The term ‘feminazi’ has seeped its way into society. I find this term not only incredibly misogynistic, but idiotic.

As a society, we recognize racism and sexism in any derogatory context, as no longer socially acceptable, excusable or funny. This term isn’t just slang, but another derogatory term for women.

“Nazi” needs to be eradicated from our list of acceptable feminist analogies. A comparison between feminists and the Nazis who murdered over 6,000,000 men, women and children, in arguably one of the most tragic events ever recorded in history, is not only a faulty analogy, but a disservice to humanity.

Most modern women are not subjected to the lives of child brides, prostitution, culturally sanctioned rape, genital mutilations, acid throwing, stonings, domestic violence or murder. If we are lucky, we grow up with healthcare, education, a home and a loving family.

However, open acts of violence against women are committed in the world every day. I possess the freedom of written speech due only to the fact that I was born in a country that recognizes the rights of women.

Feminism is the dismantling of a patriarchal, fascist and totalitarian state. The people that fear the loss of their social status blame feminists. Feminism is the opposite of Nazism.

Someone once said to me, “Feminism is the new nazism.” When he said it the first time, I told him that it was offensive. He shrugged it off as just a word, and therefore meaningless and said I was just acting uptight. His friend interpreted for me that certain women in the world think that they are better than men, and resent their success.

I told him to please go take a women’s studies class. Another guy made a joke about me not being able to take a joke. The pip squeak told me to shut up and that no one cares what I think, crying like pimply preteens about feminist ideology. Again, the first guy said, “feminism is the new Nazism.” It is one thing to call a feminist a Nazi, but another to actually compare Hitler’s ideology to feminism in any realistic manner.

He theorized, “Same modus of operandi—take some simple feminist article and switch the words man for Jew. I can do it for you if you like.” Then, he continued:

“Feminism and Nazism have both discriminated against individuals on the basis of their genetic code, promoted the view that the targeted group was inferior genetically and behaviorally.

They have both promoted propaganda that led to the targeted group being labeled as “parasites,” being constantly ridiculed, being laughed at even when mutilated, demonized the target group by labeling them as perverts and sexual criminals, sought to break the target group away from their families, disseminated lies and disinformation about historical matters, arranged matters so that members of the targeted group were made responsible for the choices and behaviors of members of the privileged group (i.e., “rape culture”).

They arranged matters so that members of the privileged group who harmed, or even murdered, members of the targeted group were shown undue leniency, arranged matters so that the law punished members of the targeted group severely for even trivial matters, demanded subservience to the prevailing ideology and to the government, effectively controlled the mainstream media and academic institutions and arranged for them to present a dishonest and dishonorable point of view in support of their ideology, consistently highlighted and exaggerated the achievements and the suffering of the privileged group while downplaying the achievements and the suffering of the targeted group, ran government funded educational courses in universities and in schools to promote the privileged group at the expense of the targeted group and persisted in a long term campaign of hatred toward the targeted group.”

Perhaps this is a persuasive and detailed argument at first glance, yet he yields specific examples, cases, statistics or data, misconstrues evidence, verifiable facts and reiterates critical fallacies on many accounts. It would take me way too long to point out every distortion or fallacy, but I will address a few of his major points. He states that government supports the “privileged group” at the expense of the targeted group in government funded institutions.

Perhaps he is referring to the Hundred Years’ War?  Just kidding.

For example, in 1972 the Education Amendment Title IX created by Patsy Mink and Edith Green stated, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” (Perez, “Title IX and Affirmative Action”).

When we think of a quota, we may experience mixed feelings. However, we need to accept that what may not always seem fair for the individual, is the most fair for the greatest number of people. The government funds the institutions that meet quotas for female enrollment in academics and sports, but “government funded educational courses in universities and schools” misconstrues the facts in order to accuse the government as promoting women at the expense of men.

A slippery slope fallacy claims that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen (Vaughn, The Power of Critical Thinking, 190). The problem avoids the pertinent issue and describes hypothetical issues instead. No true premises can be offered proving that such extreme examples are likely to occur, and is often used in order to illicit fear by an appeal to rhetoric. The argument is tainted by conjecture. For example, if we allow gay marriage, then homosexuals will be having sex in the streets in broad daylight in front of our children (Vaughn, The Power of Critical Thinking, 190). Or, if we allow women more or equal rights, they will likely abuse their power like the Nazis.

A faulty analogy compares two unlike things—its formula follows: P and Q are similar in respect to properties A, B, C. Object P has been observed to have property X. Therefore, Q probably has property X. For example, the model of the solar system is similar to that of an atom, with planets orbiting the sun like electrons orbiting the nucleus. Electrons can jump from orbit to orbit, therefore, planets jump from orbit to orbit. This argument is invalid because we all know that planets cannot jump from orbit to orbit (Vaughn, The Power of Critical Thinking, 193).

The premise that feminists are going to murder 6,000,000 women, men and children is just as false a premise as all feminists are Nazis. The argument is not supported by truth but composed of a plethora of straw man fallacies that manipulate the issues.

He begs the question that feminists use the same propaganda as the Nazis did, before the Holocaust. We say “don’t be that guy” in order to shame men from acting like boys. Defending his right to the slogan, “boys will be boys,” he argues that organizations “sponsor feminists” and “a corporate structure, which is trying to infiltrate our government in order to control the country.”  This explains why we have had so many female U.S. Presidents. These elite women, which he refers to as the “privileged group,” must conform to the feminist regime and elitist ideology, but fails to define these terms.

Still he persists: “Now substitute ‘master race’ with ‘women’ and the other ‘lesser races/sub-humans’ with ‘men’ in this description and tell me you can’t see the parallel between Nazis & radical feminists (feminazis).”  His statement is completely hypothetical. Discussing issues of hierarchy of the sexes, feminism seeks an appreciation of a gender neutral world as opposed to the two box paradigm.

Feminism seeks fluidity of gender traits and deconstructs gender norms.

His argument is a common misconception, however, feminists do not claim that women are superior to men. I simply want to feel appreciated as a woman, respected for my contributions to society and the security to walk alone at night. Many women that I know fear the “F” word. Why not manism or humanism? These terms simply do not capture the essence of the movement.

Every day I hear stories in the news about violence against women. We forget what it is like to not have any rights at all, even our bodies belonged to our husbands prior to the 1970s. My mother grew up Pentecostal on a farm in Fargo, North Dakota.  She was not allowed to dance, go to movies or to date.

It is natural that some women may feel rage towards centuries of gender repression and perhaps have unfairly scape-goated men. I may have been guilty of this once or twice, and some men may have naturally resented the modern woman for her elevation in status. Now that women have increased privileges in our society, there are a few bitter people.

Ultimately, it resorts to our own internal relationship with the feminine. Do we feel rejected, perhaps like Elliot Rodgers? Maybe our mother never made us feel loved. But feminism does not claim that women are better than men, nor do I think that I am better than any person.

I value gender differences, which are not mutually exclusive, but he is making up reasons to justify his disdain for women. “Feminazis” is not just some generic term, it represents his disguised misogyny and projections of feminism. Honestly, I bet women scare the shit out of him and he is terrified that we might realize our power.

Misogyny holds women accountable for social evils. Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, fell from grace, manipulated Adam too, and now women everywhere must be punished for eternity with the pains of childbirth, at least that is the story I was told.

We glorify women high on a pedestal with over sexualized, photo shopped images in the media and simultaneously objectify them as dirty sluts that won’t sleep with us. We are screwed if we do and screwed if we don’t. Some men justify rape culture by claiming that a woman is to blame if she elicits sexual desire in them through dress. Some religions and cultures delight in the vision of a heaven with a hundred virgins to deflower, and heaven for women is nonexistent. Every woman fails to meet the standards of the illusion of femininity and idealistic beauty.

These images can evoke feelings of inadequacy in women and men. As a society, we need to stop metamorphosing women into the good girl and the bad girl. We idolize, worship, desecrate, murder, rape and continue to perpetuate the gender wars. And for god’s sake, not all feminists are female, a lot of men are feminists, too!

Let’s strive for a culture where nobody is objectified. Let’s look at each other as human beings, not as walking sex toys. I’m not saying that you can’t find someone attractive, but there is a big difference in acknowledging someone’s attractiveness and sexually objectifying them.

Gender traits are social constructs that do not reflect the whole person. Let’s allow our little boys to play with dolls and wear dresses without worrying that he will grow up to be less of a man or homosexual, and vice versa. If we recognize sexuality on a scale like Kinsey proposed, then we all possess the potential to feel attracted to anyone regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Also, not every person identifies with their physiological gender, and some people are born intersex. Feminism addresses these discrepancies found in a two box gender system. We are free to release our fears of proper social behavior in order to express ourselves beyond these labels of gender.

Let’s improve upon the human race and quit calling “radical” feminists a “feminazi” in order to justify overt or disguised misogyny, resentment, anger and feelings of rejection. Let’s courageously embrace feminism because feminism is for everybody.

Sources:

Perez, Erica. “Title IX and Affirmative Action.” University of Arizona, Tucson. April 2, 2014. Oral

Vaughn, Lewis. The Power of Critical Thinking: Effective Reasoning About Ordinary and Extraordinary Claims. USA: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.

Love elephant and want to go steady?

Sign up for our (curated) daily and weekly newsletters!

Assistant Editor: Cami Krueger / Editor: Travis May

Photo: Google Images