The Man-Hating Feminazi: Maintaining Focus while Fighting Ignorant Stereotypes

Feminazi.” I’ll admit it, I’ve used that word. It was a word I used to separate myself (a “reasonable equalist”) from those crazy, extremist feminists who just took the idea too far. Those women didn’t just want equality, they wanted dominance, they wanted power at the expense of men, they wanted to tear apart the foundations of our very society with their hatred.

Or, you know, those women were just better-educated in the realities of society than I was. They weren’t so busy proving they could be One of the Boys® that they ignored their own oppression by that very boys’ club. They were smart enough to recognize prejudice when they saw it, and brave enough to call out inequality.


At least we can all take solace in the fact that our detractors don’t understand plurals and the grammatically correct usage of apostrophes.

It can be really painful to recognize that you are contributing to your own oppression. Internalized misogyny is a rampant problem in modern society, particularly among those women who embrace misogynistic standards while crowing to the imaginary goddess of Girl Power. It’s a lot easier to take false pride, to brag about your equality and fortune, than it is to step back and acknowledge that you and your rights are torn down on a daily basis. Some people seem to believe that marginalized people are exaggerating their oppression, that we all just enjoy having something to complain about, something to blame our problems on. But that’s a naive assumption, particularly in the face of someone like me, someone who spent so many years blindly pretending that their oppression wasn’t real, because it’s easier than facing the reality of it.

The sad fact is, this is still a battle I have to regularly fight, though in a form slightly evolved from that I struggled with as a younger woman. I’m no longer concerned with placating men, or with assuring everyone that I’m a “balanced” woman who maintains feminine standards while pursuing equality. But I still fall into traps, I’m still victimized by misogynistic mind games that trick me into abandoning my philosophy in the name of “proving myself.”

I try to integrate my activism into not only my daily life, but my personal philosophy. Equality is not just an academic curiosity for me, it’s a real-world pursuit that I actively engage on a daily basis. This means it exists beside and integrated with my other real-world philosophies, including things like my religion, environmentalism, attached parenting, and honest interpersonal relations. This integration has largely allowed me to examine all those philosophies that are important to me through a more critical, fair, and objective lens, and work to pursue all of my life goals with the frankest approach possible. But it also creates problems as opponents use those other philosophies against me, as an attack against my feminism.

This is most successfully done through a spiritual approach. I’ve recognized in myself such a strong desire to defend my personal faith and spiritual philosophy that it often obscures my attempts at female equality. The best example of this is when an anti-feminist accuses me of being a “man-hater.”

The man-hating stereotype is perhaps the most common falsehood thrown against all feminists. This is not to say there aren’t women who stand firm under the feminist flag while also declaring a hatred for males; I’m not naive, but I also don’t feel the need to justify such women’s behavior or beliefs. Truthfully, while it goes strongly against my own philosophy to maintain such a hatred, I do not condemn those women. It’s immensely difficult to acknowledge your constant oppression and not become bitter and angry toward your oppressors, and I refuse to judge a marginalized person for doing so. But the man-hating stereotype is largely false within the feminist community, and certainly with me in particular.

And this is where my philosophy opens me up to misogynistic attack. You see, I’d have to call hatred my greatest spiritual foe. I have never found a use for it on a personal level, and have instead found it to be detrimental to my attempts at happiness. Whenever I’ve indulged in hate, it’s done nothing but swallow my life and make me entirely miserable. Moving away from hate, learning to forgive and/or empathize with those who would inspire hatred, is one of my spiritual tenets. And this makes being accused of hating when I don’t one of the deepest insults I can have hurled against me.

This works in the favor of anti-feminists by throwing me off-track when engaging in debates on equality. Call all feminists man-haters and I’ll become so busy justifying my personal philosophy and defending the virtue of non-hateful feminists that I’ll get distracted from the true debate. The fact is, it doesn’t matter whether or not feminists hate men; even if all of us were the violent, hateful harpies that anti-feminists make us out to be, we still wouldn’t have the power to use that hate to oppress men, so its real-world consequences are nil when compared to the subtle and blatant misogyny espoused and perpetuated by men. Essentially, feminist man-hate is an entirely moot point, yet it is the cornerstone of anti-feminism.

There is a delicate line that must be walked by feminists like myself. I don’t hate men, and I don’t want to personally harm those males that I love, but I must acknowledge that for the feminist movement to be successful, we need to stop catering to male allies. We need to acknowledge that men are not the ones that matter in this, and our energy should not be divided between the sexes. Why? Because of the same answer to common anti-feminist questions like, “Why do you make rape and spousal abuse feminist issues when men get raped and abused, too?” Because men are in power. Men are not the majority of those victimized. Men dominate politics, economics, social doctrine. Men are granted an unfair advantage over women, and until that advantage is stripped, until men and women have equal access to power, and equal ability to exercise control over themselves as individuals and over society at large, focusing on men does nothing but prolong inequality.

Picture two children, each with a bowl of jellybeans. Jimmy has 10, and Sally has 4. If you want to allow them an equal number, choose the scenario that is the most efficient, logical course of action:
A) Taking 3 jellybeans from Jimmy and giving them to Sally, so they each have 7.
B) Giving Sally 6 jellybeans, so they each have 10.
C) Giving Jimmy 1 jellybean for every 2 given to Sally, until they each have 16.

Option “C” takes far more jellybeans than both of the proceeding options, and takes longer to enact. And both “B” and “C,” while eventually reaching equality, rely on the assumption that there are extra jellybeans at your disposal. What if there are no extras, and you’re forced to only work with the original 14? “A” is the only possible answer. Yet anyone who’s ever raised, worked with, or spent time around children knows Jimmy will cry a stream of crocodile tears over his lost jellybeans; Sally, fairness, and sharing be damned.

Now picture those jellybeans as representations of social, economic, and political power. Should we add extra seats to Congress, and insist that only women be allowed to run for them? Should we add even more additional seats and demand that women be elected to two-thirds of them? Or do we create a society where women are equally voted into those seats that already exist? Where female candidates are allowed the same encouragement in academic pursuits, the same opportunities for political success, the same popular criticisms as their male counterparts? The answer seems obvious, yet when feminists pursue that obvious solution, we’re derided as selfish man-haters, out to strip men of their rights while promoting ourselves to the top of the social hierarchy. Are we forced to take power away from men in order to have some granted to women? Sometimes, yes. But that still does not create the grand imbalance that anti-feminists claim to suffer from, because we are still struggling against such massive inequality that the crumbs we manage to nibble are nothing compared to the cookies devoured by the men in power.

Feminism is not about hate, but feminists shouldn’t have to keep saying that. We shouldn’t be forced to spend so much time assuring everyone that we’re good, honest, equality-driven people that we have less time to devote to actually achieving that equality. Men at large need to start understanding the simple truth of the privilege they’re given when they are handed that heavy bowl of jellybeans. And if male allies want to be appreciated in feminist circles, they need to stop making such a big deal about how wonderful they are for handing over their candy. The goal is not a world where women are granted male charity, it’s a world where the treats aren’t divided unevenly in the first place. And until that world is a reality, you’ll have to excuse me for not gushing over the miraculous generosity of males who go so far as to consider the radical notion that I am their peer.

Advertisements

About bunnika

shout at the brick wall; if it doesn't hear you, shout louder
This entry was posted in feminism. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to The Man-Hating Feminazi: Maintaining Focus while Fighting Ignorant Stereotypes

  1. Ferrell Riley says:

    A friend of mine linked your blog to me and asked my opinion. You seem a rational individual, so I wished to respond to your post with my own. I have left my email and if you wish to continue discourse then I would be more than happy to do so.
    Since I am responding to your post, I have taken the liberty of dividing it into more manageable sections and responding to what I read as the idea. The original post will be between brackets [ ] in order to help with readability.
    [ “FemiNazi.” I’ll admit it, I’ve used that word. It was a word I used to separate myself (a “reasonable equalist”) from those crazy, extremist feminists who just took the idea too far. Those women didn’t just want equality, they wanted dominance, they wanted power at the expense of men, they wanted to tear apart the foundations of our very society with their hatred.

    Or, you know, those women were just better-educated in the realities of society than I was. They weren’t so busy proving they could be One of the Boys® that they ignored their own oppression by that very boys’ club. They were smart enough to recognize prejudice when they saw it, and brave enough to call out inequality. ]

    FemiNazi: let’s look at the word.
    “Femi” of course is female. Usually used to describe the person’s gender, or the “gender” of the movement.
    “Nazi”: ok, we’re at the meat of the issue here. Why are we calling them a Nazi?
    Nazi’s are normally associated with atrocities. The ghettos, the concentration camps, etc. a movement devoted to acts considered evil. Fascist is another term for them though, Nazi being used because it is the example that glows brightest. Still, what it stands for is militaristic, “my way or else” patterns of thought, and the idea that strength through might is the best way to get things done.

    Being well-educated may of been a contributing factor, but as the likes of Joseph Mengele and the actions Unit 751, or and the like have shown us, well-education is no guarantee that you are on the side of angels.
    As we have seen with the the Red Revolution that overthrew the Czar, being wise enough to recognize prejudice and calling out inequality do not guarantee a bloodless revolution nor that the ends will justify the means.

    If you’re called a “Feminazi”, and not a feminist, or even a “militant feminist”, and by more then a small group of people, you may want to look at your actions and methods before immediately calling everyone else ignorant. “Remove the plank from your eye before telling your brother about the speck in his” as a famous bit of wisdom goes.
    (side note: at this point I’d fully expect an attack on the fact that the bible is more male-centric dogma used to keep women down. A feint to move from the real issue in my opinion)

    [ At least we can all take solace in the fact that our detractors don’t understand plurals and the grammatically correct usage of apostrophes. ]

    (Ho ho ho, oh yes, the straw man, building her case by not only seeking to refute the claims of the other side, but also portraying them as ignorant. Of course they’re wrong, they can’t speak our language correctly!)

    [ It can be really painful to recognize that you are contributing to your own oppression. Internalized misogyny is a rampant problem in modern society, particularly among those women who embrace misogynistic standards while crowing to the imaginary goddess of Girl Power. It’s a lot easier to take false pride, to brag about your equality and fortune, than it is to step back and acknowledge that you and your rights are torn down on a daily basis. Some people seem to believe that marginalized people are exaggerating their oppression, that we all just enjoy having something to complain about, something to blame our problems on. But that’s a naive assumption, particularly in the face of someone like me, someone who spent so many years blindly pretending that their oppression wasn’t real, because it’s easier than facing the reality of it. ]

    Isn’t this “Blame the victim” mentality here? Also, “blindly pretending” seems to be a key choice of words here. You can’t be blind and pretend. You can be blind to it, and you can pretend it’s not happening, but you have to move from ignorance to perception of the issue. Semantics, but I’m picking this thing apart like Tom making sure there’s no mushrooms in his pasta.
    Still, they key idea here seems to be “ignorance is bliss”, which is true. I give a point here because many people do pretend this doesn’t happen, there’s no issues, and anyone saying different should be soundly clapped in irons and taken away before they spoil afternoon tea.

    [ The sad fact is, this is still a battle I have to regularly fight, though in a form slightly evolved from that I struggled with as a younger woman. I’m no longer concerned with placating men, or with assuring everyone that I’m a “balanced” woman who maintains feminine standards while pursuing equality. But I still fall into traps, I’m still victimized by misogynistic mind games that trick me into abandoning my philosophy in the name of “proving myself.” ]

    Big issue here: if you really believe in your activism, and yourself, why do you feel the need at all to prove yourself? If you’re fighting for a good idea you need to stand up and prove that, and yourself be damned if need be.

    [ I try to integrate my activism into not only my daily life, but my personal philosophy. Equality is not just an academic curiosity for me, it’s a real-world pursuit that I actively engage on a daily basis. This means it exists beside and integrated with my other real-world philosophies, including things like my religion, environmentalism, attached parenting, and honest interpersonal relations. This integration has largely allowed me to examine all those philosophies that are important to me through a more critical, fair, and objective lens, and work to pursue all of my life goals with the frankest approach possible. But it also creates problems as opponents use those other philosophies against me, as an attack against my feminism. ]

    “intergrate” “equality” “interation” “fair” “objective”. My bullshit detector is going off here, this sounds like a promotion for a new Fox News program, or a political debate. The overloading of those buzzwords here is an establishment wall trying to make anyone reading this far go “oh, this person will have sane fair ideas and is willing to engage in respectful discourse”. From what I’ve been told, such a thing never occurs in any conversation with her, either online or offline.

    [ This is most successfully done through a spiritual approach. I’ve recognized in myself such a strong desire to defend my personal faith and spiritual philosophy that it often obscures my attempts at female equality. The best example of this is when an anti-feminist accuses me of being a “man-hater.” ]

    “strong desire to defend my personal faith and spiritual philosophy” = Pride, just FYI kiddo. Anyone who knows how to keep their pride inline knows both how to blow off comments from people who don’t matter and can learn how to take them in, analyze them, and instead of viewing them as attacks translate them into information about the other person’s bias and use that information against them.

    [ The man-hating stereotype is perhaps the most common falsehood thrown against all feminists. This is not to say there aren’t women who stand firm under the feminist flag while also declaring a hatred for males; I’m not naive, but I also don’t feel the need to justify such women’s behavior or beliefs. Truthfully, while it goes strongly against my own philosophy to maintain such a hatred, I do not condemn those women. It’s immensely difficult to acknowledge your constant oppression and not become bitter and angry toward your oppressors, and I refuse to judge a marginalized person for doing so. But the man-hating stereotype is largely false within the feminist community, and certainly with me in particular. ]

    “Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.” While you don’t feel the need to justify their actions, your silence speaks volumes and is condoning their actions. I’m a white/Hispanic christian born into middle/upper-middle class, and while I do not act in many of the ways associated with that class/racial culture, I join in regularly condemning actions I see as evil, harmful, and disrespectful to humanity and the world in general. I may not be picketing the capital every time, but when they come I speak up.
    as for your comment about not condemning, I condemn you for that. While I can understand the reason for their hatred, and can understand that they shouldn’t be judged for it, I can condemn that hatred and condemn any actions that spring from it. Your stance is at odds with what you say are your beliefs.

    [ And this is where my philosophy opens me up to misogynistic attack. You see, I’d have to call hatred my greatest spiritual foe. I have never found a use for it on a personal level, and have instead found it to be detrimental to my attempts at happiness. Whenever I’ve indulged in hate, it’s done nothing but swallow my life and make me entirely miserable. Moving away from hate, learning to forgive and/or empathize with those who would inspire hatred, is one of my spiritual tenets. And this makes being accused of hating when I don’t one of the deepest insults I can have hurled against me. ]

    TL;DR – Hate is bad. So why aren’t you condemning it?

    [ This works in the favor of anti-feminists by throwing me off-track when engaging in debates on equality. Call all feminists man-haters and I’ll become so busy justifying my personal philosophy and defending the virtue of non-hateful feminists that I’ll get distracted from the true debate. The fact is, it doesn’t matter whether or not feminists hate men; even if all of us were the violent, hateful harpies that anti-feminists make us out to be, we still wouldn’t have the power to use that hate to oppress men, so its real-world consequences are nil when compared to the subtle and blatant misogyny espoused and perpetuated by men. Essentially, feminist man-hate is an entirely moot point, yet it is the cornerstone of anti-feminism. ]

    So wait, hatred is A-OK as long as you don’t have the power to use it against a large population? So it’s ok for you to bully around one guy at the grocery store, or treat someone you know like shit, because “its real-world consequences are nil when compared to the subtle and blatant misogyny espoused and perpetuated by men.”

    Let’s do an experiment:
    “This works in the favor of anti-feminists by throwing me off-track when engaging in debates on equality. Call all feminists gay-haters and I’ll become so busy justifying my personal philosophy and defending the virtue of non-hateful feminists that I’ll get distracted from the true debate. The fact is, it doesn’t matter whether or not feminists hate gays; even if all of us were the violent, hateful harpies that anti-feminists make us out to be, we still wouldn’t have the power to use that hate to oppress gays, so its real-world consequences are nil when compared to the subtle and blatant misogyny espoused and perpetuated by gays. Essentially, feminist gay-hate is an entirely moot point, yet it is the cornerstone of anti-feminism.”

    I’d love for you to goto any homosexual person, or website, or blog, and post that, and see what reaction you get. I doubt you’ll find anyone willing to go “yea, it’s A-OK to hate a gay person if you can’t do anything against them!”
    And if you do find someone, $20 says they live in Tennessee or in the deep red south.

    [ There is a delicate line that must be walked by feminists like myself. I don’t hate men, and I don’t want to personally harm those males that I love, but I must acknowledge that for the feminist movement to be successful, we need to stop catering to male allies. We need to acknowledge that men are not the ones that matter in this, and our energy should not be divided between the sexes. Why? Because of the same answer to common anti-feminist questions like, “Why do you make rape and spousal abuse feminist issues when men get raped and abused, too?” Because men are in power. Men are not the majority of those victimized. Men dominate politics, economics, social doctrine. Men are granted an unfair advantage over women, and until that advantage is stripped, until men and women have equal access to power, and equal ability to exercise control over themselves as individuals and over society at large, focusing on men does nothing but prolong inequality. ]

    So, destroy the other group in the name of equality? Because they don’t matter since this is their fault. But only if you don’t know them, because the ones you personally know.

    [ Picture two children, each with a bowl of jellybeans. Jimmy has 10, and Sally has 4. If you want to allow them an equal number, choose the scenario that is the most efficient, logical course of action:
    A) Taking 3 jellybeans from Jimmy and giving them to Sally, so they each have 7.
    B) Giving Sally 6 jellybeans, so they each have 10.
    C) Giving Jimmy 1 jellybean for every 2 given to Sally, until they each have 16.

    Option “C” takes far more jellybeans than both of the proceeding options, and takes longer to enact. And both “B” and “C,” while eventually reaching equality, rely on the assumption that there are extra jellybeans at your disposal. What if there are no extras, and you’re forced to only work with the original 14? “A” is the only possible answer. Yet anyone who’s ever raised, worked with, or spent time around children knows Jimmy will cry a stream of crocodile tears over his lost jellybeans; Sally, fairness, and sharing be damned. ]

    That’s because they’re children, and children usually do not understand sharing and fairness and other virtues. Also, where did they get those jellybeans? if jimmy and sally had been given them by their parents, is it your right to snatch away some from jimmy to give to sally? If you said yes, congrats, forced socialism is for you! And according to your previous point, if Sally had the 10 and Jimmy the 3, well then tough luck Jimmy, you have a penis! you don’t deserve the same treatment! in fact, when Sally has 1 jellybean left, she can come over and cry about it, and you’ll have to give her one of yours!

    [ Now picture those jellybeans as representatives of social, economic, and political power. Should we add extra seats to Congress, and insist that only women be allowed to run for them? Should we add even more additional seats and demand that women be elected to two-thirds of them? Or do we create a society where women are equally voted into those seats that already exist? Where female candidates are allowed the same encouragement in academic pursuits, the same opportunities for political success, the same popular criticisms as their male counterparts? The answer seems obvious, yet when feminists pursue that obvious solution, we’re derided as selfish man-haters, out to strip men of their rights while promoting ourselves to the top of the social hierarchy. Are we forced to take power away from men in order to have some granted to women? Sometimes, yes. But that still does not create the grand imbalance that anti-feminists claim to suffer from, because we are still struggling against such massive inequality that the crumbs we manage to nibble are nothing compared to the cookies devoured by the men in power. ]

    No one is ever “forced” to do any action. Even when there’s a gun to your head you can choose to take then bullet rather then take the action. To paraphrase in Boondock Saints, “The question is not where do we go from here, but how far we are willing to go do to what needs to be done”. the methods put forth in this message seem to show that rather then perform slow steady progress you promote a violent upheavel in your direction. You may call out in challenge that slow and steady hasn’t gotten you anywhere yet, and that things are just as bad as before. I reply, how long did it take to get the vote? do you think that early attempts at getting that would of gone faster had the women of the US united tried to tear down their oppressors? A good question for historical analysis, but I would fall on the side of “watch that gate slam so fast it breaks the sound barrier”.

    [ Feminism is not about hate, but feminists shouldn’t have to keep saying that. We shouldn’t be forced to spend so much time assuring everyone that we’re good, honest, equality-driven people that we have less time to devote to actually achieving that equality. Men at large need to start understanding the simple truth of the privilege they’re given when they are handed that heavy bowl of jellybeans. And if male allies want to be appreciated in feminist circles, they need to stop making such a big deal about how wonderful they are for handing over their candy. The goal is not a world where women are granted male charity, it’s a world where the treats aren’t divided unevenly in the first place. And until that world is a reality, you’ll have to excuse me for not gushing over the miraculous generosity of males who go so far as to consider the radical notion that I am their peer. ]

    Then you’re hanging around the wrong males kiddo. Any man who expects you to treat them better because they kowtow to your wishes is after 1 of 2 things: your money or your bedding rights.

    Your email attemptes to come across as a defense of feminism, but ends up seeming to be an outlet for your ideas that men should shut up and do whatever your agenda decrees is the best thing. It starts as antagonistic, and then doubles-down as a self-righteous antagonism that should be allowed to do whatever it wants, and blames the current generation for the sins of our fathers, because we do enjoy the fruits of their benefits. I would not be surprised that if taught, quite a few of those opponents would join your cause, because quite often the oppressor doesn’t know that they are oppressing, just that this is how it’s always been. But instead you use it as a rallying cry to fight your oppression, not for justice, but as a way to release your anger. You may claim to reject hatred, but all I can see is that you nestle it close to your passion, and serve the abomination they have spawned. “Obey, Submit, or be crushed under my boot”

    • bunnika says:

      For the record, one of those males you accuse me of trying to “destroy” suggested that I not dignify your comment with a response. I took his comment to heart, but decided instead to enact a new rule (I really should have begun this on the post when a commenter attacked me with ableist slurs, but hey, live and learn):

      I am unwilling to take people at their “I will be fair and logical” word, and will instead base my response on whether or not they actually are embodying those terms. So:

      Recomment without using Biblical quotes. It is unnecessary and both inapplicable and offensive to non-Christians (like myself).

      Recomment without being ageist (I am not your “kiddo,” and no matter how many times you use it, I never will be) to try and make me feel inferior.

      Recomment without comparing a marginalized minority to an oppressive majority (gay people to men) to try and make a point about how unreasonable it is for a marginalized person to take offensive to oppressive behavior. (And hey, my byline right over to the right says I’m queer; do not appropriate the experiences of my community to try and make a bigoted point. Straightsplaining on top of your mansplaining does not help your cause of attempting to appear “logical,” it just makes you look ignorant and bigoted.) You may make the point with any other oppressive majority, but I assure you this belief extends to white people, straight people, etc., so it’s really a moot point entirely.

      Recomment without needlessly attacking me (accusing a victim of being a victim blamer–FYI, don’t need victim mentalities mansplained for me, either–and repeatedly “condemning” me).

      Recomment without reducing male allies to scumbags who would only look for approval because they’re motivated only by money and sex. I don’t approve of ally-cookie-seeking because it damages the cause, but it is human nature to desire approval for good behavior, and your comment here is offensive to both women (as we clearly are just too stupid to understand what men “really want,” and by reinforcing the ridiculous sexual binary) and male allies (who are generally motivated by good intentions).

      If you recomment without being bigoted, I will respond in turn.

      And I suggest reading up on how to properly approach debate in social justice circles, because as it stands, that male’s advice is sound, and this is absolutely not worthy of an in-depth response. I’ll give you a few starting points:

      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#hostile
      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#intellectual
      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#angry
      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#innocent
      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#proveit
      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#educate
      http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#educate2

  2. Peter Parker (not really) says:

    I don’t hate feminists, but I am deeply disturbed by misandry. I can understand where you both are coming from, and I feel for you both. But why can’t we all discuss our disagreements in a rational way. We don’t have to show all this anger to one another, especially if we all care about equality for EVERYONE, regardless of their sex. Hate only breeds more hate, and there’s already more than enough of that in the world, but rather I think a certain man put it perfectly; “Dark can’t pierce the darkness, only light can do that. Similarly, hare can’t root out hate, only love can do that.” The best way to counteract hate, is with love. Thank you to everyone who has ever shown unselfish love to someone else REGARDLESS of their sex.

    • bunnika says:

      I don’t hate feminists, but I am deeply disturbed by misandry.

      And the fact that you feel the need to come here and talk about teh poor menz without acknowledging the reality of our culture’s systemic, abusive misogyny says something about your priorities.

      This comment is creating precisely the strawman that this entry is arguing against. You’re focusing on some imagined “misandric” hatred instead of actually putting that effort into challenging privilege and sexism. Misandry is a creation of privileged men appropriating the oppression of women. Offering your sympathy to those who are actively oppressing women (without even voicing your support specifically to women as you do to men) does not make you egalitarian, it makes you misogynistic.

  3. Peter Parker (not really) says:

    I didn’t mean to offend you or anyone else with my comment. I really don’t see how my comment is misogynistic, since I don’t hate women and I didn’t imply that I hate them. I’m sorry if you don’t think so, but I DO care about women as people. However, all men aren’t oppressers as your comment clearly does imply. Saying something like that is like saying all women are selfish, and I know for a fact that all women are not selfish. I’ve experienced their selflessness myself, and I truly appreciate it. Again, I’m sorry if my comments offend you in any way, that was definitely not my intent, I just wanted to encourage peaceful discussion among ourselves since the world’s just the opposite, we could all use a place for peaceful conversation. Thanks again.

    • bunnika says:

      Supporting the concept of “misandry” is misogynistic for exactly those reasons outlined in the post I linked. You don’t have to be blatantly hateful to be misogynistic. Coming into a feminist space to talk about teh menz is misogynistic. All men are oppressors, because all men have male privilege. You don’t have to be an active bigot to be oppressive. I am oppressive to people of color simply because I’m white. Privilege is like that. Privilege also makes you blind to the ways in which you are actively bigoted, which is why acknowledging and attempting to control one’s own privilege is the first step to being truly egalitarian.

      See:
      https://bunnika.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/snippet-no-i-still-dont-want-to-talk-about-teh-menz/
      https://bunnika.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/youve-got-some-splaining-to-do/
      https://bunnika.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/on-unicorns-and-cleaning-the-stable/

      • ELogic says:

        “All men are oppressors, because all men have male privilege.”

        Well, following that logic, all white women are oppressors because they have privilege. They make more money than black men, black women, Hispanic men and Hispanic women. They have ruled nations, owned slaves and wielded power. Yet, they have grabbed the benefits of affirmative under the guise of oppression, taking it away from people of color who have really suffered and who really need it. So, white women have benefitted from the privileges of white men and then when the climate changed, turned against white men and grabbed the benefits offered to minorities. To this day, the richest women are white while at the same time the largest number of welfare recipients are white women.

        So under your own definition, all white women are oppressors because all white women have privilege.

        And most people in the world are starving so if you are not starving, bunnika, that means you have privilege. And since you do have privilege, that means you are an oppressor under your own definition. You want to equate privileged with oppressor? Guess what, you are an oppressor. Now, delete this comment because that’s what a privileged oppressor does.

        • bunnika says:

          Wow, you actually commented somewhere that doesn’t violate my comment policy, congratulations! I see you’re working your way through my entire blog, but I’m sure you still won’t admit the little obsession you have with me. It’s okay, dear, I’m hard to stay away from. 😉

          All white people are oppressors because we have white privilege. White women are white people, therefore white women are oppressors to people of color. You can be a minority in one respect and have privilege in another, it’s called the kyriarchy. Don’t worry, it’s on Wikipedia.

          I have plenty of privilege. I’m white and I’m Western. I’ve never denied having privilege, and if you weren’t so busy trying to find a “gotcha!” moment, you’d have already seen that. Try harder.

          • ELogic says:

            Well, since you admit that you have plenty of privilege, then you shouldn’t be running this blog. Only those who are underprivileged should have blogs. By continuing to run this blog, you are continuing your privilege, which means you are continuing your oppression. A person of color should be running this blog. I am just following your definitions.

            I guess it has been a while since you have been intimate with someone so you believe that anyone who pays any attention to you is obsessed with you. Hey, if that gets you through life, go for it.

            Yes, and men may be a minority in one respect and have privilege in another so there goes your earlier statement that all men have privilege and therefore all men are oppressors. I don’t have to try to find a “gotcha” moment because you just provide them so easily. Try harder to be logical and fair.

            • bunnika says:

              *sigh* You clearly couldn’t even be bothered with Wikipedia. Bigots are so lazy.

              Any oppressed person has the right to talk about their oppression. I’m not claiming to be oppressed by my race, so I don’t post about racism. That’s something for people of color to do. I am oppressed as a woman, and so I post about that oppression. It’s really not that hard to grasp, if you can manage 4th-grade reading comprehension.

              All men have privilege. All white people have privilege. One sort of privilege does not delegitimize other sources of oppression. You’re really not very good at this.

              You’ve left well over a dozen comments specifically against my comment policy, even after I told you they wouldn’t be published. You’ve been stalking around my posts for a freaking week. You followed my blog specifically so you could post negative comments, again against my comment policy. You’re either obsessed with me or you desperately need a life. Want to convince me otherwise? Stop commenting.

  4. Pete T says:

    What a hate provoking and truly close minded blog this is

    • bunnika says:

      What an ill-informed and truly ignorant comment this is.

      • ELogic says:

        Yes, you are ill-informed and truly ignorant, bunnika. Get some counseling. And because you are a privileged white woman, I am sure that someone or some program will pay for your counseling. White women are among the wealthiest and the largest recipients of welfare, affirmative action and social services at the same time. White women always get someone to pay their way.

        • bunnika says:

          Your obsession is really starting to become creepy. I’m perma-banning you before you start sending dead flowers to my door with notes made from cut-up magazine headlines. Have fun ranting at my spam filter!

  5. robertsloan2 says:

    Key point, this is feminist space. Thank you for being trans friendly but this isn’t my space, a transmen group would be or a men’s pagan group or some such circle. Go you. Great post. Embarrassing to remember stupid things from when I was young but there were many including internalized homophobia and internalized transphobia.

  6. Xuan Mtta says:

    One of the many flaws of feminism (or should I say the many mistakes of feminists?) is to view equality as the 50/50 of participation, access to power and access to same resources for both men and women, if that was the ideal thing to have in our society than all of us in the name of equality should be force to renounce to our individuality and become what feminists want us to be. in other words, there should be 50% of stay in homes males and 50% females, 50% of males and females should be professionals and the other 50 should be low wage laborers in the real world it’s been proven that women are not in power because some one or something hold them back, they are not because many of them don’t care for those positions of power, same with women in important job positions, technology, science etc, in your world of course, these women are being deny the right to be in power, to be important and successful, to represent other women, who is holding back? patriarchy is, men are. this reminds situations like when feminists complain that there are not many women in Hollywood movies to represent them, in that case we all should complain that we want in, in the movie business because it’s not fair that only a handful of people are having all the fun at being actors/actresses, how about the distribution of all the wealth among every human being? I mean that’s equality, screw if you’ve work hard to earn that money, let’s do it in the name of equality. I mean… not only do you have a twisted idea of what oppression is, but you also have a twisted idea of how things should be in our society in the name of equality!

    • Xuan Mtta says:

      I can’t f*** believe it, I made a few mistakes in my reply and I am sorry about that, that’s what happens when you do more than one thing at the same time trying to accomplish more, FML!

    • bunnika says:

      I’m really sort of lost on a good bit of this comment, but I’m going to try to shake it out.

      One of the many flaws of feminism (or should I say the many mistakes of feminists?) is to view equality as the 50/50 of participation, access to power and access to same resources for both men and women, if that was the ideal thing to have in our society than all of us in the name of equality should be force to renounce to our individuality and become what feminists want us to be.

      Feminist don’t want people to be anything other than equal. We want equal opportunities for all, and that may or may not result in an even divide in responsibility and social roles.

      in other words, there should be 50% of stay in homes males and 50% females, 50% of males and females should be professionals and the other 50 should be low wage laborers in the real world

      This seems to run on the assumption that there need to be as many stay-at-home people as working people. This is a logical impossibility, as you can’t be single and stay-at-home unless you’re independently wealthy (and there aren’t many folks who are). This relies on everyone being partnered off, which isn’t logical. Regardless, my original comment still applies here.

      it’s been proven that women are not in power because some one or something hold them back, they are not because many of them don’t care for those positions of power, same with women in important job positions, technology, science etc

      I think you’re agreeing with me here?

      in your world of course, these women are being deny the right to be in power, to be important and successful, to represent other women, who is holding back? patriarchy is, men are.

      This is not phrased well. You say “in [my] world,” implying that that’s not your world, but that conflicts with what you said above. Unless you’re trying to say there’s something systemically oppressing women that isn’t patriarchy, but by definition it has to be. o.O

      this reminds situations like when feminists complain that there are not many women in Hollywood movies to represent them

      87% of lead roles in Hollywood are given to men, this is a factual complaint.

      in that case we all should complain that we want in, in the movie business because it’s not fair that only a handful of people are having all the fun at being actors/actresses

      This is a really poor analogy. Representation =/= free-for-all employment.

      how about the distribution of all the wealth among every human being?

      Income disparity is one of the biggest shames of this nation.

      I mean that’s equality, screw if you’ve work hard to earn that money, let’s do it in the name of equality.

      You equate hard money with work, when they do not have a causal link. Some people work hard and earn a pittance, others barely do anything and make millions.

      I mean… not only do you have a twisted idea of what oppression is

      I’d be interested to know what you think it is, if not the systemic prejudice against a specific class of people.

      but you also have a twisted idea of how things should be in our society in the name of equality!

      You know nothing of my views beyond what I’ve shared on this blog, and I haven’t shared my ideas of equality beyond a very narrow scope. You’re trying to make a judgment call on something you know nothing about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s