Slow Motion.


I hate feminism.
June 13, 2006, 9:10 pm
Filed under: feminism, politics

I've been reading lots of feminist books for a politics essay for Uni, and I've decided; feminism sucks!

Really. You can't do anything right by them. You put a strong woman in a movie; they'll bitch at you for showing that she has a human side when she cries or is shown as being weak in any way at all. Put a strong woman in a movie, and give her no flaws at all; they'll bitch at you for creating an image of women which is impossible for real women to match. So what are you supposed to do? Sheesh!

So anyway, I'm doing a bit of research about gender stereotyping in popular culture, and whether it's changed over time. And honestly, you can tell that is has. Sure, there are tongue-in-cheek depictions of 'ballsy' women. Or depictions of strong women which simultaneously undermine their strength by having them cry over something silly and trivial. But the fact is that these new depictions of strong women allow them the option of being strong and tough. It's much better than the movies back in the 50's and 60's, where all women were shown as working in the kitchen to make some pie, whoring it up on the streets as working girls, or shown as mothers, grandmothers, school teachers and a whole range of other 'feminine' stereotypes. These days there are the options of being a ball-breaker in the boardroom, an outdoorsy woman on a mission, an action hero or any of the other roles women are playing in movies and in real life. It's great!

But it's when the feminists push for more that it starts to get annoying. I'm all for equality between men and women, but that's just it.. equality. None of this 'women taking over the world' business. And if a woman chooses to stay in the kitchen and make pie, then that's her choice, feminists. She's perfectly entitled to make pie, perfectly entitled to shave her armpits and her legs, and perfectly entitled to look feminine if she so desires.

Psh!


8 Comments so far
Leave a comment

how sad that you can’t see the forest for the trees….

Comment by heleena

Oh, I can. And my point remains. Feminism does nothing but create divisions between men and women that need not be there. You want to help women? Fine, do so. But why does it need to be under the banner of ‘feminism’, which excludes all men?

Comment by julenka

My favorite feminist writings are from this feminist philosopher who seems to dislike physics quite a bit:

“Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica is a ‘rape manual’ because ’science is a male rape of female nature’.”

And my personal favorite:

“Is E=mc2 a sexed equation?…Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest…”

Is it any wonder people shy away from calling themselves feminists?

Comment by Mark (tallman)

I don’t know. I think that the problem is that all feminism gets lumped in together. I’m proud to consider myself a feminist, but I’m certainly not a radical feminist. I’m a feminist of the “people should be judged based on their actions, not on their sex organs” type. Men and women shouldn’t be pigeonholed just because of their gonads. I do agree that feminism as presented in the mass media tends to be of an extreme sort, and I think that’s unfortunate. It’s quotes like the ones you posted, tallman, that make me cringe. People like that author make it far too easy for the general public to dismiss feminism as a non-issue or as a bunch of man-hating bull dykes. I definitely agree that things are better now than they used to be. I think that they could be better, but progress is still progress.

Comment by Samael

What you say is true, but I still say that there’s absolutely no need to consider oneself a ‘feminist’ or a ‘masculinist’ or whatever else in between. If you’re that fond of labels [and I really am. :D] then why not ‘equalist’. Heh. Or put simply, ‘humanist’.

The ideals are the same – equality – but without all the crap that comes from heralding women as the ‘next best thing’.

Comment by julenka

I don’t suppose that it’s necessary to consider one’s self a feminist or as a supporter of any other particular type of “ism.” When I say that I’m a feminist, it’s just a way of saying I’m a supporter and advocate of a certain philosophical/sociological/ideological movement. There are, of course, aspects of feminism present in myriad other “isms.”
I don’t see any problem with being described by a variety of sometimes overlapping labels. Humanist, equalist, rationalist, agnostic, pragmatist, etc, etc. If someone asks me “Are you a feminist?” I would still answer “yes,” but I don’t think that it’s about holding women up as the “next best thing” or trying to place them as better than men. I just think it’s one part of a larger mish-mash of beliefs and beleif systems that I hold. =)

Comment by Samael

Well that’s a much more pragmatic way of looking at it, and far better than what ‘feminism’ usually presents itself as.

That was an insightful comment. :] Cheers, Sam.

Comment by julenka

It’s the pragmatist in me. =P

The time-stamps on here are throwing me off. It’s barely 10:00 AM over here.

Comment by Samael




Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>