The recent screening of The Red Pill exposed a subset of men’s rights activists, women who are anti-feminist. The irony is that feminism gave them the opportunity to rail against it. Onward and upward, ladies.
If you ever need a good laugh followed by a deep depression, just remember that the anti-feminist, men’s rights
shit-stain film The Red Pill won a coveted “women in film award” for its director, a woman.
Anti-feminist women have been sneaking out of the woodwork like creepy new Doctor Who aliens – there’s a proliferation of women’s voices joining in the chorus of penises advocating for men’s rights or speaking out against feminist sentiments.
The irony is that feminism has immeasurably benefitted all women, feminist or not, and it’s the rights women have historically fought for that have allowed the director of The Red Pill to make the film and to harness a compelling platform. Feminism laid the groundwork (with more paths to pave, still) for women to be able to gain filmmaking skills, effectively negotiate funding contracts and be recognised as having a worthwhile opinion – all essential ingredients to produce The Red Pill.
The film’s example is indicative of how anti-feminist women use the privilege afforded to them by feminism against the movement itself. Everyday life is littered with these instances – like a female journalist at the Daily Wire giving a content warning of “we’re sorry feminists are so desperate and gross” when covering a story about “oppressed feminists” deconstructing the stigma around periods by painting with their menstrual blood. Now that’s metal as fuck – Rammstein has nothing on those women! Here’s a bit of investigative journalism for you. Amanda Prestigiacomo, who wrote that article, attended Roberts Wesleyan College which was founded by Benjamin Titus Roberts in 1866 – he was a famously avid supporter of women’s right to vote and described the exclusion of women from being ordained as “analogous to racism”.
Also on The Big Smoke
- When America’s top feminist exposed Playboy
- Ivanka Trump – A new kind of feminism
- The trouble with feminism: Equality versus equity
Feminism has been embraced so widely and enthusiastically that it could be seen as a self-practicing quasi-religion because people apply fundamental feminist principles to how they interact with the world. There is an intergenerational socialisation of daughters (and sons) towards “believing” in feminism, with people going through stages of self-reflection and adaptation of their attitudes towards feminism throughout their lives – just like how people temporally respond to religious faith.
Feminism has a lot of room to grow and learn; it’s a dynamic movement that is continuously layering inter-sectionally and geographically. Anti-feminist voices have an important role in future feminist discourse because they provide insights into a clashing but not always diametrically opposed force – that’s enough ground to build an understanding of each perspective. But if anti-feminists don’t want to step up and recognise the privileges (basic human rights, voting, the opportunity of employment – hello) afforded to them by the feminist movement then screw that, we don’t need ‘em.
Set your voices to “shrill” and clap your bossy hands right back at anybody who exhales, rolls their eyes and begins speaking with the words “But why do feminists have to be so…”