All this comic does is emphasise how stupid it would be to lump all feminists together. If you deny this you are doing exactly the same thing as those you’re complaining about.
They never stated “all feminists,” they said as a movement, feminism has had a lot of messaging that is anti men which was somewhat mainstream in the movement (commercials being played of girl smart boy dumb). I don’t know how common it is but it has absolutely been a noticeable part of feminism intentionally or not.
I don’t think those commercials are made by people who identify as “feminists” though, or are really trying to convey a feminist message.
Conversations about advertising I’ve had in feminist spaces see that as almost parentification. (Huge, under discussed issue with eldest daughters especially) Boys get to be children, girls are expected to be hyper competent.
A big issue is also that everyone in the broader conversation about feminism is operating under their own private definition of what feminism is. That’s why we have people who consider themselves “feminists” for “protecting women’s bathrooms” while also platforming Nazis, or people who consider crass commercial pandering to be representative of an ideology.
The conversation is in stasis, because “feminism” to some is the blue haired woman shouting at a protest, or pussy hats, or female supremacy, or 4B, or libfem, or radfem, or influenced by queer theory (or lesbians who can’t stand the term “queer.”) It’s a family of ideologies, not a single one - but people are often argue against one specific ideology (or even trollish misrepresentations) when arguing against “feminism” in general.
Those commercials are a direct result of the patriarchy. You only think they’re a result of feminism because, in this case, they paint women in a better light — but only so that they can eventually become mothers to their husbands. Patriarchy doesn’t only affect women, it affects us all.
And what does that have to do with feminism?
All this comic does is emphasise how stupid it would be to lump all feminists together. If you deny this you are doing exactly the same thing as those you’re complaining about.
Feminism made the “Yes, All Men!” argument
All feminists?
Because if we had a mandatory global meeting I sure as hell missed my invitation.
They never stated “all feminists,” they said as a movement, feminism has had a lot of messaging that is anti men which was somewhat mainstream in the movement (commercials being played of girl smart boy dumb). I don’t know how common it is but it has absolutely been a noticeable part of feminism intentionally or not.
I don’t think those commercials are made by people who identify as “feminists” though, or are really trying to convey a feminist message.
Conversations about advertising I’ve had in feminist spaces see that as almost parentification. (Huge, under discussed issue with eldest daughters especially) Boys get to be children, girls are expected to be hyper competent.
A big issue is also that everyone in the broader conversation about feminism is operating under their own private definition of what feminism is. That’s why we have people who consider themselves “feminists” for “protecting women’s bathrooms” while also platforming Nazis, or people who consider crass commercial pandering to be representative of an ideology.
The conversation is in stasis, because “feminism” to some is the blue haired woman shouting at a protest, or pussy hats, or female supremacy, or 4B, or libfem, or radfem, or influenced by queer theory (or lesbians who can’t stand the term “queer.”) It’s a family of ideologies, not a single one - but people are often argue against one specific ideology (or even trollish misrepresentations) when arguing against “feminism” in general.
Those commercials are a direct result of the patriarchy. You only think they’re a result of feminism because, in this case, they paint women in a better light — but only so that they can eventually become mothers to their husbands. Patriarchy doesn’t only affect women, it affects us all.