Is feminist hate and anger justified?
Prominent American feminist Robin Morgan thinks it is justified. One of her well-known sayings is: "The oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
That does make some sense. If someone was oppressing you, you might well hate them. Though Christians of course would say "Turn the other cheek".
So what are the problems with that saying as it applies to feminists? One problem is that chronic hostility is bad for your heart. It leads to a greater risk of heart attacks and is probably bad for your mental health as well.
The major problem, however is the assumption that a particular group is being oppressed. Before they became open elitists, Leftists were always of the view that the workers were oppressed and that they should "cast off their chains". And the lesser income of the workers gave that some plausibility. One needs fairly elborate arguments to dispute that claim.
But is that the case with women? Are women oppressed? Feminists wholeheartedly think so but are they right? The formal evidence most often advanced is the lower average pay of female employees. But there have been any number of demonstrations that the lower pay of women is wholly due, not to injustice but to the different choices men and women make. And each sex is of course fully entitled to their divergent choices.
After that, the main evidence put forward by feminsts is anecdotal. They point to instances when men have treated them badly. But when I look at such instances, it seems to me that in many cases the attribution is not clear. Were you treated badly because you were a women or were you treated badly because of one other of your characteristics?
Many of the women who think they got a bad deal may in fact have been treated badly because they were, for instance, hostile people. Everybody shies way from hostile people and the woman concerned may have been a feminist. And feminists are usually readily seen as doing a slow burn. They are not pleasant people. They are angry people. As such they bring rejection down on their own heads.
And there are many other reasons that might lead a woman to be rejected. Was she too shy? Did she have bad breath? Did she speak too loudly? Did she speak a lot more than she listened? -- etc. There may still be some organizations that reject women qua women but they would be very rare these days. I have listened to many tales of rejection from women and minorities and it has never been clear to me that the things they complain of are securely attributed. The possibility of false attribution is not even considered usually. For an excellent example of false attribution by a feminist, first read this and then this
A common form of misattribution occurs when a meeting is being held to discuss some issue and the contribution of a woman or women present is ignored. This is routinely taken as contemptuous of women. It rarely is. It is usually a polite form of disagreement. It may be a way of saying, "That raises too many new issues for us to consider here" or it may be to say, "You are way off beam here but we don't like to criticize you for that". Silence can be a form of politeness. It is used in lieu of open criticism. Women need to learn that. It is a way of conflict minimization that comes naturally to men. Women have their own methods that come naturally to them
And what about women being kept out of frontline service in the armed forces?. Obama allowed it. Trump has stopped it. Does that refusal express contempt for women? Far from it. It expresses an especially high value for women. The thinking is that a healthy society protects its mothers. It does not deliberately expose them to danger. In a war many men may be lost but if the mothers are safe, the men can be replaced. So, yes, it is discrimination but it is discrimination with a benevolent aim and effect.
I will not dispute that there were once rather wooden-headed ways that society treated women. They were discriminated against in access to education etc. But is that true now? I can't see it. A majority of university graduates is now female. By the sort of logic feminists use, that would be evidence that men are now discriminated against and that men should now be angry. Fortunately men in general are more mature than that. They can "take their lumps".
So I think it is clear that women and their feminist minority may once have been oppressed but they are no longer. Their hate and anger is unjustified and wrong. At best, they are living in the past.