Why I'm NOT a Feminist

Feminism: The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Honestly, at face value, feminism [i]appears[/i] to be something that a libertarian could support. We are, after all, strong supporters of upholding natural rights. A lot of feminists (my girlfriend was certainly guilty of this in the past) may try to play on that idea. "How could you [i]not[/i] be a feminist? It's just the desire for equal rights." I wholeheartedly disagree with that idea, at least when we look at modern feminism. Modern feminism is eerily similar to an organized religion. You have basic beliefs that reinforce the need for your ideology, such as the wage gap or allegedly rampant misogyny on social media. You have a hierarchy of sorts, headed by feminist saints. A modern "saint" would be Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. You even have fringe groups that split from the mainstream -- Protestant Feminists if you will. For example, some feminists refer to themselves as "trans-exclusionary," saying that a transgender woman is not truly a woman in feminism's eyes. This isn't necessarily why I'm not on board with feminism, but it certainly doesn't attract me to it. No, modern feminism and Classical Liberalism (libertarianism) are not compatible because of a fundamental difference in how each ideology views a person. As a libertarian, I view people as individuals independent from one another. Another's actions bear no representation for you. You are not liable for the actions of others, generally speaking. Members of your race, gender, etc., have no bearing on you as a person, and their actions and beliefs do not reflect on you or your tendencies. Modern feminism is different. It has clearly absorbed some Marxist class principles, which is evident in how feminism perceives people. To feminism, "women" are a class. "Men" are a class. Intersectional feminists take it further, identifying more classes and subclasses (think "trans women of color). The way feminists see it, interactions between individuals represent interactions between the classes. You are held at least partly responsible for the actions of your fellow class members. A man steals a woman's purse. To a libertarian, one person has willfully deprived another person of their property, and has thus violated their rights. The identities of the subjects aren't relevant, nor are they indicative of how men behave around women's purses. To a feminist, a man has stolen a woman's purse. Identity matters. Not only is feminism likely to make the identities of the subjects relevant, but it will also view the action as an interaction between classes. For example, feminism will now be wary of how other men behave around purses, despite these other men having nothing to do with the crime. Gender also becomes an all-encompassing motive. Modern feminism tells us that the man stole the woman's purse, and that he was at least in part motivated by a hatred of women. Don't believe that feminists define people as belonging to certain classes? Read the dictionary definition provided above. "Women's rights." To a libertarian, rights are inherent in all people. To a feminist, classes possess different rights. Specifically, there are "women's rights" as opposed to just "rights." Intersectional feminism takes it further. "Women's rights." "LGBT rights." "POC rights." "Trans rights." The list goes on and on. It's not how they define these rights that is important (although I do take issue with it), but rather that they make arbitrary class distinctions among people. [b]TL;DR[/b] - Libertarians view people as independent individuals. Modern feminism views people as members of certain classes. It's this fundamental difference in the definition of an individual (among other things) that makes my worldview incompatible with feminism. Anyone interested in topics like this is encouraged to check out the group Liberty Hub.