Thread: Bit of a rant - The Te of Piglet and feminism?

I was in the middle of reading "The Te of Piglet" by Benjamin Hoff, and was enjoying it too, when I came across a few paragraphs dedicated to the criticism of "Eeyore Amazons". This term is used to describe feminists. He paints feminists with the same old, tired stereotypes. He says women want to make men timid and sensitive, so they can push them around. He then criticizes this as being masculine behavior (and further states that women therefor missed the point of feminism) (Can you spot the round-about stereotypes and uneducated opinions?). Aggression can be displayed by ANYONE, not just men, and it is NOT an inherently masculine trait. To say so is to imply the opposite, that women are timid. He criticizes women who keep their last name in marriage, and implies that they are idiots because they actually have the name of their fathers, therfor acomplish nothing. Keeping your last name, is an IDENTITY issue, and not simply SPITE, like Hoff says.

Any thoughts?
If anything, this bit of writing is an excellent example of what feminism IS NOT.
Yes, Robert G, I am aware. Are you aware that it is the sequel to another philosophical book about a children's cartoon, which some would consider to be the best resource on Taoism in writing?

Also, I do not care about the nature of the book - no matter the genre, I would be greatly concerned about the way this book depicts women, and feminists. The fact that it is a book that represents a religious outlook makes it more concerning.

Problem is years ago there were a lot of women like this.

Even today you can find tons of videos on YouTube that preach this exact same thing.

It is not a large percentage but do not pretend there are not people out there like this.

Need I remind you that you were reading a philisophical book about a children's cartoon?

Feminism has the same problems as any civil rights movement: it starts out with a bunch of people who are trying to promote equality the way it should be (i.e. judged by the content of one's character, and not by the color of one's skin, or one's gender/sexual orientation/bloody type/eye color), but the problem is it eventually attracts the wrong sort of people.

There are people, who can be found in any movement, protest, or any other sort of confrontational gathering, who simply love fighting and live to have someone to hate. And, like all other civil rights movements, feminism has picked up a few of these (some call them 'radical feminists' - really, they're just female sexists).

This sort of people tend to fuel bigots like this author; they look at feminism, and the first people they see are not those trying to promote equality and understanding, but these man-hating bigots aching for a fight, who always seem to be louder than the real feminists. It seems to be these man-haters, these counter-bigots, who the author is referencing.

It's a problem of the bigots, of course, but it's also a problem that real feminists need to address by vocally dissociating themselves from these sexists who are hijacking the image.