Talons Philosophy

An Open Online Highschool Philosophy Course


Feminism?: A Logic Assignment

Argument: Feminists impact society negatively.

Feminism is generally defined as the movement towards establishing equal rights/opportunities between men and women. Though sounding sensible, there’s some controversy surrounding some of the actions done in it’s name. Many ideologies have developed and some forms of feminism have been criticized for taking into account only, white, educated, and middle class perspectives.

Anti feminists oppose feminism in some or all it’s forms. Some reasons for this is because they believe in traditional gender roles, believe it lessens male authority, or believe that it promotes misandry.

Premise 1: Some feminists are extremists

Premise 2: Extremists impact society negatively

Conclusion: Feminists impact society negatively

Heard from: Here and there on the internet, some friends.


Premise 1: Some feminists are extremists

This is factual. There are extremists for pretty much any movement, feminism is no different. In fact extreme feminists are so well known they’ve earned the nickname “femi-nazi’s.” There exist times where some feminists cross from attacks on sexism to attacks on men. This is the point where they stop promoting equality and instead promote misandry.


Premise 2: Extremists impact society negatively

This is factual. It’s generally agreed upon that extremism in anything is harmful.

Definition via google: a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.


Conclusion: Feminists impact society negatively.

Not valid because it doesn’t result from the premises. Because only some feminists are extremists, not all of them can impact society negatively. Therefore the blanket statement of “feminists impact us negatively” isn’t valid or sound.

Feministcircle by EchoTseng

However this doesn’t address if there are other ways feminists could impact society negatively, outside having extremists. This argument comes from people only coming in contact with the louder radical feminists and assuming they’re the majority.


7 Responses to Feminism?: A Logic Assignment

  1. Jason Forster says:

    Men and women should have equal rights but unfortunately they don’t and because of this I believe feminism is a supportable cause. THERE is one thing about feminism that is to me and my male counet parts is the name. Feminism, females and not males. Even though feminism may be about the equality of men and women, the name favors women. You could almost say it’s sexist. A better name for feminism will make it more approachable by concious straight men who see “feminism” and think “, oh, I’m not a women so why support this.” These men are valid and to a degree it makes sense. Most men would not have that response if the cause was called ” equal sexual rightsism” or something.

  2. Katie says:

    Hi Rita! Thanks so much for addressing this topic as it is something that I and many others, I’m assuming yourself included, are very passionate about. I really appreciate your argument and how it depicts the line between feminists and misandrists because that is something that has become far too connected. Your argument is great, but I have a few questions about your last few sentences. What I am understanding from your last section is that you believe there are other ways that feminists could damage society, other than the “femi-nazis” attacking men. Is this correct? If so, I personally see no other reasons that could make the feminist movement seem harmful. Which other ways could feminists appear to have a negative impact on society? Misandrists are damaging to a society, just like misogynists are. Any kind of discrimination is wrong, but I believe that some issues may take precedence over others, which brings me to my next point.

    Jason, I would like to address your comment. I do understand that feminism could be seen as a mainly female cause strictly based of the name, but I know many men who call themselves feminists. The term “feminism” has a long history. It comes from a time where women were at even more of a disadvantage then they are now and it was more about the rights that women didn’t have than the rights that everyone should share. Does that make sense? Men have always had more privilege than women and it was more important to get women on the same level of power. My hope for the future is that terms like feminism won’t be needed because everyone will be completely equal. I know it won’t come quickly but I hope it comes eventually.

    Thank you both for addressing this subject! I hope that we can discuss this subject more and that some of my questions can be answered. I’m very eager to discuss this further and answer any questions you may have for me!

    • Rita says:

      Hey Katie, thanks for the comment.
      The last statement was a disclaimer really, because my argument didn’t address how feminists might impact society negatively outside of one issue. I proof read what I’d written and realized I was assuming there’s only one way they could impact things badly and that likely wasn’t the case. I’m pretty sure there are multiple pros and cons to everything. But to be honest, I can’t think of any other way. That’s likely because I’m a feminist myself though, so I just don’t see it. If anyone knows more on the issue and is reading this, it’d be cool if you could educate me.
      I found Jason’s point interesting, because I’ve heard of a bunch of people who don’t call themselves feminists or straight up oppose them even though they believe in equality. Personally I don’t really care if people call themselves feminists or make up a different name because feminism has kind of been tainted by misandrists. Just don’t be mean to people.

      • Katie says:

        Hi Rita! Thank you so much for the clarification. I too don’t care what you call yourself, I just want people to know that feminists aren’t a big cult of man hating women. People knowing the history of the term instead of just judging people based on the other feminists they’ve met will hopefully help to clear the negativity around the organization. At the end of the day, all that matters is everyone having a mutual respect and tolerance for each other.

  3. jasonf says:

    I call myself a feminist and at the same time I call myself and equal rights supporter. Equal rights involves racial rights and not “,black rights” or “Asian right or worse yet “white rights”. Even though it’s not a list of those three things it is actually a combination of all of them and more. Hispanic rights, Indian rights, Persian rights all find themselves under equal rights. If I was to list all of them I would need at least a thousand, two-thousand page volumes because we can always sub-divide. Where feminism falls and me as a supporter for it acknowledges it is that it is feminism, a cause devoted to the rights of one group defined by its name. I know feminism is beyond jut a “women’s cult” because I am a supporter of it. What I am not in support of is simply just the name because like “equal rights” if you call it black rights or Hispanic or etc. It becomes segregated and that’s a bad thing. Segregation has divided countries and supporting feminism will make it significantly less likely to happen. So lets support feminism and make a name a name for it that doesn’t oppose the cause it believes in, ending segregation between men and women in the household, workplace and life.

    • Katie says:

      Hi Jason! I understand why you would think that organizations that cater to a specific group of people’s rights would promote segregation, but I personally believe that’s not the case. Firstly, I’d like to clarify what I think you’re saying by asking you a question or two. Do you believe that all specialized organizations need to be generalized? For example, would you say that organizations that cater to helping preserve the lives of the orangutans should cater to saving all endangered species as a whole? That may be a bit of a stretch, but if I’m understanding correctly, that is the kind of logic you are using. I believe that the rights of the disadvantaged need to first be equal to the rights of the advantaged group before we can focus on what lacks from society as a whole. For example, men have always been in power and society needs to get to a place where both men and women share that same power. Segregation is a terrible thing and I don’t really understand how advocating for disadvantaged groups would promote it. In my opinion, it is important to acknowledge different causes separately because every disadvantaged group faces different issues. Does that make sense? If not, please don’t hesitate to ask questions and I hope you can answer some of mine. Thank you for sharing your opinion!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *