[Tietäjä]

By the way, this isn't the first time I hear you talking about feminism in a negative fashion. Is that a general anti-feminist conviction shining through, or just a dislike of a particular incarnation of it (that, in my view, misapplies the label)?

I'm not really anti-feminist in any fashion, however I also don't consider myself one: I consider myself a humanist or egalitarian. I might be tempted to agree with certain feminists (Michael Kimmel for example), but then again I might be tempted not to agree or frankly be very afraid of certain feminists (Valerie Solanas, Andrea Dworkin, Sheila Jeffreys). It's possible my view of the subject is very biased due to the fact that I mostly follow on what happens on media and what the youth politics representing the subject are like (zealous).

First, there is the case of the giant umbrella. Feminism is a movement that's main perception is to liberate women: everything else is non-interesting. Yes, there are parts in the discussion (Kimmel being probably the lead example) that are also interested in equality on a broader level and apply the theoretical tools of feminism to discuss it. But it doesn't mean that at the same time the same movement wouldn't also be the home to a different bunch of people (Google radfemhub) who have the interest of aborting male fetuses to control the amount of men in the population down to 10%. They're both feminists; they're both interested in women's rights (which is not wrong). Whatever else they do is secondary, ergo their stance on men, trans, and so on (some feminists have also said that trans-men are simply seeking to objectify women and to become victimized, which I find hilarious).

Second, there is the subject of inclusion. I believe feminism has it right on a societal sciences level - there is a gender system that causes a lot of prejudice, stigmatization, and is essentially an uncomfortable straight jacket that causes harm. I'm a fan of personal liberty of choice, and I do acknowledge that as a female it's difficult to say enter certain fields due to societal factors, and that you're pressured to certain things. However, I don't think gender is a construct that can be discussed only acknowledging the female side of the view. This currently seems to happen a lot through a certain type of logical fallacy: we compare all women to the priviledged upper class white male. We forget that say across Europe, young men's unemployment is a big problem. But these men, despite being on the streets of London robbing and stealing (which is blamed on their lack of fathers!) are so privileged they're not interesting; surely their rising numbers only have to do with young men being lazy and not having ambitions for a career to become breadwinners like they should?

For whatever female role or stereotype there is, there is a corresponding male situation. It's fair that we work to enable women to enter the work force and thrive in it equally well with men, and talk about the problems involved with this, the family, the housework, and the career. But it's not intelligent to forget, that at the same time we also have a set role for males: whereas stereotypically we'd expect women to take care of the housework, the man is expected to bring home the bacon and succeed at work. Men are, on this side of the coin, very much assessed based on their work and career and success in these. I consider it equally a restricting role as the female one, however, most feminists aren't concerned in this. Rather than considering it as a restriction, they consider it a "price" to pay for the priviledge of being a patriarch. I think the two genders are so entwined, that this is part of the thinking that has lead to the "second" shift mentality, where women have both careers and excess housework, and men simply have careers (and result having in higher pay partly due to higher hours worked, since women's second shift isn't paid for). To discuss problems like this, or to reach genuine equality, feminism would need to give up on the stance that women are the sole and only victims of the system of social pressure and restriction.

Third, there is the question of generalization. Feminists can be very hostile even to women who make choices feminism doesn't "approve". Whether we like it or not, some women do genuinely enjoy and genuinely want to be housewives. It's not something bad, something inherently wrong; it's equally good and okay as some women wanting a career instead (of course, you don't get to have both). Discussing problems related to citizen wage, the leader (female, feminist) of the youth left alliance brought up this point: have we considered what the effects of this are to women? Will this simply encourage more women to become stay at home moms, since it essentially funds them too? Needless to say, I didn't see this problem arising in the citizen wage discussion. I think it's trash. The easy Jungian example has to do with sexuality, but it's broader than that. Objectifying women is harshly wrong - but what if some of them like being objectified and want such? The sales figures of 'The Fifty Shades of Grey' are a story itself. (I'll order and read the book once I'm on vacation). I think a lot of hypocrite elements are instilled in this ideal.

Fourth, there is the discussion of double standards. A Finnish newspaper, on it's editorial, a while back, had written statistics on Finnish men's alcohol related violence towards women. They proceeded to speculate, paraphrasing and citing here, "perhaps there is a genetic trait to drunken violence in Finnish men". A True Finn member of the parliament made a complaint to about it, but it was deemed acceptable. He wrote on his own blog, later, about Somalis. First citing statistics, and then speculating "perhaps there is a genetic trait to theft and crime in Somalis". He got gutted, grilled in the media, lost some of his positions in work groups of the parliament. And he's taking the case to EU courts, which should be a fun gist to follow. In enforcing their views of the world, the feminists often have a habit of becoming what they critisize: a rigid system of social rules.

Fifth, there is the case of exclusion. The local Union of the field gets public funding and runs say educational conferences that are only open to members of one gender. It's not something you'd expect a movement that's aiming for equality to be about - unless the definition of equality is that only one gender has issues (and maybe, intersectionality, can grant us that ethnic minorities and sexual minorities also have issues, but there are no social pressures or problems related to being male and white).

I think this is simply an approach that won't yield an optimal outcome on the long run. If we want to abolish the gender roles, we need to make it so that it's equally acceptable for a higher earning woman to date a low-earning man as it is vice versa. That it's equally acceptable for a man to stay home taking after the children without being called Mr Mom (which would be an important part in enabling a career-orientated female to have a family and be able to pursue a career). None of this is really interesting to feminists. Until it becomes so, I can't really share their views.

edit. disclaimer: if opposing the idea that the society needs to control the birth rate of male individuals through abortion makes me an anti-feminist (since this idea has also been proposed by people who label themselves feminists) then I'll gladly label myself as one. however, I do still consider that it is ultimately down to feminists to make clear what is and what is not acceptable in their philosophy; much like it is for any other political lobbyist group. i'm not really down to discussing whether "feminism" thinks like this, or whether "some feminists" or "radical feminists" think like this, but as long as there's no consensus along feminists reached about this it's a fair point to make that opposing it would make one technically anti-feminist.