Feminism is based on some assumptions about human nature that are inconsistent with the notion that humans are animals shaped by the forces of evolution. Feminists have a tendency to assume that the human mind is a empty slate at birth and that all behavioral sex differences are a result of learning.
In light of what we know about our primate cousins and what cross-cultural comparisons reveal, that simply doesn't hold water. The fact that there exist feminine men and masculine women does not alter the fact that as groups the sexes are significantly different in some respects and that many those differences most likely innate. By innate I mean that even if you had totalitarian control over people's lives from cradle to grave and did your best to override these tendencies, people would revert back to the usual patterns as if pulled by gravity in case the pressure relented and you might not get very far to begin with. Yes, it's all about interplay between nature and nurture and not nature (or nurture) purely, but the former exerts certain pressure on every developmental process, biasing the probabilities and possibilities in them and making what we have observed across cultures and time the path of least resistance.
That brings me to another reason why a lot of people disagree with feminism (or at least its third wave as opposed to the equal rights feminism of the early days any principled liberal must agree with): to realize the ideals of feminism heavy-handed social engineering is needed because of the degree to which nature disagrees with feminism. The lengths at which the most radical feminists are willing to go are nothing short of totalitarian.
Well most people don't actually disagree with the concept of feminism as a whole(unless you're referring to people who's cultures and religions relegate women to the kitchen and house as soon as they get married), they just disagree with certain women's interpretation of what feminism is and what type of feminism they advocate for.
I imagine that a lot of men probably wouldn't have a problem having a female boss unless they're sexist by nature, but feminist beliefs like social, radical and even ecofeminism are quite absurd if you ask me and they give birth to less than reasonable beliefs in the mindsets of most women today.
It's not that men are against feminism, it's more along the lines of the fact that women have used it as an opportunity to become unruly and disrespectful to their husbands and men in general. A housewife by choice will tell her husband who works and brings food to the table that as a feminist that she can't cook or clean anymore and that's absurd because as long as she's not bringing any financial aid to the family, what else is she meant to do.
Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that a woman should be confined to the house or kitchen, no, not at all, but would it be right to be a housewife and be expected to make money for the family? No, it wouldn't and that's how it wouldn't be right for a man to be the one that makes money for the family and still come home and do the cooking and cleaning.
Understanding your role in a family is crucial, if the parties involved agreed that one person looks for money while one person takes care of the home then that's what should happen.
Unless a new agreement was made then the old one still holds. Now the thing is that alot of women don't even understand the concept of feminism as a whole and even when they do, they choose to listen to the words of feminist movements and ideologies that have nothing to do with their own personal struggles as women.
The fact that most women do not understand feminism and perverted it when they get the chance is why alot of people disagree with feminism. Nobody wants to have to deal with a woman who keeps on talking about feminism but doesn't even understand the concept of equal rights.
Another thing is that alot of women and men alike have gotten the wrong idea about what feminism is and as such they see it as just a bunch of crazy women who are making unreasonable demands for a bunch of foolish reasons and because they themselves haven't fully grasped what feminism entails, they simply don't agree with whatever any feminist says or does.
I hope this helps.
Scornful second wave women's activists of the 1960s like Dworkin and Solanas made it socially adequate among working class ladies to transparently detest men. The outcome is that frightful radical women's activists harmed the entire development.
The entire development appears to be a socially worthy scene for loathing and assaulting men.
They lecture that women are superior
Some of Them even advocate for killing of men.
They can't discuss or talk about. Rather, the crash all discussions and begin verbally abusing and being damaging. They are unequipped for being respectful. They will disclose to you that anyone who can't help contradicting a women's activist is a sexist. It just deteriorates from that point.
Everyone is sick of women's activists who play the person in question and accuse the majority of their issues for men.
Frequent double standards ... Women's activists typify men explicitly, however when a man does it, he gets blamed for "mental assault," stalking, or being a jerk. I've heard everything.
Men are tired of women's activists accusing all abusive behavior at home for men. Studies demonstrate that ladies are somewhat more probable than men to start physical savagery.
Lesbian couples have generally increased the rate of abusive behavior at home as hetero and gay male couples. Men are tired of women's activists concealing the torment of aggressive behavior at home in lesbian couples.
the pompous feeling of qualification
they don't know women's activist issues or the reason they ought to trust any of them. Rather, they are sheep, and when you make inquiries, they affront you.
In the US, we've made a great deal of steps in ladies' rights. Ladies are permitted to land positions, claim their own property, vote, and for the most part complete a considerable measure of things that we once couldn't do. The sexual orientation lopsided characteristics in the US will in general be considerably more unobtrusive than they used to be and stand out from different nations where ladies have less rights.
Nonetheless, there are winning demeanors about ladies that still keep us down. These mentalities can disable us and limit us.
By chance, these equivalent confused demeanors are additionally hurtful to men. A similar state of mind that would keep down ladies from maintaining STEM sources of income, constrain them to forfeit professions for family, and name a confident businessperson lady as hazardously forceful likewise harms men in that it affirms that the main satisfactory inclination for men to show is outrage. It claims men can't be mishandled or assaulted. It likewise makes individuals accept that, in youngster guardianship cases, the man is the slightest proficient parent and makes it troublesome for men to get care.
A few people take a gander at the extraordinary steps that have been made in ladies' rights and the issues men face and ask why women's liberation is as yet a thing. They don't understand that ladies are still at an orderly hindrance and they assume that supporting for a superior life for ladies and a superior life for men are totally unrelated causes.
The name woman's rights can on occasion feed into the view that propelling the status of ladies as people is in reality about female matchless quality and not balance.
I don't have an answer for the issue yet I consider myself a women's activist since I put stock in genuine sexual orientation balance. I put stock in propelling the circumstance of any individual who winds up at a deliberate hindrance. I call myself women's activist since I trust ladies have further to go before they're equivalent. Be that as it may, I do have confidence in genuine uniformity. In the meantime, I comprehend that this word doesn't mean a similar thing to everybody.
Short and simple answer: fear for loss of power and loss of control.