Better - same source as mine - but not the same reading. What they wanted and fought for was more assistance and for more women, and while it got sliced, diced & mutated over the years, non of the later modifications added the gender & unemployment requirements within it. those were what you guys were talking about and they were not added by anyone else.
Originally Posted by uumlau
That it helped women is about the only thing that is "feminist" about it.
So close! You are almost there. Think: Do abstract ideologies go to voting booths? Do they have a book budget? Take classes in universities? Stand by your side in rallies & protests? Form organizations? Write bills for congress? Collect money from interest groups? Finance lobbyists? Give donations? Rise in institutions? Now, while keeping all of that in mind, deconstruct the assumption underlining what you've just said.
Edit: Since @uumlau doesn't seem to want to play (Admittedly that was a tad condescending of me): Ideologies don't, movements do.
And that is what's under critique. Given that most of the accusations are about how the beliefs. historical actions and practices counter gender equality it should be pretty damn obvious that the critique isn't against gender equality as an ideology. Trying to look through a feminist lens and fact-checking in the same time is a constant circle of attributing things done by self-proclaimed feminists and feminist organizations to the patriarchy by either using a true-scotfeminist argument or trying to rationalize how the patriarchy seemingly controlled their minds.
What's so hard about the alternative: Taking them for their word, that they are part of the feminist movement and believe themselves to act in it's advantage. Again and again I see an argument where you can't critique the feminist movement for been hypocritical with it's principles because anything that doesn't fit the ideology isn't real feminism, but the feminist movement isn't the ideology, it is the movement. The two are about as related as the soviet union and Marxism, except that having failed to evolve into a revolutionary state regime, it evolved into an interest group within the existing one, a gender based interest group, and it's entirely reasonable to critique it as such. It is not the abstract concept incarnated.
TL-DR: @Coriolis has the right idea, and frankly the most honest depiction of feminism I've seen coming from any of the feminists here, that it can not be separated from a central focus on females.
This article is enlightening to this thread, in fact it's a more lucid parallel of it, where upon Angela Washko, a 'Third Wave Feminist' interviews Roosh V, a supposedly well known PUA as part of an art project that ended up stalling out:
Though mostly polite and extremely generous with his time, Roosh appeared unable to acknowledge that I might be qualified to think autonomously or be well-regarded in my field. It was clear that he perceived me as existing in a bubble removed from most of society. Consistent with his outspoken views on feminists, he assumed that I was a naive, inexperienced, and easily-led person who let some feminist propaganda I picked up in undergrad and on Buzzfeed shape my worldview, as opposed to years of research and projects. Ultimately, our roles reflected Roosh’s defensive engagement with the world at large – everything from my hair (too short) to my taste in men (too feminine) to my education (too much of it) was up for criticism even though the interview was intended to highlight his work, how he ended up in his field and how he ended up framing his experiences the way he has.