Misogynistic Feminism

Post Reply New Topic

Traditionally, women worked in the home. They cooked, cleaned, budgeted, raised the children, etc.
Traditionally, men worked at jobs/careers.
Women viewed "men's work" as important and necessary.
Men viewed "women's work" as unimportant, menial, and beneath them.

Today, it seems that the feminist movement also views homemaking and child rearing as unimportant, menial, and beneath them. In this way, modern feminists have the same view of women who perform traditional tasks as a man of the 1950s might.

Is there a misogynistic streak in today's feminism? A view that the only life path worth pursuing is the traditional male path, and that all matters traditionally feminine are without value?

(I consider myself a feminist, and I know there are all types of feminism. When I speak of feminism in the above, I am talking about the mainline, activist, modern movement - not individual women's views)

They don't have the same view of that woman.

Is it really odd to regard tasks that fail to give one much autonomy and status in society as being less than those that allow for independence and which give status? I mean, cooking and cleaning is relatively unimportant and menial, and budgeting and raising children are more and more considered shared tasks.

Shouldn't it be one of feminism's aims to give these tasks value and status? The fact that child-rearing, for example, is considered a low-status activity is ridiculous. Yet instead of trying to raise the esteem of motherhood in society, today's feminist movement increasingly calls on women not to have children.



Unimportant until you have no clean clothes to wear or decent food to eat.



Yes, everyone agrees a man should "help" (like it's a favor) raise the kids. In actuality, women do far more of the child-rearing.

People that can afford to avoid it by paying other people to watch kids, societies construct schools to do it for them. Teachers and babysitters aren't paid very much.


Dishwasher. Washing machine. Fast food. Why do these things exist? Because people don't want to spend time washing or cooking. It might be important, but nobody wants to do it.



I'll bet the kids prefer it this way. Maybe the real question is why mothers are so often the more permissive parent, and how we can fix that.

Finally, what do all of these things have in common? They cannot really represent status, because you cannot really act like you've earned any of them. I don't see Feminism, as a movement, simply letting that go and accepting traditional gender roles.


Really? I haven't seen that, where did you get this?

Some types of feminism are similar to the attitudes of conservatives from the 1950s. Not that much in goals, but certainly in methods. Usually, when feminism is brought up in this part of the world, it's brought up when feminists are suggesting either artificial structures in society (quota of women in boardrooms) or telling women what to do (telling them not to stay at home and raise kids, or telling them pornography is bad, or telling them prostitution is bad).

In terms of claimed moral superiority and use of political methods to assert those claims, these groups are exceedingly similar.

I don't think today's feminism is monolithic. It looks to me to have split neatly in half along the fault line you describe. Now there is the careerist branch (the one you describe) and the empowerment branch (the one that wants to bring empowerment and dignity to all roles, including the ones denigrated as "women's work"). I place myself in the latter category. These two branches shouldn't be so separate because there is no true need for an either/or choice. But for now they are.

Untrue, feminism advocates women being able to make the choice to not stay at home and look after kids. It was about challenging the traditional gender roles that only really applied to middle class women, anyway. Nowadays, most women don't have the option and have to go back to work. It's laughable to suggest working class feminists are telling women to not stay at home and look after kids. Working class women never had an option. They always had to work. Since both partners always had to work in my walk of life, feminists from my background simply ask that the burden of domestic duties be shared.

Also, just because some feminists are of the opinion that the sex industry has harmful effects on society and gender relations, doesn't mean that they are telling women what to do. Saying:
'I think prostitution is inherently degrading to women as a class' =/= 'all prostitutes are traitors to our cause and ought to stop immediately'.

I recently read a prominent feminist's response to an article that pondered the ol' how-to-balance-work-and-family issue.
Her answer was "Don't. Have. Kids."

I don't think that kind of condescending, dissmissive, authoritarian remark should EVER come from someone who claims to be a leader of the feminist movement.
The article was written for women who want to work and have a family; it wasn't a debate on whether women should have kids. If the responder doesn't want children, then goody for her, but how dare her try to force her choices on others.

It is not that they are feminist because they necessarily dislike the traditional role of women. They simply wish to have the opportunity and right to pursue the same range of careers and lifestyles that men do.

Err no? Even if we take your premises as true, then it wouldn't e so. Misogynist means hatred of women. If you think that hatred of homemaking and child rearing is the same as hatred of women, then you are sexist because you seem to think that homemaking and child rearing is women's work.

If you think that, you have misunderstood my post completely.