On The Spearhead, the regulars reject women rejecting feminism

From Women Against Feminism
From Women Against Feminism

Are women turning against feminism? Over on The Spearhead, WF Price sets forth the proposition that “the younger generation of women [is] rejecting ‘feminism’ in stronger terms than I’ve ever witnessed in my life.”

His proof for this? A Tumblr blog called Women Against Feminism, featuring a couple dozen photos of women holding signs denouncing feminism. Or what they think feminism is, anyway.

Some of these women are fairly articulate about the source of their hostility against feminism: they’re traditionalists who don’t like being judged for their choices:


Others seem to be reacting against stereotypical notions of feminism that bear little relation to the real thing:


Still others have somewhat more, well, idiosyncratic reasons:


For whatever reason, quite a few of the women posting these pictures are from Poland.

At least here in the US, it’s not news that a lot of women reject feminism – or at least the feminist label. There are plenty of  traditionalist women who reject the central tenets of feminism. And there are many others who may share some feminist beliefs but don’t want to call themselves feminists, in part because of the bad rap feminists get in the media and, these days, online. Anyone who’s been a feminist for any length of time has heard women (and some men) announce that “I’m not a feminist, but …” and then follow that statement with a sentiment that is, by any reasonable definition, feminist.

Now some of these “I’m not a feminist, but” types are posting pictures like this, using what is essentially a feminist analysis to criticize what they see as a central shortcoming of feminism:


Naturally, WF Price has a somewhat different explanation for this alleged trend.

What I think is going on here is that younger women need men more than their older, feminist counterparts did in their heyday.

And why is that? Because times are hard. And so even though men today are struggling, women are struggling even more, and so – in WF Price’s imagination, anyway — they’ve come to appreciate what men can do for them.

The less men have – and the less men there are in general – the more women need them. Without men or without men of means, there can be no surplus, no you-go-grrrrl feminism, no fancy restaurants and no nice houses. Everything just goes to crap.

Heck, Price argues, even men without jobs make better roommates for women than other women, because, you know, they can open jars and stuff:

[W]hat use could a man possibly be if he has no money to speak of? Only someone who has never lived with a woman could find that one hard to answer. A healthy young man with no money can drive, carry things, fix things, protect his mate, solve problems, save money, do chores — the list goes on. And when he gets a job, he will pay his way and do all these things, even if he makes less than his girlfriend. It’s a much, much better deal for a woman than a female roommate.

According to Price, feminism had whatever successes it did have in the past because the economy was booming.

What created this “independent woman” myth was the great prosperity of the baby boomer era, which lasted from roughly the mid 60s to the mid 2000s. Men abounded, and they were flush with cash. Businesses could afford to hire superfluous cute girls and give them nice salaries. Family courts could rob men blind and they’d still have enough left over for a reasonable lifestyle and a chance to start over. Men were harvesting the fat of the land, and there was more than enough to go around.

Huh. I lived through that baby boomer era, and I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t one giant materialistic orgy. There were, I vaguely recall, more than a couple of pretty severe recessions. And back in the heyday of second wave feminism in the seventies there was something called “stagflation.”

But let’s not get in the way of WF Price’s little fairy tale. In the baby boomer era, everyone prospered. Now, everyone is poor. Or at least the young people are:

When you’re poor, life is a lot easier if you can share with someone, and nobody shares more with girls than boys. So merely finding a man to share burdens is a considerable relief to young women. Is a feminist going to fix a car, carry a TV upstairs or take her to the hospital to give birth? Will the feminist voluntarily share any of what she earns with the young woman? Yeah, right…

Apparently in Price’s world “the feminist” is essentially a female version of Scrooge McDuck.

Male scarcity in either numbers or resources effectively prevents feminism. Surplus enables it. In a sense, one could say that feminism’s own downfall is built in to the ideology itself, because it contributes to male scarcity.

Wars between the sexes accomplish nothing in the long run, but they do highlight the complementary, interdependent nature of the sexes: when one sex “beats” the other, both lose. Today’s young women seem to understand that a lot better than their foolish mothers ever did.

In the comments, the Spearhead regulars are less forgiving of “foolish” women than Price is. Regular commenter Geographybeefinalisthimself suggests that antifeminist men should be something less than gracious in their (alleged) victory:

Even if women are in fact rejecting feminism (and I treat this with a lot of suspicion), I don’t see why men should not be vindictive since feminists were pretty damn vindictive to men (myself included, though I am well aware that I am not the only one) when male power was a myth.

Since young men got paid back for discrimination that wasn’t their fault, I don’t see why they shouldn’t turn around and do likewise to a subsequent generation of females. If feminism can come to an end now (and I am not convinced that it is dead yet), it also could have come to an end twenty years ago. I always take the attitude that if something can happen now, it could have happened many years ago as well.

Someone calling himself Lastango, meanwhile, indulges himself in some hypothetical Atlas Shrugging:

[T]he tide is going out and it’s increasingly obvious feminism has been swimming naked, keeping its head above water only because it could float on government money. Unfortunately for feminists, this is happening at the very moment men are increasingly aware of having been demonized and exploited during the past 40 years, and Atlas is starting to shrug… he’ll be staying dry, on the beach, instead of swimming out to rescue a drowning political tribe of privileged, entitled women who have been using him for their own gain.

The misogynists of the manosphere are never quite so happy as when they contemplate women being punished.

The women posting pictures to the Women Against Feminism blog might be surprised by how ungentlemanly these fellows really are.

NOTE: I cropped the pics from Women Against Feminism to save space and highlight the signs.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
7 years ago

Henry, caffeine is not your friend.

The strawman arguments in your wall o’ text are so old and tired to most of us by now.
The fact that you’re offended by the the name “feminist” is super telling. What’s wrong with women focusing on problems that affect women? Also, you don’t get to dictate what we call ourselves or what we focus on as problems. The fact that you think it’s your right means you’re entitled — which is funny because you’re also trying to claim minority status as a man.

7 years ago

Trigger warning: any emotionally fragile feminist reading the following comment may suffer P.T.S.D. from seeing her twisted little belief system getting the shit stomped out of it. OK with that out of the way:

TL;DR: Wanker wanks on endlessly, proving only what a fucking wanker he is. Also, wall-o-text is fucking booooooring.

7 years ago

That’s not a teal deer, it’s a teal brontosaurus. Be less tedious, dude.

blahlistic (@blahlistic)

Troll lost me at men have no laws to protect them. Yes, that’s because in a place called reality, men have privilege, and have had it for a long time.

In fact, if men never had privilege, why is it that MRA’s want to put women back into their traditional roles?

7 years ago

Oh my Dog. I simply couldn’t make it all the way through. Perhaps we could take it in turns to shred that monolith a piece at a time?

I’ll take this part:

If feminism TRULY was about fighting for equality rather than being a one-sided gynocentric superiority movement then ask yourselves why it constantly pooh-poohs any problems or injustices that aren’t 100% exclusively about women. Ask yourself why it makes no effort at all to redress any of the imbalances that favor women over men.

So thanks Henry for proving you actually have NO IDEA what feminism is about. Given that most of the “imbalances that favour women over men” we get mansplained about here are actually MRA distortions of reality, it’s pretty hard to fight something that doesn’t exist.

And as far as feminism not addressing any problems that aren’t exclusively about women? You’ve not actually spoken to many (any?) feminists, have you? Part of the structural focus of feminism is examining the way men are hurt by traditional gender roles and the policing of them – the pressure to “be a man” in a specific way and the social consequences for not adhering to that mythical ideal. I’ve read and heard many feminists discussing the problems with racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ableism, stigmatisation of mental illness… all things that affect both men and women, and all things that the MRM tolerates, when not outright condoning them.

Feminists aren’t out to enslave men. But when someone’s trying to open your eyes to experiences outside your own, it’s not a good idea to tell them that they know less about what they’ve lived than you do.

7 years ago

In fact, if men never had privilege, why is it that MRA’s want to put women back into their traditional roles?

Now, now. MRA rants are no place for logic.

6 years ago

Question for StrivingGally,

So feminism is about deconstructing male gender role into a different type of gender role (more sensitive, caring, less pursuit of muscle mass)? I’m not sure how I gather that one is better than the other.

A Land Whale
A Land Whale
5 years ago

Well, they are kind of right because third wave/Liberal feminism is not feminism AT ALL even though people pretend it is and it’s what most young women who pretend to be feminists espouse…..”Teehee, everything a woman does is empowering if she likes doing it! No class/race/gender analysis is needed at all! Even super degrading stuff that actively harms women as a class is empowering! Now stop arguing with me because I have to get to my pole dancing class so I can be empowered by capitulating to men’s desires…..”

Yeah. I opened that can of worms. Have fun.

Croquembouche, poorly-dressed vandal
Croquembouche, poorly-dressed vandal
5 years ago

@ Land Whale:
Well go on then, make your case.
Back up your assertions.
Citations would be nice.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

Teehee, everything a woman does is empowering if she likes doing it! No class/race/gender analysis is needed at all! Even super degrading stuff that actively harms women as a class is empowering! Now stop arguing with me because I have to get to my pole dancing class so I can be empowered by capitulating to men’s desires…..”

Yawn. If you want to play the part of the feministier-than-thou straw radfem, at least try to hide your misogyny. And, y’know, maybe don’t end your stealth rant about how feeemales are all ditzy sluts with an MRA five-dot ellipsis.

“Feministier” is totally a word.

5 years ago

Oh better than thou,
Half baked pretender fakefem.
Try harder next time.

1 13 14 15
%d bloggers like this: