Feminism is a unique movement in that it is among the only major rights’ movements where a large portion of their opponents are members of the very marginalized group they represent. Hardly will one find a Black person who didn’t support Civil Rights or an Indian who supported the British Raj but, a large, double-digit minority of women opposed their own right to vote. It stands to reason, though, because patriarchy was selected for by women. Almighty God created all souls equally but the slightly less mighty Darwin had different ideas.
When reading the female issues with third-wave feminism, they sound like the alt-right criticisms of it. They want dominant, alpha-male, men and are bitter toward a feminism they feel is making men less muscular and less bad-boyish. Basically, they are speaking out of their horniness and fear men may become more meek and nerdy in contravention of their fantasies. It has little to do with the #metoo movement’s lack of due process or potential for forgiveness or redemption or the concern that the policing of all unwanted advances, regardless of how benign, as unethical is contrary to the human experience.
Feminism likes to pretend the anti-feminist movement among women doesn’t exist but that is a rather difficult line to tow given who defeated the ERA: Phylis Schaffly. Their problem is they need to accept that their principal enemy is not men but Darwin. If third-wave feminism is going to win then it has to maintain the position that women should not want to be wrapped in the arms of a muscular jock or bad boy who will protect them against victimization. In the words of Franz Fanon, that they need to nullify the colonized mindset. If the populariy of Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey is any proof, women need to be liberated from the idea that strong men should defend them.
Not to replace their damsel fantasies with warrior princess fantasies but with satyagraha fantasies. The best opposite of a damsel in distress is not a warrior princess because a damsel hides behind a prince but a warrior hides behind a shield and a sword. A satyagrahi hides behind nothing. The damsel hides behind someone else’s machine of death, a warrior hides behind their own machine of death, but a satyagrahi stares into the abyss with maximum courage. To meet the kitties in the collesium with grace and poise and to proclaim one’s love for Diocletian. That is the opposite of what the anti-feminist women and the mainstream feminists want. The former want a damsel and the latter want an Amazon.
What the anti-feminists and the mainstream feminists share is the belief that someone needs to be a warrior and that there must be an enemy be that the woman or her man. The idea that all sides should be meek and face their opponents with civil defiance. The sentiment among both groups is that either one side needs to be submissive or both sides need to be dominant rather than the moral truth that both sides need to be meek and pacifistic. It is either Roman Paterfamilias of despotic men or a misremembered goddess-oriented paganism of women who enjoyed weilding spears and sticking them in people. Neither side dreams of an exisence that foreswears their weapons and where gender dynamics are of mutual service and humility.