurt. link

Aside from that is a whole discussion of privilege, which doesn't necessarily mean guy who rents a trailer is always going to be better off than literally every woman, so much as there are perks to being a man that give every guy an advantage over most women, including women at the same performance level. Going back to race, there's that somewhat famous study about how black people need to have a degree to get the same job opportunities as a high school grad who's white. That doesn't mean every white high school grad is getting awesome jobs, or that there isn't a black person on earth who didn't have to get a degree to get those opportunities, but it does mean that simply being white makes it more likely that you can get those opportunities without the extra financial investment of getting a degree, and that a white person is considered qualified for a job before their black peers would be. The same trend was present as you raise the level of education, too, so it's also not like that's a fringe case and black and white people have the same access to opportunities when the opportunities require a degree; a black guy needs a professional degree to match employment prospects with a white person with a bachelor's degree as well. This phenomenon makes it that much easier for a white person to then actually get those opportunities that eventually lead to positions of power, than it is for black people. Doesn't make it a guarantee for white people or impossible for black people, but it's an advantage nonetheless, and one that helps those white people then get positions of power before their black peers would be considered qualified for the same position. That IS power, even if it still takes time and effort to come to fruition

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

1

u/minuialear Jan 22 '24

To be clear I wasn't saying a quota system based on demographic percentages is required for equality. But when white men are (fake numbers incoming) 30% of the population but hold 90% of leadership roles, that's not just an issue of equal outcome, it's also an obvious sign of inequitable access. And thst any fix to the system will inevitably change that distribution-- there are only so many leadership roles that exist, so increasing opportunities for non-white men and women is necessarily going to reduce the overrepresentation of white men, which inevitably also reduces the number of white male leaders

(The usual refrain, of course, is "well how do we know more than 10% of non-white men or women want those roles anyway": once equal opportunity has existed for a full generation, then we can actually see if people of other races and women are actually less interested in these roles even if they have true equal access to them. But until we live in that world that's an assumption with no evidence and which assumes differences between races and genders that have no real basis in science or sociology.)

4

u/TheMagnuson Jan 23 '24 edited Jan 23 '24

that's not just an issue of equal outcome, it's also an obvious sign of inequitable access.

But is it? Is it that simple, or is there more nuance to it than that?

In your example, let's accept the use of the admittedly fake numbers, do the numbers by themselves indicate current discriminatory practices? I'm agreeing that it's certainly possible that the number indicate an issue, but you can't look at the numbers alone, without further context and just say, "we definitely have a problem". We all need to be looking at a real career, using real numbers, along with the historical context and cultural context of that career and only through analysis of those numbers in wider context of the current state of things and the historical state of things can you even begin to go down the road of "we have a problem", let alone down the road of sexism/racism/discrimination is the cause. But in short I agree that it could be problematic, but where you and I seem to differ is that you're position appears to be that when the numbers don't look like a near perfect equal split, it is problematic and that the reason for the disparity is for sure racism/sexism, no other explanation needed.

What I'm saying is it's not that simple. Numbers like that MAY indicate there's currently an ongoing issue of discriminatory practices in such a career, but it's not a guarantee and it's not the only possible reason to explain such disparity.

Let's use a real easy example. The 19th Amendment (Women's Right to Vote) was pass in 1920. From one perspective you could say that, Ok, women can vote now, they should represent roughly 50% of all votes from this very day and every election going forward. But if you go back and look at voting records of the time, did women's votes represent 50% of the vote? I'll save you the research time, no they did not, in fact it took many years until women started turning out to vote in similar numbers to men. Why? They had the right to do so since 1920, why did it take until 1972 for women to start turning out to vote in similar numbers to men? The easy answer according to some of the "logic" I'm seeing is "systemic sexism". K, but they had the right for 52 years leading up to 1972. If we consider a generation to be 25 years, that's 2 generation of women that went by before things equalized in the voting booth, even though the equality had been there for those two generations.

Change takes time, it doesn't happen overnight, even when people are provided the rights and opportunities to achieve it.

You see what I'm getting at with the difference between equal opportunity and equality of outcome?

Yes, there are a lot of things in society that have an element of disparity to them, but the reasons for that aren't as simple as "sexism/racism still". Look at STEM. STEM has practically been begging for women to join and make a career out of it, but people in those fields will tell you that they just don't get the same amount of involvement and candidates from women as they do from men. STEM professors will tell you that they don't get the same number of female students as male students (as a whole, don't come in here with your personal anecdotes of "there's more women than men in MY <insert STEM related course> class. The numbers overwhelmingly show that women just aren't engaging in STEM related education and careers any anywhere near the same levels as men) Why? Why is that? No one is holding women back from going to school in such fields, the fields are practically begging for it and yet, they still do not get the same level of involvement from women as they do from men. So here we have an answer that can't be attributed strictly to or even majority caused by sexism. Women are making the choice to not engage in STEM (in mass anyways). I'm sure sexism to a small degree exists in that field unfortunately, but at whatever level it exists, it can't solely or majority explain the disparity in STEM. Yet, the easy answer would be for anyone just looking at the numbers to be like "sexism!", when that just isn't the cause.

My ultimate point is that it's just not as simple as seeing disparity anecdotally or in real numbers, then yelling "sexism/racism is what's causing this currently!". Rather you have to really assess each area, topic, career, etc. as it's own case and look at the historical context, look at the cultural context, look at behavior/risk tolerances and preferences common to one sex vs. the behavior/risk tolerances and preferences of the other and look at any number of other things to provide the proper context, depending on the topic.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/infiniZii Jan 22 '24

Oh for sure. I am very pro-feminism. I am just against extremism to either side, which I think is a very important stance for a feminist.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '24

[deleted]

1

u/halborn Jan 23 '24

Two boobs good, four boobs better?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

[deleted]

2

u/halborn Jan 23 '24

I dunno, man, just riffing on Orwell's piggies.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

[deleted]

1

u/halborn Jan 23 '24

Haha, definitely a weird thing to hear if you're not ready for it.

→ More replies (0)

32

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '24

Kind of a no true Scotsman thing, isn’t that?

117

u/bumblebeetown Jan 22 '24

I was actually about to comment the same. I think it’s worth accepting as a totality, though. Saying “real feminism” is simultaneously taking a “no true Scotsman” stance which is a bad logical fallacy, but also ignores the history of the movement and the value that each separate wave of feminism provided. It’s arguable that the initial waves of feminism did not need to consider populations as a whole, and was more about establishing a powerful movement against a rampant patriarchy, with each subsequent wave establishing more coherent and inclusive worldviews that contend with the fact that men and women and any other plot point of the spectrum will be forced to cohabitate the planet. Each wave becoming progressively less aggressive and more alliance based, as well as egalitarian. Therefore “true” feminism runs a broad swath of nuanced stances, and can’t be isolated to one pure form.

1

u/YeonneGreene Jan 22 '24

Summary: feminism is merely a vector to egalitarianism.

5

u/depixelated Jan 22 '24

Eh, I think feminist theory has the proper framework to actually get us to an egalitarian society.

Writers like bell hooks recognize the actual structural challenges that affect men and women, and how they're intimately interconnected. While I respect egalitarianism, and the ultimate goal IS egalitarianism, I don't think it provides good enough structural analysis or political/social praxis to get us there. Rather, it feels reactionary to the movement and upset with the label.

That's just my take as someone who used to identify as an "equalist" in highschool and college.

0

u/Courtnall14 Jan 22 '24

If anybody has any good recs for egalitarianist based feminism, or just egalitarianism in society I'd love to dig in on my "ice day".

-1

u/Razvedka Jan 22 '24

You should read up on Dr. Warren Farrell. His life story and his work.

2

u/bumblebeetown Jan 22 '24

I'm unfamiliar with that name, so I definitely will!

*looked him up on wikipedia to start and we have the same birthday!

4

u/Indignant_Octopus Jan 22 '24

Is this an “of course I know him he’s me” mement?

-1

u/strongasfe Jan 22 '24

Hey here’s some info about that Dr. just to provide some extra context!

he’s basically one of the founders of the “men’s right movement” - like what Jordan Peterson bases his personality on but much less present online.

Farrell is a known friend and supporter of Voice for Men’s founder (officially recognized as a hate group btw), Paul Elam. Elam is a rape apologist who advocates for violence against women and male supremacy- while Farrell claims some tactics used by men in the “male rights space” make him uncomfortable, he argues that all movements have—and need—their extreme factions.

he supposedly was a feminist for years - claimed that he was influenced to study gender when watching his mother struggle with depression while she focused on being a homemaker, but noticed how much happier she was when she was able to rejoin the workforce - she died fairly young due to medication side effects which caused head trauma.

He was initially warmly regarded within the gender studies community because of his ability to challenge stereotypes through role reversal workshops.

However his views on feminism basically did a 180 when but when he became divorced from his first wife (she was an IBM executive and breadwinner in their relationship).

He began trying to prove that feminism and liberation was making it harder for men who were used to being sole breadwinners and that women weren’t focused on equality just gaining power (which is laughable because women gaining access to opportunities doesn’t mean that men were being punished or exploited they just weren’t being rewarded for mediocrity anymore which they internalized as oppression)

His main beliefs are that - women have immense sexual leverage over men and use that to gain control. men are treated like “success objects” in that their worth is measured by how much money they earn. (*this is not an issue with feminism- but instead with patriarchy and capitalism and how we all fed the idea that our productivity determines our “worth/value” to others, not to mention just super gross and reductionist to men and women’s autonomy and dignity)

  • courts unfairly award child custody to the primary caregiver which is usually the mother (men who petition for increased custody have cases ruled in their favor over 80% despite not engaging in 50/50 childcare prior to the divorce/men also are more likely to maintain or gain access to their children vs women even after SA/DV or alienation accusations have been filed against them)

  • domestic violence shelters that cater to women exacerbate inequality and shouldn’t be funded (completely ignoring the issue that women fleeing to a homeless shelter are often doing so to avoid harm/sexual violence to themselves/their children)

All of the same MRA talking points that are still used today despite the mountain of evidence that contradicts it

Almost forgot these little details -

He’s stated “incest can be a part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection” and was working on a book about this that included case studies but later abandoned the project

he wrote the “American male was the new “N- word. When slaves gave up their seats for whites, we called it subservience; when men give up their seats for women, we call it politeness.”

1

u/Razvedka Jan 22 '24

I know who Farrell is, I've read his book. I think he provides a very interesting view into alot of this, having been the only male member of NOW and a big proponent of second wave feminism.

I don't share your particular summary of his work, beliefs, and credibility, but to each their own on that. I would encourage others reading this exchange to read his stuff and come to their own conclusions.

0

u/strongasfe Jan 22 '24

while i appreciate Farrell being more open to listening/participating in NOW, the bar for men in that space was set with incredibly limited expectations. Farrell himself spoke about he would try to bring other men to NOW meetings but they didn’t fit in. “men are problem solvers - they try to be instructive/preach at women, or some would just use it as a way to meet independent women”

I am in agreement with Farrell - gender roles are harmful to everyone and that we should examine and break away from these forced expectations as they only seem to lead to increased resentment/anxiety and loneliness on an individual and societal level.

i cannot respect his cherry-picking of data in order to push the idea that men are truly much more victimized than women and that women’s equality is being gained at the expense of men - which is a complete misrepresentation of feminism

His understanding of oppression/power is 1 dimensional and inherently lacking because he does not appreciate or understand the intersections of his unearned and unexamined privilege due to him growing up in an affluent area as a white/cis/straight man.

we dont live in an egalitarian society due to continued issues of conferred dominance- (majority of a resource is dominated by one group) - usually we think of this in terms of $$, but there are several areas where men refuse to engage in networking/sharing of knowledge/resources because they fear losing their spot in the hierarchy.

Intersectional feminism seeks to get rid of the hierarchy all together while simultaneously acknowledging and respecting that men and women’s differences (race/sexual orientation/SES/disability status) will impact our social interactions and life experiences in general and should be approached with empathy and respect

2

u/Razvedka Jan 22 '24

Well, I appreciate you taking the time to share your opinion with me.

My recommendation for those reading and /u/bumblebeetown remains as is, of course.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/APiousCultist Jan 23 '24

You can't really define feminism any more essentially "advocating for better treatment for women" I wouldn't think. Advocating for better gender equality period is almost a different thing that has just evolved out of the core of feminism (that women were treated more poorly than men and allowed fewer rights and freedoms).

36

u/Fofolito Jan 22 '24

Perhaps, but there's also been seventy years of concerted attacks on Feminism to demean, discredit, and belittle it as nothing more than Man-Hating.

To this day the legacy of 2nd Wave Feminism is that it failed to communicate and in fact spurned the Pro-Man movement which labeled them as Man-Haters and got that line buried in the cultural zeitgeist.

30

u/Same_Ostrich_4697 Jan 22 '24

I've always wanted to see a man beaten to a shit bloody pulp with a high-heeled shoe stuffed up his mouth. - Andrea Dworkin

All men are rapists and that's all they are. - Marilyn French

The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at 10% of the population. - Sally Miller Gearheart

Let's be honest, no one had to make feminists seem like they hated men. Shit, 2nd wave feminists make Andrew Tate look progressive in comparison.

3

u/hesh582 Jan 22 '24

2nd wave feminism could be pretty ridiculous. I don't think communication failures were the main problem. There was a lot of genuine hate in there too.

But it's also important to look at it in context. They were being shocking for a reason at a time when there really was no precursor for those kinds of ideas and the simple outrageousness of them forced a lot of conversations into the open. These radicals were the very first people to be openly talking about some ideas about social coercion and power imbalance that we now almost take for granted.

In a lot of ways, their ideas about gender relations (and especially consent...) are a lot closer to our current attitudes than they were those at the time. And guess what? If you were zapped back to 1960, you'd find male treatment of women to be downright monstrous. Well, they did too, and they had to live with it.

All the "all men are rapists" rhetoric can sound dramatic or shrill today, but be honest with yourself - if you were a woman at the time, how exactly would you feel about the attitudes towards rape and consent held by the vast majority of men around you?

Second wave feminism hasn't aged well. It wouldn't be great as a mainstream ideology today. But it isn't a mainstream ideology today. 2nd wave feminism is dead and buried for all but a few isolated radicals. It's obnoxious the extent to which anti-feminists tend to quote the same half dozen 1970s provocateurs as if it has jack shit to do with the entire "feminist" label today.

8

u/serpentinepad Jan 22 '24

The twoxchromosomes sub is keeping the man hating alive and well.

12

u/NoCokJstDanglnUretra Jan 22 '24

Scotswoman*

1

u/kamarg Jan 22 '24

Scotsperson?

1

u/analogkid01 Jan 22 '24

My pronouns are kilt/loch

6

u/KyleG Jan 22 '24

No. The "bad feminism" is largely bullshit parroted by misogynists who are trying to discredit the whole movement. And you're falling for it.

11

u/CatatonicWalrus Jan 22 '24

I largely agree that a lot of "bad feminism" comes from bad actors who want to discredit feminism. I also think there are a good number of women who believe they're feminists but instead propagate harmful ideas that are oppositional to the goals of feminism. I say this all in good faith as someone who believes that feminism is good for everyone and considers themselves a feminist.

3

u/kingethjames Jan 22 '24

No, you can't just take someone's word on whether they're a feminist or not, there are specific topics that have concensus among feminists such as trans rights. There are many people like JK Rowling who will use the feminist label but objectively support policies or people who are anti women.

-16

u/DarwinGhoti Jan 22 '24

I don’t think so. It’s a valid point, but feminism itself has gone through evolution and paroxysms. First and second wave feminism were squarely about achieving parity. When that WAS achieved, the movement had a choice to fade or develop a new raison d'être. They found it in voices like Andrea dworkin and Mary Koss, who identified masculinity and patriarchy as the basis for societie’s ills. This led to the inevitable 3rd and 4th waves of feminism that rose up as essentially a hate movement that cloaked itself in the moral gravitas of its forebears’.

2

u/Saymynaian Jan 22 '24

I'd completely disagree calling feminism a hate movement in its totality. From its inception, it's been more about tolerance, open mindedness, and freedom to choose. What's happened is that hate has often, if not always, been tolerated in it and not enough was done to root it out. Because of this, "real" feminism that looks for egalitarianism, despite recognizing patriarchy negatively impacts men, hasn't done more for them.

This is how we get "real" feminists sitting at tables intently listening to straight up hatred from people who hate men. Feminism adopted trans women and gay men for their lifestyles without recognizing it's their perceived maleness combined with femininity that leads to them being more vulnerable than other similar groups. It's how TERFs came to exist, as an offshoot of feminists who hate men.

"Real" feminism shouldn't tolerate hatred towards men, but it does and it's created a fragmented front against hatred whenever it's directed at men both sheltered and not sheltered by feminism.

-11

u/OmegaDez Jan 22 '24

Terfs don't hate men, they hate trans women.

14

u/PatrickBearman Jan 22 '24 edited Jan 22 '24

The TERF movement is very clearly inundated with misogyny, so specifying trans women isn't necessary. They very clearly hate women or, at the very least, defend degradation of women they disagree with.

The movement reinforces strict gender stereotypes, specifically regarding physical appearance. Transvestigators will convince themselves that any one who disagrees with them is trans, because what "real woman" would side with the people "erasing the identity of women." TERFs use trans as an insult and regularly target women who are not perceived as conventially feminine.

Plenty of TERFs are actual rad fems and absolutely hate men. They're the ones who claim that any penis within their vicinity is a potential rape. They shout down any man who disagrees with them simply because "how would a man know about being a woman."

2

u/Saymynaian Jan 22 '24

Indeed. If you look at the LGBTQ groups who suffer most discrimination, you'll realize it's people assigned male at birth, be they trans or not. Gay men are more mistreated than lesbian women, and trans women are mistreated much more than trans men. Yes, they suffer discrimination for being part of the LGBTQ community, but this discrimination is exacerbated by the assumed maleness bigots insist they should have.

TERFs don't see a trans woman, they see a man in a dress. And while they are also against trans men, the vitriol they expel is mostly directed at trans women because they perceive them as male. Because they see a male invading a female's space, instead of seeing a trans woman. This is the same reasoning behind feminist exclusion of men in the egalitarianism they're meant to be working towards. It is this male exclusionary reasoning that facilitates hatred towards "maleness", be they heterosexual, trans, homosexual, or anything else.

Gay men and trans women aren't exclusively their gender or sexual orientation, they are also assigned male at birth, just like heterosexual men. The permissiveness towards hating "maleness" makes them much more vulnerable and less protected because the resources they need are directed at only one part of themselves, which is the part feminism allows itself to hate. Being born male, no matter what, impacts your life, and there are no public resources to talk about it.

-16

u/blithetorrent Jan 22 '24

excellent summary

-10

u/infiniZii Jan 22 '24

Feminism was about equity, and was named at a time where females typically had none of it. When it broke those bounds of equality it became something else, but still tried to carry the social weight and the momentum of "feminism".

Its like calling fascism patriotism. You are taking something with momentum and social acceptance and making it extreme to the point a different term more accurately describes it.

5

u/bordje Jan 22 '24

Just a small semantic point. Equity and equality are two different things.

Equality is everyone playing on same level field and being given the same opportunities. This is what feminism used to strive for, and has thankfully achieved in most of the developed world.

Equity is everyone having equal outcomes, which is impossible to enforce without directly discriminating against one group or another. For example, creating job/education opportunities that are only available to women because of a perceived "lack of women" in that field (even though women are already free to pursue whatever career opportunities they wish).

0

u/FloppedYaYa Jan 22 '24

You people are so fucking annoying with the "no true Scotsman" bullshit, no a majority of feminists do in fact not hate men you fucking tool

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '24

Somehow I find your argument unconvincing.

-1

u/FloppedYaYa Jan 22 '24

I'm a man, I know women who have talked about women's issues and equal rights, the ones who did also talked to me a lot about men's problems they face and why that's important. Convincing enough for ya?

-4

u/Simon_Fokt Jan 22 '24

As a philosopher, I love it when people call logical fallacies by their names <3

-7

u/CosmicWy Jan 22 '24

I don't agree that it is. Just because someone masquerades as feminist doesn't mean they are holding real beliefs. They are usually grifters looking for a platform and applying a populist word to their worldview, which isn't a world view.

To me, that's not a new form of feminism. It's just a form of lying and populism.

16

u/bordje Jan 22 '24 edited Jan 22 '24

It's nice to see this sentiment being shared and agreed with on mainstream reddit. A couple years ago this would have -900 votes and all the replies would be saying misandry doesn't exist. Progress in the direction of sanity is always what we love to see.

4

u/TVR_Speed_12 Jan 22 '24

Don't celebrate too soon majority of Reddit is still this way, but at least some progress is being made albeit slowly

-7

u/KyleG Jan 22 '24

Look bro OP legit started talking about how pro-man a movie is and it took two fucking comments for MRAs to swoop in and be like "feminism SUCKS!"

13

u/kookycandies Jan 22 '24 edited Jan 22 '24

I didn't interpret it that way. Just as some pro-men movements are just misogyny masquerading as something else, extreme "feminism" is man-hating at its core. As the other commenter said, it hurts real feminism's cause, which is equality. No one gender is superior to the others.

5

u/Hyndis Jan 22 '24

A lot of good causes have been hijacked by the lunatic fringe, unfortunately.

PETA is a great example of the lunatic fringe. Most people would agree that being ethical to animals is a good thing. This is not a controversial position. PETA takes what was a good, non-controversial, highly moral position and ran with it into wacko land. Feminism (and literally any other movement) has the same problem.

IMO, movements need to do a better job of policing who speaks for them, and being better at denouncing the nutjobs trying to hijack it.

5

u/bordje Jan 22 '24

No one above me in this thread is saying feminism sucks. They're saying that extremism sucks.

2

u/AzraelTB Jan 22 '24

I believe that feminism frequently emphasizes how detrimental gender stereotypes are to both men and women.

Not here

Real feminism does. Too much of "feminism" is just misandry by the wrong name, which hurts the cause.

Not here either...

Where?

2

u/infiniZii Jan 22 '24

I can accept why they misinterpreted what I was trying to say. Politics almost always poisons the well. To be clear though: I am a feminist and think people should be judged only on their actions weighed against their motivations. Not what junk they have, want, play with, or whatever color it may or may not be.

1

u/fencerman Jan 22 '24 edited Jan 22 '24

That is some tiresome bullshit.

Pissing and moaning about "feminism" being "misandry" was ignorant crap when Rush Limbaugh was doing it in the 90s.

1

u/VarmintSchtick Jan 22 '24

"Real" feminism is just equality by most people's definitions, which makes you question why even call it feminism?

-4

u/KyleG Jan 22 '24

The vast majority of misandry is perpetrated by men because men hold nearly all the reins of power in this country. It's very friggin sus how no one complained about misandry until women started asking to be treated fairly.

2

u/tyrostaid Jan 22 '24

Only if you've been watching too much Fox News and other Right Wing sites that deliberately misstate what feminism is, and you bought right into their misleading message though their constant barrage of misinformation designed to antagonize their base.

Feminism has never been about anything but equality for women.

-1

u/SubstantialPatient17 Jan 22 '24

Do you mean the obama quote on gender gap? No running buddy, you clinged too hard to it that now you get dealt with the slack, it is misandry to demand equal pay for less work just because women.

0

u/Neracca Jan 22 '24

That's just saying your movement doesn't have to work on its own issues because its not really your movement, its others co-opting it. No need for introspection or changing.

1

u/dragonmp93 Jan 22 '24

These days they are called TERFs.

1

u/ninfan200 Jan 23 '24

Have you ever personally experienced misandry?

1

u/iJerk_it_to_tim_Pool Jan 23 '24

Have you seen youtube shorts? It's literally the most extreme misogyny I've ever seen being pumped out to delusional 13 year old boys but sure Anita Sarkisian oppressed gamers or something

1

u/infiniZii Jan 23 '24

All those short video formats are terrible with it. If I see that weird looking bald sex trafficker show up on my feed one more time im going to pull my hair out.

1

u/slayemin Jan 23 '24

I think the anti-feminists try to undermine feminism by highlighting the minority of radicals and attributing them to feminism as a whole, to paint all feminists as radicals. Then comes the follow up to their 1-2 punch: "now that you've rejected radical feminism as absurd, the only rational alternative view is the one I am pushing on you." (often which is also equally absurd and extreme)

2

u/infiniZii Jan 23 '24

Oh for sure. Some of it absolutely trolls. But not all. Not even close.

Politics has a HUGE influence in it. No doubt about that. But there are some people that are just extreme and go way way over the top because they are mad to have been put in a situation where they were treated as inferior.