There are many in the feminist movement who see the Western civilization as the root of oppression of women. They are wrong. The Western civilization has had the influence of all sorts of people who took an oppositional stance to brutality and misogyny. India and the Middle East have had much fewer of such influences. Which results in women in India and the Middle East being subjected to far greater nastiness than women in the West.
The Western civilization has had the Enlightenment movement and the Romantic movement. Both fought the “traditional” culture of misogyny and brutality. The first championed reason; the second championed love. The feminists reject both movements; which means that they reject both reason and love. In fact the Western women owe vastly to both.
A man who champions reason will realize that anything with a brain is capable of rationality, and he will be in favor of women having education, careers and political power. And a man who champions love will be far less likely to be ugly to his woman than a man who thinks that real men beat women or that women are of the Satan.
So they attack love; then they attack reason. And guess what comes back but traditional Eminem-style misogyny.
These women can be very well described as a bunch of ungrateful brats. They owe vastly both to Enlightenment and to Romanticism. Yet they attack both; which means that they attack what gave them their right to have their careers, express their opinions, and avoid being someone's punching bag in the first place.
Is reason patriarchial? Absolutely not. A rational man will be far more likely to be in favor of women's careers than a “traditional” man who thinks that the woman's place is at home. There were many female participants in the Enlightenment movement, and there are many women in science and mathematics. Whereas we do not see many women among Islamic imams or Hindu swamis.
Is love patriarchial? Absolutely not. Among its champions were many women, and not stupid or weak ones either. Women are far more oppressed in Muslim and Hindu cultures where marriages are arranged than they are in places where love is allowed. And a man who believes in loving women will be far less abusive than a man who blames women for the world's suffering or thinks that he owes it to God or to other men to oppress women.
Both reason and love favor women. And the woman who attacks both, or either, undermines what made her position possible in the first place.
Is Western civilization all good? Of course not. But in attacking its better influences – reason and love – feminists exert a destructive effect that falls squarely on the shoulders of Western women. These are the influences that have done the most to fight “traditional” misogyny and brutality. And in attacking such things, these women are bringing the Western society back to its bad old habits.
Which means that their activities are utterly self-defeating. And it is Western women who suffer the most as a result.
Is feminism, as some Christians say, evil? No; there have been good things that came out of feminism. But nothing positive is accomplished by attacking the Western civilization and its better influences. In India, Middle East or pre-Enlightenment Europe, these women would be killed. Instead they are free to spread their propaganda, thanks to both Western Enlightenment and Western Romanticism.
When they are taking the side of Islam against the West, what we see is not only treason but also absolute foolishness. A Muslim would beat such women to death and think that he's doing Allah a favor. A woman who really believes in women's rights and empowerment will support the influences of reason and love; and a woman who opposes these things is attacking the influences that have made it possible for her to avoid a similar fate.