An Analysis of "The Pros and Cons of Feminism"

With a title like "The Pros AND Cons of Feminism" (link) I expected a relatively bias-free article where themes of the positives and negatives were constantly revisited, so the reader was not particularly swayed one way or the other by the end of the article, simply better informed. Unfortunately, this was not the case.

The author begins by describing his own beliefs regarding feminism and throws out statements about his personal beliefs that are essentially the core of feminism, he's goes on to state that: "under this rubric [of benevolent feminism] I would proudly call myself a feminist," (Saad) he, additionally,  includes some line about how he "abhor[s] all forms of injustice and intolerance" (Saad). 

If you take his words at face value, he seems like proud feminist. But the entire two paragraphs he devotes to describing his beliefs and 'benevolent feminism' are thrown off by a single word: 'would'. If feminism was always, as he described, 'benevolent', then he WOULD consider himself a feminist. This implies that he does not currently consider himself one. In my opinion, this is not a phenomenal start to an article that, judging by the title, is intended to, at least appear, to be unbiased. He starts off the article by being subtly critical of the movement, and his personal views do not do him any favors in the pursuit of being bias-free. 

Dr. Saad follows up his personal opinion by criticizing feminism for the rest of the article. No pro's. Only con's. He picks out a few radical, vastly unpopular and unheld 'feminist' beliefs/theories, and represents them as commonplace truths in the feminist community. As a feminist, I am willing to concede that there are many flaws in the movement, and that feminism is not perfect. The author had a wide array of issues to choose from that were actually prevalent, but he instead chose to misrepresent feminism with some of the most rejected and ostracized 'ideals', which are not held by the majority of feminists. His selection of issues only goes to show that he had a very specific intent for this article.

The next six (of seven) paragraphs are devoted entirely to condemning feminism. In the last, he chucks in a half hearted line about how we should "applaud feminism for its contributions in making our societies more equitable and just" (Saad) but a suitable defense for feminism is nowhere to be found: the movement is almost entirely unrepresented, besides a few vague, nondescript blanket statements.