If feminists don't want to be criticised as a single entity, they should stop defending themselves as one.
I've often heard feminists say things like "feminists don't hate men". And sure, not all of them do, it may only be a small minority. But some feminists genuinely do have very misandrist views, such as Shulamith Firestone or Andrea Dworkin. Most people understand that feminists aren't all one monolithic group, but if they don't want to be treated as one, they should stop defending themselves as one. I was reading an opinion piece in the paper today, and again the writer was talking about how "feminists" aren't against the concept of the nuclear family. But, the fact is that some are. Again, a small minority of radicals, but feminists nonetheless.
The problem also crops up with the "feminism just means believing in equality for men and women". Again, these people who so love to remind us that you can't criticise feminists as a single group, are in this instance treating feminists as just that. In fact, there are most certainly radical feminists who don't just believe in equality for men and women. There is a strain of radical feminism which has supported a matriarchy and think men are evil at core.
It often feels like so much of what feminists say to defend themselves should come with a "*" at the end of it, and a little explanation in small print. The "feminism just means believing in equality" buzzphrase should definitely come with it. And the small print should read "*various kinds of very specific and often contradicting concepts of what equality means, typically beyond simply believing in equal rights (as those have already been achieved), and instead about influencing how people behave and think".
So many feminist defences always feel like weasel arguments, constantly deflecting criticisms with buzzphrases that are not necessarily untrue but conveniently hide important truths behind them. What feminists mean by equality is often a very different thing to what most people think it means.
Lena Dunham said ‘Do you believe that women should be paid the same for doing the same jobs? Do you believe that women should be allowed to leave the house? Do you think that women and men both deserve equal rights? Great, then you’re a feminist.’
But it's not quite that simple is it Dunham, because that's not the definitive idea of what makes you a feminist, because there is no definitive idea. There are literally feminists who believe that you can't be a feminist if you're not a vegetarian (???), and I'm sure many feminists would not think a man who believes all that stuff Dunham has described but goes to strip clubs can be considered a feminist, as self-proclaimed feminist Maajid Nawaz had the misfortune of discovering recently. And you can come back with the usual deflective argument of "well actually, feminists just believe in equality", but as I have already articulated, this "truth" isn't quite as honest and simple as it appears at face value.
And if feminism was simply about believing in what Dunham has described, what would even be the point of feminism? Almost everyone believes this, and the law supports every single one of her points, and has done for some time. If this is the be-all and end-all of feminism, what purpose does it serve in any first-world, Western country? Again, Dunham's argument has more than a touch of weaselling to it. What she is really doing here is trying to make people conclude that feminism's critics must oppose these most basic of rights, and she is also trying to draw people into feminism on the premise that it is something far simpler and more agreeable than it really is. What other reason would she say it? What reason would there be for so strongly advocating feminism if all the movement does is support the widely accepted and politically and legally supported status quo?
And let's face it, Dunham's comments are fairly typical of the kind you hear so commonly from feminists at the moment. If feminists want to be taken more seriously, they need to stop being so blatantly intellectually dishonest.
I wonder what kinds of deflective responses I shall receive for this post. As I have already criticised the usual clichés, maybe I'll get some mockingly insouciant dismissals, or perhaps even an irreverent reaction gif or two?