Well, I think there is still a lot of good reasons to have a feminism movement which fights for women's rights, however feminism has never been a very coherent group, and recently things seem to have gotten worse. To get an idea about the mental climate of *some* feminists (my sexist impression: mostly male feminists), I recommend people to follow Michael Nugents blog: http://www.michaelnugent.com/ He is currently undergoing some kind of assault. For those who don't know, Michael Nugent is like the least controversial person you can imagine, but he is getting called all kinds of things for no sensible reasons.
For those who want a bit of background, here is on feminist (ex feminist?) who explains why she no longer call herself feminist along with her view of where (the bad parts of) the current movement has gone wrong:
http://helensatheistblogs.blogspot.dk/2016/02/why-i-no-longer-identify-as-feminist.html?m=1
At its height, postmodernism as an artistic movement produced non-chronological, plotless literature and presented urinals as art. In social theory, postmodernists 'deconstructed' everything considered true and presented all as meaningless. However, having done this, there was nowhere else to go and nothing more to say. In the realm of social justice, nothing can be accomplished unless we accept that certain people in a certain place experience certain disadvantages. For this, a system of reality needs to exist, and so new theories of gender and race and sexuality began to emerge comprised of mininarratives. These categories were held to be culturally constructed and constructed hierarchically to the detriment of women, people of colour and LGBTs. Identity was paramount.
Liberal feminist aims gradually shifted from the position:
"Everyone deserves human rights and equality, and feminism focuses on achieving them for women."
to
"Individuals and groups of all sexes, races, religions and sexualities have their own truths, norms and values. All truths, cultural norms and moral values are equal. Those of white, western, heterosexual men have unfairly dominated in the past so now they and all their ideas must be set aside for marginalised groups."
Liberal feminism had shifted from the universality of equal human rights to identity politics. No longer were ideas valued on their merit but on the identity of the speaker and this was multifaceted, incorporating sex, gender identity, race, religion, sexuality and physical ability. The value of an identity in social justice terms is dependent on its degree of marginalisation, and these stack up and vie for primacy. This is where liberal feminism went so badly wrong. When post-colonial guilt fought with feminism, feminism lost. When it fought with LGBT rights, they lost too.
So aware of Western imperialism having trampled on other cultures historically, western liberal feminism now embraced their most patriarchal aspects. A western liberal feminist can, on the same day, take part in a slut walk to protest western women being judged by their clothing and accuse anyone criticising the niqab of Islamophobia. She can demand the prosecution of a Christian baker for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex-couple, and condemn the planning of a Gay Pride march through a heavily Muslim area as racist. Many intersectional feminists do not limit themselves to the criticism of other white, western feminists but pour vitriolic, racist abuse on liberal Muslim and ex-Muslim feminists and LGBT activists. The misogyny and homophobia of Christianity may be criticised by all (quite rightly) but the misogyny and homophobia of Islam by none, not even Muslims. The right to criticise one's own culture and religion is seemingly restricted to white westerners. (The best analysis of 'The Racism of Some Anti-racists' is by Tom Owolade.)
