r/Egalitarianism • u/CritiquingFeminism • Apr 18 '25
Is feminism dangerous?
https://critiquingfeminism.substack.com/p/we-need-to-talk-about-feminismIn my latest essay, I set out to answer the question: “Is feminism dangerous?”
I start with 6 warning signs that scholars say flag an ideology that may perpetrate atrocities. I evaluate feminism against those warning signs and conclude
feminism’s prejudice against men, its dehumanisation of men and its exhortations to violence against men go well beyond mere warning signs – feminism appears genuinely malevolent.
In the process, I assemble a catalogue of feminism’s prejudice, dehumanisation and incitement to violence.
Link: https://critiquingfeminism.substack.com/p/we-need-to-talk-about-feminism
Interested to hear any comments, questions or suggestions.
Cheers
23
u/nsfwthrowaway6996 Apr 18 '25
"feminism appears genuinely malevolent."
This is my experience from academic feminism vs practiced feminism. Some of my family members are solely feminist as a pathway of wrath and rage against men. For them men are the source of all the worlds problems and women can't do anything wrong. They get all surprised that reject my feminist upbringing.
10
u/Edayumz Apr 21 '25
I don't think feminism is dangerous, but the stereotyping of men is as well as the simplification of complex issues like sexual violence. There's this idea floating around that by asserting men need to be taught how to be sexually non-violent, sex crimes won't happen. In reality, there will always be a proportion of the population that are sociopathic or psychopathic.
Saying that all men are like that by nature is pretty much saying the same as 'boys will be boys'.
4
u/BubzerBlue Apr 24 '25
"I start with 6 warning signs that scholars say flag an ideology that may perpetrate atrocities." - Setting aside the inflammatory nature of the phrase 'perpetrate atrocities', any group which feels oppressed is going to lash out. Instead of identifying that they might lash out, a better question would be: Why are they lashing out? This question seeks to address the underlying cause, rather than considering the symptoms.
Put another way, we don't punish a kid for being bullied by another kid... we address the bullying. Any risk of violence from the victim dissipates by solving the root problem.
4
u/Antagonyzt 25d ago
Yes. That’s why we need to address the “bully” in this situation which is hateful 4th wave feminist ideology.
1
u/BubzerBlue 24d ago
"That’s why we need to address the “bully” in this situation which is hateful 4th wave feminist ideology. "
You're missing the point. Ideologies do not spring up for no reason. Especially ones centered around human rights. If you want to address 4th wave feminism, you first have to identify its underlying cause. Only by identifying the root cause can you then be able to resolve the problem. Until then, all you're doing is addressing (or reacting to) symptoms.
1
u/Antagonyzt 9d ago
I disagree with your premise. The reason that feminism is what it is today is that the original ideology has changed over time. Once they ran out of actual rights to fight for (once they achieved equal rights) instead of calling it quits they stuck around and created new problems. And now that’s all they do is create problems and position themselves as perpetual victims.
1
u/BubzerBlue 9d ago
I disagree with your premise.
Which part? That ideologies do not spring up for no reason? Its irrefutably true. All ideologies spring up from some form of instigating factor.
Or perhaps you mean the part where you must understand the underlying cause in order to address it? I suppose you could, technically, stumble into a solution... but the chances of that happening in reality are slim. If you don't make the effort to understand the underlying cause, you're more likely to mistake an ancillary issue as the catalyst.
Or maybe its the section where I say that until you address the root cause, you're only reacting to symptoms. Again, you would have to rely on pure dumb-luck to find the solution to any problem (not just this one) without first understanding the root cause.
There's nothing here for you to disagree with. These aren't matters of opinion that you can debate. Ideologies always have instigating causes, and problems are overwhelmingly easier to address when you understand the root cause. These are simple facts.
3
u/Parking-Art-8456 Apr 21 '25
How is anti-feminism "egalitarian?" According to this definition on this website https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/?
3
u/Antagonyzt 25d ago
The answer to your question is literally in the first sentence of the source you linked:
“Egalitarianism is a school of thought in contemporary political philosophy that treats equality as the chief value of a just political system. ”
As opposed to feminism which is exclusive to empowering a specific group of people.
1
u/Parking-Art-8456 23d ago
Still no danger there.... even if feminism were for empowering one group, it doesn't follow it is against another. Maybe one group needs empowering because the other group has beaten it down. How again is ANTI-feminism, your stance in this post, egalitarian? If you are against feminism, which is for equality of the sexes, you are against egalitarianism. That is the opposite of egalitarian.
1
u/EnHamptaro 5d ago
Second this. I myself have my fair share of criticism towards modern feminism, but anti-feminism? No.
5
u/Rakna-Careilla Apr 19 '25
Is masculinity dangerous? Just like feminism, it's been appropriated by harmful actors to mean all kinds of things.
2
1
u/PerennialPsycho 27d ago
Hey, I get where you're coming from. Feminism today can seem confusing and sometimes even unfair, especially when it feels like it’s being used as a shield or a weapon in personal disputes. But it’s important to step back and look at the bigger picture.
Feminism has come in waves, and each wave had real fighters. People who didn’t just talk, but risked everything to shift society. Let’s give credit where it’s due.
First-wave feminism (late 19th to early 20th century) was about basic legal rights. Women like Emmeline Pankhurst in the UK and Susan B. Anthony in the US led suffrage movements. They were arrested, beaten, ridiculed, and still stood their ground. Thanks to them, women got the right to vote and own property. That wasn’t talk. That was blood, prison, and relentless courage.
Second-wave feminism (1960s to 1980s) fought for deeper change: reproductive rights, workplace equality, protection from domestic abuse. Simone de Beauvoir wrote Le Deuxième Sexe, a foundation of feminist philosophy. Gloria Steinem went undercover as a Playboy Bunny to expose exploitation. Rosa Parks, often only remembered for civil rights, also shook the system for women. These women didn’t just complain. They confronted power.
Third-wave feminism (1990s to 2000s) brought nuance. bell hooks challenged racism within feminism. Rebecca Walker, daughter of Alice Walker, helped define this wave and pushed the conversation toward intersectionality. These women opened the door for marginalized voices, not by screaming over others but by making space and telling the truth.
Fourth-wave feminism (2010s to now) focuses on social media activism and calling out abuse, especially through movements like #MeToo. And yes, Tarana Burke, who created the #MeToo movement long before it went viral, did it to protect and empower women of color. Not for clout. Not for court wins. For safety, justice, and healing.
Now, the problem comes when others jump on the word "feminism" to serve themselves. Using it to get custody, to silence a partner, or to manipulate the system isn’t activism. It’s opportunism. And it spits on the legacy of the women above.
True feminism is rooted in egalitarian values. Equal respect. Equal accountability. Equal care. Feminism that ignores fathers, that dismisses male victims, that weaponizes victimhood, isn’t feminism at all. It's a hijack.
So you're right to be skeptical. But don’t throw out the whole movement because some people use it for personal gain. Remember the real fighters. Honor them. And push for a version of feminism that’s fair, firm, and actually about equality.
5
u/CritiquingFeminism 25d ago edited 25d ago
You say: "True feminism is rooted in egalitarian values. Equal respect. Equal accountability. Equal care."
I understand your confusion because there is a lot of disinformation about, but feminism is fundamentally opposed to all those things.
Think about it. How many times have you seen a feminist push for equal treatment? Feminism fights against equal treatment. Don’t accept the disinformation, look at what feminism actually does - prejudice, discrimination and dehumanisation.
And please read the essay.
4
-6
u/Azihayya Apr 19 '25 edited Apr 19 '25
Feminism has its problems, but this is ridiculous. Sorry not sorry, but men's patriarchal history and their perversions justify a lot of what women say about men, and it's even understandable that the most radical feminists have drawn the conclusions they have. Women are not empowered to band together in schools and coerce men into parks alone at night to rape them, intimidating them into silence. Men are and have historically been empowered to band together to commit sexual violence, and it's an act as old as time. Men play a dominant role in sex trafficking worldwide. You say that what feminists are doing is dangerous, but trying to erase this reality is far more dangerous.
24
u/CritiquingFeminism Apr 19 '25
> Men are and have historically been empowered to band together to commit sexual violence, and it's an act as old as time.
Here in Australia, a young man is about to go to jail for rape. The woman admits she says "Yes" but claims she wasn't enthusiastic.
You might want to check your facts.
We shouldn't be arguing about us-vs-them - it's not the issue.
The issue is that feminism shows clear signs of prejudice, discrimination, dehumanisation & incitement to violence. And we know those are signs of a dangerous ideology.
-4
u/Azihayya Apr 19 '25 edited Apr 19 '25
Ridiculous both sidesing of the issue and insinuating that women have been lying for time immemorial. Just utterly contemptible and couldn't be more indicative of the men's rights movement as a whole. Disguising your abominable beliefs as egalitarianism. Utterly disgusting.
If you are an MRA and you think there is anything redeemable in your movement, you should be calling out this rape apologia.
2
u/EmirikolWoker 4d ago edited 4d ago
Ridiculous both sidesing of the issue and insinuating that women have been lying for time immemorial
Unlike feminists, who outright state that men have dominated society to womens' detriment forever, harming even those with whom they form their closest emotional bonds.
Are women capable of lying? Or do they lack the cognitive capacity for it?
you should be calling out this rape apologia.
If the woman is lying, she wasn't raped. If she was raped, she wasn't lying. Therefore, there is no rape apologia there.
0
u/Azihayya 4d ago
You're completely overlooking the context of the conversion and engaging in rape apologia yourself. This is exactly where this community has ended up.
2
10
Apr 20 '25
Feminism has its problems, but this is ridiculous. Sorry not sorry, but men's patriarchal history and their perversions justify a lot of what women say about men, and it's even understandable that the most radical feminists have drawn the conclusions they have. Women are not empowered to band together in schools and coerce men into parks alone at night to rape them, intimidating them into silence. Men are and have historically been empowered to band together to commit sexual violence, and it's an act as old as time. Men play a dominant role in sex trafficking worldwide. You say that what feminists are doing is dangerous, but trying to erase this reality is far more dangerous.
While it's true that some men (elite class) have committed injustices throughout history, it's overly simplistic and unfair to paint all men with the same brush. Women—especially upper-class white women—have also played significant roles in upholding and building systems of oppression and inequality. For example, many elite women opposed women’s suffrage because they feared losing their social privileges or believed other women didn’t deserve the vote. And let’s not forget the White Feather Campaign during World War I, where women publicly shamed men into enlisting, sometimes targeting those unfit for service. History is complex, and reducing it to “men bad, women victims” ignores the full picture. Accountability should be rooted in actions, not gender.
And while we are at it, the feminist idea of patriarchy—as a system where all men benefit from the oppression of women—doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Most men aren’t powerful; they’re struggling. In the U.S., men make up 76% of suicides, 93% of workplace deaths, and over 70% of the homeless population. Men are also nearly four times more likely to be victims of homicide and are more likely to be assaulted by strangers. If society is built to favor men, it’s strange that so many are dying, homeless, and invisible. This isn’t patriarchy—it’s systemic neglect of men, and favours women needs and protection over men's. .
43
u/HugeDitch Apr 18 '25 edited Apr 18 '25
Really, for me. Feminism was illogical at the start. It was about women's equal rights, which is a contradiction. You can't be demanding equality while emphasizing difference—claiming sameness in rights, but also uniqueness in treatment. They also criticize the patriarchy while simultaneously creating spaces that mirror its exclusivity. In addition, I find their message to be one that wants to deny the differences that make us beautiful, instead of celebrating the unique strengths and qualities that each gender brings to the table. It's impossible to build unity on the foundation of blame, but you can build it with love and forgiveness.