Women against feminism parody has a new face....with whiskers...

"Women Against Feminism" have officially joined the ranks of internet infamy: it's been parodied by cats.

There have been numerous responses to the "Women Against Feminism" Tumblr, which features pictures of women holding signs that describe why they don't need feminism -- but this one definitely takes the cake.

"Confused Cats Against Feminism" brilliantly exposes just how misguided the idea that women don't need feminism is. The Tumblr features cats holding signs declaring "I don't need feminism because I can't eat it or shed on it," and "I don't need feminism because it's not food. Is it food? Where's my food."

The confused cat signs poke fun at the women featured on "Women Against Feminism" and their fundamental misunderstanding of the feminist movement. The bizarre concept of cats caring about feminism echoes the similarly bizarre and misguided signs such as "I don't need feminism because I need a man to respect me," and "I don't need feminism because my sex life is not a political agenda," featured on "Women Against Feminism."

We're not totally prepared to forgive cats for turning up their tails at feminism, but we have to admit, their reasoning seems a bit more sound than their human counterparts'. After all, cats really can't eat gender equality.

"Hey, cats need a place where they can post pictures of themselves holding signs denouncing feminism for assorted weird reasons that don’t seem to have anything to do with what feminism is actually about," wrote David Futrelle, the man behind the Tumblr page. If it means more cute kitties on the Internet, we'll support the catriarchy to the end.

See more...


Do you agree or disagree with their initiative? Is it effective? Does it send the right message?

Views: 421

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

From what I’ve seen, WomenAgainstFeminism isn’t against equity feminism.  It is pushback against the highly politicized “modern” or “radical” feminism elements that are gaining traction in colleges and social media.  

I think a lot of people have gotten fed up with ideological woo like rape culture, patriarchy theory, infantilization of women, bogus statistics regarding wages and violence, and the whole “menz is evil” rhetoric.  Their mirror, the fringe members of the MRA movement, are just as bad.

The biggest problem with the toxic radfem element is that they’ve stopped being about equality, and have become more about identity politics.  Their tribalist culture, and in-group vs. out-group warfare is giving feminism as a whole a bad name in the same way that fundamentalist theists give the broader theist  community a bad name.

That extreme school of feminism is schizophrenic. On the one hand, they portray women as strong and on the other they feed the notion of helplessness and victimhood. Ironically, they often appeal to the same government for redress that, on other occasions, they portray as paternalistic.

Yup, it's inconsistent and incoherent because it's all about identity politics.  "We" are good (SJWs, 'Feminists', etc) and "the other" is bad.  Behavior is only relevant as to whether you are with the in-group or not.  It's pathetic.

I wouldn't pin it on feminism though.

I'm not.  I consider myself an equity feminist within the broader context of being humanist.  My criticism is with the small group that indulges in identity politics and woo ideology.

It gives feminism a bad name if people stop listening to ideas and arguments and instead choose to blend all viewpoints together as if feminism is some homogenized thing.

That's why I made the theist comparison.  They are a small but vocal part of the overall group, but they are still a part of that group and opinions about a part are often applied to the whole.  We see that all the time with the No True Scotsman counter in the theist/atheist debate.

What I'm saying is it's a senseless criticism. Radfem does not give feminism a bad name

This is where we disagree.  You, and I, and many others do understand that difference, but many do not.  Many people see militant Islam as the norm for Muslims, some see Evangelical Christians as the norm for Christians, each and every demographic has a stereotype that has wide (if shallow) acceptance.  We end up returning to No True Scotsman with each criticism of each fringe group.

You have to look no farther than the WomenAgainstFeminism hashtag. The fine point criticisms run against the identity politics, but still splash across the broader spectrum that wears the Feminism label.

I'm not saying that it's right, I'm just saying that is a part of the mix.

No matter what your position is, there are people who will respond irrationally. Perhaps you can lessen or worsen the blow...

Exactly.  I'm talking about a small group of people within the larger position of feminism who are themselves acting irrationally and worsening the blow. 

What. Do. You. Expect. Them. To. Do?  I don't understand why you don't answer this question?

I. Do. Not. Expect. Anything.  I didn't answer, because I have zero expectation of a behavior from any part of the spectrum.  I've always seen expecting a demographic to police individuals within the group as unreasonable.

I simply expressed criticism of a small but obnoxious element (and points of their ideology) within a broader group that I generally agree with, and see their actions as "worsening the blow" for that broader group.

That negative impact is not caused by radical feminists; it's cause by people incapable of making distinctions… it's not a bad name they are giving to feminism, but rather a bad name given to feminism because irrational people cannot separate the unique views

I agreed that it’s not fair that more people don’t make greater distinctions, but they don’t.  You can specify the blame wherever you like, but that changes neither the behavior of toxic identarians, nor the resulting backlash against feminism as a whole.

why are you turning your gaze to radfems for the black eye overall feminism receives rather than the people throwing the fist?

I think I’ve been clear that my criticisms have been aimed at a part of the radfem/SJW community that plays identity politics & in-group vs. out-group warfare, along with specific pieces of their ideology.

@Unseen RE The problem with old school feminism is that it peddles the idea that women are victims.

C'mon Unseen. You're old enough to have been alive when women couldn't become employed easily, have control of their fertility, and suffer in silence as their husbands beat them because it was a "private matter." Women WERE victims. We are no longer because of the struggles of our mother, grandmothers, greatgrandmothers etc. To make a mockery of what they went through to get us here is appauling, ignorant, and counterproductive.

Once you label yourself a victim, you are essentially throwing in the towel and giving up. You're saying you can't get out of your situation without tugging on a patriarchal/matriarchal sleeve.

No no no no no. No. That's not even remotely what I said. I said women WERE (Past Tense!) Victims. We are no longer (at least in many parts of the US...not talking about other countries here) because our mothers and grandmothers and many men too, fought to bring us to where we are now. To consider that useless and unnecessary is offensive.

And what I said was about what I call "old school" feminism, which is the kind of man-hating feminism that a lot of the "women against feminism" reject. They don't see every man (even the ones they may dislike and think of as 'part of the problem') as part of some sort of a conspiracy but rather as ignorant.

Do we still disagree?


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service