It makes no sense to spend diplomatic words in this case: I feel like some feminism issues will be increasingly divisive, even among women. If on the first hand feminism should be the maximum gender ambition for a woman -because it defends, at least theoretically, her rights, and aims, always in theory, at gender equality- on the other hand the current of thought is increasingly fragmented and ideologized, with extremist deviations (due to social networks, mainly), with the result that it is increasingly difficult to feel represented.
However, when someone tries to criticize these problems, even more if he is of a male gender, the public pillory immediately gets triggered and the suspicion that he is in bad faith rises. As always, this is much more evident on social networks, which amplify reality almost by definition, and the only conclusion is that from sensible and potentially constructive debates between those who criticize and those who defend their ideas, we end up having chaos in which frustrated men distort the original message that had relevance and equally frustrated and extremist women have proof that what they believe is sacrosanct.
So, while on one hand there are people, including many women, who agree (at least in part) with those who criticize extremist feminism, on the other hand they are engulfed by thunderstorms of senseless protests, which end up alienating firstly the women. The idea of not going against one’s gender is more than justifiable and who would have the pleasure, even with the best intentions, of throwing themselves into the lion’s den? Because the criticism of women who “betray” feminism is one of the most powerful tactics of “nazi-fem”, accusing them of internalization the male status quo, or accusing them of being slaves to partriarchal society, or simply being traitors.
The environment, on the whole, therefore creates divisive fractures and a psychological pressure that is difficult to deal with. To impose a critical spirit one must therefore be people who basically have a critical spirit and who are aware of the risks that one runs into. Not for nothing, the most extreme feminists experience the clash as if it were a team match, an ideological duel, and this precludes many potential confrontations.
Women are the only ones able to really oppose extremist positions, because any man will always be viewed with suspicion.
The rebellion against the extremization of thought must definitely be something internal and we must all hope that it will come to this. The dogmatic approach to an ideology is always a toxic approach, regardless. There will never be inclusiveness, of any kind, if there will not be, first of all, respect for the different and flattening of the conservative impulses, understood as “protecting one’s interests above all”. If an ideology comes to privilege a social group, whatever it may be, there are no reasons that support social rebalancing, because social equality is clearly not the goal. In a world of inequity, it is not with inequitable impulses that the social balance is forced towards a new social equilibrium, because you will only get a new imbalance.