SIMS: Conflating Common Sense and Extremism: Why Feminist Labeling Fails

The debate surrounding gender, identity, and political ideology has become intensely polarized—nowhere more so than in the rhetoric used by some feminist writers, and liberal women. When columns like Milli Hill’s on Substack paint “right-wing men” as the embodiment of extremism, and frame basic biological or family-based values as dangerous, they do more than distort reality: they undermine honest dialogue and perpetuate divisiveness at a time when nuance is urgently needed.

The Fallacy of the Extremist Label

Labeling people as “far-right extremists” based on traditional beliefs or disagreement with gender ideology flattens the spectrum of opinion to a single, villainous caricature. To equate the acknowledgment of biological sex, or a preference for stable family structures, with hateful nationalism or misogyny is to erase the healthy diversity within society—and cast millions of decent men and women outside the bounds of civility.

This reductionist logic does more harm than good. Most individuals hold complex views that don’t fit neatly into ideological boxes. By conflating common sense—such as the belief in the reality of biological sex—with extremism, feminist rhetoric weaponizes language against those it intends to persuade, creating more antagonism and less understanding.

Why Men Are Put Into Boxes

Feminist critics often claim the moral authority of liberating women from restrictive gender roles, but then turn around and restrict men through categorization. This tendency to apply broad stereotypes—whether about men’s values, emotional responses, or political beliefs—mirrors the very patriarchal thinking feminism seeks to dismantle.

Research shows that both men and women engage with social and political issues in diverse ways, and that communication styles and values cannot be universally mapped onto gender. When honest questions and dissenting views are dismissed as aggression or extremism, we lose the richness of public discourse and the possibility of genuine progress.

The Erosion of Dialogue

The labeling of common sense values as extremist stems, in part, from a defensive posture within modern feminist discourse—a desire for ideological purity and a quick identification of perceived threats. Yet, history and critical engagement teach that solutions to gender inequality arise from listening, questioning, and building bridges across differences—not building thicker walls.
If advocating for women’s rights means demonizing men who view gender or social roles differently, the movement risks replicating the exclusion it claims to oppose. Instead, the cause of equality is best served by recognizing the validity of dissent, the complexity of every viewpoint, and the need for courageous—but civil—debate.

Liberal Women’s Role in Misunderstanding Traditional Values

It is important to note that this pattern of dismissing traditional or common sense values as extremist is not limited to feminist writers like Milli Hill; many liberal women also contribute to this misunderstanding. When voices like Charlie Kirk engage in civic debates, they often ground their arguments in values that have been historically familiar to broad swaths of society: family, personal responsibility, and respect for biological realities. Yet, some liberal women equate these positions with reactionary or extremist politics without engaging substantively with the underlying ideas.

This dismissive stance contributes to a growing polarization where basic civic discourse about issues like family structure, gender distinctions, or social roles is prematurely shut down as dangerous or regressive. Instead of seeking to understand or question these values in good faith, they are often caricatured as oppressive or hateful, which alienates many who might be open to dialogue.

When liberal women participate in framing these traditional values as inherently wrong or extremist, they undermine the very possibility of common ground. This diminishes the potential for nuanced conversations in public spaces where people with differing views might find mutual respect and understanding through reasoned debate.

Questions for Feminist Critics and Liberal Women

What is gained by casting millions of men into a box labeled “extremist” simply for disagreeing on certain issues?

How does equating traditional or common sense values with far-right ideology benefit the cause of women’s rights?

Is it possible for gender-critical feminists and liberal women alike to fight for women’s safety and dignity—while still respecting the individual humanity of men with differing views?

Why is there a reluctance among some liberal women to engage sincerely with traditional values outside of progressive frameworks, even when these values resonate with everyday lived experience?
Could the dismissal of these values as extremist be limiting broader social progress rather than advancing it?

Refusing Simplistic Narratives

Ultimately, the path forward for both men and women lies in refusing simplistic political and gender-based narratives. Social progress isn’t about choosing sides or labeling dissent as dangerous; it is about wrestling with complexity and finding common ground wherever possible.

Feminist thought and liberal discourse will be stronger—and society healthier—when they welcome challenging conversations, embrace nuance, and recognize that both men and women are more than the stereotypes imposed by fear and political convenience. A robust democracy depends on open dialogue that respects dissenting views without branding them as extremism, especially when these views embody long-standing common sense values.

It is through such engagement—not division—that genuine understanding, mutual respect, and inclusive progress can emerge.

Authors’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.

Got Something to Say, We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com