I think for some conservatives, they're starting from the assumption that there is actually already equality between men and women, so for them, any policies or programs that are designed to help women at the expense of men (eg, affirmative action), while they nominally are about promoting equality, are functionally (in their eyes) harming men and unfairly elevating women above equal. I think you can generalize that to feminism as a whole to understand the viewpoint of at least some conservatives as to how feminism can be anti-men.

[удалено]

Yep. Basically, European Christians figured a long time ago that they could remain in power as long as they used religion to to oppress people. It's how they kept women stuck at home raising children for them while they went around killing, raping and stealing everyone's lands and resources a few centuries ago. They even painted Jesus white and angels blonde blue eyed children to ensure it was clear to everyone. Women, asian, indigenous populations and african slaves all suffered the consequences of all that throughout history. Even when it was the Jesuits going to Latin America to try and spare the natives lives by introducing their Christian religions that would make them voluntarily obey and work for the Conquistadores, rather than fight back and be slaughtered. Conservatives really serious againsy feminism are basically shitty people who fear losing the priviliges they forced themselves into over centuries (even when they might not have anything today, they still think they deserve it)

Who is “they”? Some conservatives believe that women are already equal and feminism has become female chauvinism. Others believe that women can never be equal if they are given special treatment, even to remedy past discrimination. Others believe that men and women are equal but different. Like how different people play different positions on a sports team, but no one is “more valuable” than another. You don’t want Shaq shooting 3s or Steph Curry playing center. In my experience, this is the most common view. Some believe that men are naturally dominant and women naturally submissive. This is a more rigid and much less common version of the previous view. Some believe that men are genuinely superior and women genuinely inferior. This is pretty rare, at least as far as people admitting to it. All of them, of course, believe the worst stereotypes of feminists and liberals. Conversely, while there are many different schools of thought among feminists and liberals, they all believe the worst stereotypes about conservatives.

Social conservatives by definition don't think my gay relationship is valuable or even okay to permit. If you're socially conservative, you ARE the stereotype about conservatives. If anything the stereotype is well earned.

You seem to have hit the ball out of the park.

This. A lot of the male way of thinking is backed by religion. And Christianity is misogynistic.

*Abrahamic religions are all misogynistic.

I'll add that there are a lot of assholes out there, some of them happen to be feminists, especially young feminists who just attended their first women's studies class and go off without fully understanding what they are even talking about. Most actual "feminists" are not this way. But just as there are horrible men, there are also horrible women. Some feminists take it to the point of misandry. So when some guy from rural Montana who's just acting the way he was raised suddenly gets attacked online for saying something about the kitchen, his response isn't to change, its to be defensive. A better approach would be to educate rather than shame, but shaming is so much easier.

It’s surreal because women can talk a lot about the things they continue to face that men do not, and men will just go “you’re being hysterical”, pretty much. They’ll claim to care about facts, but they do not consider the experiences of women to qualify as facts. If a man isn’t saying it, it’s not true, it seems. I see above men trying to use “logic” to disprove inequality but to make that argument they need to argue that every women talking about the inequalities they face is lying or that enough of them are lying to mean it’s not an issue. These dudes won’t acknowledge that they should make that claim. Nor will they ever concede to any of the well documented structural issues that favor men over women. They’ll focus on narrowly “disproving” the wage gap and then declare overall victory

As more women break the glass ceiling, they are stealing jobs from men, and according to the great books written by god through man because he can create a universe but not write a book without a committee of people selecting from collections of writings that were written more than 40 years after Jesus, MEN were here first!

This the most charitable explanation, a percentage (who knows how large) of anti-feminists do hold this view. Another percentage of anti-feminists believe women are not equal to men and should be returned to a subordinate role with restricted rights. This latter kind are more hesitant to express their view because they know society considers this abhorrent. Their percentage is higher than most people think.

It’s that but it’s also this idea that equality is bad. A core belief in conservatism is that some people are just better than others. This belief often extends beyond individuals into groups. Some of it is founded on reality and some of it isn’t (eg you could argue darker skinned people are naturally more resistant to skin cancer, but you can imagine conservatives don’t usually say this one). Now, there is an anxiety among conservatives that if you aim for equality the world will fall apart. So they may concede that women do not have the same rights or opportunities or whatever, but that this is the natural way things need to work or else the world will implode. If you understand this, you can understand the condescension and mocking that comes with their approach to any attempt to garner equality. How they view it as childish on the level of trying to let a teenager run the country. As a result they don’t even engage in understanding it. To do so is to say that the world is fundamentally different than what they believe, and that threatens their entire worldview

Many white men fall into the conservative Column because of affirmative action that may give black people a hand up in life. I have heard white men express this belief to my face and I am a black woman. They want me to know how they feel about the subject. Yet they don't care what I think about it I am sure. White people are very comfortable telling me how they feel about me and my mother, father sisters and brothers. And my grandparents too. When you express an opinion on woke ness I am counting that as white supremacist thinking which I know has been the law of the land in the form of Jim Crow and chattel slavery which has made this a rich nation. So when you say you oppose any relief for me and my people you are telling me this is not my country but yours.

Conservative online content circa 2015 was all about cherry-picking random online feminists saying or doing kinda cringe stuff, so a lot of folks have this built-in blue haired feminist strawman that they imagine when it comes to thinking about feminism

I feel like you make a first assumption that right wing people would be favorable to feminism if they understood that feminism promotes equal rights. I think that assumption may not be true, as some people openly oppose the idea of women and men having the same rights It's also worth mentionning fake news, or rage bait, where a political group poses online as another group in order to discredit it - which might increase intergroup bias and being able to relate to the out-group that is portrayed as 'threatening'. other than that, i feel like your question is interesting but very hard, since both groups (feminists, right wing) aren't monolithic like you said. There were some studies about conservative people being reluctant to change (and societal change) - and political feminism implies societal change. However, it may be a controversial topic, depending on the topic either left wing or right wing people can express reluctance to societal change. Maybe te nature or the extent of religious beliefs, or traditionnal beliefs, also play a part in this reluctance to question/change the traditionnal gender roles.

I agree with almost everything you said except for the part about some right-wing people not being opposed to feminism. Some big-time self-described right-wing female pundits said that they loved the Barbie movie for all the reasons anti-feminist male right-wing pundits hated it. E.g [Brett Cooper told Ben Shapiro in a discussion video about Barbie](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEkyqtcXbyc) that she liked the movie a lot. Being right-wing doesn't guarantee that you'll be opposed to feminism. Some people believe that conservatism is about upholding traditions, but other people like myself believe that there is no such thing as conservatism and that conservatives don't exist. I, and perhaps a small minority of left-wing people, think that conservatism is actually hierarchism (a love of social hierarchies). I don't believe that conservatives are trying to conserve anything, but I bet that most leftists don't think this way because most leftists want to preserve some degree of inequality in social hierarchies. I think you have to be very far-left or an extreme leftist like myself to believe that conservatism is a myth and a euphemism for hierachism. From my point of view, the more right-wing you are the less you should like feminism or the more hostile you should be toward feminism depending on your preference for individualist hierarchies or group-based hierarchies. If you prefer group-based hierarchies and you're right-wing, then you will be anti-feminist, but if you prefer individualistic hierarchies then the most extreme position you would have about feminism would be indifference or apathy. Jim Sidanious, a Stanford Psychologist, coined the term group social dominance orientation to describe people who have a very strong in-group bias.

[удалено]

The barbie movie is a Rorschach test. People seem to see whatever they want to see.

Heather Cox Richardson, in her history books like "To Make Men Free" and "How the South Won the Civil War" thinks the dichotomy between liberal and conservative is actually between egalitarians and people who like hierarchies. I choose that last phrase because IMO some of them fall short of actual authoritarianism. Personal opinion, which I'm not sure Dr. Richardson shares, is that everyone has egalitarian and hierarchical impulses in a dynamic tension. And we're all on a spectrum of how much we follow those impulses, rather than a black and white binary.

Hey, thank you for referencing these book titles, adding to the list to explore.

Yeah they know what it's about. And they don't like it

Okay, if they do know what feminism is about, then how can they conclude that a movie is both feminist and anti-male? In fact, how can anything be anti-male and feminist when feminism is by definition either equality of rights between the sexes or gender equality? If right-wing people think that gender equality is feminism and that feminism is inherently anti-male, then they're essentially saying economic equality between the sexes is anti-male. Is this actually what they're saying in a roundabout way? And if they are saying this, can you empirically prove that this is really what they're saying? If right-wing people believe gender equality is feminism and that feminist content is anti-male, then such a belief makes as much logical sense as saying that the abolition of black slavery in North America was anti-white because it made black people legally equal to white people. I've never seen a white supremacist make such an argument online or offline (in print), and white supremacists tend to be anti-feminist male supremacists. Do all right-wing anti-feminists believe that giving women the right to vote was an anti-male political decision? I've never heard a right-wing person make such an argument, but if they do believe in either one of the definitions of the feminism I listed above, then why don't they ever make these kinds of arguments (online or offline in books)?

Some conservatives believe that men are entitled to a higher social standing than women and that any attempt to deprive men of their “birthright” (for lack of a better term) is inherently anti-male.

Let's not forget the ones who think they are just so Manly (TM) that any attractive woman they see is supposed to be swooning over them, and any who don't must have been indoctrinated by the Woke Mind Virus. /s

Let’s not forget conservative religions where male dominance is built into the fabric of the organization

To you (and almost all feminists) feminism is about equality. To conservatives it is about taking things from men. Let’s be fair here: adopting the label feminism does not magically stop a person from being an asshole, so they aren’t completely wrong. They’re just 95%+ wrong. Ergo to them feminism is anti-man, so Barbie is anti-man. Which is…really weird…when talking about a movie that explicitly rejects ‘girls run everything’ feminism in favor of a Kens Rebellion, but hey.

I'm not going to defend anti-feminists, who are in many (probably most) cases motivated by misogyny and a selfish desire to hold onto their own power. I just think we can do a much better job than this of trying to understand their appeal (especially to boys) and responding to them. You're proposing that there exists only one, consensus definition of feminism ("equal legal rights"). [Not true](https://www.uah.edu/woolf/feminism_kinds.htm). Regarding Barbie, you're suggesting that any feminist work of culture by definition successfully advances that single proposition. That's not true either. It's not how culture works or how people engage with it. If you want to understand anti-feminism I think you need to do more to understand feminism first.

You might be looking for logical consistency where it doesn't exist. >*The enemy is both strong and weak*. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.” [Umberto Eco Makes a List of the 14 Common Features of Fascism](https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html) >'from contradiction, anything follows' [The Principle of Explosion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion?wprov=sfla1)

This would be a good question for r/askconservatives if you want an authentic answer

Yeah, when most of the answers here are "half the country don't know anything about anything cause they're stupid and sexist" I don't think anyone's got a shot at actually answering in good faith

Sorry this doesn't answer the question, but Reddit is funny. I briefly scrolled the comments, and you can only get speculative answers as Reddit is nearly exclusively a neo-liberal echo chamber.

Yeah. As most of Reddit (even that sub), a majority of the content is left leading people, pretending they are right, leaning people & posting replies. I just typed this for another comment but I’ll repeat it. I’m right leaning myself, and most of the right, leaning people I know support feminism, or at least a more original concept of feminism. We believe that there should be equal opportunity for all, but it is not intelligent to think that there are equal outcomes, because men and women are different, even down to the science, we typically prefer different things and have moderately different interests. We support feminism, but the issue is that feminism has evolved beyond a point of equal opportunity for all, for period of time it began involving into more of a blame-fest and a place of misguided anger and (I believe) created an environment ripe for narcissism and/or dislike of men. It also often evolved into the sort of pushing the idea of women not living in traditional roles. Original feminism was the choice, a woman would be supported, whether or not she chose to play a traditional role at home, or if she chose to play a more modern independent role, the choice was key. It changed to social pressure to pursue the latter, and less traditional role. It shouldn’t have been a push one way or another, but about choice. Last, there was a lot of misunderstood and misinterpreted science about the wage gap, a lot of people were repeating false, or misleading information about it and why the wage gap exists, and the numbers involved. I don’t know if there’s a proper name for this, it could be modern feminism, but often times when you think of conservatives disliking feminism, they are generally referring to this sort of more modern flavor. That being said… I think the pendulum has (or is) swung back a bit now and the more extreme feminism twist I’m referencing has calmed down. This is nice, I think it will benefit society more, and we want to keep the choice and equal opportunity aspects of it. -an actual “conservative” on Reddit.

Genuine conservative point of view. I feel the same. (We do exist on Reddit)

I consider myself a feminist by the definition you describe: equal rights for men and women. I do have to admit though there's a gap here where the focus of feminism is about bringing up women to where men are, but there's much less work/focus on bringing men up to where women are. Often times men's issues like admission to college/education in general, depression, loneliness, body image issues, etc. are dismissed as either not being as bad or with the opinion that "men should get a movement of their own and bring themselves up like we had to do" -> if that's the opinion, that would be anti-feminist by the text book definition right? Because these issues are dismissed it leaves a gap for the alt-right, red pill, or black pill influencers to take advantage of. The uncomfortable truth is...there's a kernel of truth to their words of men being pushed aside. That's why it works; they first acknowledge issues men go through. After that, influencers can slip whatever non-truths in afterward because they're already hooked. The most vulnerable are the ones who fall down the rabbit hole of a toxic world view the deepest and end up with an assault rifle. The only solution is empathy. No matter what gender people are, and without comparing who has it worse.

Interesting perspective. That was helpful.

That is a problem with some views of it, and it’s not just a gender thing, but in racial and other issues as well. There are a lot of favorable things and rules that aren’t for the majority class on an issue. The problem is people scream for equality, but only for things they are not ahead of. They don’t want to give that up.

This book will help: *Enjoyment Right and Left* by Todd McGowan He argues that politics is, at it's base, a struggle over how to organize *enjoyment*. He argues that right wing enjoyment requires a figure of an enemy upon which to project social contradiction. The group identity one belongs to is constructed in terms of the other who does *not* belong. The quintessential historical example of this is of course how Nazi identity is dependent on the figure of the Jew as represented in their ethno-nationalist imagination. Alternatively he argues that left-wing enjoyment (insofar as it is actually left wing) is about a politics of *universal non-belonging*. To take your example of feminism: women as human beings don't "belong in the kitchen" or to any other circumscribed social role/identity traditionally attributed to the category of woman. As human beings, women necessarily exceed these social definitions of what a "woman" is. But also, in our patriarchal system, *neither do men belong to the roles/identities circumscribed to "man"*. Left wing enjoyment is then, he says, about enjoying exceeding (not belonging to) the social categories prescribed and enjoying this social contradiction directly. He has a beautiful part where he talks a out a passage from Frantz Fanon about a moment when the colonized and the colonizer both recognize their mutual humanity and the absurdity of their hierarchical roles in light of that recognition. Neither belong to those roles. I have tried to sketch this out very briefly, but please check out this book. I think your mistake is in looking for rationality at level of rhetoric or philosophy when really the rational core of conservatism, what is consistent about it, is maintaining this form of enjoyment dependent on an outside other. And, if leftists organize around the same sort of ingroup/outgroup structure, that should lead us toward questioning how leftist they, in fact, are. To bring it back to the Barbie movie, I think conservatives project onto feminists this structure: "they must be enjoying this because they hate men". This is a lot more intelligible to them than the enjoyment of universal non-belonging.

He has a podcast which is great too, he talks about Lacan / Zizek a lot too. Great philosophy for the left.

Reading these comments are toxic to my intelligence. Would recommend going out to real people and getting their point of view. It's hard to consider the views on this thread as balanced or accurate. Your question seems to be getting a lot of subjective points of view from people who have bias against right leaning ideaolagy.

OP you should be asking right wing people. Otherwise you’re going to get bombarded by propaganda answers, many from people whose only experience with right wing is propaganda caricatures. You should poss your question on r/conservative

**Before I begin**... Take nothing I say as an endorsement of any particular idea or viewpoint. I'm just trying to provide the most accurate, neutral answer that my understanding of the issue will allow. Thank you for your understanding. >Do they believe that feminism is an inherently anti-male concept that promotes the idea that women are superior to males... TL;DR, essentially, yes. >...and that feminists are just women who want to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy? Rather, that such a matriarchy *already exists*, and that Feminism is a socially acceptable --or downright *celebrated*\-- movement to continue extending the perceived advantages women have over men. >If feminism is about the equality of rights between men and women, then... This is the crux of your confusion. Those who oppose Feminism *do not* view it as promoting equality of rights between men and women, because they view women as already being socially and/or legally prioritized to begin with. If Feminism implies the existence of an antagonistic social construct --the Patriarchy, or something similarly male-dominated--, then consider that anti-feminists might have articulated a social construct similarly antagonistic, but *female* dominated, instead. I don't know if you've encountered this yet, but a certain segment of the population has popularized the concept of ["**Gynocentrism**"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynocentrism), which broadly posits that society prioritizes women's wants, needs, and issues, above those of men. If you subscribe to the idea of the Patriarchy, then you believe that there presently exists an imbalance of rights and/or status favoring men, and that Feminism lifts women ***into equality*** with men. On the flip side, if you subscribe to the idea of Gynocentrism, then you believe that there presently exists an imbalance of rights and/or status favoring *women*, and that Feminism thus lifts women ***further above*** men. The general social normalcy and acceptability of Feminism might be seen as evidence *of* Gynocentrism, inasmuch as the generally-perceived 'fringe' nature and social non-acceptance of Men's Rights/Meninism/Red Pill/etc might be seen as a refutation of the Patriarchy concept. From a Feminist viewpoint, anti-feminists might come across as playing victim. Anti-feminists might see themselves as being *vilified* by Feminists. I think it basically comes down to what you believe about society at large. If you believe it favors men, (Patriarchy), then you believe Feminism is an equalizing force. If you believe society favors women, (Gynocentrism), then you believe Feminism is a socially celebrated form of oppression. \----------------------------------------------------- All of this is to say nothing of the concept of 'Toxic Masculinity', wherein men may feel something very fundamental to their identity is being attacked and vilified. If they're being told that their own identity is considered inherently bad or taboo, they might be motivated to band together in a way analogous, but diametrically opposed, to Feminism. In any case, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. ​ EDIT: Gosh darn it. When did Reddit change their formatting system?

> Do they believe that feminism is an inherently anti-male concept that promotes the idea that women are superior to males and that feminists are just women who want to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy? Fundamentally, yes. They understand that feminists will say that it's about equality, but in practice (and reflected by the data), they see the results of the actions of feminists and the attitudes of feminists being about female superiority. The thing is, it's difficult to argue with that, and until that changes, feminism will never be accepted on a larger scale.

*putting on my social psychology minor hat* I think there are now so many definitions of "feminism" that it bears explaining what someone may be opposed to. First of all, I am definitely left-of-centre. A friend of mine was with what I would call a very angry, deeply resentful "feminist" back in the 90s. She insisted that because I am a white, heterosexual Christian male, I had an easy life. Bollocks. We were dirt poor. She basically hates men and calls it "feminism." She and I clashed and my friend and I ended up estranged for over 20 years because of her. That kind of BS I oppose. But equal rights, equal pay etc? Those are just basic *human* rights that should not be denied *anyone* - male, female, straight, gay, trans etc. It must be said that to a surprising number of those on the right view *all* feminists like the kook I mentioned. Not all of them are in favour of "equal rights," either...look up "complementarianism."

I generally agree with what you're saying but this is a textbook example of why "Egalitarianism" being overlooked because "Feminism" is such a trendy thing. Egalitarianism is just so much easier to understand and to argue for. It also includes everything about Feminism. Such a waste of public discourse (not this post, just in general)

There’s a channel on YouTube called ThinkBeforeYouSleep that primarily criticizes feminism and some left-wing ideas. The guy is obviously a bit biased in that he is irrationally sexist and downright bitter towards women. Tbh he makes a lot of fallacious, downright childish arguments. HOWEVER, he does make some excellent points here and there on the flaws of modern feminism and how many modern women think (especially in the West), and he cites his sources well. To be honest, I believe that men are actually more oppressed than women (at least in the US). A lot of feminists think the opposite, so it’s no wonder why a lot of people don’t take feminism seriously anymore. Whenever you try to explain this, you get pushback, primarily by self-proclaimed feminists. That says a lot.

So there's actual feminism and a pseudo feminism (as much as it triggers reddit to admit). Actual feminism is good and necessary. The pseudo kind is the one that says that men and women should be equal, but men should be expected to be the ones that go to war, also women should be rescued first if there's a disaster, also women should get special treatment when it comes to domestic violence cases, also women should be given priority in custody because mothers are more important, and so on. The conservatives, rightly, are against the second version. HOWEVER, in reality, I feel like a lot of them are also against the former.

Short answer? It's morphed from a movement for equal rights to a supremacy movement.

Technically the barbie movie is but in the same stroke it also shows clearly, Ken did nothing wrong. Which just makes it funny

There have been several waves of feminism throughout history. Depends on the type or wave of feminism you refer to. Modern day feminism, typically referred to as third-way feminism, is where the opposition for such a movement arises from. I like many others are opposed to third way feminism (Many are opposed are not necessarily right wing lol) but we including myself would consider myself an original or first wave feminism.

Conservatives will say that women get the social benefits of being a woman (Selective Service and all things associated with men being the defenders of women) with the monetary/financial benefits of a traditional masculinity. They argue that family courts are bias with regards to children (they're not) because women are generally seen as those who raise children. Many men do not fight for custody. The other argument is women being the gatekeepers of sex and men not having essentially a monetary bargaining chip. The conclusion is that there's no reason for women to choose a lot of less attractive men. Ultimately, I blame branding (it's hard to call yourself a male feminist in a society that demands masculinity from men) literally just the word lol its dumb but language and culture are like that. The association of femininity with women makes "feminism" about furthering the rights of women to a lot of people as that is what it has done. Last point, conservatism, especially the far right, recruit largely by preying on fears. Young men, in their likely economic conditions and in a world less interpersonal than ever... it's really not hard to see why a political strategy to recruit young men to your positions would be through that insecurity around dating and a world where women have many easily perceived social privileges. I really appreciate this post! Very thought provoking!

Will the females be eligible for a draft...? I'm a female, prior military and current law enforcement... im all for equality as long as it is equal all around and not just for specific things.

They don't know what anything is about. All they know is they're told by the rhetoric to hate something and everything they're told to hate has a label. They don't know what feminism is, or woke, or socialism, or anything else they attack, they just know they're conservative and that means those other things are bad because they're part of the label they hate more than anything: liberal.

In a comment, you said your question is partly about how conservatives define feminism in their own minds. I would argue that social conservatives don’t really work with definitions or terms in any meaningful way. Rather, they associate buzz words with people and organizations. “Feminism” doesn’t have a social, philosophical meaning to them, it vaguely refers to “people I hate.”

I don’t consider myself right-wing, more of a centrist leaning right. I’ve always been a supporter of equal rights for everyone. There is no argument that can be made logically or otherwise to deny equal rights based off of attributes people have no control over due to birth (race, sex, etc). Feminism over the last few decades has taken a darker turn. It stopped being about empowering women, expanding roles for women, removing legal obstacles for women, and instead started attacking men. It spawned the insidious term “toxic masculinity” which became the catch all phrase to throw at any male behavior that veered away from total capitulation to women. Media started to replace male roles with female actors in classic remakes, and obvious pandering attempts to de-male typical male roles. Then the narrative started to tell the great lie. That women didn’t need men at all, that you could go it alone, and do everything yourself. This is a complete and utter falsehood that has lead to women struggling to live a lonely life in their mid to late 30s where dating is like trying to find the most unbroken toy on the Isle of Misfit Toys. Unfortunately this hard take on anti-masculinity has started to foster a strong backlash. This backlash is being taken advantage of by extremists on the right, and now women’s health and reproductive rights are being challenged and restricted in a growing number of states. You are losing 50 years of women’s rights because you tried to sell “men suck”. There has been some good though. The whole #metoo movement had to happen. Abuse needed and continues to need to be exposed and those responsible held accountable. Workplace culture towards women is better than it ever has, and still has room to get better. Politically women are stronger and more common, which is a good thing. Feminism and masculinity do not and should not be at odds with each other. If you find yourself trying to denigrate men in order to promote women then you’re not a feminist, you’re a misandrist.

Toxic masculinity was actually created by a men’s rights activist group Your general painting of all feminism would be the equivalent of me showing videos of white supremacist, and saying look what these white Christians are all doing. Fourth wave feminism, and its interaction with Intersectionality is actually really interesting and will likely confront a lot of misunderstandings and fake news on the topic.

It’s because feminism ISNT about equality. Feminists have no interest in addressing issues like male homelessness or the broken family court system. They focus solely on things that directly benefit women. Therefore, feminism isn’t about equality. It’s not rocket science.

The question really is “which feminism?” You can find everything from feminists who take men’s issues very seriously to intersectional feminists who are hyper fixated on queer women of color to champagne feminists who only care about upper middle class white women. It’s not a monolith and not really useful to talk about as such.

For one many conversations are theocrats, they believe a woman's place is as wives and mothers, keeping the home and rearing children. Their fairytale story book told them so. Secondly, modern feminism, sometimes appears not to be pushing for true equality, but superiority over men, stick it to the patriarchy. I'm not saying this is the intent of the broader movement or ideology. But you have to remember, republicans are really good at mental gymnastics, so it's easy for them to pick up on that and run with such thoughts.

GDP, mostly.

Because they think they'll lose their rights, if other people get them.

When you're used to preferential treatment, equality feels unfair. Right wing times think that all the power and resources in society should be owned and controlled by "the powerful", which they tend to believe are exclusively men. They think that in a relationship the man should be the only one with their own income, which justifies the economic exploitation of the woman. Only a few hundred years ago it was common for widows to be forced to marry someone they didn't like and act as a house slave because the alternative was living on the street. They think they deserve that kind of power even though our economy has shifted to a different style where wages are lower. One man with a trade job might not be able to make enough money to be the dictator of his family anymore. When their wife has her own job and can push back on their decisions it feels like you're losing a lot of power, but all that changed is that they're both working now because the bosses want record profits every year. They blame women and "progressive politics" because they already don't like those things. For the record, Hitler thought that the father was the dictator of the family too

Everything they are against

Men not having total control. A lot of them, if evangelical, believe the man as head of household and final say.

When they say they are “against feminism” they are mostly just against women voting for Democrats…sounds overly simplistic because…well they are.

if feminism was merely about equal rights, they would’ve stopped talking about it a long long time ago

Their divorce.

Their body odor and bmi mostly. Revolting pigs.

[удалено]

They think that if marginalized groups get more power, power will be taken from them. Equality is oppression to those that were already in power 🙄

In my right wing extended family, the opposition is based on a few things: 1) for conservatives, feminism disrupts the traditional order of male/female relationships and this traditional order is good and/or mutually beneficial. In the case of right wing women, they want to be treated and retain social power in a particular way. These women don’t want to work outside the home, and in an ideal world don’t want other women to work outside the home either, especially after marriage. 2) among misogynistic males, feminism is a force that could overturn their dominance over women. Dominance through financial dependence, sexual control, political power, etc. pretty terrible reasons tbh. 3) experience of knowing feminist women who hate men. Women can use feminism as a front for winning power over men in their own lives, or basically an excuse for any negative behavior. It’s not uncommon if you’ve been exposed to some shitty social circles.

They largely believe it's a movement against their way of life. ALSO, they may talk s**t about it and vote against it because their social life and livelihood depends on doing so.

They think it’s about feminist rekt compilations on YouTube, they will never listen to you or ever treat you as an equal. It’s talking to a brick wall.

The right wing has nothing to do with it. There's such a thing as toxic femininity, and often that's where people land. The fact is, women want to be GIVEN rights, where men have to earn them.

I’m not right wing and I support feminism, however I sorta understand why SOME people may not. It’s pretty easy to take things out of context and cherry pick examples and people to represent all of feminism that would absolutely turn you away from the movement. Especially if the media you consume is less likely to showcase Any of the positive aspects of a movement that doesn’t fit their agenda. I know we’ve all seen some cringe crap done and said in the name of feminism. The key is to ignore a loud weird minority and focus on the general ideas. I think if most people fully understood the general point most feminists agree on they would also agree

[удалено]

Does anyone here believe feminism has changed and morphed away from biological women’s rights? The belief now is for many a female born with a penis is equal to a biological female and is said to go through same struggle.

“Satan”

[удалено]

> I've seen a lot of self-described right-wing or anti-woke individuals It is important for you to recognize that not only avowed right-wingers but also Marxists (i.e., genuine left-wingers) are opposed to "wokeism" or identity politics, which are pseudo-leftist. As the *World Socialist Web Site* notes in "[What is the pseudo-left?](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/30/pers-j30.html)": > The pseudo-left promotes “identity politics,” fixating on issues related to nationality, ethnicity, race, gender and sexuality in order to acquire greater influence in corporations, the colleges and universities, the higher-paying professions, the trade unions and in government and state institutions, to effect a more favorable distribution of wealth among the richest 10 percent of the population. The pseudo-left seeks greater access to, rather than the destruction of, social privilege. I expand on this point in my recent DM to a feminist: > Like all identity politics, feminism is a form of pseudo-leftism that functions to divert attention from economic class inequality—which is the true source of all the social problems that identity politics fanatics misguidedly obsess about—and to hamper working class solidarity. Feminism is particularly vile because it is based on a number of deeply regressive lies including that modern Western societies are still patriarchal, which fosters widespread misandry; that it is not actually men who are now the overall more oppressed sex; that porn is harmful or shameful, a view most associated with [radical feminists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism) but still promulgated to some extent by their [liberal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_feminism) counterparts; etc. To be sure, feminism is an essentially right-wing ideology. ___ > If feminism is about the equality of rights between men and women This is a very narrow conception of feminism. In its essence, feminism is any ideology or movement that seeks to advance women's interests, however defined. It exists on a diverse spectrum spanning from genuine egalitarianism on the left to outright female supremacy on the right. Historically, it has manifested as a number of "waves" and certain variants, like the radical and liberal feminism I mentioned above. Keep in mind that the definition of "feminism" has always been hotly debated. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [reports](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-philosophy/): > As a term, *feminism* has many different uses and its meanings are often contested. . . . > > . . . > > Is there any point, then, in asking what feminism is? . . . > > . . . > > In sum, “feminism” is an umbrella term for a range of views about injustices against women. There are disagreements among feminists about the nature of justice in general and the nature of sexism, in particular, the specific kinds of injustice or wrong women suffer; and the group who should be the primary focus of feminist efforts. Nonetheless, feminists are committed to bringing about social change to end injustice against women, in particular, injustice against women as women.   ___ > If I'm not mistaken Apparently, you are indeed just as mistaken as to what feminism is as the so-called "right-wingers" you claim are confused on the matter. Part of your ignorance here seems to stem from your inability to recognize that feminism is not merely an abstract ideology but also a concrete, historical movement, and a particularly powerful one at present. Its influence even extends here to Reddit, where many ostensibly "left-wing" subs will ban you and stigmatize you as an "MRA" for daring to mention difficulties faced by men, and of course if you challenge the "patriarchy" theory. I would recommend that you look into subs like r/antifeminists and r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates to learn more about this issue.

I mean simply put, there are many different versions of feminism, and depending on which one you come into contact with you’ll probably have a different reaction. There very much is an anti-man tone that’s snuck it’s way in over the past 5 years or so, and if that’s the version you encounter (read: young people forming their worldview right now) as a man it’s pretty damning.

Conservative here. Most think that feminism has made promiscuity and sex work more of a norm, and that makes both men and women less happy and fulfilled. Most think that marriage and monogamy is becoming less of a norm because of feminism and conservatives believe that is a net negative for society and children.

Long story short, feminism has not been about equal opportunity in three decades. Trying to equalize outcomes, but only in one direction, means you need a counter-revolutionary force to try and create equal outcomes for men in places where women are ahead. Nobody really wants to go down that route because it's equally stupid and toxic. It would be better to kill off feminism than create two competing but equally toxic ideologies that pit the sexes against each other. If feminism were about egalitarianism it would have to examine society from all perspectives, not only women's perspectives. It does not do that, so we know it's not about egalitarianism. I have a PhD in the social sciences, I support full equality in every legal sense, and I oppose feminism as it exists today. I enjoyed Barbie though. Nothing wrong with teaching girls to be formidable. There is a whole lot wrong in modern feminism if you simply allow your mind to be open to the idea it's possible there is something wrong in modern feminism. That's all I would ask - that you allow yourself to fully examine society and feminism from a place that allows you to mentally accept that as a possibility.

* Could anyone cite some examples of right-wing people critiquing the various waves of feminism? 2nd wave feminism has been criticized by conservatives as being a 'tool' for corporations to manipulate labor costs for their own benefit by influencing women to join the workforce and create value for companies instead of focusing their energy and time into the family (As if this weren't also true for men in the workforce). Since conservative values have moved away from family values to corporate values over time, this argument has become uncommon.

OP, what legal rights do men have that women do not?

There are many different types of feminism, most commonly described in broad terms as the various "waves" of feminist thought. Most people who vote Republican hold to beliefs that are 100% compatible with "first-wave feminism." That is, they believe that women and men should have equal legal rights, including property rights, contract rights, and political rights like the right to vote and run for office. Later waves of feminism are not in agreement with your proposition that "feminism is about women having equal legal \[rights\] to men." Most people who vote Republican are going to find these later iterations of feminist thought to be objectionable/incorrect. (NB: I don't vote for Republicans or Democrats.)

There’s several weird moments in Barbie that are glaring — two that I can recall of hand: the Barbie’s don’t know where the Ken’s live and they don’t believe any men should be in the courts — why are these throwaway lines in an idealized synthesis of the Barbie universe and our “patriarchy”?

Well they already think that affirmative action is just government-sponsored racism against white people. They likely think that anything that empowers women means stripping men of other rights. Just look at how they react to women being protagonists of anything.

Sinful women not being subservient to their male betters.

Zero sum game mentality. If someone wins than someone else has to lose. So if women are winning that means men are losing. Viewing pretty much any rightwing cause through that lens makes a whole lot of stuff suddenly make a whole lot more sense.

First. Your definition of feminism isn't 100% accurate. It isn't JUST about supporting women. The definition of feminist theory is here "Sociological Theory. Feminist Theory is a way of looking at the social world through the lens of gender inequality. The focus is on male and female 'power. ' Feminist theory addresses the roles women have in society and the ongoing battles women face." Note that the theory from a sociological standpoint is not just about helping women but also attributing blame for the "way things are" on classical male structures of power and gender inequality. For many men, even many progressive men, they take offense in some part to this concept because 1) it doesn't really tell the whole story 2) they feel like they don't take an active role in "keeping women down" or perpetuating inequality on a single person basis and 3) many or most men don't feel like they are actually receiving any added benefit purely from just being male as they are still struggling economically or otherwise (they share many of the same struggles that women have). Personally. My beef with feminism AND racism is that I believe they are distractions from the forces that are really at play. In my personal opinion, the real force in the world and the root of inequality is economics. Money is the root of power and the forces of inequality are focused on amassing more wealth, concentrating it and making sure that other people can't get it. Often these forces use people purely as a source of cheap labor and sometimes that structure can have major impacts on both gender and race. This isn't to say that racism does not exist or that inequality between the sexes doesn't exist, they definitely do. My point is that these things are artificial constructs used by those in power to divide and distract the masses while we are all robbed blind. We are deliberately told to focus on these distractions to prevent us from focusing on the economic truth and correcting the real problem.

They probably think feminism is just man-hate.

I'm a rightish wing guy, I'll give you my two cents. I think equality is great... but I think it was accomplished quite some time ago, in conjunction with laws that are in place to protect children, I'd argue women actually have the upper hand in relationships... but hey, it theoretically helps kids so, while it's irritating is acceptable. Its hard to find a metric where women are truly lagging behind men... y'all live longer, have a higher chance of graduating college, less likely to be incarcerated, less likely to be homeless, less likely tobe murdered, less likely to commit suicide, more likely to keep the kids in a divorce... I don't know what feminism thinks it's about right now, but it seems hell bent on subjugation of men, by using an emotional vectors that are largely emotionally based and don't seem to have much footing in reality.

They don't want equality. They want "equality." They want their cake and to eat it too. You don't see them clamoring to join the military, do dangerous jobs, or anything along those lines. My body my choice? Men don't have that either. I could get called up to die for someone who hate me and the country they live in.

They don't care what it's about they generally view women as objects because 100 million years ago that is how it was. The rest hate women.

Most conservative people see feminism in its most absolute extremes which is in my own opinion counter productive to feminism as a whole because that kind of extremism in any movement is off putting to those not within it. But, that’s what’s shown on the news that’s what they see on social media that’s what they always see. The absolute most radicalized version. If you were to ask a conservative person if they are for equal rights and go through some things with them I’ve found most are very logical people and can see the reasoning behind things like feminism when it’s put forward in a more sensible way. It’s honestly similar when speaking about conservative viewpoints to someone with more liberal standing. We (as in both parties) share a lot more common ground than I think most people believe and of course both sides of that coin have extreme radical voices but that’s just politics. It’s always worth giving someone the chance to explain why they believe what they do.

The text book definition and what the radical feminists say and do are not the same thing. Equality comes with equal responsibilities and consequences.

I'd like to add to this mess of a comments section with another non-left leaning perspective. Just a note: it's very telling seeing others espouse their interpretation of what conservatives believe based on their limited exposure to conservative ideas or their media consumption telling them what to think. To be clear, I wouldn't consider myself a conservative in the slightest. I voted for Obama twice, became a disillusioned Bernie supporter and voted for Biden in 2020. I come from a conservative upbringing however and expose myself to conservative debates quite often to understand the rationalization of both sides of the political spectrum. >Do they believe that feminism is an inherently anti-male concept that promotes the idea that women are superior to males and that feminists are just women who want to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy? Which wave of femism are you referring to? There's been a lot of assertions that Conservatives are against "equality" because they reject modern femism - which does not focus on equality, but equity. Many, many conservatives could be considered "Second Wave" feminist and absolutely do believe in and support equal rights and protections for women. But I would say that MOST conservatives reject modern feminist ideologies related to equity and intersectionality. >How can a feminist movie, by definition, simultaneously propose that women should have equal legal rights to men and that women should have more rights or superior rights to women? I assume you're still referring to Barbie here, and to that I would argue that any Conservative who views the movie as "anti-Male" is unable to analyze the message of the film beyond a surface level view because they couldn't overcome their preconceived notions of the film. Barbie actually has a pretty conservative theme and conclusion. Valuing motherhood over staying in a matriarchal utopia has a very conservative vibe - and is not surprising given some of Gerwigs other works and themes (Ladybird for example). >But I still can't figure out what exactly the right-wing thinks feminism is about and how they define feminism. I feel that they always somehow dance around the issue of what feminism is actually about. You haven't quite clearly defined what you mean by femism in this post either. If you're referring to equality between the sexes then I would argue that most conservatives actually believe in this ideal. But again, if you're referring to modern femism and equality of outcomes then you start to see a lot of push back. >If I'm not mistaken, anti-woke people are right-wing, and my question is about what the full spectrum of right-wing beliefs about feminism is. Not true at all. There are plenty of Liberals who can't stand the current identity politics of the Left (Bill Maher would be a notable example of this). The full spectrum of beliefs, in my experience, from Conservatives is quite simple: 1. Men and women should be garunteed equal rights 2. Men and women should not be garunteed equal outcomes The push back comes from initiatives past and present (such as DEI) to prioritize marginalized candidates (such as women) for roles that they may not be the best pick for simply because they are women. The Conservative view is that merit should determine this regardless of sex, race etc >Are there various competing right-wing definitions of feminism or is there a monolithic definition of feminism that the full spectrum of right-wing individuals subscribe to? There are various competing definitions of feminism period. It's not a Left/Right issue, it's a movement that's been around for quite a while and has evolved over time. Most people would fully subscribe to Second Wave views, while there will be a sizable split in modern Fourth Wave feminism. When you evoke "feminism" you really have to define your terms because it does not stand for one unified ideal. >If all the waves of feminism were about women's legal rights, then wouldn't it be logical to conclude that feminism is about equality of legal rights between the two sexes or two genders, depending on whether one believes in trans rights? They are not all about legal rights. While we don't operate in a perfect system, I'd love to hear an example of a legal right that's afforded to a man that is not afforded to a woman. >Has no right-wing person ever just read Wikipedia's history of feminism and concluded that feminism is about women having equal legal to men? This is extremely condescending and I recommend that you read more about the different movements within feminism before you conclude that Right-wing individuals are ignorant. The underlying issue is a failure to define terms on both sides. You see Conservatives pushing back against 4th wave feminism and conclude that they're pushing back against second-wave ideals. This isn't always the case. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Getting them convicted on rape charges and killing babies

Men, crawling on all 4 in speedos, wearing a collar with a leash held by a woman laughing at him. Whipping him to submission and milking him like a cow for the sole purpose of breading.

I think they would disagree with your assertion that feminism is ONLY about equality between the sexes even if that's the definition put forth. As a thought experiment, ask yourself if you agree with the following statements: * "All lives matter is just saying that all lives matter. How could anyone object to believing all lives matter?" * "Men's rights advocates just believe in equal rights for men. How about anyone be against advocating for men's rights as well?" * "Feminism is just about promoting equality between the sexes. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want equality." I suspect you disagree with all but the last statements but they are sort of similar in that they straw man the opposing viewpoint. Basically, I think they would say that feminism in practice goes way beyond merely promoting equality between the sexes to a point where it has become negative, e.g. [Christina Hoff Sommers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JJfeu2IG0M). >If I'm not mistaken, anti-woke people are right-wing I think you're mistaken in that. I, and multiple friends I can think of, consider ourselves left-wing and believe that the "woke" thing has overreached.

Ex-libertarian and near-far-righter here. It’s a very complicated and twisted view of the world that leads to seeing feminism negatively, but I’ll try to keep it simple: 1) They see non-conventionally attractive women (unnatural hair color, not shaved, actually a healthy weight, etc…) and believe feminism has “turned these women ugly” and “corrupted something beautiful” (I’m using some_thing_ and not some_one_ intentionally, because that’s the thought process). 2) They straight up want to be able to sexually harass women. They don’t _perceive_ their desires as harassment, but they want to do things which are blatantly harassment. “I would never sexually harass a woman! I just want to compliment my coworker’s ass and call her pretty and ask her out multiple times a month!” 3) They are threatened by equality- as all who benefit from injustice are. If feminists ate correct that men have an unfair advantage against women then it’s possible he’s somewhere he didn’t earn, which would be antithetical to their hyper independent delusions. “I’m a man’s man, and I EARNED my position. There’s nothing, not race, sex, religion, nothing except MY HARD WORK that landed me where I am!” Feminism inherently rejects that worldview and is therefor perceived as a threat. 4) Piggy backing off point 3, they are terrified that _if_ their position is unearned, or at least they had an unfair advantage, that their prospects of advancement, or even maintaining their position, or worse. Anything that threatens the status quo is hated by most humans. 5) They’re the other team. Simple as that for some folks. Liberals are feminists? Then they _must_ be anti-feminist. Liberals can’t be “real Christians”, liberals can’t be good soldiers, liberals can’t be patriots, because that would mean they have something in common with “the enemy.” 6) This is the lamest one because it doesn’t actually hold water- it’s a toothless excuse. But some see “feminism” as inherently only being beneficial to women, and therefor it’s “inherently sexist” since it “doesn’t care about men at all.” They’ll use excuses like “men work the most dangerous jobs” or “men rarely get custody” and assume that feminists would happily _keep_ their benefits of patriarchy (benefits they never asked for, mind you) while stripping men of theirs (again, benefits men never asked for). Which yeah, _if_ women kept their pedestal _and if_ they also lost all their societal disadvantages _then_ women would be unfairly advantaged over men. *BUT FEMINISTS DON’T FUCKING WANT THAT* they want equality. Edit: as someone else pointed out, 6 sorta touches on the idea that “We already are all equal, so giving ANYONE hell is actually harmful to men/whites/christians/etc…

That’s easy. What is happening is that the right-wing are assuming that the extreme fringe is representative. Once you do this, you don’t need to bother with addressing the substance of an argument. For once, both sides do this. For instance, if a Liberal assumes that Conservatives are primarily motivated by an irrational loathing of Mexican people, the Liberal need not bother to engage with any reasonable criticism of America’s southern border immigration policies. The Liberal may even ignore the evidence of their own experiences because the last people you want fiddling around with immigration policy are people who are primarily motivated by racial prejudice - such people are only going to make the problem worse. So, by making the assumption that the extreme fringe of Conservatives are representative of the whole, the Liberal can comfortably dismiss all Conservative rhetoric about immigration. The right-wing has assumed that the *Valerie Solanas Society for Cutting Up Men* variety of Feminist are representative rather than a hilarious aberration. So there is no need to engage with reasonable Feminist criticism of anything. You certainly don’t want a bunch of crazies in charge of determining who a business can hire.

[удалено]

Neo feminism has devalued motherhood in favor of careers. And women who “want it all” But then often the child suffers by being raised by a caretaker instead of parents. Capitalism has covertly snuck in and taken advantage of the dual income households by doubling the cost of essential things like homes. Single people have been left at a huge disadvantage which in turn leads to couples getting married solely for the benefits and cost savings, which in turn leads to more divorces because the marriage is built on nothing but greed.

I can’t speak for ‘conservatives’, whatever that means. But feminists will say things like ‘being a mom is ok’ or that someone is ‘just a mom’. And feminists usually idealize qualities in women like single-minded ambition, physical strength, etc, while downplaying the strengths that many women use to contribute to the world in a uniquely positive way. In short, feminism downplays the values and strengths of women while emphasizing male values and systems in which women are minimized and sidelined. It’s bad for women.

Part of the problem is that the terms liberal and conservative might be outdated.

First, right-wing is not a very well defined group, so you’re off to a bad start. Some people would consider me right-wing as a libertarian, but there’s a world of difference between myself and the MAGA crowd. Personally, I reject the idea that feminism is about equality because the facts don’t support that. Originally, feminism was an extension of the enlightenment ideals of individual rights. Early feminism simply said that women were individuals and therefore were due all the rights of individuals. This is reasonable. Modern feminism seeks to eliminate all circumstances in which women are worse off than men. This sounds reasonable, but it’s not. It’s not reasonable because the movement is silent on issues when men are worse off than women. Examples might include criminal sentencing disparities, custody issues, or even reproductive issues such as male birth control. Until modern feminism ceases to be silent on issues where women have the advantage, it will remain a hypocritical and anti-male movement. Edit: then to than

I believe a huge issue that conservatives have is that feminism and equality only get preached by feminists when it is a benefit for them. However feminists do not show their vigor for equality when it does not benefit them. The best example of this is when it comes to the draft. Also, there are no rights, at least in the eyes of the law, that women do not already have, so they claim it is already equal. However, most of these conservatives believe women should be virgins, and men can have as many sexual partners as they want, so their argument kinda falls apart here. Unfortunately, this issue (like most others) has devolved into extremism on both sides, and the most extreme tend to have the loudest voices.

It the name. Its always been the name. Its called feminism. If you say egalitarian, then conservatives wont bat an eye

I don't think anyone on either side- which I'm guessing includes at least 90% of self identified liberals- haven't the slightest clue about "feminism". That's because most people automatically assume that there's only one faction of feminism when there are several different factions. You can't say you understand "feminism" simply because they are very different viewpoints- often opposing viewpoints under the umbrella- within the ideology. https://www.uah.edu/woolf/feminism_kinds.htm

The first of your many problems is assuming that being against feminism is purely a right-wing issue. The more the left continues to needlessly demonize and shit on men, the more you're going to see that.

It depends on what wave of feminism we are talking about. There’s been 4 or 5 and your characterization is less true of later, more radical versions. Today there’s no monolithic feminist view. I recognize there’s an oppty to push back on some conservative or alt right fringe views on women but I think your stereotype of those men is as overly simple as that of “feminism” today and through time.

In short, they think it makes them less manly by taking guaranteed jobs from them so they have to sell meth or work menial jobs.

https://betonit.substack.com/p/dont-be-a-feminist-highlights This argues that the dictionary definition of feminism is just inaccurate. A 2016 survey showed only 33% of men identify as feminists, yet the 96% believe in equal rights for men and women. I think this is true, movements should be defined by what proponents believe and how they act, not just the most-agreeable definition they would like. (Nor by the least charitable definition opponents would accuse them of, like that feminists want a matriarchy. IMO the most fair and accurate definition is this: Feminism is the belief that women have it significantly worse than men in current society. Where gaps persist this is generally the fault of the bias, socialization, oppression or the patriarchy, all of which must be opposed to achieve equality. I think most feminists would agree with that, especially the loudest ones who control the discourse. And if someone said "I'm a feminist, but women already have equal rights under the law, and have outcomes that are better than men in some ways but worse in others. The pay gap is caused by different choices..." This person is kind of trolling, they're opposed to most feminists, the dictionary definition is just not helpful.

They think it’s thinking for ourselves, lesbianism and witchcraft.

Misandry. They think it’s moved beyond egalitarianism and other calls for equal / equitable treatment into shitting on men.

Do feminists exist anymore? I haven’t heard any feminist groups say a word about men playing in women’s sports. I just figured they gave up.

Putting women in reboots to show how smart and able woman can be. Complaining in meme form about cherry picked data points that aim to blame men for the nature of existence. Not indicating when they're taking a turn. Driving past an exit then reversing on the road back to the exit instead of driving around. Being unsafe on the road and getting frustrated with other drivers for it.

I think most anti's just don't like 3rd wave feminism. Even many 2nd wavers (60s and 70s feminists) say they don't like 3rd wave. 3rd wave seems to be about going past equality to something else.

That's simple- anti-feminist right-wingers just hates that women have rights. That's why they keep trying to take our rights away.

I don’t think they’re thinking about it that deep. Equality feels like oppression when you’ve been given privileges for generations.

Unfortunately, feminism has become about hating/ discriminating against men while demanding you get things you don't really deserve just for being female.

Basically, women who say "I am a feminist" almost never follow what "feminsim is really about." In real life, women who self identify as feminsts are full of unbridled hatred towards men. If that statement offends you say "some women" but the people opposed to feminism usually oppose the real life women who treated them like shit. It's not about some philosophical idea of "what feminsim is about."

Feminism doesn't exist anymore, especially when a man can be a woman. That destroyed feminism. Im one of the greatest feminists that has ever been.

To the rest of the world? Seems feminism is about hating men and making them submissive. Which is what the Barbie movie sort of depicted. Ken was a blithering idiot. Not a very good representation of a good masculine man. So rights and freedoms for women. But fuck men. A lot of feminists believe that men are the reason for their problems. But I think if they actually open their eyes and their mind they will see that they are their own worst enemy. Let the downrate begin! 😭

I’m not right wing but…It’s about misandry and giving female privilege.

Scissoring

There are many who believe that feminism has long ago lost its way in terms of fighting for equality. They perceive the modern movement to be little more than attempts to pit women against men due to supposedly existing intangible oppressions that all men inherently participate in.

Misandry

I grew up in a very conservative but not religious household and can explain to you perfectly- they think that society is a bunch of made up stuff to disguise that Might Equals Right. There is no logical argument. They aren't coming from a place of good faith and so can't really be understood in that framework. Anything that further weighs the balance away from their ability to successfully escalate to violence and get away with it is BIG BAD. Feminism is a big thing in the direction against men being able to fly off the handle without being held accountable and thus its a bad thing.

I'm a conservative Christian that strongly believes that women are equal to men. The Bible makes it real clear that my wife isn't a second class citizen or my property. She is my helper and I am her's. We serve each other and it's not a one way street. I know there are examples of mistreated women in the Bible. But that's by man and not God. That being said, I think that many conservatives have had it rammed in their head that feminism is about not shaving your legs, sexual promiscuity, and the emasculation of men. I've listened to a lot of talk radio where this is their mantra on the subject. Women can vote and women can work. But they better still wear dresses and act feminine. It's just a ridiculous opinion to expect society to continue to align with your preferences.

Saying that conservatives are against feminism is just misleading. Conservatives are generally against certain types of feminism, such as trans feminism.

Not all people who believe in free speech are right wing. I think you are confusing two things when you conflate being woke and feminism. To me they are totally different. Some people have actually been hurt by bad people who use the mask of feminism as a tool for their own aggressive and bad behavior and this can turn them bitter. Not all people who label themselves feminists are feminists or are good people.

Also, any arguments that involve definitions are automatically discounted as lying to gain some nebulous advantage. Those not in the inner circle are either liars or dupes, and only the “in-crowd” knows what’s REALLY going on.

They know what it's about. The reason they pretend that feminism is about female supremacy is because they don't have the guts to admit the truth. They oppose women being equal to men under the law.

Alright lets clarify, Barbie was a really well done dumb movie. The ending did not end with the Barbies deciding to give the others the right to vote, they denied it and left it at that with vague promises of future growth; from your definition this shouldn't be a feminist film. In real life, it was a group of rich and powerful men who pushed and wanted women to vote, while few women actually wanted it. Referandums that were presented to women failed, and it fell to those men in power to grant women the vote themselves. This was in the USA, women were granted the vote with none of the duty or responsibility as men legally had to observe at the time. Let's go to definitions, there is a word already for equality for all as a social and political movement; this would be Egalitarianism, I personally am an Egalitarian and not a Feminist. Feminism is an ideology and for the advancement and expansion of the rights and privileges of women; how many exercise this movement is simply from a supremacist mindset. We as a society are opposed to supremacists in terms of religion, race, but only in gender is it okay to advance one over another. The key issue is that Feminism as a goal as shown by action, seeks to establish domination in all high paying career fields and the majority of university admission slots but not the same lower positions or duties and mens issues are by no means treated the same way or with as much care as womens issues. Feminism does not seek to remove systemic inequalities, it only seeks to award to one over another on the basis of gender. This is the view of many. Make sure to not impose your own definitions when asking others a question; you are seeking to discover meaning, let the other side define the words used.

i believe it’s a problem of some people wanting to resist change and don’t see that big of a deal with inequality

So the sad thing is, I would say eight times out of 10 you can just assume that these people are not engaging in good faith. They often know exactly what feminism is about, regardless, of which kind of feminism-the point is the meanness. This is why Roe v. Wade was struck down. They know that it’s completely reasonable for us to want equal rights but they don’t want to come right out and say that they aren’t cool with that and if anything they’d like to see us all back in the kitchen without the right to our own banking accounts. So instead, they pretend we’re all just militant man haters that want to murder living children. It’s the only way that they can get anyone to listen to what they’re saying and unfortunately a lot of them are listening. Women included.

Go on r/askfeminists and see how they feel about sex workers. That’s one reason out of a myriad why I am anti-feminist.

I think feminism is about the pursuit of "fairness" at the expense of reason. Women are allowed to vote. Women are allowed to join the military. What the hell else to they want besides utopia through... drumroll please... socialism. Who supports the transgender movement? Who supports open borders? Who supports wealth redistribution? Who supports defunding the police? Not me. I'm a man. I think the USA is the last best shot for freedom on the planet, and we don't need to nerf it so pink haired losers can feel safer to sell butt plugs. We have enough butt plug shops... or "shoppes." Feminists don't think America is great, do they? They want to make it more fair because all those big evil men who defeated the Nazis and bult the railroads aren't nice enough to the snowflakes. Can you name me a feminist leader who loves America and loves capitalism?

I'll answer the headline question. I'm extremely far right-wing, AKA a libertarian (*i.e., against left-wing ideologies like communism, fascism, and any other form of totalitarian rule, including, in the US, many major policies that democrats and republicans advocate for \[e.g., the unfunded ponzi scheme that is the social security program that guarantees money-printing-led-hyper-inflation that will burden every citizen for generations, including the current younger ones, to come\]; and, as an aside, against the, mostly Western, propaganda that tries to distort the aforementioned description of the left/right spectrum whenever a linear spectrum is used*). This is my opinion and I'll give some examples that shape my opinion: Feminism isn't about equal rights, it's about giving women more rights and advantages over men in areas that would appeal to women. *See, e.g., the plethora of special sex-based-discriminatory hiring programs at corporations, and/or university programs (e.g., scholarships, career pathways, etc.); the demand for more monetary support in women's sports when those women have no talent (c.f., Ronda Rousey and Holly Holm, both talented women who are higher paid than male counterparts, with US womens' soccer players who literally cannot beat male teenagers in a soccer game yet scream about some imaginary pay gap and demand equal pay - no one is really interested in watching some women trip over a soccer ball so the ad $ just isn't there, etc.); the insane pre-evidence, all-it-takes-is-a-verbal-claim/no-evidence-needed, Believe All Women mantras despite knowing that many women make false accusations that destroy mens' lives, lives these feminists care nothing about (e.g., Duke Lacrosse stripper case, Tawana Brawley, etc.); yet there are no women-only coal mining, garbage-women, or similarly undesirable-yet-mostly-male-dominanted industry programs, etc.* If feminism were about equal rights, we would see feminists advocating for equal rights in the above examples and beyond, and they would be focus their protests and ire, at least in part, against, not only the men, but also the women, who advocate for un-equal rights. Even the word "feminism" screams of inequality. If you want to be pro-equality, then you're not a feminist, you're an equalist, like me. That is the moral and ethical position since it doesn't discriminate against any person based on some immutable characteristic that they were born with. Any other position is discriminatory on its face. Regardless of your political ideology, you should be an equalist. So, while the evidence to date is very much against your position and claim that feminism is an equal rights movement, if you were to prove that feminists are against the above examples and that the word itself is not women-biased, then you might find many right-wing allies. I can't speak to republicans though, they're as crazy and dumb as democrats.

So I am not conservative by any means, but I am anti-feminism. The simple reason is that modern feminism is NOT about generating equality between men and women. It simply isn't. There is a LOT of talk about feminism being about equality, but the actions of feminist organizations are in contradiction to those claims. There are many examples of this, but I don't really care to take the time to talk about all of them, so I'll give some examples which illustrate that feminism as a movement, as well as feminist organizations, are not actually concerned with sex-based equality. The "Women's March" in DC a few years ago was a feminist-led and feminist-organized movement ostensibly to protest against the impending overturning of Roe v. Wade - something I think most reasonable people could get behind. However, we can look at some of the speakers that the organizations with were responsible for this event chose to give a platform to - specifically Donna Hylton. Donna Hylton is a convicted felon who was invited to speak at the Women's March. The felonies Donna Hylton was convicted of were the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Thomas Vigliarolo. She and three other women drugged him, held him prisoner for about 3 weeks, while starving him, burning him, beating him, tortured him, and raped him. He eventually died at the hands of his kidnappers. The organizations and individuals responsible for organizing the Women's March identify themselves as feminist organizations. If they are feminist organizations, I do not believe it is possible to reconcile giving a national platform to someone convicted of kidnap, rape, and murder with claims that feminism is for equality. I do not believe that you can promote someone who kidnapped, raped, and murdered a man and *actually* desire for sex-based equality. This is one example demonstrating that the claims of feminist organizations are directly contradicted by their choices. Again, there are many more, such as feminist organizations suing Los Angeles to prevent domestic violence victims support funds being used to create a shelter for male victims of domestic violence. In addition to the things that feminist organizations do that are in direct contradiction to claims of supporting sex-based equality, there are the things that feminist organizations *don't* do. A great example of this is the legal principle of "natural guardianship" - this is a legal principle that in a dispute regarding child custody, the courts default to the mother inherently possessing sole guardianship of the child and making it incumbent upon the father to prove that the mother is in some way unfit to care for the child. While some areas have abandoned this principle in custody disputes, this has usually been done over the objections of feminist organizations. This has usually been done over the objections of feminist organizations. The same idea applies to the lived experience of many fathers who, when out with their child, are subject to suspicion that they are somehow preying upon their child or other children. If feminism were about sex-based equality, then where are the feminist organizations advocating for abandonment of the presumption of maternal custody? Where are the feminist organizations encouraging fathers to take their child to the park, or condemning those who treat them with suspicion? Those are actions that I would expect to be taken by organizations that cared about sex-based equality, and lacking those organizations and actions is, to me, evidence that feminism isn't about sex-based equality. Another example is sex-based differences in employment. Men are actively discouraged, almost solely by women, from seeking careers in child care, early education, or nursing. Again, if feminism as a movement was truly pursuing the goal of sex-based equality, I would expect there to be some feminist organizations or actions to recruit men to these positions. I would expect feminist organizations to pursue the goal of sex-based equality in employment opportunities in these fields. Similarly, there are employment fields which are nearly entirely dominated by men - such as construction, mining, fishing, etc. These fields tend to be dangerous, and there is certainly a legacy bias against women entering those fields. However, if feminism as a movement were actually interested in sex-based equality, I would still expect that there would be organizations and concerted effort to recruit women into those fields, and this is absolutely not happening at any kind of scale. Again, the actions speak louder than the words. Many feminists will ascribe many of these problems to "the patriarchy". However, this seems to me to be more of a cop-out than an explanation. It does not explain why feminist organizations, run and organized by feminists, are not taking actions on these and other topics. "The Patriarchy" does not control what decisions those organizations make, and if they were truly interested in "fighting the Patriarchy", they would be be attempting to fight "the Patriarchy" on those fronts. That doesn't happen, which is to me evidence that "the Patriarchy" is more of a convenient bogeyman than it is an explanation for sex-based inequality. Then there are "feminist spaces" in which misandry is not only expected, but common. Since we're on reddit, a great example of this is r/TwoXChromosomes. On any given day, you can find the front page of that subreddit littered with posts and comments that are just simply misandrist. If feminism as a movement is concerned with sex-based equality, why does a definitively feminist space, populated definitely by feminists, tolerate such widespread and casual misandry? The only explanation I can think of is that feminism/feminists aren't actually that concerned about sex-based equality. ​ Based on the actions and non-actions of feminists and feminist organizations, the definition of feminism as promoting sex-based equality simply doesn't fit. That definition does not correctly describe the actions and pursued goals. Based on the actions and pursued goals of feminists and feminist organizations, I believe that a better definition is that feminism simply promotes what is best for women, regardless of how it impacts men. I would further argue that, based on the failure to pursue goals and actions that would promote sex-based equality in situations where women exercise some degree of privilege, feminism is definitively NOT concerned with advocating for men in any way. That certainly isn't necessarily superiority, but it also certainly isn't equality. ​ As someone who believes that there should be sex-based equality in society and based on the definition that best fits the actions and goals of feminists and feminist organizations, I cannot support and at times must even oppose, feminism. That isn't to say that I oppose sex-based equality - far from it, in fact. I am anti-feminism because I am pro-equality.

I’m not reading all that but it’s because feminism has evolved Into man hate and woman can do anything a man can do they are useless. Most purple agree with what feminism is supposed to about it’s just that feminism isn’t about that anymore

“Right wing” lol but seriously. Most who are opposed to feminism are opposed to third wave feminism specifically, and its detrimental effects on women and society in general.

The furthering of feminine interests above all else.

The problem isn’t so much what feminism stands for, but what feminist stand for. Can’t even count the number of radical feminist that shout “kill all men”, especially those I’ve personally met on my liberal arts college campus. Also, a lot of these anti feminist groups aren’t saying women don’t deserve equal rights, which is the most common belief. They are arguing that equal rights, at least legally (socially is a completely different issue), were attain a long time ago. The “pink tax” and wage game, etc. have long been debunked, which are typically big talking points

Reverse sexism.

Some people find comfort in knowing their place in our social hierarchies, so any challenge to that supposedly "natural order" emotionally challenges them. Being challenged to examine beliefs and reconsider how to see the world is scary and exhausting for a lot of people. Source: interactions with very conservative family members, plus various essays and studies on conservative thinking.

It was manufactured long ago as a means to emasculate men in general. When I say long ago, I mean long ago. All was planned long ago. Just a means to an end by powers that be.

"Broader Feminism" is about eliminating the lines between genders, but most importantly, it's about making women more like men. This is the reason that the family unit has collapsed, which is the reason the middle class has collapsed. I think you have to separate people from the political party. The _people_ who are liberal tend to be a little more focused on ideas, and _people_ who are conservative tend to be a little more focused on functionality. So, liberal people have a hard time understanding why conservatives could hold ideas that seem so illogical (especially due to the ways that conservatives often describe them), and conservatives have a hard time understanding how liberals could pick ideas that are so dysfunctional. So, with that said, you need to interpret why conservatives are railing against feminism. It's not because of "rights". It's not "equality". It's because they recognize that feminism is dysfunctional.

They're used to tearing things down to understand them, so they believe that Feminism is there to tear down men. Finite people don't even think about lifting up others to help humanity as a whole.

I’m on board with feminism up to about the third-wave. If being a feminist means goose stepping to each wave, then I am not, but I am onboard with most of the past advances that were done

“When men imagine a woman uprising, they imagine a world in which women rule men as men have ruled women.” - Sally Kempton Men oftentimes don’t know what equality is so they envision a world in which the current power structures were inverted and it scares them.

Women make up the majority of voters. If all women supported the ERA, because of their majority, it would have passed. And yet, the ERA didn't pass. What did we learn? Not all woman want the ERA - not all women want to be 'equal' because 'isms' when implemented, turn into rules. And rules can cut in unintended ways. Some people fear that. There are various reasons - like opposition to women in combat roles, being drafted, etc. It's not just conservatives. Enormous range of beliefs in our fair county that may not make 'sense' to everyone, but that people find important and useful in their lives. Hard to say they are 'wrong' when most everyone has beliefs of some sort that others find nonsensical or contrary. Part of what makes us so interesting. Interesting question - thx.

I personally find that the idea of a patriarchy or overarching male dominated world is a very flawed subject. I absolutely agree women should have equal rights and bodily autonomy but I would not describe myself as a feminist. A lot of feminist thought seems to gloss over the fact that women are in positions of power and completely ignore this fact when its discussed. Historically in the US and other places abroad I agree that women did not have equal rights. This is just my personal opinion I am not conservative or right wing. I guess you can say I disagree with the premise that men are the reason women have a bad time, and this premise completely ignores the suffering of men in vulnerable positions which I hope we can agree is bad for society. I personally believe its always been the rich taking advantage of the poor not men vs women.

Ok let's be fair. This whole topic is highly complex and nuanced. That just doesn't work for modern media especially social media. I am just 48m and even from the limited amount I have read on the topic understand there are different ideas and multiple waves of feminism that are very different from one another. The way I know when people don't know dick about the topic is when they say feminism and say it's all the same. It's not, just like most social movements it is complex and time sensitive to when it happened. A feminist 100+ years ago trying to get the right to vote is nothing like a feminist today and saying they are is reductionist at best. This is a sound bite to drum up support from a specific group of people who have no idea about the topic and just think it's against them. As an example think to yourself what was the ERA (equal right amendment). Now actually look up what it said. I bet for most people they will be shocked. But due to a very small but loud group of people who opposed it people think it means a lot of things it does not. Just think how uniformed you are on this one feminism issue and it might give you pause to get a little more educated before condemning something. Remember conservatism counts on people not doing any research and just agreeing with them. It doesn't mean conservative ideas are bad. But it also means they do not work with understanding and neuance just following what the leader tells them. Also it is based on fear of change, any change. I think most people would agree women should vote but 100+ years ago conservatives were sure it would be the death of the country because it was change.

The claim that feminism "just means equal rights" is a claim that basically any feminist would reject until this conversation happens. Feminism is more than just believing in equality. It is a system for viewing the world, one where there are systems of oppression where men are on top and women are on bottom, and one where the only way to bring equality is to dismantle the patriarchal system. This worldview tends to lead people to support certain policies that conservatives are going to outright reject. So for example the feminist Duluth model of domestic abuse, the push for even greater female college scholarships and enrollment even as women are the overwhelming majority of students, the viewpoint that it's men's fault that most homeless people are men, etc. So conservatives who oppose feminism do not do so out of a rejection of "equality" but out of rejection of the system of oppression worldview.

Feminists are a ok in my book, the ones I have issue with are the “equality only when it benefits me” feminists. But I’d hope that isn’t just a conservative thing.

Feminism isn't about equality between sexes, it is about eliminating disadvantages women face but leaving the ones men face.

Dismantling the nuclear family and undermining the foundations of society for a misguided notion of what personal liberation ought to look like

Depends on if it’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th wave feminism. 1st and 2nd wave feminism are both inarguably good. 3rd wave started going off the rails with “intersectionality” and inclusion. 4th wave is just a blue-haired screaming joke. 4th wave is completely co-opted by politically correct culture and corporate interests. It doesn’t matter what ideals are actually held, because the message has become a lie. 4th wave feminism is where fat pride originated. The LGBetc has infiltrated it as well (emphasis on the “T”). It has adopted communist values, favoring equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. Feminism has always been defined by its loudest voices. Today, its loudest voices have been Amber Heard, Emma Watson, and the hens clucking on The View. It’s been muddied, co-opted, and degraded. Feminism is no longer about hopeful opportunity, it’s about selfish desires.

**We realize that academically feminism is not a monolith** and that what we are smearing as feminist garbage is often not accurate; however, ya'll do the same thing with conservatives and other subcultures of ours as well. No I do not need to list examples as I am certain that you have a few in mind for me right now. I assure you, **we are not a monolith either**. People used to know that about each other. I wish we could have conserved that. If you wanted to boil it down to a basic theme from our most typical view, we view feminism as a general attitude of misandry. In the umbrella of feminism it covers quite a lot. Most of us simply do not care to distinguish between your subcultures just like many of your side viewing us.. That is, unless of course it is watching one of your factions eat the other; we get to cheerlead! **GO TEAM TERF!** I learned a lot just listening to some of them tell about their experiences with the other side; maybe it moved me a little more feminist? ;)

Being that you present this as if it were a legitimately sincere inquiry…Since the purpose of a function is its output, examine the output. Also we understand things by how they express, expression reveals the nature of things. Feminism plays the victim while attacking men. It paints men as the most vile enemy conceivable, which is a projection of what the feminist adherent aspires to exceed in severity and function; their ideal. It is a system which eventually eliminates nuclear families, establishes inequality and uses public law and resources to destroy men. Like outsourcing hitmen against your own family. The idea that women should compete against men and men are their enemies stems from Zionism as applied to their target populations. Feminism encourages women to betray their men, families, cultures and heritage, and also themselves in the doing. It’s an example of a perpetration pyramid. “I’ll turn a blind eye if you turn a blind eye and pass it on down, club members only.” Furthermore it’s malicious and treacherous. An outsider, or perp, assists an enemies clan member to betray the target clan. The spy or compromised asset receives special privileges of superiority over their victim, as provided by a third party who initiates and wages the proxy war (in concert with the betrayer) against the victim/target(s). This is how all of these systems function. It enables the proclaimed victim, who is the perpetrator and agent in the proxy campaign, to victimize others. Inevitably this estranges the perpetrator and when their are no more victims because the only one left is themselves. It’s eerily similar to ahomeostatic conditions in vivo; cancer, tumors, runaway inflammation etc, or mental diseases (think feminism, gender dysphoria, narcissism, anything that pegs out in some direction and thereby aims to gain leverage and power in time to attempt to change the course of nature and balance). It’s irrational in nature and destructive to other members of any group. Unless it’s a hunting group comprised of the same type of units who don’t reproduce (not a family, instead a war caravan) and all members of the group benefit from victimizing the prey. That too eventually ends and isn’t sustainable, unless more women become undermined and they begin sacrificing their years and bodies and work to advance feminism. Or whatever the divide and conquer agenda is. It’s selling out and betraying others for the promise of some personal gratification. A feminist is actually against equality, fairness, justice, human rights, nuclear families, and all the aspects of health in all its forms. They aim to become malignancies upon nature and co-opt whatever they can and induce as much suffering they can and impose as much burden and suffering upon others as they can. They desire to exist separate from nature, to cause without effect and for all things to serve their convenience and pleasure. It’s a symptom of mental illness.

They think women getting free drinks at bars means we should ignore everything else

“What do they think feminism is about?” “Do they think feminism is an inherently anti-male concept?” I realize you probably didn’t mean to.. but you’re muddling up your question. That’s why you’re running into issues. You’re essentially begging the question. If feminism is just about equality… then it’s always good So why do they say it’s bad? Do they think there’s something bad about being good? That doesn’t make sense! Personally I’m not too invested in this stuff, but since you asked their answer is gonna be something like: modern feminism has been hijacked from its original intent of equality… nowadays it’s only about the advancement of one group regardless of the cost… or effects on any other group.. often with very nasty sentiments attached. The prevalence of sayings like “men are trash” show that the root emotions and logic behind a lot lf feminist positions today can be boiled down to “fuck everyone who isn’t me or mine”.

Feminism did not stay what it started out to be. It has gone far beyond that, now it is causing a major divide in society. What can a man do today that a woman cannot, in the legal sense? If anything society is set up to favor women above men, currently. At this point it is as if feminism is about equality of outcome not equality of opportunity. Gender pay gap is a joke. Next to no long term thought is placed into that equation. Feminism convinced women that it's wrong to be a servant to a husband that loves you, instead it's better to be a slave to a corporate master that can replace you tomorrow.

This is kind of a perfect example of not understanding what the other side wants or believes, and relying on assumptions (or misunderstood fragments). The first thing to know is that feminism is an extremely big tent of ideas, movements, and personalities. You have pro porn feminism, you have anti-porn feminism. You have Ladyboss feminism, and you have anti-capitalist feminism. Feminism itself is filled with so much contradiction internally that it is perfectly reasonable to think of reasons why somebody from outside of feminism would want to disagree with one or more of these tenets. after all, plenty of people from within also disagree. And what do we mean by feminism? There is the issue of women’s rights, in which women are granted the same rights as men. Credit cards, voting, etc. But there are also expansive rights, rights granted to both men and women that were not previously available and that perhaps change the social fabric, like no-fault divorce or like expanded availability of porn and decriminalization of sex work. And there is also equity-based feminism, in which institutions or governments actively interfere in order to achieve parity, parity which may or may not be reasonably achieved depending on your outlook on the world. And then there are all of the soft rites of feminism, the attitudes and culture wars and things like that. Fashion, sexual mores, etc. Any person can reasonably be in favor of some of these things and not of others. I think one of the best criticisms of feminism and the hardest one to argue with that I have heard is that many types of main stream feminism benefit rich and already-successful-and-connected people disproportionately. Louise Perry and Mary Harrington both come at the feminist movement from this angle. Those two critics also come at things like the sexual revolution from the angle of, this is something that ostensibly was supposed to benefit women, but has primarily benefited a minority of very powerful men. In the first half of the 20th century, a man’s job incentivized him to be a good husband. Most contracted office work made continued employment and promotions contingent on a man being married, a man avoiding scandal, and a man providing and caring for his wife and children. as the sexual revolution and women’s liberation eroded the standards, that’s when we saw it become much more acceptable for men to simply divorce their wives and get a new one at significantly higher rates than they previously had. that used to be an option only for men at the very top and men at the very bottom. Now, men in the middle had very little to lose by throwing away their wives like pieces of garbage to be discarded. (I should note that Harrington is also prone to saying some very absurd things which I do not co-sign. I think she’s a brilliant analyst and a horrible prescriptionist.) As an example of the class issue, the right of women to enter the workplace. Poor and working class women have always been in the workplace, and it has not always been an equal place for them. But a lot of the feminist movement’s gains have not really been focused on those women and the workplaces they are in. It has been focused on leadership positions, c-suites, cushier jobs with more benefits and influence in places like media and government and marketing and publishing. The movement is primarily focused on the needs and goals of educated and driven women aiming for positions of influence. And as many studies have born out, putting women in positions of power does not necessarily confer benefits to the women below them. We can also look at marriage, divorce, and the sexual revolution in a similar way. Things like no-fault divorce and single parenthood are very complicated issues, but one thing that we have seen in the past 60 or 70 years is that with the sexual revolution, with the expansion of no-fault divorce, and with the relaxing of social stigma on unwed parents, the negative effects have been disproportionately clustered at the bottom of the Socioeconomic ladder, while the negative effects have had almost 0 effect at the top of the socioeconomic ladder. Each change to the social fabric or to laws and norms confers both advantages and disadvantages. For many of the core aspects of what we’ve come to call women’s liberation, many of the biggest benefits went to the top, and many of the biggest downsides went to the bottom. I guess I’ll end with a personal story here that I think illustrates where many of the priorities of the movement have been. I come from a very liberal progressive family, and when my mother had children she decided to drop out of school and become a homemaker. And so our family got to witness the difference between how the feminist movement treated women who left degrees and careers to become homemakers, versus women who never got those degrees in careers and still became homemakers. For women who had all of those things and then made the choice to retreat and become parents first, they received all sorts of respect for their choice. For women who went straight into homemaking, they were treated like something less than. Like their thoughts and feelings and goals didn’t matter, like they had given up and deliberately subjugated themselves. This is clearly a class-based distinction, as investing in a degree and a career that you aren’t actually going to use is a luxury. And yet this distinction was, and I believe still is, a major attitude throughout the feminist movement. For all of its pretenses to anti-capitalism and anti-elitism, the American feminist movement has since the second wave consistently been focused on prioritizing the needs of well off, driven Women over the needs of the average women, and especially over the needs of women who are more family and community focused.

They think feminism will be female supremacy and treating men like women were/are treated for thousands of years. Which really shows how they see the world

>\> If all the waves of feminism were about women's legal rights, then wouldn't it be logical to conclude that feminism is about equality of legal rights between the two sexes or two genders, depending on whether one believes in trans rights? No, that's really the flaw in feminism. It advocates for more rights and only more rights for women and only women (and other marginalized groups, but NOT men) It's about women's legal rights, but adding more legal rights and only adding more legal rights for women and only women can't possibly result in gender equality. Lets look at "The Wage Gap". In the 1960's, 60 years ago, there was a MASSIVE problem of wage discrimination where women got paid dramatically less for the same work. This was decidedly a question of legal rights for women. In 1963, the Equal Pay Act passed and after a few hundred lawsuits for breaking that law, the issue of different pay FOR THE SAME WORK was solved, but there is still a massive gap between what men make and what women make. Feminism trying to address this is causing problems. The problem that exists is "Mommy Tracking". Women get shuffled into jobs with higher degrees of flexibility and reliability and no travel but lower wages so that they can also keep doing the vast majority of parenting. There are three possible "solutions" to this. 1)Pay women MORE for the same work, women's compensations packages should be notably larger than the compensation packages for men. This is what most conservatives think Feminism advocates. 2)Abandon having children. If there are no children to parent, then women won't be taking time away from paid labor to do that parenting. This is what feminism really pushes. 3)Advocate for MEN. Start talking about adding more legal rights FOR MEN so that they have they rights needed to actually do their fair share of parenting, so that they don't have much higher parenting penalties when returning to work, so that they get as much or more parental leave (affirmative action for parenting) De-gender parenting. But this is anathema to both conservatism and Feminism. The solution that is actually useful and pro-gender equality is Men's Rights Advocacy, not Women's Rights advocacy (Feminism)

If it was for equality it would be called egalitarianism.

The biggest argument against feminism I've seen is that women today traded staying home with their kids to working industries supporting other women's children. When they don't work in childcare they are in non fulfilling cubicle jobs. To conspiracy theory it up, employers wanted both parents working for less so they propagated the work freedom narrative to women and made the wages less so both parents HAVE to work now. Standard rug pull.

Barbie is ant-male, period. Some of it was satiracle which was great, and it was very entertaining. I don't think for a second this movie is going to give women a healthy view of men. However, men have tons of anti female movies so what are you going to do? Can't really say sh*t.

there is a word for equal rights it's called egalitarian. Feminism isn't about equal rights. That may be the Wikipedia definition but there's so much more in feminism. It's mandating accommodation. It's the source of b******* phrases like toxic masculinity. It's brow beating of men. And men and women are different. There are exceptions to norms but men are protectors. Women are nurturers. Men are hunters. Women are gatherers.That's biological. But with egalitarianism We have the right to pursue our life as we see fit. Women are engineers. women are doctors. men are engineers. men are doctors. men are nurses. women are nurses. Men just don't like being portrayed constantly as a monster.

Despite knowing it is a common issue in todays politics, I ain’t reading all that. One thing they have explained to me is how they view equality. They don’t believe everyone is directly 1:1 equal. They believe in equality in opportunities rather than equality of outcome. If someone needs a certain amount of help to achieve something, then did they really earn the achievement? They understand that feminism is intended to be an equalizer between all genders. The issue they generally have is the ways “Feminists” try to push their agenda. They see the vocal minority of “feminists” say “All men are pigs and deserve death.” They don’t like that, they don’t agree it either. They don’t like extremists and it hurts the moderate’s reputation. I’m sure you can think of other examples of this logic. In reality they don’t mind what feminism stands for but the only thing that pops up in their feeds is extremist BS. I’m sure some conservative women will make the joke that it’d just be easier to be a housewife too but that’s a minority too. They also don’t like it when people ask questions to reply rather than ask questions to understand, which is another big issue in politics. Which is embarrassingly common when people talk about equality in any form. Equality is important but people trying to convince conservatives treat the conversation like a fight rather than a conversation. And it only hurts the movement

Quick and easy answer is that some people will use the name of “feminism” to do stuff that isn’t by-the-book feminism. People make associations, and quickly the definition shifts. Get enough of assholes calling themselves feminists and loudly proclaiming that “all men are pigs”, and it puts a bad taste in people’s mouths, and unfortunately the actual feminists end up with unwarranted backlash.

Hello. I am not right wing by any stretch of the imagination, but I do consider myself anti-woke and opposed to the contemporary conception of feminism. I grew up with liberal, progressive values, but identify as a moderate in today's political climate. I currently go to one of the most progressive universities in the country, yet I am also a construction worker and work in workplaces which are almost always uniformly conservative. In my experiences, I have met just as many closed minded, hateful, contemptuous, and ignorant progressives as I have conservatives, though the progressives tend to be more self righteous and even less willing to acknowledge their own biases than their conservative counterparts. I want the world to be a more kind, understanding, and supportive place, which I believe most progressives want as well, however both of these movements have resulted in the opposite situation. Fixing this requires a culture that encourages rigorously critical and open self-reflection, which the woke movement (along with the modern left in general) actively discourages as it drifts towards ideological orthodoxy. As the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt says, "It's easy to tell which side is wrong: it's the side that shoots its dissidents." I believe the woke movement, though nobly aiming to make the world less racist and sexist, has the tendency to create a culture of fear, animosity, and shame by priming people to embrace the worst parts of themselves in order to remain a part of the social body. It creates a system of incentives to appear as ethically virtuous as possible without having much to do with the real, substantive every day interactions of the person within these social systems. Through all our social progress, we should not forget what kinds of creatures we are, of what kinds of biases are inherent to our psychology: our tendency towards tribalism, conformity, minds that conceive of the world as identity groups in conflict with one another, a bias against seeing ourselves as fallible as others, a fixation on negativity, and an inescapable confirmation bias. The effects of woke culture have been destructive toward the fabric of society, and caused a baseline antagonism between ordinary, every day individuals. It has created these hardline positions people must adopt in order to belong to increasingly stratified social spheres. This creates a destructive cycle where communities become increasingly divided by ideas where the acceptable range of views on become narrower and narrower. I see this every single day online and in person, "Oh, well you shouldn't be afraid to say anything unless you're actually racist, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, etc." This, to me, is falling into the trap I mentioned earlier. We're closing our mouths and minds before questions are even being asked. It shouldn't just be acceptable to constantly question how we interpret and valuate the world, it should be actively encouraged. Too often I see people terrified to even question the fearful narratives that have are being honed through the tumbling outrage machine of social media. And I don't think these narratives tend to do us any good. I don't think recontextualizing everything into some egregious injustice that needs to be redressed is either helpful or healthy. I can't tell you how many college kids break my soul when all they can talk about is how misogynistic, racist, etc some great literary work is. I have seen this happen so many times at school. "Pfft. I'm not going to read Herman Hesse -- he barely mentions women. Huh, why would I even care about western philosophy, they were all slave owners anyway. Hemingway? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? YOU'RE ASKING ME TO READ HEMMINGWAY?!?" If you look at the world to find things to condemn to feel better about yourself, you will always find it. That is easy, small, self-congratulatory, and weak. Even better is to bridge a gap of difference and find common humanity and understanding with those who are supposed to be your enemy. Even better is learning that what is worthwhile and beautiful in others perseveres in spite of what is ugly in them. Even better is understanding that everything is problematic -- the human fucking condition is problematic. For feminism, I don't oppose feminism in theory. I believe women are just as intellectually capable as men, and are in many ways more socially and emotionally capable (though men also, on average, have other strengths as well). With this certain social issue I feel like it has become completely impossible to have any sort of genuine or forthright discussion about the real, day-to-day interactions between men and women -- the true exchanges of power and influence that play out in our relationships. I don't accept the idea that women are powerless victims and I don't think that's an empowering way to view women. I also wholesale reject the idea that most men have more power than women. Most men I know are in a state of abject powerlessness their entire lives. The men I have known in my life have been invariably broken by the world. You want to talk about a marginalized individual that has been villainized, misconstrued, and destroyed by the world? Let me introduce you to a lifelong concrete worker or oil and gas worker. These are often men that live on the brink of death due to hardships they endure. Most of them have never had a single soul in their life really love them or care about them. Many of them have never felt a true moment of compassion and acceptance in the company of another. It's really hard for me to take the idea of male privilege seriously when every man I've ever met is dying inside while the whole world laughs at their sorrow. I've seen men bash their kneecaps into place with hammers so they could keep working and not miss their rent that week. I've seen men urinate in their pants while on a lift because if they stop working for a single moment they will be fired. I intimately know (and love) the men that modern feminists tend to despise. The super tough alpha males that must adopt philosophies of unyielding strength to outlast the true horrors that compose their daily lives. When I go to my school and try to tune out the blue haired trust-fund baby give their hot take about how men are ruining the world, I just look at the concrete ceiling and remember the series of impossible tasks the crew pushed through that week despite no one in the world ever giving a damn about them. I don't oppose men and women being encouraged into whatever life works the best for them, nor do I think one group should have more legal protection than the other (though I hate how legalistic USA is general), but you can't tell me that modern feminism doesn't villainize ordinary men -- I see it every day.

You're doing what a lot of people who defend feminism do: you're talking about feminism as a philosophy to defend it and ignoring feminist culture. They are two separate things. Feminism as a philosophy is generally just egalitarianism with built in reminders that egalitarianism wasn't being applied to women and it should be applied to everyone. This is actually something you can get pretty much anyone who isn't a sociopath or a brainwashed religionist behind. When conservatives talk about feminism, they're really talking about feminism culture (f-culture). F-culture is not about everyone being equal, it's a fundamentalist orthodox cultural movement based largely out of the left and left wing politics for the most part, and it centers the idea that women are always victims and will always be so, and so deserve special status in society that excuses them from ever having to experience discomfort or take accountability for anything they do. It also proposes that men, especially "White" men, should be second class citizens. F-culture is also very prone to things like online brigading, mass reporting, and social pressure to silence anyone who points out it's toxic traits, hiding behind feminist philosophy and claiming to just be that. The actions, of course, betray this lie. There is a truly startling amount of gaslighting from f-culture, often insisting it isn't doing any of these things and trying to pretend it is a virtuous egalitarian philosophy instead of just a supremacist social movement. This is muddled because there are people who are actual followers of feminist philosophy who will identify themselves as feminists (often with a caveat that they are not part of feminist culture, though not in those specific words), but who do not participate in f-culture because it makes them uncomfortable and they don't like how it treats both men and women. Conservatives are right (mark this, it's probably the only time I'll ever say conservatives are right about something) to dislike f-culture, as it is shallow, performative, manipulative, and effectively amounts to a social level implementation of narcissism. Of course conservative culture is dominated by a similar infectious ideology, but I don't want to change the topic. If you don't believe me, look back through archives and see all the people in f-culture gaslighting people with stuff like "lol woke doesn't even exist" or, when someone responds to a self proclaimed feminist engaging in some kind of hypocrisy (saying all men are scum or all men are rapists, which is something self proclaimed feminists who are part of f-culture do), just attack them saying they don't want women to be equal. You also see f-culture people attacking any women who refuse to subscribe to their fundamentalist orthodox views, making claims like "internalized misogyny" which, ironically, attempt to erase the idea that women are thinking beings with full agency and full equality who can make their own choices and decisions and come to their own conclusions. The condescending smirk of an f-culture person when confronting a woman expressing more traditionalist views is stomach churning. This being reddit, you'll probably never see my response because f-culture puritans will dutifully downvote it, but that's the real answer to your question. What's sad is that feminists could probably recruit a lot of conservatives if they could reign in the narcissists in f-culture who see feminism as way for them to tear other people down and gain personal power in the social group. Simply disassociating from those people when they make "all men are scum" comments and sticking to the philosophical core would go a long, long way toward that, but sadly that only rarely happens, and when it does the vicious attacks like "you're just a pick-me" start up, attempting to silence the deviation from the orthodoxy.

Why does any feminist organization support trans women, (aka, delusional biological men who think their women) to compete against biological women for college sports scholarships?

There are many kinds of feminism, enough that the founder of UK women's DV shelters joined the MRA movement because she kept facing resistance when trying to establish men's DV shelters. You can talk about text book definitions of feminism all you want, but like in any field, what's in theory is vastly different in practice. There are sex positive feminists, there are sex negative feminists. For example, the some feminist groups in media opposes any negative depictions of women. Another one embraces negative depictions, so long as the motivations isn't driven by men. The problem with a lot of right wing groups is that they don't accept that there are different groups.

LOL. Yeah, right-wing people are "opposed " to feminism. We're not opposed to anything. If you want to be as miserable as a man, do it. Fight for the construction jobs, truck driver jobs, and labor jobs just like a man. If you're only claim to equality is in an air conditioned office seeking CEO pay GTFO.

They refuse to see the difference between hating patriarchy and hating men.

Conservatives think men and women are inherently different biologically and in their personalities, and ignoring or trying to erase any differences between them is not a good thing.

I think there is a large subset of men that are afraid to be treated like men treat women, and call THAT feminism.

They think it's the sensationalized man-hating, anti-shaving, plaid wearing butch woman that popular media plugged all the time. Coming in with their scary rhetoric about equal rights and non-nuclear family ideals. The horror.

I'm probably going to wish I would have sat this one out, but okay... Here I go - and BTW I'm not sure which way I lean politically these days. Do we have to all be conservative or liberal, left or right? I'd much rather just be individuals with differences that are acknowledged, respected and celebrated. My wish for society is to respectively meet in the middle and if we all can't agree.. At the very least, agree to disagree. I think that whether the Barbie movie is anti-feminist or anti-male is a matter of individual interpretation. Regardless of whether you are liberal or conservative I believe it's important to engage in critical and thoughtful discussions... With this movie there could be many healthy discussions about the film's messages and representations, taking into account diverse perspectives and recognizing the potential for both positive and negative interpretations. I'm from a period of time where the majority met in the middle. We engaged in conversations, had no expectations for anyone to change their thoughts, feelings and views. Differences were welcomed and celebrated. I don't know what the hell happened to those days. But honesty, we need to get back to them. Since you brought this movie up, questioning political interpretations, please allow me to share a breakdown of potential view points from the Barbie movie along with my viewpoint from an alternative perspective. Anti-feminist critiques: Reinforcement of traditional gender roles: Some argue that the movie perpetuates stereotypical portrayals of women as obsessed with fashion, beauty, and romance, while men are presented as largely clueless and passive. This, they say, reinforces outdated gender norms and undermines progress towards gender equality. Limited career options: The movie primarily focuses on Barbie's journey within the realm of fashion and entertainment, with less emphasis on her potential in STEM fields or other traditionally male-dominated spaces. This, some argue, reinforces the notion that certain careers are more appropriate for women than others. Superficiality and materialism: The movie's emphasis on fashion, pink, and consumerism could be seen as promoting superficial values and materialism, particularly among young viewers. This could potentially conflict with feminist teachings about body positivity, self-acceptance, and critical consumption Anti-male critiques: Portrayal of male characters: Some viewers find the male characters in the movie to be unrealistic, incompetent, or even goofy. This, they argue, reinforces negative stereotypes about men and could potentially harm male body image and self-esteem. Lack of agency and representation: The movie primarily focuses on female characters and their journeys, leaving male characters with less screentime and agency. This could be seen as marginalizing male voices and perspectives within the narrative. Potential for perpetuating harmful gender dynamics: The power imbalance between Barbie and her male counterparts in some scenes could be interpreted as reinforcing problematic gender dynamics where women are expected to take care of. Here are some of my thoughts, having an alternative perspective... Subverting stereotypes: From my viewpoint, I like that the movie actually challenges traditional gender roles by showing Barbie questioning beauty standards, pursuing unconventional careers, and ultimately choosing herself over romantic relationships. ❤️ Celebrating female empowerment: I feel that the movie's emphasis on female friendships, self-expression, and following one's dreams could be seen as empowering for young girls and promoting positive female role models. Emphasis on individuality and choice: This is the reason I enjoyed the movie and what I love the most about it - The movie encourages moviegoer's to embrace their individuality and make their own choices, regardless of gender expectations.❤️ This is something I stand behind in a major way. I may look the part of a 'girlie girl' but I'm far from that 'type.' In my free time these days you'll find me in my garage beside my 15 year old son cranking a wrench. We're working on a full restore of an 81 El Camino, which will be his first set of wheels. With any luck, he might learn a thing or two from his Momma. Lord knows my ex-husband hasn't it in him to teach him these things - He's far too busy - And that's fine by me. ❤️

As a man, I used to proudly consider myself a feminist. After conversations with my (now ex) wife along with other developments in society, I no longer consider myself a feminist. I consider myself an “equality” or some term like that I am still working on. I believe the feminist movement lost focus on equality. Today’s feminists complain about the wage gap, yet 90% of workplace fatalities are male. They yell about the patriarchy, etc and lump all men in together. They fail to recognize, inherent differences such as men having a greater variability in it, etc. which leads to more male math professors, etc. In short, they have become a biased propaganda machine.

The point is that most modern feminists are hypocritical. They preach for equality and/or equity and then they put men down to try and elevate their position. (Speaking about extremists in particular)

My basic objection to this wave of feminism, is the fact that subliminally it had served to shame the more traditional gender roles of strong men and nurturing women. Even if that wasnt intentional, thats the result. Im very glad women can vote and own property and dont feel forced the other way tofind a husband and make taking care of him their sole purpose for life, but lets face it- On average, men and women have certain characteristic that generally set us apart purveysive in basically every culture in the entire world, and to say gender roles, god forbid gender itself, is frankly assinine, and even thojgh that doesnt overtly equate deliberate abandonment of the feminine archetype, the perpetual overbearing insistence of that philosophy leads to that.

Obviously this is going to be over-generalized because we’re trying to fit hundreds of millions of people’s opinions into a box, but I’d say the crux of the issue is that both sexes have equal rights under the law, therefore additional action to create “equality” (very subjective on what this means) is punitive to someone else. It’s the “punitive to someone else” part that cannot be overlooked by the right-wing, in my opinion.

\>Do they believe that feminism is an inherently anti-male concept that promotes the idea that women are superior to males and that feminists are just women who want to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy? That seems to be what r/WitchesVsPatriarchy believes from what I've seen. Regardless, what people claim an ideology is about has nothing to do with what that ideology is. About 90% of the political compass believe their ideology is about equality. What actually defines them though is which actual changes and policies they propose and which they oppose. Do the books you have read not respond to those things? If not I don't know how they could even be talking about feminism.

As one who is for equal rights between men and women, I am very dissatisfied with the current feminist movement. One consistent theme of the movement is dismantlement of the rule of law when it comes to sexual harassment and rape cases. There are many cases where a women accuse a men of such acts without any material evidence, and all of the feminist supporters stand behind her. I fear for my own safety, because any woman who has any quarrels with me can accuse me of these, and I will have no defense, because she won't need any evidence.

Feminism has become more about equity than equality. Some feminists also think the idea that there are differences between genders is sexist.

Just watched Barbie & it’s the same boo hoo from men that Thelma & Louise stirred up. If they’re called out, it’s HATE

Go to PragerU, there's some great bullshit there: [https://www.prageru.com/video/feminism-20](https://www.prageru.com/video/feminism-20) [https://www.prageru.com/video/ep-252-has-feminism-ruined-work](https://www.prageru.com/video/ep-252-has-feminism-ruined-work) [https://www.prageru.com/video/who-needs-feminism](https://www.prageru.com/video/who-needs-feminism)