Why is feminism so stigmatised?

[Alba Lata]

summary / nutshell

[Sanana]

The same reason communism is: there's nothing stopping the people with the more unhinged beliefs from calling themselves one, and they draw the most attention from the general public by virtue of being unhinged.

Indeed. Radicalists pretend to be feminists, and then believe that as “payment for their suppression,” they should strip men’s rights. People like those are doing vastly more harm to women than good. Suppressing a group because the group were suppressors isn’t a good thing. Why should I be suppressed because white people used to own slaves? Why should I be suppressed because my ancestors and their government didn’t give women rights? All they’re doing is stooping. You get progress by equality, not suppressing. I strongly believe that wage gaps shouldn’t exist. It’s very sexist. I agree with the actual feminists that fight to level the playing field. Yet because of a small group of people who don’t want equality for women, but instead want superiority, they get attention and ruin how people see feminists in general.

[Ferrocarriles Argentinos]

The same reason communism is: there's nothing stopping the people with the more unhinged beliefs from calling themselves one, and they draw the most attention from the general public by virtue of being unhinged.

Indeed. Radicalists pretend to be feminists, and then believe that as “payment for their suppression,” they should strip men’s rights. People like those are doing vastly more harm to women than good. Suppressing a group because the group were suppressors isn’t a good thing. Why should I be suppressed because white people used to own slaves? Why should I be suppressed because my ancestors and their government didn’t give women rights? All they’re doing is stooping. You get progress by equality, not suppressing. I strongly believe that wage gaps shouldn’t exist. It’s very sexist. I agree with the actual feminists that fight to level the playing field. Yet because of a small group of people who don’t want equality for women, but instead want superiority, they get attention and ruin how people see feminists in general.

proof for all those accusations? radfeminism simply aims to destroy male supremacy on every single aspect of society, not "strip rights from men to repay their oppression"

It’s a matter of how SOME feminists present themselves. Particularly the radical ones and the misandrists ones, which advocate for feminism in such a negative way that it would naturally have people dislike feminism. And also, it’s feminists advocating for the wrong things. Like for instance, the psychos defending Lindsay Clancy, and the hypocritical MeToo movement, which failed to maintain neutrality towards all political figures regardless of alignment. Of course, some people hate on feminism just out of misogyny, but if feminism as a movement wants to be more respected, they need to present themselves better, and deliberately remove the bad elements within the movement itself. I personally support equality between both male and female, and I do believe that the wage gap is still substantially unfair, but cmon, yall got to do better

nobody is defending lindsay clancy for what she did. they're trying to highlight mental health problems that could result in tragedy. nobody right in their head would murder 3 children.
and what is wrong with the metoo movement? they're simply highlighting sexual abuse cases. why would anybody oppose that?

[George Galloway]

Because feminism was hijacked by neoliberals and international capital to destroy the nuclear family and pit women and men against one another

[Nonconformity]

The same reason communism is: there's nothing stopping the people with the more unhinged beliefs from calling themselves one, and they draw the most attention from the general public by virtue of being unhinged.

That plays to a conceit that as you percolate upwards through an ideology’s, or political party’s leadership, that those personalities do not become sociopathic monsters within the power concentrated on the penthouse floor, if they were not inhuman to begin with.
There is a vast moral gulf between a movement’s worshippers at the foot of the pyramid, and those who crack the whip from atop it, and I always lament that I, and most everyone else do not do a better job when talking about a movement/party, its street level soldiers, and its leadership, better demarcate the average quality of character inherent to each layer of the cake.

Many followers do so with ignorance reinforced with good intentions, although, there are those no few who do know the score, and at least have a general idea of the burning building, or flooding river that the pied pipers of leadership are specifically leading everyone towards to perish in for the sake of concentrating wealth and power that has little to do with the propaganda that will be ideologically abandoned when the leaders become fat and happy enough.
Meanwhile, the survivors of the political fires and floods are left in the precarious position of finding their way in a landscape of washed and burnt out roads devoid of any signage that they share with socio and psychopaths who still need to eat, and start with the hapless and helpless amongst them.

[Fahran]

summary / nutshell

Howdy there. I'm Fahran. I'm a mod on NS.

Let's try to contribute a bit more substantially than two sentences with a nebulous meaning. At the moment, this post could potentially be read as spam because it's difficult to comprehend your meaning and thus for your post to contribute to the broader conversation. Perhaps also take some time to review the rules since you appear to be a fairly new player. Feel free to ask questions in the Moderation thread if any arise.

[Viriske]

Because feminism was hijacked by neoliberals and international capital to destroy the nuclear family and pit women and men against one another

And how would doing that help them?

[Rusozak]

Because the incel chud influencers of the "manosphere" use engagement bait to draw out viewers and the algorithms favor them because the billionaires that control social media have a vested interest in keeping the lower classes at each others throats.

[Great Lakes Municipalities]

I hope this post doesn’t come off as ignorant or naïve, but I’m genuinely so confused as to why everyone on the Internet (atleast in the corners I hang out in) seem to universally hate feminism and feminists. I actually identify as a feminist myself (I support gender equality), so I’m quite confused why people seem to treat as an equal to things far worse.

I know this post is very short (arguably lazy, even), but I just had to get this question off my chest.

(No, this post isn’t satire)

Fighting against powerful systems will always be at the back foot against those entrenched powers.

[The Great-German Empire]

strawman fallacy btw

It's only a strawman if the description of events is inaccurate. Doesn't look it to me.

[PUTAT]

The same reason communism is: there's nothing stopping the people with the more unhinged beliefs from calling themselves one, and they draw the most attention from the general public by virtue of being unhinged.

Being unhinged doesn't always result in broad publicity.

proof for all those accusations? radfeminism simply aims to destroy male supremacy on every single aspect of society, not "strip rights from men to repay their oppression"

No. It aims to denigrate men and transgender women. Just see the typical believers on Xitter.

[Alba Lata]

strawman fallacy btw

It's only a strawman if the description of events is inaccurate. Doesn't look it to me.

It wasn´t a strawman, and thank you for noting that.

[-Macaronesia-]

What is feminism?
Feminism to me is fighting for girls’ and women rights to read, drive, go to school, speak, receive medical treatment, vote, testify in the court of law, against FGM, awareness on abuse victims, travel and work freely or be free from wearing oppressive clothing.
What is not feminism?
All men bad, abortions on demand, burn the bra, antinatalism, sex work is real work. This is what most of western feminism is, and I hate it. As a woman I have never felt systematically “less” than a man in my developed country. I am very fortunate, especially when sexual assault is treated seriously (see: Cornell case).

I also dislike the fact BECAUSE I am a woman and because I criticize the concept of modern feminism, I get “props” for being one of the few “intelligent’ women by men on one side, or I’m seen as a “pick-me” by women on the other.

[The Great-German Empire]

proof for all those accusations? radfeminism simply aims to destroy male supremacy on every single aspect of society, not "strip rights from men to repay their oppression"

No. It aims to denigrate men and transgender women. Just see the typical believers on Xitter.

To somewhat add to this as a typical, "looking at feminism from the outside" man - that style of radical feminism is very susceptible to the "power + privilege" mentality. Just like in race relations, where people will sometimes assert that there's no such thing as racism against Whites because they are still privileged (while any prejudice against Whites is either dismissed, excused, or justified), a lot of feminists act in an openly derogatory and put-down manner against anything male, using the fact that men are on balance still privileged/controlling most wealth/etc as evidence thst all they're doing is rightfully punching up. A sort of "as long as there's no justice for us, it's open season for you" mentality.

And before somebody rolls up with a social media/manosphere comment, this is about my encounters of feminism looking at it independently and encountering it in real life. Anecdotal, I know, butI don't consume 'manosphere' and didn't need to to reach the above conclusions.

[PUTAT]

And before somebody rolls up with a social media/manosphere comment, this is about my encounters of feminism looking at it independently and encountering it in real life. Anecdotal, I know, butI don't consume 'manosphere' and didn't need to to reach the above conclusions.

Zoomers and a few people from other generations turning into the side of misogynist grifters at the manosphere often occurs due to encountering radfems spewing hateful falsehoods.

[The Great-German Empire]

And before somebody rolls up with a social media/manosphere comment, this is about my encounters of feminism looking at it independently and encountering it in real life. Anecdotal, I know, butI don't consume 'manosphere' and didn't need to to reach the above conclusions.

Zoomers and a few people from other generations turning into the side of misogynist grifters at the manosphere often occurs due to encountering radfems spewing hateful falsehoods.

The same is quite possibly true for the other side. I would very much expect that many current "Patrick did it" girls got to their unhinged sources of info (womanosphere?) after seeing actual evil dipshits in the "manosphere" and reflexively bouncing to the opposite side.

I know I literally just sort-of committed the sin I'm about to describe, but none of us should claim total objectivity and lack of our own media ecosystem bias. We live in a multipolar world of information where every source has a material, rhetorical or emotional stake in distorting reality. To suggest one has perfectly, flawlessly navigated that minefield is hubristic at the very least. I try by exposing it to "rival" ecosystems like the obviously leftward-of-me one here, but I'm far from perfect.

[PUTAT]

The same is quite possibly true for the other side. I would very much expect that many current "Patrick did it" girls got to their unhinged sources of info (womanosphere?) after seeing actual evil dipshits in the "manosphere" and reflexively bouncing to the opposite side.

I know I literally just sort-of committed the sin I'm about to describe, but none of us should claim total objectivity and lack of our own media ecosystem bias. We live in a multipolar world of information where every source has a material, rhetorical or emotional stake in distorting reality. To suggest one has perfectly, flawlessly navigated that minefield is hubristic at the very least. I try by exposing it to "rival" ecosystems like the obviously leftward-of-me one here, but I'm far from perfect.

Yeah. The faults caused by the organization of most human societies under a patriarch are what caused a lot of feminist movements to rise up in the first place. Feminism was initially seen as a positive force. It is due to it being one of those factors on last century great liberation. However, branches of it had been twisted into something bad which kinda contradicted what it wanted to achieve in the first place. This is just like national liberation movements or the cliques formed by families of national founders turning into corrupt dominant parties in several countries.

[The Great-German Empire]

The same is quite possibly true for the other side. I would very much expect that many current "Patrick did it" girls got to their unhinged sources of info (womanosphere?) after seeing actual evil dipshits in the "manosphere" and reflexively bouncing to the opposite side.

I know I literally just sort-of committed the sin I'm about to describe, but none of us should claim total objectivity and lack of our own media ecosystem bias. We live in a multipolar world of information where every source has a material, rhetorical or emotional stake in distorting reality. To suggest one has perfectly, flawlessly navigated that minefield is hubristic at the very least. I try by exposing it to "rival" ecosystems like the obviously leftward-of-me one here, but I'm far from perfect.

Yeah. The faults caused by the organization of most human societies under a patriarch are what caused a lot of feminist movements to rise up in the first place. Feminism was initially seen as a positive force. It is due to it being one of those factors on last century great liberation. However, branches of it had been twisted into something bad which kinda contradicted what it wanted to achieve in the first place. This is just like national liberation movements or the cliques formed by families of national founders turning into corrupt dominant parties in several countries.

I'll be honest, I still think feminism can be seen as a positive force and in many cases is. It just needs less doctrinairism and more engagement. Feminists should engage equitably, without dismissal or derision, with pro-male activists, non-feminist women, and politics/government in a way that seeks lasting solutions as opposed to (NO OFFENSE TO YOU!) Marxian-style permanent direct and family action. Bring your issues to the table, let us bring ours, without some sort of presumptuous disqualification. Otherwise - and this is very much a huge issue in the male spaces as well - it's all monologue no dialogue.

And again: Inb4 somebody tells me that's already what's happening and I just don't see it: If this obviously beneficial actin was happening and getting results, I WOULD be seeing it. And I am ready to admit the "male side" by and large is neglecting cross-aisle engagement as well.

[Pakania]

I am in favor of feminism insofar as it is the fight against the patriarchy. I don't believe the patriarchy is an effective hierarchy for modern society because modern machines make the division of labor unnecessary. However, I think the problem with a lot of feminism is that it insufficiently addresses patriarchy because it only addresses one half of the equation. Patriarchy imposes obligations on men (to be providers) and women (to take care of the home). The fight against the obligations on women has been relatively successful (although there is still a ways to go because of the lingering sentiments of patriarchy), but the fight against the obligations on men has utterly failed. We are in some sort of weird limbo where men still face many of the expectations of patriarchy while reaping none of its benefits. This is untenable. Any feminist politics concerned with combatting patriarchy would recognize this, the unfortunate problem is that many feminists currently don't (and bringing up men's concerns is seen as anti-feminist).

This.

There is more I'd also like to contribute here, such as the fact that in the majority of developed nations, feminism has allowed women to have equality in the law, but socially and culturally speaking, women and men are still both subject to stigmas and are disproportionately underrepresented in many key areas of society. I think that, instead of only advancing women's rights (an earlier comment also said that women's rights is kinda sexist because really it should be human rights, and I 100% agree with that sentiment) and advocating for better addressing where women are disadvantaged, we should focus on dismantling the structure that has allowed for it in the first place, and which affects everyone negatively aside from a very small portion of people.

Aside from, perhaps, three repeat individuals in this thread, everyone has brought up educational points that contribute to my understanding of this issue (I had a similar question as OP). In my opinion, I also do believe there are some injustices that men face that women don't face, just as the opposite most certainly exists. And most of it is cultural, as opposed to legal. I'd list examples for both, but I do not have the time to do so at the moment, but I look forward to coming back to this thread and adding other observations which look into the bigger picture!

EDIT: User is a feminist by its definition on Google.

[Machon]

Feminism has recently taken on a heteronormative, gay-exclusionary edge. That worries me.
Like when there is a group of New Yorkers coming together to watch Heated Rivalry, and the only gay guy is excluded for being a man? The show is about gay guys. How is a gay guy not welcome to join a gender-non-specific group watching a show about gay guys?

[Threlizdun]

I am in favor of feminism insofar as it is the fight against the patriarchy. I don't believe the patriarchy is an effective hierarchy for modern society because modern machines make the division of labor unnecessary. However, I think the problem with a lot of feminism is that it insufficiently addresses patriarchy because it only addresses one half of the equation. Patriarchy imposes obligations on men (to be providers) and women (to take care of the home). The fight against the obligations on women has been relatively successful (although there is still a ways to go because of the lingering sentiments of patriarchy), but the fight against the obligations on men has utterly failed. We are in some sort of weird limbo where men still face many of the expectations of patriarchy while reaping none of its benefits. This is untenable. Any feminist politics concerned with combatting patriarchy would recognize this, the unfortunate problem is that many feminists currently don't (and bringing up men's concerns is seen as anti-feminist).

There is a history of feminist theory and activism that does indeed seek to liberate men from the obligations and expectations of patriarchal society as well as women. There is a phrase I like to repeat, "patriarchy was not created to serve men, but to serve patriarchs." Patriarchy certainly does privilege men over women, but it also creates hierarchies within masculinity where specific forms of masculinity, namely white, cisgender, heterosexual, upper class, able-bodied, and capable of embodying the gender and sexual normative behavior idealized of men under hegemonic masculinity. The behavior praised by such hegemonic ideals includes suppressing emotions, avoiding crying, displaying violence and physical prowess over others, being the primary or sole provider for their family, or engaging in high-risk activities for the approval of others. The higher instances of violent death for men is also a dimension of patriarchy, and is something that feminism must seek to eliminate.

Intersectional feminist theory, especially transfeminism, black feminism, anti-colonial feminism, socialist feminism, and masculinity studies all work to highlight the unique ways that oppression occurs under patriarchy and the harms it perpetuates to everyone, including men.

[Empth]

To me, it seems like a downward spiral into misandry.

Some men don't want to lose their priveleges over women (because they are disgusting misogynists), leading a branch of the feminist movement to develop bad feelings towards that type of man and accelerate their activism, leading to those men fighting to maintain their bigotry, leading to that branch pushing harder and beginning to hate men in general.

There is also, God forbid, the aspect of SA in it. A lot of women can develop misandristic feelings because of past sexual assault and the trauma that carries. This is in no way their fault.

Feminism itself is often intertwined with misandry in a way that doesn't accurately reflect the values at its core.

[Grand Baslandia]

Feminism has recently taken on a heteronormative, gay-exclusionary edge. That worries me.
Like when there is a group of New Yorkers coming together to watch Heated Rivalry, and the only gay guy is excluded for being a man? The show is about gay guys. How is a gay guy not welcome to join a gender-non-specific group watching a show about gay guys?

I feel femenism as became more inclusive to gay men and not straight man.

Straight men in modern day femenism are shunned and are considerd in everyway terrible, while they seem to like gay men more, probably because they think they are not perpuating the patriarchy.

(had to try and say this in the least homophobic way possible)

I also feel Femenism is kinda sexist, because as another user said it should really be human rights.

Women and Men face different issues in society, both should be equal.

Men are not the enemy.

[Nilave]

Well, I think it's a overreaction; there's way more people against the women's right to vote than radical feminists, for example.

[Trumpanomics]

It most certainly isn’t by Trump, but many other countries do. Like Iran.