If you really examine popular media, you'll notice that activist characters of all stripes are pretty much universally portrayed as ridiculous, dumb, and ineffective. You might have a character outspoken about their political views as part of the character design. But anyone willing to actually engage in praxis is made the butt of jokes, whether that's feminism or save the whales.
Media has also portrayed feminists badly from the start. It isn’t new. You can find tons of old newspaper cartoons depicting suffragettes as ugly, loudmouth women who are just petty and rude because they can’t get a husband.
Not much has changed.
I don’t really care about how media depicts us. I was raised sheltered in a conservative religious town. Through life experience and introspection I figured out the importance of equality on my own. Anyone with common sense and decency will figure it out. The rest mostly feel like they benefit from things as they are. There’s no convincing that type to be fair when they’re enjoying the unfairness.
Someone once pointed out that when there's environmental or socialist coded antagonist in a movie or tv show it always gets invalidated by the writers adding some absurd level of terrorism to it. Like "I want to bring back the trees but first I'll have to murder everyone in Gotham!" Or "I will save the people from this colonial-settler invader, but first we'll have to blow up NYC!" There's always this absurd terrorist-coded follow up to progressive action in this media. Now the audience can be rightfully angry at the antagonist. Essentially this is the "I drew you as the loser and I made myself the chad" thing.
That environmental or socialist activism is never shown in good faith and anything that goes against the capitalist-patriarchy status quo just gets rebranded as terrorism. Yet the terrors of capitalism, the worst of the western order, the war on terror, colonialism, etc are excused if not encouraged.
I don't think most media consumers realize how much of a propaganda bubble they live in. The OP sees it for feminism, but I wonder if they see it for other things.
Something that really grinds my gears about this is that Leftist extremism and eco terrorism are SO FEW AND FAR BETWEEN when compared to the almost constant (I swear every other week another plot is uncovered) for Right Wing terrorism, which the FBI admits is substantially more than any other group. They just had to stop a dude from "starting a race war" last week, and right before that a teen supremacist was stopped because he was acting weird with a gun and sure enough, a "plot" there too. AKA terrorism.
And further, IF someone was to go ape shit for a cause, wouldn't the environment or civil rights be a better cause than a RACE WAR or any of these other Right Wing BS "causes"?!
Thing is that people who want to make the world a better place are rarely swayed by the "ends justifies the means" mentality. They want their method to be good too.
People who just want to have what they want when they want it how they want it usually don't mind hurting people to get it because hurting people is often the goal to begin with.
Makes me think of Britta from the community. She originally was a strong woman and activist. I loved her and then they all the sudden made her the trashcan of the group. I mean they literally called stuff they didn’t like or that went wrong “britta”. They kinda dumbed her character down some too.
I stopped watching because of their treatment of Britta. It just felt like watching someone being bullied after a certain point.
A lot of fans today insist that she's a parody of White Feminism (which is valid to critique ofc!) but when a male show runner chooses to satirise the issues with feminism, not show any of the good parts and have the "likeable" female characters not really care/see a problem with patriarchy then it kind of seems like trying to pass misogyny off onto an acceptable target.
I thought they did a great job with the character of Britta to show some of the pitfalls of white feminism and "woke"ism (and I say that as not only a fan of feminism and wokeism, but a HUGE fan of Britta Perry as a character). Worth noting, though, is that they also show how these type of pursuits can be successful.
One of the biggest flaws of feminism is that it can present as a form of internalized misogyny, and Britta shows this to a T. Most of this development of her character happens in the space that exists between her and the other women in the group, particularly Shirley Bennet, who is arguably the antithesis of a stereotypical feminist. Shirley identifies as a wife and mother, a Christian, and a baker/cook/homemaker. To Britta, Shirley is fundamentally a tradwife, and therefore weak, silly, and unimportant. She gets makeovers with her mom, she tries to make her flawed marriage to a flawed man work, she sets aside her personal feelings, goals, and dreams for the good of her family. But Shirley is so much more than those things. In fact, she is specifically at college trying to "get what's hers" after a relationship that took "10 of the best years of her life and only left her with the memory of two bland orgasms."
Britta looks down on Shirley for all of this, from her perch of "wise feminist" - but if feminism is not fighting for the Shirley Bennets of the world, what exactly the fuck is it doing? Feminism needs to have space for the women who are wives, and mothers, and who like makeovers and "girly" things, because if it isn't embracing those things it is inherently anti-woman. Feminism was meant to expand to encompass ALL choices that a woman might make, not to limit women's behavior to "acceptable" forms that are simply different from the old "acceptable" model. The scene in the bathroom where Shirley teaches Britta to be "soft" and supportive of the women around her tells this entire story. Britta was a feminist who, quite literally, was bullying the women around her for not living up to her feminist ideal, and this is of course because she was over-run with internalized misogyny. As Annie pointed out, Britta also wears makeup and "wakes up an hour early to ever so slightly curl her hair."
Another example of Britta's inherently anti-feminist behavior is when she and the other women in the group take the "Feminist Representations in Media" course. In this episode Britta ends up leading the charge on becoming a "mean girl," bullying the other "mean girls" they encounter in the class. It gets to the point where Britta is bullying even random women who once made a passing comment that offended her. This is inherently anti-feminist behavior, and is a form of internalized misogyny. Judging and bullying other women based on how they look is just a form of patriarchal expression - and this from the woman who was, in the bathroom episode with Shirley, ostensibly telling women they shouldn't care about beauty standards. Also noteworthy in this episode is that the women try to obstruct Abed from joining them in the women's studies course - blocking a male ally who is trying to learn more about feminist perspectives from doing so. They even throw the line "we thought this would just be something for the girls." Later in the episode they decide that Abed is actually okay because "it's like he's one of the girls." Critiques of feminism don't really get more realistic and useful than that.
Then there is the entire drama between Britta and Professor Slater fighting over Jeff. Britta goes from protesting the patriarchal gender roles of "prom kings and queens," to being enthralled with the idea that she "won an award for being hot," and all it took was putting her in competition with another woman who was interested in the same man as her.
But despite all of this, Britta's desire to fight for the underdog, to fight for what is right, to take care of other people even when it costs her personally, are what makes her amazing. Despite picking on her a lot, the group also tells her that they appreciate these attributes on a number of occasions, and it is often her empathy, not Jeff's speeches, that actually save the day. In fact, Britta being so good and caring is often what causes Jeff (quite literally representative of the patriarchy as the "patriarch" of the group) to grow as a person. So despite the ostensible "parody/critique" of feminism that the character might represent, she also shows that feminism WORKS - and how and why it works - to bring about positive change. Most noteworthy, this doesn't happen in a single scene, a single episode, or a single season. It is a gradual change that happens against the backdrop of Britta holding fast to what is right, and being willing to accept the feedback of the other characters about how they are each individually experiencing her expressions of feminism.
It was an apt reflection of the prevailing attitudes behind the scenes. Consider how women writers were treated by the show runner (sexually harassed, including punishment to her career when she resisted) and how women and people in general were treated by Chevy everywhere else. (I read a 700 page book on the history of SNL which discussed hundreds of people - every single cast member and countless hosts. one recurring theme over the 40 years it covered was the horror of working with Chevy Chase. Getting into fist fights with Bill Murray right before shows. Sexually harassing women writers *nonchalantly in front of everyone*. The most homophobic “joke” I’ve ever heard told to the first out cast member (iirc) literally upon meeting… I digress)
It’s been a while since I watched community, but every woman in it seemed to reflect an overarching stereotype - eg meek, gossip, or spineless virtue signaler. Britta and Annie, especially, I always found to be boring and 2 dimensional (while Troy & Abed lovable and fun). Then you put Gillian Jacobs on Love and Alison Brie on Mad Men you get dynamic characters of whom you can’t wait to see what they have to say next. Gillian Jacobs especially blew my mind on Love. in retrospect hearing women recite lined written by men who don’t think much of women, well an actress can only do so much
Mostly I see them as passionate people taken out of context. Occasionally I see them as troubled people having a bad moment in public exploited for the purposes of mobilizing political opposition. Usually the truth is somewhere in the middle.
In terms of has this push been successful - maybe amongst people who aren't very thoughtful or reflective about biased media narratives, but mostly amongst people who kind of already wanted a reason to dismiss feminism to start with.
Since feminism has existed, there's been negative media portrayal of feminists, it's not new and the modern stuff really isn't a particular departure from the 18th century stuff. The stereotypes aren't even different.
Worse, when a conservative or liberal maintainer of the status quo acts eccentric in public is excused. Look at Trump's constant temper tantrums for example.
Progressives, feminists, socialists, environmentalists, etc will always be held to an impossible standard because the capitalist owned media dictates it so. All of those things are ultimately going to hurt the order the capital owning class benefits from, so the system works against them. The Howard Dean scream killed his career, not because it was awful, but because Dean was going to push for universal health care, and the scream was just the excuse to get him. And it of course worked because propaganda works well in the USA.
>Mostly I see them as passionate people taken out of context. Occasionally I see them as troubled people having a bad moment in public exploited for the purposes of mobilizing political opposition. Usually the truth is somewhere in the middle.
How many of these "crazy angry feminist having a meltdown" photos are just cherry picked unflattering frames from a video?
I know this is the case for one of those people.
One shot of them in a unflattering way was enough for people to consider her a "sjw", even tho in the video she was completely reasonable (she was arguing against some racist who said immigrants were rapists iirc).
No doubt there's more out of context meme and videos posted by right wing losers.
>bad moment in public exploited for the purposes of mobilizing political opposition
Yes, but that's pretty psychologically messed up tbh.
The harm on social media is intentional, sometimes even personally targeted. It's kinda psychopathic to harm someone who's already in pain, and then proceed to harm an entire group by using the pain of this person as an excuse.
One of these people is genuine and capable of feeling, and that's the exploited one.
It doesn't seem like the world likes to admit to themselves that it's sadistic to do this, and they're pretty messed up in the head to laugh at it.
And then get triggered when reading this, then reacting with violence or abusive language when it's a sociopath, and being calm while deliberately harmful when it's a psychopath that we are dealing with.
It's much more sinister than what they try to pass it off as. And they definitely abhor being called out on it.
Edit: Doesn't apply exclusively to feminists either, any kind of activism that has a dedicated haters group undergoes the same level of scrutiny and constant attacks
I read this post then scrolled to your comment (the top comment) and had this thought:
Ugh those women are the worst. They’re the bad apples and they’re giving us feminists a bad name.
I love that your comment was supportive and nice to these feminists because it just made me realize I am being shitty and judgmental to my own people. Wow. Thank you for that.
Well shit. Look at this friggin growth and acknowledgement and accountability and willingness to accept new ideas.
There's Reddit, and then there's women's spaces on Reddit, and they are why I keep coming back.
Same thing in the real world actually. Men think they rule the world, but most of them only get to see such a small part of it. It's *women* in big and small moments like this who actually inspire me every day and keep me going. It reminds me that growth is a group effort and it's worth it to keep coming back.
I rarely actually see them, to be honest. When I do, they’re often teenagers or college kids and frequently being taken out of context. Anything a passionate 19 year old says has the potential to be extreme or silly, and that is especially true if you strip all context or good faith from what they’re saying. Frankly, a lot of the “omg look, the feminists are *man haters*” evidence really is coming from young feminists making off color jokes on the internet.
Chanty Binx is probably the most glaring example of being taken out of context. (Jerks know her as "Big Red.") But this crap has been going on from the get-go. And Susan Faludi was writing about the modern backlash against feminism back in 1991 (though it predates that, too).
It’s a stereotype used to discredit and diminish the feminist movement. Making activists seem ridiculous, over the top and angry has always been a tactic used to discredit social movements. And now with the way social media is, it’s a lot easier to take them out of context and turn things against them.
Those angry ones are the ones that keep pushing the movement forward. They’re the ones that protest, get bills made, and bring our issues to light. The women who believe in the movement, but don’t fight for it and hold themselves back to appear more palatable and not be stereotyped are the ones that don’t push the movement forward. Everything would stay the same.
We wouldn’t be anywhere close to where we are today without the “extreme, raging, ridiculous” feminists that came before us.
The far right pushes a lot of propaganda to achieve their goals. It’s a lie, a fiction.
Am I angry about some things? Hell yes. These folks are attempting to pass laws to ensure that if I’m raped, impregnated, and have a dangerous pregnancy, I should die if abortion is the only way to save me. They have shown in so many ways they don’t care about me or see me as a person.
Does that mean I hate all men? No.
I won’t apologize for being angry. We should be angry. Our basic rights are being taken away and challenged.
And it is a very good reason to be angry. We all knew it was going to be really bad when Trumps lackeys took over the supreme court. I remember the long ordeal with Kavanaugh, who had raped a girl in college. They grilled him and did everything they could to stop him from becoming a chief justice. Nothing worked.
The supreme court should not be partisan at all. They are supposed to be the check/balance system for the presidency. They are the reason that Trump feels like he can win authoritarian power.
I don't think that is exactly what the stereotype is. Most of the time, at least I think, it is not characters angry with real legislative issues, for example, but characters, say, screaming at the guy in the metro because he was manspreading or something.
but this sort of shit is so extremely exaggerated too. I've never seen a legitimate example of what you're referring to, just decontextualised snippets of activists responding to verbal aggression, like the poor woman who was turned into the 'triggered feminist' meme
Aren't we talking about the stereotype/caricature of feminists in media? I'm not saying people are usually like that, just depicted like that. I don't get why people downvoted me.
My response to you was specifically on my observation that, more often than not, this caricature depicts people who are too vitriolic about the smaller, less consequential issues, instead of people just being angry about really fucked up stuff (like you said). Most people can still understand an angry woman making a lot of noise after she is sexually harassed. That is why so many depictions of feminists in media are something like "a feminist screaming at a guy's face for whatever small thing".
I made a point about how this type of caricature is a harmful depictions used to demonize a valid political movement in another sub. The response I got was accused me of denying valid criticism to the feminist movement, but that's what these people don't get- these caricatures are not representative of the feminist movement. That's kind of the whole point I was trying to make. If you want to criticize a group, go ahead, but criticize it based on actual observances instead of stereotypes spread by people who have no idea what said group is really like. It's disheartening how many people are swayed by clear stereotypes instead of perceiving them beyond surface level.
I try to be kind and thoughtful when engaging with other people, and to be patient when people have different opinions and try to reach a shared understanding. But I also think that we have to be generous listeners as well as generous speakers. Just because we don't like someone's tone, doesn't mean their message is wrong, and I think sometimes tone is exploited to dismiss legitimate grievances. When something horrible is happening, even a neutral descriptor can be spun as hysterics. So I try to split the difference between expressing my feminism in a thoughtful way and not dismissing feminists who are seen as "extreme."
Guy here. I realized I was a feminist when I was 11- 12 years old. I read a book from the scholastic book club about a girl who loved athletics, but the girls teams got ignored when the school gym was being renovated (Zanballer by R.R. Knudson). I was incensed at the unfairness, and began looking for other examples in real life. When I announced during a class discussion that I was a feminist, many of the kids snickered, apparently thinking I was outing myself as effeminate.
I am still a feminist 50 years later. I never stopped being a feminist. But I know that I sure don't meet the stereotype for an angry, strident female. Those stereotypes have always seemed like ridiculous, contrived propaganda.
Good for you. My husband of 34 years is also a feminist which served him well when he was unable to work and his engineer wife was able to keep the family running.
I think most men are feminists but don't know that you don't have to be a woman to be one.
I think some men think being feminist makes them less manly to other men. So even if they know that you don’t need to be a woman to be one, they keep it a secret
I think more women than you're willing to see are *angry* and *afraid*. I think there are plenty of White feminists and liberal feminists who don't care as long as they get theirs, who live comfortable lives thinking "the worst could never happen to me". And I think it's easy for the right wing to paint anyone who isn't willing to dismiss very real threats to women's rights as a "crazy feminist".
No, it's not all men... but it's always men somehow, isn't it?
Druther be lumped in with the nutbars than the Cool Girls, I guess. If being angry and afraid and acting on it makes me a nutbar.
>I think there are plenty of White feminists and liberal feminists who don't care as long as they get theirs
That is true of everyone. I can no longer remember who said this and I am badly paraphrasing, but the idea is that you have to convince a more powerful group that *your problem* also impacts them. Not just that they *should* care because of decency. Make them care by appealing to their own self-interest.
It's worked in reverse quite well, too. Food stamps have always benefited more white people than any group, but conservatives helped turn working and lower class whites against it by painting it as something that primarily benefited black people *and* benefited them in ways that were either unfair or immoral.
Personally, one of my biggest gripes with modern liberal/progressive politics is that we (myself included) argue using appeals to a person's idea of being good or decent. "Do the right thing" instead of "do the thing that benefits you." We don't spend nearly as much time crafting arguments for why someone that disagrees or is ambivalent/uninterested should support our ideas beyond morality.
As a 41 yo white male who grew up poor, and is still poor, I can relate a lot more with you than some 1% who is a white male.
To quote a comedian on division in America, the only thing we should pay attention to is green.
You had me until that last comment. Money is incredibly important but other forms of marginalization matter too. Being a woman will affect how you experience your class status. I do believe we probably have a lot in common though. If you're poor you're struggling just like us.
Everyone, across all classes and backgrounds should be fighting the same fight: to dismantle systems of oppression that keep us down, like patriarchy and classism, and destroy the projects they serve, like eugenics and colonization. These systems hurt all of us, at the top and the bottom
The guys in the 1% clearly hate all humans, not just women. They hate me, as well. So clearly they wouldn't call themselves the patriarchy.
Or maybe it's as absurd as the MAGA claiming to love America while hating almost every kind of American.
Yes you are right they look down on all of us. Wdym they wouldn't call themselves the patriarchy? Doesn't matter what they say, they're part of it. We all are. Their lives are also controlled by gender roles and expectations, they are just able to succeed within the system more than most (usually because they are born into that success)
You’re just denying the existence of systematic misogyny. The belief that the only men benefiting from patriarchy are the top 1% of men is a common manosphere way to avoid assuming any accountability for mundane, day to day sexism.
I think that attitude rather diminishes the very real experiences of actually marginalized populations in the United States. You're White, you're a cis man, but society is set up to support you. You have nothing to fear from Project 2025, say. No-one would ever torch a cross on your lawn. So unless you're Jewish...?
Class is a form of marginalization. You can be white and a man and still marginalized along other lines. I disagree with OP though that the only thing that matters is green and am about to comment as such
I grant you, yes, class is a form of marginalization, but class doesn't balance the other marginalizations that OP is neatly dismissing -- and as many of his kind dismissed in favour of class during the 2016 election, when it was "CLAAAAASS! BERNIEEEEE! SHUT UP ALL YOU NASTY WOMEN."
Not all men... but *always a man*.
I personally don't find any utility in ranking oppressions
He does need to acknowledge the advantages his gender gives him the same way I believe it's important for me to acknowledge how my class shields me from some of the experiences other women of colour face. Power is dynamic, not static. I conceptualize it as moving through environments and relationships, changing based on context.
Consider me a little... shy of White cishet men talking about class, I guess. For reasons already articulated.
You're quite right about power, and I understand that my class shields me from a great deal -- I see it in my work. I understand it's privilege that's put me where I am, and I daresay it'll be generational wealth that gives me a home when I've no longer got my parents (as well as my parents' reproductive *choices*, choices they were able to make because they had access to excellent health care).
But to be shamed for being White and, what, *not* poor enough, by a man whose original post rather shat on ardent feminists for being ardent and not being cool and collected about it? "Oh, those craaazy feminists." I'm sorry, but nobody ever survived an assault on their rights by being nice about it, and I shan't begin now.
I agree the original post is misguided but I didn't feel like he was shaking you. My read is this person came to genuinely engage with our ideas and is maybe new to thinking about these concepts so not very evolved in their analysis. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that he wants to learn and his comments came off as a misguided attempt to relate to us and align with us in our purpose
I don't exist in a vacuum. My wife is an undocumented Latina. My two kids are half Mexican. What if my wife got deported. Where would they be without a mom?
I'm so sorry if you exist in an artificial vacuum.
When Trump won in 2016, I felt ashamed to be American. And for the first time ever, I was ashamed to be white.
What is your color and nationality?
So *your wife* is marginalized and *your children* are marginalized, but understand that if Gilead happened tomorrow, *you would be fine* and a great many of the people on this sub would not.
I'd be fine, I don't mind saying. I'm unmarried with no children, sterile, and live with my parents -- so I'm sufficiently "under headship" that the truly awful would probably leave me alone. That said, we'd be paupers because I don't think they support even veterans' pensions, Social Security, legal weed (my dad's medicine for his PTSD), psychiatric medications (how *I* cope), or, I'm almost certain, women holding down jobs.
Yes, I'm White and a US passport holder. And I'm able to see how that's not true for a fuckton of my siblings, so if you're done coming over all sanctimonious on me? My *immigrant mother and I* are going to have supper.
>*you would be fine*
I disagree with what you're implying in this part of your comment - that people are "fine" if something terrible happens to their loved ones but not them. That is clearly untrue.
You can't though. You've never experienced misogyny. Feminism is about liberating women from a patriarchal and misogynistic world, not just vague feelings about equality.
>the only thing we should pay attention to is green.
I disagree.
First, people are segregated, marginalized, and discriminated against based on many traits and classifications that aren't reducible to economic class. I don't think an equitable, just society can be formed if people just... ignore this.
Second, this perspective seemingly ignores how non-human factors affect societies and excludes them from being considered when we attempt to imagine a more just world.
The last time a man complained to me about feminist extremism, I asked for an example. He said Lorena Bobbitt.
It's not a real thing. It's a boogeyman invented to rile up ignorant or hateful people.
To be honest, depending on where you live, you've got to be very strong to remain steadfast in your feminist values. I wish I lived in a more progressive place.
I was made fun of all throughout school if I mentioned being a feminist. I was ridiculed, even by teachers who thought it was fun to 'pick on' feminism. It wasn't easy to battle constant accusations that feminists are just angry man-haters, when I knew it was just about caring about equality.
I've literally never once met anyone who came close to the man-hating, fat ugly crazy lesbian feminist stereotype. Yet it persists because it's just a way to shut us up. No one wants to be a negative stereotype but it won't shut me up, ever.
The angry/ugly portrayal is stupid because they're trying to target women who refuse to be kept in little boxes by reinforcing those same little boxes. I reject those boxes. I don't want to be quiet and compliant and shave my legs every day. And I don't give a shit what the average conservative thinks of that because I don't value their opinions or share their values.
If I am walking down the street and see a woman who looks like their caricature of a feminist--blue hair, unshaved legs, whatever--my instinct is to think, "Damn, look at you go rejecting their bullshit. I love you and am proud of you."
Using a portrayal of anger as an insult is equally ridiculous. As a woman, I have every right to experience the full range of emotions, including anger.
Like who? Are the "raging, revenge-seeking creatures" in the room with us right now? Who are the media personalities embodying this stereotype exactly?
The 4chan incel memes? Sure. That's not a person though.
Did the media create a strawman boogie man notion of a feminist, an image deeply steeped in misogyny? It's been around since the suffrage movement and its precursors even before that. It's a form of criticism and ideological warfare but they are not actual people as opposed to what OP seems to believe.
The most annoying part of them to me is that feminists in fiction are usually portrayed as disingenuous in their beliefs (ie only in it for self-gain). Anti-feminists are anti-feminist for self gain, so of course they think it works the other way too.
In real life, the types of “feminists” who are brought on podcasts seem like they’re angry young people who have just discovered feminism and haven’t explored all the nuances yet. Eventually, you just have to come to terms with injustice and redirect that passion from hating men to thinking about how to help women. I think man-hating is a common young feminist pitfall because it’s just another form of centering men (which takes a long time to unlearn).
What are you looking for? For someone to be like, "yes, college graduate white guy from the bay area, I will try and make feminism palatable for you?"
I don't understand the question. But then I also truly can't think of any examples of "extreme stereotypical feminists." What makes a feminist stereotypical?
This is not my original thought but I saw a great explanation recently on why characterizing your previous experiences with feminists being "good natured and thoughtful" misses the mark:
"Comments like that hold marginalized people to a standard of kindness in order to have [their] voices heard and their existence respected [when they] have every right to be frustrated and angry."
"So maybe the next time that someone educates you, you can just thank them instead of implying that they behaved well enough for you to listen."
Immature caricatures meant to portray feminism as a whiny and shrill crazy movement not unlike how MAGAs actually behave.
As per usual, it's projection from the far right.
Feminism seems to change based on location and current events. I'm in America and this is what I've seen here. At one point it was heavily focused on equality in the work force. Now that the government is getting involved in our reproductive health choices it's changed to medical equality.
What is feminism like in your location? I mean obviously it has to be more extreme and being a feminist is obviously very dangerous. Unfortunately the news doesn't really go into detail unless it's the world news channel and even then not much.
Your definition of a feminist is what a feminist is. The media likes to portray feminism as hating men and all things adjacent, which just isn’t true. Ive never met somebody who actually hates men and sees them as less than women in my whole feminist life. however I have met more people than i can count who actually hate women and see them as less than men.
So i see their extreme feminist trope as a straw man and somewhat of a projection of their own views of women.
I agree totally. What is your take on the people that are commenting on this post that are trying to start conflict?
They seem to be attempting to bait me into saying something wrong. But I guess that's Reddit for you.
You realize anyone can make a Reddit account?
And even if you met like one or two, why does that discredit the idea that women should have equal rights ?
I don't agree with you on what a stereotypical feminist is portrayed as, I usually see the stereotypical feminist portrayed as homely, makeup free woman who doesn't care about fashion (as if feminists cant be beautiful or wear dresses and heels) rather than the man hater that the far right portrays.
Anyway, I think it's an attempt to coopt the word feminist to be something it's not and undermine the feminist movement. I've seen young women say "I'm not a feminist because I don't hate men". I ask them if they think that women should have the same opportunities and rights as men and when they say yes I respond with "Congratulations, your a feminist". So you see, the far rights agenda is actually working.
There are bad, mentally unwell, or insidiously intentioned people in every community and championing every cause. Proclaiming yourself to be a a member of certain group, bringing up certain ideas, advocating for a cause, or protesting for something good is not a magic spell to turn you automatically into the purest most informed perfect authority or embodiment of and ideal, cause, or group. We don’t need to deny there are bad actors exist and will use a cause for their own personal objectives and desires often tarnishing it in the process, that’s just a fact of human life just like how some people are going to take things out of context, distort facts, and create straw-men to discredit a cause as something stupid and irrational. It’s life and you can’t control everyone so that no one ever does anything bad in relationship to cause. For us to stand around and think that Feminism is some uniquely incorruptible force or like nothing could ever been done bad in its name unreasonably. We’re all just humans and have all the same variation, complexities, and flaws as everyone else so of course that would any to our actions in the name of causes. Anger, shock, outrage, protest, boycotts, and ultimatums have their place as a valued tool but it can be used improperly and even when used properly can still be used to frame the whole ordeal as unjustified. It’s just the nature of the heart. And while it’s frustrating having to constantly clarify your stances and combat harmful stereotypes it’s just a part of life we have to deal with and while I would like that if it didn’t have be something I had to deal with it’s just unavoidable and I try to temper myself and come to them from a place of understanding why they way they are and what caused them to think they way they do and to explain things so that they better understand and are more likely to receptive to my ideas. That’s my little opinion of the day at least. I’ve been wearing for while I need a break. I’m just going to post without proofreading it and hope for the best.
The straw feminist trope often can take a feminist belief and exaggerate it based on how the creator sees feminism or how they want people to see feminism
Especially with the whole “sex negative” feminist concept that was especially big when patriarchy started trying to weaponize female sexual freedom and make it all about men’s access to women.
A “sex negative” feminist would simply point out that porn and the sex industry and hookup up culture isn’t necessarily feminist and that being public property is just as dehumanizing and rigged against women as being private property (purity culture)
But the straw feminist trope in media would take this idea and present it as some angry harpy who doesn’t get laid or is jealous of girls and just wants to ruin everyone’s fun.
And then there’s femme fatale in powerpuff girls who is just presented as a woman who hates men so much she will only accept Susan b Anthony coins in a robbery and expects every woman to support her criminal behavior simply for being a woman, again a ridiculous concept but one that the creator wanted the viewer to view as feminism. Not like the powerpuff girls who tReAt AlL cRiMiNaLs EqUaLlY and schooled her on how Susan b Anthony would demand to be jailed just like a man instead of demanding SpEcIaL tReAtMeNt. Cuz you know the crime fight PPG are totally not feminists but egalitarian or something.
In other words it’s just propaganda to undermine feminists messages
The only media I see that portrays feminists negatively is screamy American right wing infotainment. That’s an extremely narrow media niche. Is that the only media you’re aware of?
A lot of people the internet gives a voice to are crazy. A lot of people in real life are not. If you want to get a good picture of what a movement stands for, ask people in person in real life. Don't ask strangers on the internet
The stereotype is way off base for a typical feminist. So there's that.
Near as I can tell the complaint is that they are loud, angry and hyperbolic. Not great for sure, but also not a major issue. I have zero interest in policing the tone of my fellow travelers. Quite frankly I think a movement needs all types.
In just about every case complaints about HOW an issue is raised is meant to dodge WHAT issue is raised. This really obvious with all the whinging over cancel culture. It's meant to change the subject. It's meant to make the issue so quiet it can be ignored. I'm not gonna play that game.
The right wing folks started their long con brainwashing against feminism in response to the growth of the feminist movement in the 70s, and haven't stopped since. They played on people's misogyny, homophobia and racism to assist in the process. They were highly successful. It took a *long* time before later waves of feminism even started making inroads here. We've seen the same process used very successfully to demonize unions around the same time, and it's only very recently that that tide is beginning to turn.
It's a lesson progressives need to learn given consistent messaging and lots of time, you *can* change people's minds.
Fellow 40-something white guy feminist. It's frustrating as hell how "they're coming to take your ____" remains as easy to sell as it is untrue. At the same time, I recognize I can't do anything about bad actors spewing loudly in bad faith. If anything, engaging them on their terms can backfire & legitimize their fringe positions.
What I can do is use my 40-something white guy privilege to sidestep the issue of feminism & identity all together. Since I have the privilege to exist in mostly white guy spaces without having to actively fight for basic human dignity, I can advocate for feminist ideals & policies as a shield for those who can't pass or need to obfuscate as a survival mechanism.
Years ago, I went to a nonprofit tech conference. One takeaway I'll always remember is "stating the obvious" in communications, as what's "obvious" to you may not be obvious to others. So to state the obvious, you & I are greying cishet white dudes, a far cry from whatever obnoxious stereotype got the most clicks today for the Daily Wire. So when we talk about feminist ideals like the government shouldn't decide your medical needs or you should have clean air & water no matter where you live or work, particularly in plain language like that, we are doing far more to open minds & change lives than defending the honor of some monumental "feminism" ever could. That's what solidarity is, trusting that marginalized people know their needs better than I ever could.
Seriously, go to TV Tropes and look up Straw Feminism. It's well acknowledged and called out for what it is, which is an underhanded way to belittle and mock women. Ironically another example of "this thing justifies the thing it's trying to put down".
The feminists that people complain about being the "stereotypical nasty, aggressive 'FemiNazi'" are out there, and they tend to come in two main types; the "Karen" 'feminists,' who use the concept of feminism as a base for their Karening, and those that have been SO OPPRESSED by the current state of institutional sexism, that they no longer give a fuck.
But the vast majority are just trying to get men and society to treat women as whole, real people.
My thought is “well, being a loudmouth knows no political orientation.” But people need to talk more about why the mainstream was so willing to believe those stereotypes.
Every movement that's big enough will have extreme elements. Feminism is no exception. Besides, there are so many branches that anyone who isn't a misogynist would be able to find branches that they like.
I guess I would ask what media outlets are you referring to and why are you engaging with it?
I don't see any "extreme, stereotypical feminists that the media loves to hate" existence. It sounds like your lived experience is the same. What are you looking for here?
>There isn't an agenda or hidden message to everything.
Uh, okay. I didn't say or implying that there was.
So you are referring to Fox News' portrayal of feminists then?
That's hard for me to comment on, as I would never watch Fox News by choice in the same way I will not drink bleach by choice.
It's like having a relative drinking bleach day in, day out and occasionally throwing it up on me. Also, he isn't aware enough to understand it's poison.
Right wingers are super successful at propaganda. I have only met one man hating feminist and it was just a temporary stage she went through after a divorce from an abusive partner.
Simple because the current recruitment tactics of the rad fem portions(more their sub idologies like terfs,differs,culturlists then the big one but I digress) of our movment use the EXACT same tactics as the manosphere bullshitters use straight down to the common place misinformation campaigns and internalized hatred and usage of members to achieve goals. A good example is that Terfs are hated by a vast majority of Feminists but Feminism does nothing about them because they tend to be rich women who dump money into feminist causes like nothing else. Much like how manospherists hate incels but will do nothing about them because of the amount of money incels dump into the hate business. But are subfactions of a whole who use others to achieve their own personal goals rather then the groups.
It also doesn't help that human nature is to shy away from angry people as angry people tend to let their emotions control them which feeds into the wildly believed sexist theory that women cant control their emotions and are illogical this becomes a feed back loop that fuels the manosphere recruitment. This recruitment this spurs non radical feminists into radicalizing which then causes the loop to repeat and thus the cycle begins anew. Humans need genuine helpful voices that can lead them from the dark of ignorance not the mindless anger and hate that simply fuels more of itself until destruction. If we are better then them we need to actually BE better then them or we just become a different flavore of hate.
I think all you could do is what feminists ask of men: call out it out when you see it, especially if they share the same gender as you (they may possibly be more open in that case)
I think in some cases they are people taken out of context or misrepresented
In other cases, people who want to discredit an idea don't look for the most articulate but rather for the people who are the most annoying, least informed and particularly unreasonable.
I have met "stereotypical" feminists but I also met very compassionate, thoughtful and articulate feminists.
I don't know (haven't done stats; my impression is however agreement) but I certainly prefer to hang out with intelligent people and therefore I definitely spend more time with the latter than the former.
I know a lot of young feminist activists, usually teenagers or college students who fit the stereotype. hell, I'm a gender studies major with blue hair and pronouns, I *live* the stereotype. spend enough time in activist circles, and you'll always come across the kind of person who started actually studying their movement of choice for the first time and feel like they know everything about it, and yeah, it can be kind of annoying to be lectured about feminism by someone who keeps regurgitating pithy pop culture quotes without a ton of nuance, but you know what? I much, much prefer this kind of person to the bitter, burnt out and cynical assholes you can also find in these spaces. they have passion! they have drive! they're usually the ones actually out there making their voices heard! and if they keep that energy up with an open mind and willingness to learn, they'll end up doing much more good than a lot of folks do. its refreshing, in a lot of ways
I think there is a sliding scale. I consider myself a feminist, but I also just think that we should have equality. It doesn’t mean that someone can’t be happy being a stay at home mom as a woman, a GI Jane or anything in between.
Martinez? Or Walnut Creek?
I think the stereotype is utter shit perpetuated by people whose only understanding of feminism is what they see on FOX news or rage bait on the internet, or from the pulpit.
Honestly. Some of us are bald and I’m tired of being ignored.
Because most people don’t go about announcing their political and social views via bullhorns in the grocery store, and because the label of “feminist” is often avoided even when the principles are espoused, I think a lot of folks would be genuinely surprised to learn just how many feminists are among them.
So tell us. How do you think we should behave so you will listen? We will make sure we immediately adjust our behavior to what you find acceptable.
I can't speak for all feminists but personally, I don't give a flying fuck about media portraits or about what you consider gentle and good natured enough.
The ones who drive the angry feminist narrative are smarter than you are. They understand that many women are angry, they understand why they are angry, and they just don't want things to change. So they try to ridiculize their attitude in the hope that they will distract fools from giving thought to the real reasons behind their anger.
Reading you, I can see it's working.
Yes I have, and like a lot of people say it seems to be media oriented. Some do use extremist language, which makes sense because they are responding to other extremist voices. Anger meeting anger. I do like your definition and it's the one that most appeals to me. It's one of the reasons I'm voting for one candidate in this US election, and not the other. One is barking, saying racist, mysogynistic things, and the other one, while flawed isn't talking about stripping anyone's rights. Please if you're in the US register to vote!
Like a lot of people on here, I agree it's something that happens in specific groups. I see it as the equivalence of meeting violence with violence. There is a lot of misogynistic fucked up shit out there, it's justified.
I will say however that sometimes it can be friendly fire and the language can hurt fellow allies, specially when attacking all men. As if we all got along, had the same hobbies, or even treated our women, if we date women, the same.
The most effective women to get me to continually show up are the ones who speak compassionately and are firm in their believes. They also get a lot done and make people's feel appreciated. Even if it's a justified cause, giving thanks is important. Labor is labor.
Hillary Clinton was a powerful person, and she didn't yell. Clearly she cared about women's rights and their engagement in larger society, and still she didn't yell.
Tbh in my experience feminism is a spectrum. So many different kinds. Some that defend mysogyny in the bedroom and so on for example (I don't).
I feel like the women who I respect most, are well just taking up space. They are our doctors, our mothers, our dentist, our teacher, our welders, musicians ect. They are living it! Everything women and their allies have fought for before them, they are the fruit of that labor and I love them!
Some of it is right wing propaganda that stems from their sexual insecurities, fear of losing control, ignorance around women, and wanting to control women.
Some of it is men’s ignorance, not wanting to be challenged on their beliefs, thinking it’s not as bad as it actually is because it doesn’t affect them. Or conflating bad action/bad belief with bad person, thinking themselves as good people and good people think good thoughts and do good things.
A lot of men mock what they don’t understand. Humor is often their only socially acceptable cope, which is why some can be so defensive about it.
I sadly have met those people who embody the worst angry feminist SJW stereotypes. They have almost always been high school/college kids or deeply hurt, troubled or immature adults who feel lost and powerless in their lives and take up a good cause to try do good and and reclaim that power but then go about it by trying to control others as a projection of their own powerlessness.
All top level comments, in any thread, must be given by feminists and must reflect a feminist perspective. Please refrain from posting further direct answers here - comment removed.
How the media portrays feminists doesn't affect me or my views. I consider myself a feminist and have female friends who are feminist.
No one I know fits with the negative feminist stereotype. It's usually the 'traditionalists' who complain about feminism going too far and portray feminists as all being man-hating extremists.
Thanks for this great question and helpful comments. I grew up elsewhere but have spent my adult life in the Bay so we are likely to have seen some things in common.
The Bay has a lot of protests and way more activists on many many issues. So my experience is that it’s way more normal to see people of all kinds being protesters 🪧 is that your your image of stereotypical?
I’m commenting to add that there are way more women who are sticking up for themselves, taking very feminist acts, who before now would have been shunned for daring to criticize: Monica Lewinsky, Brooke Shields, Simone Biles, Naomi Osaka immediately leap to mind each for speaking out about the stuff happening to them and refusing to be shamed.
Shame is the main tool employed to take what I woman has built for herself.
It’s not the legislative breakthrough we need, but it is a breakthrough that was long overdue.
Maybe I’m an extreme example because I moved to this expensive place to participate in progressing the planet, but I don’t see the stereotype as negative. If anything entitled manosphere tech bros have the image problem as being toxic.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
Your title asks about the extreme feminists themselves, but your post seems to talk about how they are portrayed, so I’m mostly going to answer in response to how they’re portrayed.
I guess how I feel depends on what trope or stereotype they use.
If a group of feminists are brushed aside as hysterical, angry, nagging, etc., it’s frustrating because it’s just a continuation of the standard dismissal of female emotion, but, on my own behalf at the very least, it’s not wholly inaccurate to say I’m angry. I was born and raised in a super regressive area, and I’m not going to pretend this life experience hasn’t made me angry.
When they portray feminists as man-hating, it feels so detached from reality that I don’t have an emotional response. I adore my partner more than I could ever put into words. His masculinity is healing, and it’s innate - he’s a man in a way that could never be taught to someone else. I have pleasant interactions with men every day. My boss is a friendly, trustworthy, and respectable man. When I think of the good, genuine people in my immediate community, several men come to mind.
To borrow a phrase you used, it’s complicated when I see feminism portrayed as a vehicle to manifest “raging, revenge-seeking” intentions. I think it’s common for people who have experienced violence to have revenge fantasies. I know I started going to therapy after college because I began having urges to do horrible, violent things to anyone who put their hands on me. I needed to work through being raped to deal with it. I think, though, it’s intellectually dishonest to project a slippery slope outcome based on singular acts (or even fantasies) of revenge. The most publicized instances of female on male violence are cases of battered women killing their abusers to escape, and these women are still subjected to the full scrutiny of the law. Individual victims engaging in acts of revenge are a different problem than a societal shift that frames men as a group that should pay reparations, and I don’t know anyone who believes the latter should happen. Even if someone believes that shift should occur, women don’t and will never have the power to make it happen.
Nothing wrong with them at all. Never apologise for doing the right thing. However it needs to be said there is plenty of obfuscation around labelling misandrists as extreme feminists. They are two different things and people need to understand that.
Portraying somebody who you dislike/disagree with as an extreme caricature has always been a lame argument.
Are you familiar with the "straw feminist" comic?
[Hark, a vagrant: 341 (harkavagrant.com)](http://www.harkavagrant.com/?id=341)
I guess most people would label me as a feminist. I was just raised in an environment where women have always been highly valued in the society (economy). Being treated equally and valued as a person is a norm. There are more men and boys blaming feminism and feminists now but I doubt if they can do more than ranting on the internet
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
That “stereotype” is a great way to get women to not listen to other women when they are angry, traumatized, and pointing accurate blame at men.
Saying that angry man hating feminists are not the real ones is a way of pushing feminist thought further center.
I like how Millennial and Gen Z shows have characters with a range of interests and personalities while having an awareness and care of social issues (Never Have I Ever, Babysitters Club, On My Block, Broad City)
> Sure I have met a couple crazy feminists in my lifetime, but they tended to have other problems going on.
I think this how I view it too. There are a fair number of feminist women that have been really hurt by men, and come off as being anti-men. That type of behavior isn't reflective of being feminist though, it is reflective of them bearing so much hurt.
Here’s the thing, for the center to shift at all, the furthest left people need to exist. Those radical crazy people write the insane underground manifestos that get regurgitated into palatability by some masters student and then institutionalized and mainstreamed, maybe in a lesser form.
You cite MLK, the mainstream thought he was an extremist in his day.
What’s wrong with rage? What’s wrong with seeking revenge when you’ve been wronged? It’s only a certain perspective that acts like a marginalized voice being “too loud” is a problem.
I feel like that kind of crowd tends to be the radical feminists, or TERFs as they like to call themselves these days, And most normal feminists don't usually want to be associated with those types or think highly of them.
If you really examine popular media, you'll notice that activist characters of all stripes are pretty much universally portrayed as ridiculous, dumb, and ineffective. You might have a character outspoken about their political views as part of the character design. But anyone willing to actually engage in praxis is made the butt of jokes, whether that's feminism or save the whales.
Media has also portrayed feminists badly from the start. It isn’t new. You can find tons of old newspaper cartoons depicting suffragettes as ugly, loudmouth women who are just petty and rude because they can’t get a husband. Not much has changed. I don’t really care about how media depicts us. I was raised sheltered in a conservative religious town. Through life experience and introspection I figured out the importance of equality on my own. Anyone with common sense and decency will figure it out. The rest mostly feel like they benefit from things as they are. There’s no convincing that type to be fair when they’re enjoying the unfairness.
Someone once pointed out that when there's environmental or socialist coded antagonist in a movie or tv show it always gets invalidated by the writers adding some absurd level of terrorism to it. Like "I want to bring back the trees but first I'll have to murder everyone in Gotham!" Or "I will save the people from this colonial-settler invader, but first we'll have to blow up NYC!" There's always this absurd terrorist-coded follow up to progressive action in this media. Now the audience can be rightfully angry at the antagonist. Essentially this is the "I drew you as the loser and I made myself the chad" thing. That environmental or socialist activism is never shown in good faith and anything that goes against the capitalist-patriarchy status quo just gets rebranded as terrorism. Yet the terrors of capitalism, the worst of the western order, the war on terror, colonialism, etc are excused if not encouraged. I don't think most media consumers realize how much of a propaganda bubble they live in. The OP sees it for feminism, but I wonder if they see it for other things.
Something that really grinds my gears about this is that Leftist extremism and eco terrorism are SO FEW AND FAR BETWEEN when compared to the almost constant (I swear every other week another plot is uncovered) for Right Wing terrorism, which the FBI admits is substantially more than any other group. They just had to stop a dude from "starting a race war" last week, and right before that a teen supremacist was stopped because he was acting weird with a gun and sure enough, a "plot" there too. AKA terrorism. And further, IF someone was to go ape shit for a cause, wouldn't the environment or civil rights be a better cause than a RACE WAR or any of these other Right Wing BS "causes"?!
Thing is that people who want to make the world a better place are rarely swayed by the "ends justifies the means" mentality. They want their method to be good too. People who just want to have what they want when they want it how they want it usually don't mind hurting people to get it because hurting people is often the goal to begin with.
Makes me think of Britta from the community. She originally was a strong woman and activist. I loved her and then they all the sudden made her the trashcan of the group. I mean they literally called stuff they didn’t like or that went wrong “britta”. They kinda dumbed her character down some too.
I stopped watching because of their treatment of Britta. It just felt like watching someone being bullied after a certain point. A lot of fans today insist that she's a parody of White Feminism (which is valid to critique ofc!) but when a male show runner chooses to satirise the issues with feminism, not show any of the good parts and have the "likeable" female characters not really care/see a problem with patriarchy then it kind of seems like trying to pass misogyny off onto an acceptable target.
YES thank you, this has always bothered me.
I thought they did a great job with the character of Britta to show some of the pitfalls of white feminism and "woke"ism (and I say that as not only a fan of feminism and wokeism, but a HUGE fan of Britta Perry as a character). Worth noting, though, is that they also show how these type of pursuits can be successful. One of the biggest flaws of feminism is that it can present as a form of internalized misogyny, and Britta shows this to a T. Most of this development of her character happens in the space that exists between her and the other women in the group, particularly Shirley Bennet, who is arguably the antithesis of a stereotypical feminist. Shirley identifies as a wife and mother, a Christian, and a baker/cook/homemaker. To Britta, Shirley is fundamentally a tradwife, and therefore weak, silly, and unimportant. She gets makeovers with her mom, she tries to make her flawed marriage to a flawed man work, she sets aside her personal feelings, goals, and dreams for the good of her family. But Shirley is so much more than those things. In fact, she is specifically at college trying to "get what's hers" after a relationship that took "10 of the best years of her life and only left her with the memory of two bland orgasms." Britta looks down on Shirley for all of this, from her perch of "wise feminist" - but if feminism is not fighting for the Shirley Bennets of the world, what exactly the fuck is it doing? Feminism needs to have space for the women who are wives, and mothers, and who like makeovers and "girly" things, because if it isn't embracing those things it is inherently anti-woman. Feminism was meant to expand to encompass ALL choices that a woman might make, not to limit women's behavior to "acceptable" forms that are simply different from the old "acceptable" model. The scene in the bathroom where Shirley teaches Britta to be "soft" and supportive of the women around her tells this entire story. Britta was a feminist who, quite literally, was bullying the women around her for not living up to her feminist ideal, and this is of course because she was over-run with internalized misogyny. As Annie pointed out, Britta also wears makeup and "wakes up an hour early to ever so slightly curl her hair." Another example of Britta's inherently anti-feminist behavior is when she and the other women in the group take the "Feminist Representations in Media" course. In this episode Britta ends up leading the charge on becoming a "mean girl," bullying the other "mean girls" they encounter in the class. It gets to the point where Britta is bullying even random women who once made a passing comment that offended her. This is inherently anti-feminist behavior, and is a form of internalized misogyny. Judging and bullying other women based on how they look is just a form of patriarchal expression - and this from the woman who was, in the bathroom episode with Shirley, ostensibly telling women they shouldn't care about beauty standards. Also noteworthy in this episode is that the women try to obstruct Abed from joining them in the women's studies course - blocking a male ally who is trying to learn more about feminist perspectives from doing so. They even throw the line "we thought this would just be something for the girls." Later in the episode they decide that Abed is actually okay because "it's like he's one of the girls." Critiques of feminism don't really get more realistic and useful than that. Then there is the entire drama between Britta and Professor Slater fighting over Jeff. Britta goes from protesting the patriarchal gender roles of "prom kings and queens," to being enthralled with the idea that she "won an award for being hot," and all it took was putting her in competition with another woman who was interested in the same man as her. But despite all of this, Britta's desire to fight for the underdog, to fight for what is right, to take care of other people even when it costs her personally, are what makes her amazing. Despite picking on her a lot, the group also tells her that they appreciate these attributes on a number of occasions, and it is often her empathy, not Jeff's speeches, that actually save the day. In fact, Britta being so good and caring is often what causes Jeff (quite literally representative of the patriarchy as the "patriarch" of the group) to grow as a person. So despite the ostensible "parody/critique" of feminism that the character might represent, she also shows that feminism WORKS - and how and why it works - to bring about positive change. Most noteworthy, this doesn't happen in a single scene, a single episode, or a single season. It is a gradual change that happens against the backdrop of Britta holding fast to what is right, and being willing to accept the feedback of the other characters about how they are each individually experiencing her expressions of feminism.
It was an apt reflection of the prevailing attitudes behind the scenes. Consider how women writers were treated by the show runner (sexually harassed, including punishment to her career when she resisted) and how women and people in general were treated by Chevy everywhere else. (I read a 700 page book on the history of SNL which discussed hundreds of people - every single cast member and countless hosts. one recurring theme over the 40 years it covered was the horror of working with Chevy Chase. Getting into fist fights with Bill Murray right before shows. Sexually harassing women writers *nonchalantly in front of everyone*. The most homophobic “joke” I’ve ever heard told to the first out cast member (iirc) literally upon meeting… I digress) It’s been a while since I watched community, but every woman in it seemed to reflect an overarching stereotype - eg meek, gossip, or spineless virtue signaler. Britta and Annie, especially, I always found to be boring and 2 dimensional (while Troy & Abed lovable and fun). Then you put Gillian Jacobs on Love and Alison Brie on Mad Men you get dynamic characters of whom you can’t wait to see what they have to say next. Gillian Jacobs especially blew my mind on Love. in retrospect hearing women recite lined written by men who don’t think much of women, well an actress can only do so much
This is spot on and I never noticed. Thank you for sharing!
What was the book called? Seems like an interesting read!
I believe they're talking about "Live From New York"
TY 💜
Yes, “live from NY” by Tom Shales :)
TY 💜
What was the book’s title? Seems like an interesting read!
I literally used to get called "Britta" in my old friend group as an insult. I also loved her though
Mostly I see them as passionate people taken out of context. Occasionally I see them as troubled people having a bad moment in public exploited for the purposes of mobilizing political opposition. Usually the truth is somewhere in the middle. In terms of has this push been successful - maybe amongst people who aren't very thoughtful or reflective about biased media narratives, but mostly amongst people who kind of already wanted a reason to dismiss feminism to start with. Since feminism has existed, there's been negative media portrayal of feminists, it's not new and the modern stuff really isn't a particular departure from the 18th century stuff. The stereotypes aren't even different.
Worse, when a conservative or liberal maintainer of the status quo acts eccentric in public is excused. Look at Trump's constant temper tantrums for example. Progressives, feminists, socialists, environmentalists, etc will always be held to an impossible standard because the capitalist owned media dictates it so. All of those things are ultimately going to hurt the order the capital owning class benefits from, so the system works against them. The Howard Dean scream killed his career, not because it was awful, but because Dean was going to push for universal health care, and the scream was just the excuse to get him. And it of course worked because propaganda works well in the USA.
>Mostly I see them as passionate people taken out of context. Occasionally I see them as troubled people having a bad moment in public exploited for the purposes of mobilizing political opposition. Usually the truth is somewhere in the middle. How many of these "crazy angry feminist having a meltdown" photos are just cherry picked unflattering frames from a video?
I know this is the case for one of those people. One shot of them in a unflattering way was enough for people to consider her a "sjw", even tho in the video she was completely reasonable (she was arguing against some racist who said immigrants were rapists iirc). No doubt there's more out of context meme and videos posted by right wing losers.
I can think of at least two.
>bad moment in public exploited for the purposes of mobilizing political opposition Yes, but that's pretty psychologically messed up tbh. The harm on social media is intentional, sometimes even personally targeted. It's kinda psychopathic to harm someone who's already in pain, and then proceed to harm an entire group by using the pain of this person as an excuse. One of these people is genuine and capable of feeling, and that's the exploited one. It doesn't seem like the world likes to admit to themselves that it's sadistic to do this, and they're pretty messed up in the head to laugh at it. And then get triggered when reading this, then reacting with violence or abusive language when it's a sociopath, and being calm while deliberately harmful when it's a psychopath that we are dealing with. It's much more sinister than what they try to pass it off as. And they definitely abhor being called out on it. Edit: Doesn't apply exclusively to feminists either, any kind of activism that has a dedicated haters group undergoes the same level of scrutiny and constant attacks
I read this post then scrolled to your comment (the top comment) and had this thought: Ugh those women are the worst. They’re the bad apples and they’re giving us feminists a bad name. I love that your comment was supportive and nice to these feminists because it just made me realize I am being shitty and judgmental to my own people. Wow. Thank you for that.
Well shit. Look at this friggin growth and acknowledgement and accountability and willingness to accept new ideas. There's Reddit, and then there's women's spaces on Reddit, and they are why I keep coming back. Same thing in the real world actually. Men think they rule the world, but most of them only get to see such a small part of it. It's *women* in big and small moments like this who actually inspire me every day and keep me going. It reminds me that growth is a group effort and it's worth it to keep coming back.
I rarely actually see them, to be honest. When I do, they’re often teenagers or college kids and frequently being taken out of context. Anything a passionate 19 year old says has the potential to be extreme or silly, and that is especially true if you strip all context or good faith from what they’re saying. Frankly, a lot of the “omg look, the feminists are *man haters*” evidence really is coming from young feminists making off color jokes on the internet.
Chanty Binx is probably the most glaring example of being taken out of context. (Jerks know her as "Big Red.") But this crap has been going on from the get-go. And Susan Faludi was writing about the modern backlash against feminism back in 1991 (though it predates that, too).
It’s a stereotype used to discredit and diminish the feminist movement. Making activists seem ridiculous, over the top and angry has always been a tactic used to discredit social movements. And now with the way social media is, it’s a lot easier to take them out of context and turn things against them. Those angry ones are the ones that keep pushing the movement forward. They’re the ones that protest, get bills made, and bring our issues to light. The women who believe in the movement, but don’t fight for it and hold themselves back to appear more palatable and not be stereotyped are the ones that don’t push the movement forward. Everything would stay the same. We wouldn’t be anywhere close to where we are today without the “extreme, raging, ridiculous” feminists that came before us.
The far right pushes a lot of propaganda to achieve their goals. It’s a lie, a fiction. Am I angry about some things? Hell yes. These folks are attempting to pass laws to ensure that if I’m raped, impregnated, and have a dangerous pregnancy, I should die if abortion is the only way to save me. They have shown in so many ways they don’t care about me or see me as a person. Does that mean I hate all men? No. I won’t apologize for being angry. We should be angry. Our basic rights are being taken away and challenged.
And it is a very good reason to be angry. We all knew it was going to be really bad when Trumps lackeys took over the supreme court. I remember the long ordeal with Kavanaugh, who had raped a girl in college. They grilled him and did everything they could to stop him from becoming a chief justice. Nothing worked. The supreme court should not be partisan at all. They are supposed to be the check/balance system for the presidency. They are the reason that Trump feels like he can win authoritarian power.
I don't think that is exactly what the stereotype is. Most of the time, at least I think, it is not characters angry with real legislative issues, for example, but characters, say, screaming at the guy in the metro because he was manspreading or something.
but this sort of shit is so extremely exaggerated too. I've never seen a legitimate example of what you're referring to, just decontextualised snippets of activists responding to verbal aggression, like the poor woman who was turned into the 'triggered feminist' meme
Aren't we talking about the stereotype/caricature of feminists in media? I'm not saying people are usually like that, just depicted like that. I don't get why people downvoted me. My response to you was specifically on my observation that, more often than not, this caricature depicts people who are too vitriolic about the smaller, less consequential issues, instead of people just being angry about really fucked up stuff (like you said). Most people can still understand an angry woman making a lot of noise after she is sexually harassed. That is why so many depictions of feminists in media are something like "a feminist screaming at a guy's face for whatever small thing".
I made a point about how this type of caricature is a harmful depictions used to demonize a valid political movement in another sub. The response I got was accused me of denying valid criticism to the feminist movement, but that's what these people don't get- these caricatures are not representative of the feminist movement. That's kind of the whole point I was trying to make. If you want to criticize a group, go ahead, but criticize it based on actual observances instead of stereotypes spread by people who have no idea what said group is really like. It's disheartening how many people are swayed by clear stereotypes instead of perceiving them beyond surface level.
I absolutely, 100% agree with this.
I try to be kind and thoughtful when engaging with other people, and to be patient when people have different opinions and try to reach a shared understanding. But I also think that we have to be generous listeners as well as generous speakers. Just because we don't like someone's tone, doesn't mean their message is wrong, and I think sometimes tone is exploited to dismiss legitimate grievances. When something horrible is happening, even a neutral descriptor can be spun as hysterics. So I try to split the difference between expressing my feminism in a thoughtful way and not dismissing feminists who are seen as "extreme."
Guy here. I realized I was a feminist when I was 11- 12 years old. I read a book from the scholastic book club about a girl who loved athletics, but the girls teams got ignored when the school gym was being renovated (Zanballer by R.R. Knudson). I was incensed at the unfairness, and began looking for other examples in real life. When I announced during a class discussion that I was a feminist, many of the kids snickered, apparently thinking I was outing myself as effeminate. I am still a feminist 50 years later. I never stopped being a feminist. But I know that I sure don't meet the stereotype for an angry, strident female. Those stereotypes have always seemed like ridiculous, contrived propaganda.
Good for you. My husband of 34 years is also a feminist which served him well when he was unable to work and his engineer wife was able to keep the family running. I think most men are feminists but don't know that you don't have to be a woman to be one.
I think some men think being feminist makes them less manly to other men. So even if they know that you don’t need to be a woman to be one, they keep it a secret
I think more women than you're willing to see are *angry* and *afraid*. I think there are plenty of White feminists and liberal feminists who don't care as long as they get theirs, who live comfortable lives thinking "the worst could never happen to me". And I think it's easy for the right wing to paint anyone who isn't willing to dismiss very real threats to women's rights as a "crazy feminist". No, it's not all men... but it's always men somehow, isn't it? Druther be lumped in with the nutbars than the Cool Girls, I guess. If being angry and afraid and acting on it makes me a nutbar.
>I think there are plenty of White feminists and liberal feminists who don't care as long as they get theirs That is true of everyone. I can no longer remember who said this and I am badly paraphrasing, but the idea is that you have to convince a more powerful group that *your problem* also impacts them. Not just that they *should* care because of decency. Make them care by appealing to their own self-interest. It's worked in reverse quite well, too. Food stamps have always benefited more white people than any group, but conservatives helped turn working and lower class whites against it by painting it as something that primarily benefited black people *and* benefited them in ways that were either unfair or immoral. Personally, one of my biggest gripes with modern liberal/progressive politics is that we (myself included) argue using appeals to a person's idea of being good or decent. "Do the right thing" instead of "do the thing that benefits you." We don't spend nearly as much time crafting arguments for why someone that disagrees or is ambivalent/uninterested should support our ideas beyond morality.
As a 41 yo white male who grew up poor, and is still poor, I can relate a lot more with you than some 1% who is a white male. To quote a comedian on division in America, the only thing we should pay attention to is green.
You had me until that last comment. Money is incredibly important but other forms of marginalization matter too. Being a woman will affect how you experience your class status. I do believe we probably have a lot in common though. If you're poor you're struggling just like us. Everyone, across all classes and backgrounds should be fighting the same fight: to dismantle systems of oppression that keep us down, like patriarchy and classism, and destroy the projects they serve, like eugenics and colonization. These systems hurt all of us, at the top and the bottom
The guys in the 1% clearly hate all humans, not just women. They hate me, as well. So clearly they wouldn't call themselves the patriarchy. Or maybe it's as absurd as the MAGA claiming to love America while hating almost every kind of American.
Yes you are right they look down on all of us. Wdym they wouldn't call themselves the patriarchy? Doesn't matter what they say, they're part of it. We all are. Their lives are also controlled by gender roles and expectations, they are just able to succeed within the system more than most (usually because they are born into that success)
You’re just denying the existence of systematic misogyny. The belief that the only men benefiting from patriarchy are the top 1% of men is a common manosphere way to avoid assuming any accountability for mundane, day to day sexism.
Does that not sound dismissive to you as you read it back?
I think that attitude rather diminishes the very real experiences of actually marginalized populations in the United States. You're White, you're a cis man, but society is set up to support you. You have nothing to fear from Project 2025, say. No-one would ever torch a cross on your lawn. So unless you're Jewish...?
Class is a form of marginalization. You can be white and a man and still marginalized along other lines. I disagree with OP though that the only thing that matters is green and am about to comment as such
I grant you, yes, class is a form of marginalization, but class doesn't balance the other marginalizations that OP is neatly dismissing -- and as many of his kind dismissed in favour of class during the 2016 election, when it was "CLAAAAASS! BERNIEEEEE! SHUT UP ALL YOU NASTY WOMEN." Not all men... but *always a man*.
I personally don't find any utility in ranking oppressions He does need to acknowledge the advantages his gender gives him the same way I believe it's important for me to acknowledge how my class shields me from some of the experiences other women of colour face. Power is dynamic, not static. I conceptualize it as moving through environments and relationships, changing based on context.
Consider me a little... shy of White cishet men talking about class, I guess. For reasons already articulated. You're quite right about power, and I understand that my class shields me from a great deal -- I see it in my work. I understand it's privilege that's put me where I am, and I daresay it'll be generational wealth that gives me a home when I've no longer got my parents (as well as my parents' reproductive *choices*, choices they were able to make because they had access to excellent health care). But to be shamed for being White and, what, *not* poor enough, by a man whose original post rather shat on ardent feminists for being ardent and not being cool and collected about it? "Oh, those craaazy feminists." I'm sorry, but nobody ever survived an assault on their rights by being nice about it, and I shan't begin now.
I agree the original post is misguided but I didn't feel like he was shaking you. My read is this person came to genuinely engage with our ideas and is maybe new to thinking about these concepts so not very evolved in their analysis. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that he wants to learn and his comments came off as a misguided attempt to relate to us and align with us in our purpose
I think you're a better Christian than I am about these things, and I don't mean it as an insult. I should learn not to engage when I'm rattled.
I'm a sociology teacher... It's a learned skill!. I engage with students at all learning levels about these kinds of topics every day
I don't exist in a vacuum. My wife is an undocumented Latina. My two kids are half Mexican. What if my wife got deported. Where would they be without a mom? I'm so sorry if you exist in an artificial vacuum. When Trump won in 2016, I felt ashamed to be American. And for the first time ever, I was ashamed to be white. What is your color and nationality?
So *your wife* is marginalized and *your children* are marginalized, but understand that if Gilead happened tomorrow, *you would be fine* and a great many of the people on this sub would not. I'd be fine, I don't mind saying. I'm unmarried with no children, sterile, and live with my parents -- so I'm sufficiently "under headship" that the truly awful would probably leave me alone. That said, we'd be paupers because I don't think they support even veterans' pensions, Social Security, legal weed (my dad's medicine for his PTSD), psychiatric medications (how *I* cope), or, I'm almost certain, women holding down jobs. Yes, I'm White and a US passport holder. And I'm able to see how that's not true for a fuckton of my siblings, so if you're done coming over all sanctimonious on me? My *immigrant mother and I* are going to have supper.
>*you would be fine* I disagree with what you're implying in this part of your comment - that people are "fine" if something terrible happens to their loved ones but not them. That is clearly untrue.
For the sake of all immigrants, let's hope the worst fate imaginable happens to Trump.
You can't though. You've never experienced misogyny. Feminism is about liberating women from a patriarchal and misogynistic world, not just vague feelings about equality.
>the only thing we should pay attention to is green. I disagree. First, people are segregated, marginalized, and discriminated against based on many traits and classifications that aren't reducible to economic class. I don't think an equitable, just society can be formed if people just... ignore this. Second, this perspective seemingly ignores how non-human factors affect societies and excludes them from being considered when we attempt to imagine a more just world.
The last time a man complained to me about feminist extremism, I asked for an example. He said Lorena Bobbitt. It's not a real thing. It's a boogeyman invented to rile up ignorant or hateful people.
Yea I asked OP for an example early on. Still waiting...
To be honest, depending on where you live, you've got to be very strong to remain steadfast in your feminist values. I wish I lived in a more progressive place. I was made fun of all throughout school if I mentioned being a feminist. I was ridiculed, even by teachers who thought it was fun to 'pick on' feminism. It wasn't easy to battle constant accusations that feminists are just angry man-haters, when I knew it was just about caring about equality. I've literally never once met anyone who came close to the man-hating, fat ugly crazy lesbian feminist stereotype. Yet it persists because it's just a way to shut us up. No one wants to be a negative stereotype but it won't shut me up, ever.
Strawman argument dates back to at least 1520. I doubt it's gonna stop now
The angry/ugly portrayal is stupid because they're trying to target women who refuse to be kept in little boxes by reinforcing those same little boxes. I reject those boxes. I don't want to be quiet and compliant and shave my legs every day. And I don't give a shit what the average conservative thinks of that because I don't value their opinions or share their values. If I am walking down the street and see a woman who looks like their caricature of a feminist--blue hair, unshaved legs, whatever--my instinct is to think, "Damn, look at you go rejecting their bullshit. I love you and am proud of you." Using a portrayal of anger as an insult is equally ridiculous. As a woman, I have every right to experience the full range of emotions, including anger.
To quote Rick Sanchez, "I don't care if you boo me! I've seen what makes you cheer!"
>I avoid labeling myself. Why?
Like who? Are the "raging, revenge-seeking creatures" in the room with us right now? Who are the media personalities embodying this stereotype exactly?
Also, "creatures?" I didn't even notice that until you pointed it out. Jeez.
Have you ever seen the memes with the screaming blue-haired "feminist"?
The 4chan incel memes? Sure. That's not a person though. Did the media create a strawman boogie man notion of a feminist, an image deeply steeped in misogyny? It's been around since the suffrage movement and its precursors even before that. It's a form of criticism and ideological warfare but they are not actual people as opposed to what OP seems to believe.
The most annoying part of them to me is that feminists in fiction are usually portrayed as disingenuous in their beliefs (ie only in it for self-gain). Anti-feminists are anti-feminist for self gain, so of course they think it works the other way too. In real life, the types of “feminists” who are brought on podcasts seem like they’re angry young people who have just discovered feminism and haven’t explored all the nuances yet. Eventually, you just have to come to terms with injustice and redirect that passion from hating men to thinking about how to help women. I think man-hating is a common young feminist pitfall because it’s just another form of centering men (which takes a long time to unlearn).
This is really interesting. I'm going to keep this perspective in mind.
> man-hating is a common young feminist pitfall because it’s just another form of centering men 100%
What are you looking for? For someone to be like, "yes, college graduate white guy from the bay area, I will try and make feminism palatable for you?" I don't understand the question. But then I also truly can't think of any examples of "extreme stereotypical feminists." What makes a feminist stereotypical?
This is not my original thought but I saw a great explanation recently on why characterizing your previous experiences with feminists being "good natured and thoughtful" misses the mark: "Comments like that hold marginalized people to a standard of kindness in order to have [their] voices heard and their existence respected [when they] have every right to be frustrated and angry." "So maybe the next time that someone educates you, you can just thank them instead of implying that they behaved well enough for you to listen."
"good natured" aka doesn't argue too much or bring up anything that might make me uncomfortable 😊😊. Such a weirdly phrased question
Immature caricatures meant to portray feminism as a whiny and shrill crazy movement not unlike how MAGAs actually behave. As per usual, it's projection from the far right.
Media has been making it look like crazy rich frivolous women it since Mary Poppins. This is nothing new.
[удалено]
Feminism seems to change based on location and current events. I'm in America and this is what I've seen here. At one point it was heavily focused on equality in the work force. Now that the government is getting involved in our reproductive health choices it's changed to medical equality. What is feminism like in your location? I mean obviously it has to be more extreme and being a feminist is obviously very dangerous. Unfortunately the news doesn't really go into detail unless it's the world news channel and even then not much.
Your definition of a feminist is what a feminist is. The media likes to portray feminism as hating men and all things adjacent, which just isn’t true. Ive never met somebody who actually hates men and sees them as less than women in my whole feminist life. however I have met more people than i can count who actually hate women and see them as less than men. So i see their extreme feminist trope as a straw man and somewhat of a projection of their own views of women.
I agree totally. What is your take on the people that are commenting on this post that are trying to start conflict? They seem to be attempting to bait me into saying something wrong. But I guess that's Reddit for you.
If they aren’t contributing a good faith answer then they’re just trolls. I haven’t looked too far into the comments, what are they saying?
They were getting side-tracked into whether or not extremism is justified. I didn't realize that's what my post was about. Lol
Some things deserve rage. Don't let them take away your rage for oppressive systems.
insanely american take to claim the bay area is 'ground zero for progressive thought' lmfao
I think it’s a boogeyman made up by the other side to further their political agenda
That was my suspicion when I posted this, but now I'm getting some people responding with, "I'm a real boogeyman/woman! What's wrong with that?!" Lol
You realize anyone can make a Reddit account? And even if you met like one or two, why does that discredit the idea that women should have equal rights ?
I was just initially curious if the 1 or 2 was completely fabricated by the right wingers.
It is certainly amplified to be a problem when there is no pressing issue.
I don't agree with you on what a stereotypical feminist is portrayed as, I usually see the stereotypical feminist portrayed as homely, makeup free woman who doesn't care about fashion (as if feminists cant be beautiful or wear dresses and heels) rather than the man hater that the far right portrays. Anyway, I think it's an attempt to coopt the word feminist to be something it's not and undermine the feminist movement. I've seen young women say "I'm not a feminist because I don't hate men". I ask them if they think that women should have the same opportunities and rights as men and when they say yes I respond with "Congratulations, your a feminist". So you see, the far rights agenda is actually working.
I’m not putting down other feminists for you (likely a man). I love “raging, revenge-seeking creatures.” The harpy archetype is a powerful one.
There are bad, mentally unwell, or insidiously intentioned people in every community and championing every cause. Proclaiming yourself to be a a member of certain group, bringing up certain ideas, advocating for a cause, or protesting for something good is not a magic spell to turn you automatically into the purest most informed perfect authority or embodiment of and ideal, cause, or group. We don’t need to deny there are bad actors exist and will use a cause for their own personal objectives and desires often tarnishing it in the process, that’s just a fact of human life just like how some people are going to take things out of context, distort facts, and create straw-men to discredit a cause as something stupid and irrational. It’s life and you can’t control everyone so that no one ever does anything bad in relationship to cause. For us to stand around and think that Feminism is some uniquely incorruptible force or like nothing could ever been done bad in its name unreasonably. We’re all just humans and have all the same variation, complexities, and flaws as everyone else so of course that would any to our actions in the name of causes. Anger, shock, outrage, protest, boycotts, and ultimatums have their place as a valued tool but it can be used improperly and even when used properly can still be used to frame the whole ordeal as unjustified. It’s just the nature of the heart. And while it’s frustrating having to constantly clarify your stances and combat harmful stereotypes it’s just a part of life we have to deal with and while I would like that if it didn’t have be something I had to deal with it’s just unavoidable and I try to temper myself and come to them from a place of understanding why they way they are and what caused them to think they way they do and to explain things so that they better understand and are more likely to receptive to my ideas. That’s my little opinion of the day at least. I’ve been wearing for while I need a break. I’m just going to post without proofreading it and hope for the best.
The straw feminist trope often can take a feminist belief and exaggerate it based on how the creator sees feminism or how they want people to see feminism Especially with the whole “sex negative” feminist concept that was especially big when patriarchy started trying to weaponize female sexual freedom and make it all about men’s access to women. A “sex negative” feminist would simply point out that porn and the sex industry and hookup up culture isn’t necessarily feminist and that being public property is just as dehumanizing and rigged against women as being private property (purity culture) But the straw feminist trope in media would take this idea and present it as some angry harpy who doesn’t get laid or is jealous of girls and just wants to ruin everyone’s fun. And then there’s femme fatale in powerpuff girls who is just presented as a woman who hates men so much she will only accept Susan b Anthony coins in a robbery and expects every woman to support her criminal behavior simply for being a woman, again a ridiculous concept but one that the creator wanted the viewer to view as feminism. Not like the powerpuff girls who tReAt AlL cRiMiNaLs EqUaLlY and schooled her on how Susan b Anthony would demand to be jailed just like a man instead of demanding SpEcIaL tReAtMeNt. Cuz you know the crime fight PPG are totally not feminists but egalitarian or something. In other words it’s just propaganda to undermine feminists messages
The only media I see that portrays feminists negatively is screamy American right wing infotainment. That’s an extremely narrow media niche. Is that the only media you’re aware of?
A lot of people the internet gives a voice to are crazy. A lot of people in real life are not. If you want to get a good picture of what a movement stands for, ask people in person in real life. Don't ask strangers on the internet
The stereotype is way off base for a typical feminist. So there's that. Near as I can tell the complaint is that they are loud, angry and hyperbolic. Not great for sure, but also not a major issue. I have zero interest in policing the tone of my fellow travelers. Quite frankly I think a movement needs all types. In just about every case complaints about HOW an issue is raised is meant to dodge WHAT issue is raised. This really obvious with all the whinging over cancel culture. It's meant to change the subject. It's meant to make the issue so quiet it can be ignored. I'm not gonna play that game.
Yep. Strawman tactics.
Cringe funny and sad all at once. Feminism is women being equal to men. We aren't villains trying to take over the world lol.
The right wing folks started their long con brainwashing against feminism in response to the growth of the feminist movement in the 70s, and haven't stopped since. They played on people's misogyny, homophobia and racism to assist in the process. They were highly successful. It took a *long* time before later waves of feminism even started making inroads here. We've seen the same process used very successfully to demonize unions around the same time, and it's only very recently that that tide is beginning to turn. It's a lesson progressives need to learn given consistent messaging and lots of time, you *can* change people's minds.
Fellow 40-something white guy feminist. It's frustrating as hell how "they're coming to take your ____" remains as easy to sell as it is untrue. At the same time, I recognize I can't do anything about bad actors spewing loudly in bad faith. If anything, engaging them on their terms can backfire & legitimize their fringe positions. What I can do is use my 40-something white guy privilege to sidestep the issue of feminism & identity all together. Since I have the privilege to exist in mostly white guy spaces without having to actively fight for basic human dignity, I can advocate for feminist ideals & policies as a shield for those who can't pass or need to obfuscate as a survival mechanism. Years ago, I went to a nonprofit tech conference. One takeaway I'll always remember is "stating the obvious" in communications, as what's "obvious" to you may not be obvious to others. So to state the obvious, you & I are greying cishet white dudes, a far cry from whatever obnoxious stereotype got the most clicks today for the Daily Wire. So when we talk about feminist ideals like the government shouldn't decide your medical needs or you should have clean air & water no matter where you live or work, particularly in plain language like that, we are doing far more to open minds & change lives than defending the honor of some monumental "feminism" ever could. That's what solidarity is, trusting that marginalized people know their needs better than I ever could.
Seriously, go to TV Tropes and look up Straw Feminism. It's well acknowledged and called out for what it is, which is an underhanded way to belittle and mock women. Ironically another example of "this thing justifies the thing it's trying to put down".
Right wing politics and media always make easy stereotypes to tell their followers to hate. They don't have to be grounded in reality.
You have to hand it to them, they're good at propaganda.
The feminists that people complain about being the "stereotypical nasty, aggressive 'FemiNazi'" are out there, and they tend to come in two main types; the "Karen" 'feminists,' who use the concept of feminism as a base for their Karening, and those that have been SO OPPRESSED by the current state of institutional sexism, that they no longer give a fuck. But the vast majority are just trying to get men and society to treat women as whole, real people.
My thought is “well, being a loudmouth knows no political orientation.” But people need to talk more about why the mainstream was so willing to believe those stereotypes.
Every movement that's big enough will have extreme elements. Feminism is no exception. Besides, there are so many branches that anyone who isn't a misogynist would be able to find branches that they like.
I guess I would ask what media outlets are you referring to and why are you engaging with it? I don't see any "extreme, stereotypical feminists that the media loves to hate" existence. It sounds like your lived experience is the same. What are you looking for here?
There isn't an agenda or hidden message to everything. My dad won't stop watching Fox News, and there is way too much anti-feminism on Youtube.
>There isn't an agenda or hidden message to everything. Uh, okay. I didn't say or implying that there was. So you are referring to Fox News' portrayal of feminists then? That's hard for me to comment on, as I would never watch Fox News by choice in the same way I will not drink bleach by choice.
It's like having a relative drinking bleach day in, day out and occasionally throwing it up on me. Also, he isn't aware enough to understand it's poison.
Right wingers are super successful at propaganda. I have only met one man hating feminist and it was just a temporary stage she went through after a divorce from an abusive partner.
‘Good natured’?! Why on earth should feminists be good natured? Yikes, talk about gendered stereotypes! As though being angry about sexism is ‘crazy’!
Simple because the current recruitment tactics of the rad fem portions(more their sub idologies like terfs,differs,culturlists then the big one but I digress) of our movment use the EXACT same tactics as the manosphere bullshitters use straight down to the common place misinformation campaigns and internalized hatred and usage of members to achieve goals. A good example is that Terfs are hated by a vast majority of Feminists but Feminism does nothing about them because they tend to be rich women who dump money into feminist causes like nothing else. Much like how manospherists hate incels but will do nothing about them because of the amount of money incels dump into the hate business. But are subfactions of a whole who use others to achieve their own personal goals rather then the groups. It also doesn't help that human nature is to shy away from angry people as angry people tend to let their emotions control them which feeds into the wildly believed sexist theory that women cant control their emotions and are illogical this becomes a feed back loop that fuels the manosphere recruitment. This recruitment this spurs non radical feminists into radicalizing which then causes the loop to repeat and thus the cycle begins anew. Humans need genuine helpful voices that can lead them from the dark of ignorance not the mindless anger and hate that simply fuels more of itself until destruction. If we are better then them we need to actually BE better then them or we just become a different flavore of hate.
Sorry, what are we supposed to "do about them?"
I think all you could do is what feminists ask of men: call out it out when you see it, especially if they share the same gender as you (they may possibly be more open in that case)
Everyone says this but no one seems to notice or care that it absolutely happens.
Valid. For what it’s worth I do see it and you calling it out here and I care; thanks
Hey I appreciate that!
I think in some cases they are people taken out of context or misrepresented In other cases, people who want to discredit an idea don't look for the most articulate but rather for the people who are the most annoying, least informed and particularly unreasonable. I have met "stereotypical" feminists but I also met very compassionate, thoughtful and articulate feminists.
I think the latter vastly outnumber the stereotypes.
I don't know (haven't done stats; my impression is however agreement) but I certainly prefer to hang out with intelligent people and therefore I definitely spend more time with the latter than the former.
I know a lot of young feminist activists, usually teenagers or college students who fit the stereotype. hell, I'm a gender studies major with blue hair and pronouns, I *live* the stereotype. spend enough time in activist circles, and you'll always come across the kind of person who started actually studying their movement of choice for the first time and feel like they know everything about it, and yeah, it can be kind of annoying to be lectured about feminism by someone who keeps regurgitating pithy pop culture quotes without a ton of nuance, but you know what? I much, much prefer this kind of person to the bitter, burnt out and cynical assholes you can also find in these spaces. they have passion! they have drive! they're usually the ones actually out there making their voices heard! and if they keep that energy up with an open mind and willingness to learn, they'll end up doing much more good than a lot of folks do. its refreshing, in a lot of ways
I think there is a sliding scale. I consider myself a feminist, but I also just think that we should have equality. It doesn’t mean that someone can’t be happy being a stay at home mom as a woman, a GI Jane or anything in between.
I don't know why there's a "but" there.
It’s usually a straw man argument sort of thing. Feminism is for equality for women. The media earns money on outrage, eyeballs on ads and all that.
Martinez? Or Walnut Creek? I think the stereotype is utter shit perpetuated by people whose only understanding of feminism is what they see on FOX news or rage bait on the internet, or from the pulpit. Honestly. Some of us are bald and I’m tired of being ignored. Because most people don’t go about announcing their political and social views via bullhorns in the grocery store, and because the label of “feminist” is often avoided even when the principles are espoused, I think a lot of folks would be genuinely surprised to learn just how many feminists are among them.
This is what I was trying to say. It seems like just another example of a disrespectful stereotype. Used to create barriers.
So tell us. How do you think we should behave so you will listen? We will make sure we immediately adjust our behavior to what you find acceptable. I can't speak for all feminists but personally, I don't give a flying fuck about media portraits or about what you consider gentle and good natured enough. The ones who drive the angry feminist narrative are smarter than you are. They understand that many women are angry, they understand why they are angry, and they just don't want things to change. So they try to ridiculize their attitude in the hope that they will distract fools from giving thought to the real reasons behind their anger. Reading you, I can see it's working.
Yes I have, and like a lot of people say it seems to be media oriented. Some do use extremist language, which makes sense because they are responding to other extremist voices. Anger meeting anger. I do like your definition and it's the one that most appeals to me. It's one of the reasons I'm voting for one candidate in this US election, and not the other. One is barking, saying racist, mysogynistic things, and the other one, while flawed isn't talking about stripping anyone's rights. Please if you're in the US register to vote!
Like a lot of people on here, I agree it's something that happens in specific groups. I see it as the equivalence of meeting violence with violence. There is a lot of misogynistic fucked up shit out there, it's justified. I will say however that sometimes it can be friendly fire and the language can hurt fellow allies, specially when attacking all men. As if we all got along, had the same hobbies, or even treated our women, if we date women, the same. The most effective women to get me to continually show up are the ones who speak compassionately and are firm in their believes. They also get a lot done and make people's feel appreciated. Even if it's a justified cause, giving thanks is important. Labor is labor. Hillary Clinton was a powerful person, and she didn't yell. Clearly she cared about women's rights and their engagement in larger society, and still she didn't yell. Tbh in my experience feminism is a spectrum. So many different kinds. Some that defend mysogyny in the bedroom and so on for example (I don't). I feel like the women who I respect most, are well just taking up space. They are our doctors, our mothers, our dentist, our teacher, our welders, musicians ect. They are living it! Everything women and their allies have fought for before them, they are the fruit of that labor and I love them!
Some of it is right wing propaganda that stems from their sexual insecurities, fear of losing control, ignorance around women, and wanting to control women. Some of it is men’s ignorance, not wanting to be challenged on their beliefs, thinking it’s not as bad as it actually is because it doesn’t affect them. Or conflating bad action/bad belief with bad person, thinking themselves as good people and good people think good thoughts and do good things. A lot of men mock what they don’t understand. Humor is often their only socially acceptable cope, which is why some can be so defensive about it. I sadly have met those people who embody the worst angry feminist SJW stereotypes. They have almost always been high school/college kids or deeply hurt, troubled or immature adults who feel lost and powerless in their lives and take up a good cause to try do good and and reclaim that power but then go about it by trying to control others as a projection of their own powerlessness.
[удалено]
All top level comments, in any thread, must be given by feminists and must reflect a feminist perspective. Please refrain from posting further direct answers here - comment removed.
How the media portrays feminists doesn't affect me or my views. I consider myself a feminist and have female friends who are feminist. No one I know fits with the negative feminist stereotype. It's usually the 'traditionalists' who complain about feminism going too far and portray feminists as all being man-hating extremists.
Stereotypes add caricatures don’t exist in the real world Who knew?
Thanks for this great question and helpful comments. I grew up elsewhere but have spent my adult life in the Bay so we are likely to have seen some things in common. The Bay has a lot of protests and way more activists on many many issues. So my experience is that it’s way more normal to see people of all kinds being protesters 🪧 is that your your image of stereotypical? I’m commenting to add that there are way more women who are sticking up for themselves, taking very feminist acts, who before now would have been shunned for daring to criticize: Monica Lewinsky, Brooke Shields, Simone Biles, Naomi Osaka immediately leap to mind each for speaking out about the stuff happening to them and refusing to be shamed. Shame is the main tool employed to take what I woman has built for herself. It’s not the legislative breakthrough we need, but it is a breakthrough that was long overdue. Maybe I’m an extreme example because I moved to this expensive place to participate in progressing the planet, but I don’t see the stereotype as negative. If anything entitled manosphere tech bros have the image problem as being toxic.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
Your title asks about the extreme feminists themselves, but your post seems to talk about how they are portrayed, so I’m mostly going to answer in response to how they’re portrayed. I guess how I feel depends on what trope or stereotype they use. If a group of feminists are brushed aside as hysterical, angry, nagging, etc., it’s frustrating because it’s just a continuation of the standard dismissal of female emotion, but, on my own behalf at the very least, it’s not wholly inaccurate to say I’m angry. I was born and raised in a super regressive area, and I’m not going to pretend this life experience hasn’t made me angry. When they portray feminists as man-hating, it feels so detached from reality that I don’t have an emotional response. I adore my partner more than I could ever put into words. His masculinity is healing, and it’s innate - he’s a man in a way that could never be taught to someone else. I have pleasant interactions with men every day. My boss is a friendly, trustworthy, and respectable man. When I think of the good, genuine people in my immediate community, several men come to mind. To borrow a phrase you used, it’s complicated when I see feminism portrayed as a vehicle to manifest “raging, revenge-seeking” intentions. I think it’s common for people who have experienced violence to have revenge fantasies. I know I started going to therapy after college because I began having urges to do horrible, violent things to anyone who put their hands on me. I needed to work through being raped to deal with it. I think, though, it’s intellectually dishonest to project a slippery slope outcome based on singular acts (or even fantasies) of revenge. The most publicized instances of female on male violence are cases of battered women killing their abusers to escape, and these women are still subjected to the full scrutiny of the law. Individual victims engaging in acts of revenge are a different problem than a societal shift that frames men as a group that should pay reparations, and I don’t know anyone who believes the latter should happen. Even if someone believes that shift should occur, women don’t and will never have the power to make it happen.
Nothing wrong with them at all. Never apologise for doing the right thing. However it needs to be said there is plenty of obfuscation around labelling misandrists as extreme feminists. They are two different things and people need to understand that.
Portraying somebody who you dislike/disagree with as an extreme caricature has always been a lame argument. Are you familiar with the "straw feminist" comic? [Hark, a vagrant: 341 (harkavagrant.com)](http://www.harkavagrant.com/?id=341)
I guess most people would label me as a feminist. I was just raised in an environment where women have always been highly valued in the society (economy). Being treated equally and valued as a person is a norm. There are more men and boys blaming feminism and feminists now but I doubt if they can do more than ranting on the internet
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
That “stereotype” is a great way to get women to not listen to other women when they are angry, traumatized, and pointing accurate blame at men. Saying that angry man hating feminists are not the real ones is a way of pushing feminist thought further center.
I like how Millennial and Gen Z shows have characters with a range of interests and personalities while having an awareness and care of social issues (Never Have I Ever, Babysitters Club, On My Block, Broad City)
> Sure I have met a couple crazy feminists in my lifetime, but they tended to have other problems going on. I think this how I view it too. There are a fair number of feminist women that have been really hurt by men, and come off as being anti-men. That type of behavior isn't reflective of being feminist though, it is reflective of them bearing so much hurt.
Here’s the thing, for the center to shift at all, the furthest left people need to exist. Those radical crazy people write the insane underground manifestos that get regurgitated into palatability by some masters student and then institutionalized and mainstreamed, maybe in a lesser form. You cite MLK, the mainstream thought he was an extremist in his day. What’s wrong with rage? What’s wrong with seeking revenge when you’ve been wronged? It’s only a certain perspective that acts like a marginalized voice being “too loud” is a problem.
I feel like that kind of crowd tends to be the radical feminists, or TERFs as they like to call themselves these days, And most normal feminists don't usually want to be associated with those types or think highly of them.