Can there be peace between feminists and non-feminists?

I actually think you are one of the more reasonable non-feminists here and I can reason with you which is not always the case with everyone here.

The problem with feminism is that it is a philosophy and certainly not an organized movement. It's not a club, we can't kick anyone out and we can't control anyone and there are millions and millions of us who maybe agree on equality but not on much more so there is debate and lots of feminists doing stuff and saying stuff that I would never do.

Unfortunately as a feminist here who has not gone into hiding I have to answer for every one of the things I would never do as a person - which is not fair - all I want is equality - that is not so bad. Many women turn their back on feminism because of this being attacked for things they cannot control. Anti-feminists use generalization to attack all for what a few said 40 years ago. The question today about SCUM is a obscure parody writing of a woman who died in the 1980s but feminists are still being attacked for it today. Feminists in Gender Studies are blamed for everything - and often it's not even feminism that is at fault but how would we know? - we had nothing to do with it and it often happened in another country but are still being held accountable.

I have great respect for the women who struggled against society to give women rights and a voice. That's why I endure the nastiness I get here every single day from anti-feminists - a lot of the amazing feminists who used to be here have disappeared - I don't blame them - this place is hard on all of us.

I agree with Ctrl-Alt-Del there can be no peace with an anti-group because their reason for being is to wipe the other off the map - I like the word non-feminist better.

Non-feminists do not care. Both sides of the spectrum are self-defeating, non-feminists realize this. None of them are bringing forth and prosperous benefits - Feminism of modern day USA does nothing but draw females back. Anti-feminism is just an emotional response with no basis. One is a one-sided gender complex, the other is anti-Feminism (which is anti-the definition) if the notions / policies and ideologies of Feminism were to be fixed, improved, and you are holding an Anti-feminist position you just look ridiculous.

Just be a non-femininst / neutral / humanistic utilitarian and call it day. Anti-femininsts and Feminists will waste the next 50 years arguing to a compromise that could be simply resolved.

I think when you dismiss feminists concerns or interests, there will be little chance of peace. After all the furore about Anita Sarkeesian I looked her up. She has an issue: "I think to the extent that it could be creating authentic, human female characters, it is a push towards a more feminist media."[13]

and I don't see why you dismiss it and make it a point of "non peace". Surely the idea that she wants to see authentic human characters isn't so outlandish. Similarly with cat calling - mention how distressing it can be (my young teenage daughters have been in tears after being sexually harassed in the street, by "blokes" who think it is okay to make personal comments about their breasts) and you are told your issues are not worthy.

So there we go - women's issues are worth your consideration. And yet you want peace? You don't have to agree, but you do have to allow women the opportunity to say their piece, without death threats, or rape threats. As happened to Anita Sarkeesian.

I certainly agree that bringing up Andrea Dworkin or SCUM is kind of counter-productive due to the age of the references (and the complexity of the required context).

So let's bring up a more modern one:

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children." --Hillary Clinton, PBS interview, 10/25/2011

It is *HIGHLY* probable that this woman will be the next Democratic Presidential candidate and, considering who her current Republican opposition is, a pretty good bet she'll be President in 2017.

New enough for you? Relevant to the world situation?

The fact that women are refugees usually because their men have been killed - doesn't seem to enter into her equation. She is simply ignoring the humanity of men in favor of the humanity of women.

THAT is the feminism that I find abhorrent, and no, you're not going to get me to react acceptingly of such statements.

But since not all people calling themselves feminists are so ... inhumane ... I'm not going to apply the ire to all feminists. There certainly is "peace" between me and people who really are adhering to the dictionary definition of feminism.

But in my experience, even the ones who are, find it awfully easily to tacitly agree with the Senator Clintons of this world.

No because modern feminists are pushing their agenda onto governments who are willing to change laws to console the female voting population, even though most women are unaware what feminists are up to.

No. Speaking politically, of course. Because most anti-feminists actually support equality, whereas most mainstream feminists adamantly oppose equality.

From how you described your attitudes and beliefs, you don't fit the label "anti-feminist." You're more of an equalist who believes feminism should stick around but should also be greatly reformed. An anti-feminist is someone who is against the entire movement and wants to get rid of it. That isn't what you claim to support.

There is no chance at peace for these two movements because one of them is completely based on getting rid of the other. Anti-feminism's ultimate goal is complete elimination of feminism, just like any other movement that is an "anti" movement. They are completely against it and want it eliminated.