Feminism and the emasculation of men

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What part of this are you failing to understand? I have no problem with the pro-censorship feminists saying whatever they want to say, but I'm not going to be a part of their movement because I wholeheartedly disagree with every single word of it. I am NOT talking about restricting their freedom of speech in any way, but I despise their attempts to restrict mine. That have the right to do it, doesn't make them not authoritarian gobsh!tes.

Because you are so extremely pro-censorship and don't see the need to censor anything. Your problem isn't these particular feminists, it's any group, the government or organisation that wants censorship of any kind.

hatrickpatrick

Lyaiera wrote: »

They're not state run.

So?

Are you saying everyone should be given an equal platform, no matter how reprehensible their views are?

Absolutely.

hatrickpatrick

K-9 wrote: »

Because you are so extremely pro-censorship and don't see the need to censor anything. Your problem isn't these particular feminists, it's any group, the government or organisation that wants censorship of any kind.

That's correct, but that's not what I'm arguing about here. The point is, feminism isn't only about equality, it's also about a bunch of other unrelated crap, and not everyone who says "I don't agree with feminism" is automatically saying they don't agree with the equality part. I agree with equality between men and women, it's a bunch of the other stuff which is intrinsically linked with feminism's public image that I don't agree with.

What I'm specifically lashing out at are comments like these:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seems to me if the idea of feminism is still pissing off certain men it must be doing something right as it is generally the men who whinge about loss of their 'dominance' who bitch the most.

jaja321 wrote: »

Starting a sentence with..I'm all for gender equality but...is kinda like ..I'm not racist but...

Not to mention the hundreds of articles I've seen lambasting young women for not supporting feminism because "If you want equality, you're a feminist". Hell, Clairefontaine got attacked in this thread for not supporting it, as if that automatically means she doesn't desire equal rights for men and women.

See the problem?
As I said earlier in the thread, this is my problem with feminism:
"Feminism = x + y, I dislike y so I choose not to support feminism, but feminists berate me by assuming I don't support x either."

I'm finding it hard to put it into words, I'll try and analogize it:

An ice cream offered to me is a mixture of chocolate and pistachio. I don't like pistachio flavoured ice cream so I decline the offer. Ice cream vendor assumes this means I don't like chocolate, even though chocolate isn't the only ingredient I could dislike that would make me not want the icecream.

A movie stars Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. I'm not mad about Brad Pitt, so I don't go and see it - somebody assumes that means I don't like Angelina Jolie, even though she's not the only person in the movie that I could dislike that would make me not want to see it.

If this still isn't clear I'll try my best to come up with some new analogies - I'm just tired of people assuming I have insidious reasons for opposing feminism, and refusing to accept that there are also separate, legitimate reasons for opposing it.

Johro

This kind of whinge is not very manly at all.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's correct, but that's not what I'm arguing about here. The point is, feminism isn't only about equality, it's also about a bunch of other unrelated crap, and not everyone who says "I don't agree with feminism" is automatically saying they don't agree with the equality part. I agree with equality between men and women, it's a bunch of the other stuff which is intrinsically linked with feminism's public image that I don't agree with.

Can't disagree much with that! The abortion point must be hard for somebody who is pro-life. It would seem you must support pro-choice to be a feminist. The abortion subject doesn't have one answer either, some people are more conservative or liberal than others.

What I'm specifically lashing out at are comments like these:







Not to mention the hundreds of articles I've seen lambasting young women for not supporting feminism because "If you want equality, you're a feminist". Hell, Clairefontaine got attacked in this thread for not supporting it, as if that automatically means she doesn't desire equal rights for men and women.

See the problem?

Well quotes usually have a context, I don't think they were just posted randomly, probably replying to similar type posts.

I do see your point, I do think feminism deserves criticism, I'd be more critical of it than I used to be. But it's important to state that it also gets a lot right, which I do think you are saying. The problem is a lot of people just go into an automatic slating mode when they see the word feminism, the subject or topic is nearly irrelevant because the femi nazis brought it up.

Somebody else brought up the thread in the Gentlemans club. I've responded to it a few times and as somebody mentioned, there are a few posters there that will slate feminism no matter what. Post up links showing feminist groups supporting men's rights and you get the "there's something in it for them" line.

It's a bit like gender quotas, I'm not sure of them, but there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with them. They had to be introduced in N.I. for the RUC/PSNI, sometimes I wonder if it's just because some feminists want them, some people go into anti feminist gender quota default mode.

Lou.m

What has feminism got to do with the emasculation of men OP?

Carlos Orange

K-9 wrote: »

It's a bit like gender quotas, I'm not sure of them, but there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with them.

You don't think it is intrinsically wrong to mandate that someones gender plays an explicit role in whether they are hired or not? It might be the lesser of two wrongs but that isn't the same as not wrong.

Femme_Fatale

Abortion is a women's issue but it affects others too; I don't agree with it being called a feminist issue. There is a number of things that I wouldn't call feminist issues - they're issues that anyone would be concerned by (e.g. treatment of women in muslim theocracies).
But I still won't go damning all feminists like lots of the posts here (including some nutty ones, but thankfully banning ensued).

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The difference between these and Elam's nutjob views should be obvious - he's never managed to get his crackpot ideas adopted as official policy in large institutions around the world.

You're comparing the Blurred Lines banning (totally ridiculous, I agree) and the "Boys are stupid" t-shirts (repugnant) to what the likes of Return Of Kings espouse? I'd consider Solanas's and Dworkin's lunacy to be more the equivalent. So yeh, as I said, there's no necessity for guys here to condemn them in order for me to be convinced you don't support them. It goes without saying. A couple of the banned peeps might do (although more than likely not) but... they're banned.
I see there are no Feb 14 reg's barging in here to attack men's rights advocates. Never happens either.

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's political and ideological blackmail, sometimes emotional... As was attempted to be practiced upon me..."And you're a woman too.."

Kinda like your extremely tasteless use of covering up child rape by the catholic church as having parallels with people here saying it's those who have some feminist views are not deserving of comparison with the nutters.
And I know you and others will continue to gleefully leap upon my comment to you and twist it but I stand by it. I don't think it's strange if a woman doesn't support fanatical feminism (I don't) but I do think it's strange to condemn feminism in its entirety despite being a woman. A Margaret Thatcher-ish thing to do.
Just as strange would be a man condemning fathers' rights activists.

nacho libre

I had a game of pool with a feminist extremist in a pub a few years back. I was lectured throughout the game on how evil my gender was. In the end, i apologised for having a penis and all the misery it inflicted... Childish, yes, but someone with that mentality deserves nothing less, she ruins it for women who love men,but just want a level playing field between the sexes. Her kind are, to put it bluntly, full of cow dung

hatrickpatrick

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

You're comparing the Blurred Lines banning (totally ridiculous, I agree) and the "Boys are stupid" t-shirts (repugnant) to what the likes of Return Of Kings espouse? I'd consider Solanas's and Dworkin's lunacy to be more the equivalent.

Unlike Return of Kings, Dworkins or solanas, the Blurred Lines and Topman campaigns have had a gigantic mainstream following - enough to actually cause various entities around the world to restrict free expression in various ways in response to the demands of feminist campaigners.
So yeah, I'd place more importance on nutjob campaigns which have had real world impact and caused a restriction of people's freedom than on nutjob campaigns which have pissed off people who've read them but not much else.

hatrickpatrick

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Kinda like your extremely tasteless use of covering up child rape by the catholic church.

Pathetic attempt to avoid addressing the incredibly valid point myself and Claire have been making.
Do you or do you not accept that since feminism is about more than *just* equality between the sexes, to make the leap of logic that someone who opposes feminism is automatically anti-equality in some way is a logical fallacy and an attempt to shame people for holding valid political beliefs? Yes or no?

And I know you and others will continue to gleefully leap upon my comment to you and twist it but I stand by it. I don't think it's strange if a woman doesn't support fanatical feminism (I don't) but I do think it's strange to condemn feminism in its entirety despite being a woman. A Margaret Thatcher-ish thing to do.
Just as strange would be a man condemning fathers' rights activists.

Father's rights activists are a relatively single issue cause - father's rights. Feminism encompasses a ridiculously vast umbrella of ideologies, and if one disagrees strongly with any one of them, one can legitimately refuse to condone feminism.

Here's another analogy for you: Let's imagine there was a political movement whose main stated objective was to promote animal rights. A noble cause, many would agree, when stated vaguely. Let's imagine this movement was called "animalism". Now let's imagine that an extremely large and influential sub-group within that movement started a campaign to ban even fictional depictions of animal cruelty or animal deaths (actually this has happened, look at Love/Hate's cat killing scene or the reaction to the giraffe getting beheaded in Hangover III for examples), and that those who were trying to ban these depictions gained a gigantic international following, succeeded in convincing many theatres and video shops not to stock or show movies on their hit list, etc. Let's imagine these campaigns were self-paraded as "Animalist" and that they were so widespread as to have become intrinsically linked with the word "animalist" in the eyes of the general public.

Now would you agree that I would have every right, even though I'm an avid supporter of animal rights and I despise animal cruelty with a fiery passion, to say "I oppose Animalism" without anyone having legitimate grounds for accusing me of supporting animal cruelty, or wanting to go back to a world in which it was acceptable to practise animal cruelty?

Femme_Fatale

Not one thing pathetic about me being critical of that obnoxious analogy in relation to the catholic church. Just the analogy itself was. Covering up child rape is being complicit in child rape. Saying you agree with aspects of feminism but condemn the extremism isn't comparable in the slightest.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Do you or do you not accept that since feminism is about more than *just* equality between the sexes, to make the leap of logic that someone who opposes feminism is automatically anti-equality in some way is a logical fallacy and an attempt to shame people for holding valid political beliefs?

What? Of course I accept it. I never said that. I just object to people saying feminism is all extremism and all who identify as feminists are extremists/supporting the extremists by association.

Feminism encompasses a ridiculously vast umbrella of ideologies, and if one disagrees strongly with any one of them, one can legitimately refuse to condone feminism.

I don't agree. You even say yourself it's extremely vast, so it makes absolutely no sense to condemn it based on just part of it.

Here's another analogy for you: Let's imagine there was a political movement whose main stated objective was to promote animal rights. A noble cause, many would agree, when stated vaguely. Let's imagine this movement was called "animalism". Now let's imagine that an extremely large and influential sub-group within that movement started a campaign to ban even fictional depictions of animal cruelty or animal deaths (actually this has happened, look at Love/Hate's cat killing scene or the reaction to the giraffe getting beheaded in Hangover III for examples), and that those who were trying to ban these depictions gained a gigantic international following, succeeded in convincing many theatres and video shops not to stock or show movies on their hit list, etc. Let's imagine these campaigns were self-paraded as "Animalist" and that they were so widespread as to have become intrinsically linked with the word "animalist" in the eyes of the general public.

Now would you agree that I would have every right, even though I'm an avid supporter of animal rights and I despise animal cruelty with a fiery passion, to say "I oppose Animalism" without anyone having legitimate grounds for accusing me of supporting animal cruelty, or wanting to go back to a world in which it was acceptable to practise animal cruelty?

I'd of course not view you as supporting animal cruelty but I'd disagree with you saying you condemn all animalism when the nutters are only one part of it.
Has anyone here said those who condemn feminism are therefore misogynists? I really don't think so.
A Republican party member in the states asked if women can have abortions, shouldn't men be able to use their superior strength to force themselves on women? (He later apologised). I don't deem the Republican party overall therefore to hold his views. It kinda annoys me the way people are pretending that man is representative of the Republican party and as if it's full of rape advocates; it's not.

I wouldn't expect men to identify themselves as feminists at all.

KyussBishop

You're both effectively arguing over semantics - over different definitions of the word feminism - in a way that is never going to lead to a logical resolution of the debate.

When your definition of 'feminism' is purely subjective - for some people meaning egalitarian/equal treatment of genders, for others meaning crackpot misandry - then it is impossible for there to be a resolution in the debate.


I know this well, because this is what Libertarians do all the time:
They insist on redefining certain critical words, so that they are completely different to their dictionary definition, and the words become so generalized/changeable, that they are totally meaningless - then (if you allow this) it is nearly impossible to discuss a large number of things with them, because you (and they) literally don't have the words.

When you generalize/smear the meaning of a word, so that you remove any specific definition of it, and it can mean many many different things, you are then unable to be specific about those things, without using completely different (potentially unavailable) words.


So, you have to either come to a common definition of feminism - one that is very specific and well defined (e.g. egalitarianism/equality, not 'all branches of feminist ideology', which would contradict the first definition, by including the misandrist branches) - or just stop using the word altogether and use more specific terms based on what you're trying to say ('misandrists within the feminist movement') or you're just going to be blocking your own ability to debate with others, and them with you.


This is why generalizing and debating about feminists/feminism often turns into a massive waste of time:
Not all 'feminists' (within the political movement) are feminists (that fit the dictionary definition) - and you are a feminist whether you like it or not, if you fit the dictionary definition, but that doesn't mean you fit or self-identify with the feminist movement.

This also (contradictorily) means someone can be perfectly right, based on the dictionary definition, to criticize you for not supporting feminism, yet completely wrong if they are talking about identifying with parts of the political movement - so you see, without specifics, such a debate is an utter waste of time.

kunst nugget

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're both effectively arguing over semantics - over different definitions of the word feminism - in a way that is never going to lead to a logical resolution of the debate.

When your definition of 'feminism' is purely subjective - for some people meaning egalitarian/equal treatment of genders, for others meaning crackpot misandry - then it is impossible for there to be a resolution in the debate.


I know this well, because this is what Libertarians do all the time:
They insist on redefining certain critical words, so that they are completely different to their dictionary definition, and the words become so generalized/changeable, that they are totally meaningless - then (if you allow this) it is nearly impossible to discuss a large number of things with them, because you (and they) literally don't have the words.

When you generalize/smear the meaning of a word, so that you remove any specific definition of it, and it can mean many many different things, you are then unable to be specific about those things, without using completely different (potentially unavailable) words.


So, you have to either come to a common definition of feminism - one that is very specific and well defined (e.g. egalitarianism/equality, not 'all branches of feminist ideology', which would contradict the first definition, by including the misandrist branches) - or just stop using the word altogether and use more specific terms based on what you're trying to say ('misandrists within the feminist movement') or you're just going to be blocking your own ability to debate with others, and them with you.


This is why generalizing and debating about feminists/feminism often turns into a massive waste of time:
Not all 'feminists' (within the political movement) are feminists (that fit the dictionary definition) - and you are a feminist whether you like it or not, if you fit the dictionary definition, but that doesn't mean you fit or self-identify with the feminist movement.

This also (contradictorily) means someone can be perfectly right, based on the dictionary definition, to criticize you for not supporting feminism, yet completely wrong if they are talking about identifying with parts of the political movement - so you see, without specifics, such a debate is an utter waste of time.

Best post of the whole debate.

Freddie Dodge

KyussBishop wrote: »

If in doubt, assume that 'feminist' means: Egalitarianism.

I think the best way to consider/define the word, is to consider it synonymous with egalitarianism.

I'm an egalitarian, that is I attempt in my daily life to promote equal rights, responsibilities, and treatment for both genders. Please do NOT sully the word with comparisons to what amounts to a trade union for women.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sweetest divine.....

They do!!

Just because it doesn't take place in mainstream media outlets does not mean it doesn't happen!

"But the planning notice WAS on public view, - in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet in the lavatory of a disused basement....."

Give us ONE, just one example in print or footage, of a prominent feminist speaking out PUBLICLY against the censorship demands, or against the agenda of the lunatic fringe..

KyussBishop

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

I'm an egalitarian, that is I attempt in my daily life to promote equal rights, responsibilities, and treatment for both genders. Please do NOT sully the word with comparisons to what amounts to a trade union for women.

That's the definition of the word...

the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism

Freddie Dodge

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's the definition of the word...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism

Re-read what you just wrote. They are NOT the same thing, so please stop restating this lie.

Feminists seek ADVANTAGE OVER men.

How the dictionary defines Feminism, is irelevant, its what actually happens that matters.

If you don't agree with this statement, try finding an entry fro Fianna Fail, - lots you wont read about them there, that everyone knows.

Femme_Fatale

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Feminists seek ADVANTAGE OVER men.

All of them do?

Freddie Dodge

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

All of them do?

By and large, Yes.

Femme_Fatale

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

By and large, Yes.

Not sure where you get that stat. Is it just that you think it so therefore you reckon it's true?

Freddie Dodge

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Not sure where you get that stat. Is it just that you think it so therefore you reckon it's true?

Observation. Don't really care what you think tbh, (as someone who earlier suggested that clairefontaine should support feminism because she's a woman) and have no intention of being dragged into an endless point scoring debate like hatrickpatrick did.

Lets leave it there.

Femme_Fatale

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

as someone who earlier suggested that clairefontaine should support feminism because she's a woman

Ah I see - more misinterpreting what I said. Shur I'd say you only loved it.

No she shouldn't support feminism because she's a woman; but her condemning every bit of it, including the bits that would benefit her... only Margaret Thatcher, Anne Coulter types do that. Women who have no problem taking advantage of whatever benefits have been the result of feminism but are hostile to other women.

You would feel the very same way about men who condemn the men's rights movement (and understandably so) and would call them "white knights" and the like.

GalwayGuy2

No she shouldn't support feminism because she's a woman; but her condemning every bit of it, including the bits that would benefit her... only Margaret Thatcher, Anne Coulter types do that. Women who have no problem taking advantage of whatever benefits have been the result of feminism but are hostile to other women.

I'm sorry, but if someone believes that feminism infantilizes, fellow women, then they should be allowed to dislike it.

Freddie Dodge

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

You would feel the very same way about men who condemn the men's rights movement (and understandably so) and would call them "white knights" and the like.

Please dont presume to know how I "would feel" about anything, unless I've posted on that subject. In this case, I've never used the term "white knight", or posted anything about guys who condem mens rights movements under this or my prevoius username, which I'll pm you if you want.

Its becoming a severe problem on this forum that people feel that they can speak for others. You can't, no matter how many tens of thousands of posts you have under two or three usernames.

KyussBishop

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Re-read what you just wrote. They are NOT the same thing, so please stop restating this lie.

Feminists seek ADVANTAGE OVER men.

How the dictionary defines Feminism, is irelevant, its what actually happens that matters.

If you don't agree with this statement, try finding an entry fro Fianna Fail, - lots you wont read about them there, that everyone knows.

You're talking about feminism as in 'the collection of political movements/ideologies', and that is different from feminism 'the word'.

When you say 'feminism' (movements/ideologies), and then you make a general statement about those 'feminists' (such as "Feminists seek ADVANTAGE OVER men."), then you are automatically wrong because:
1: If you're talking about all feminist movements, all it takes is for one feminist movement to contradict what you said, and you are wrong - and egalitarian feminist movements immediately provide the contradiction that makes your statement wrong.
2: Generalizations about whole groups of people, are usually inherently wrong to begin with anyway - since it requires such an impossible standard of proof (a single exception can prove you wrong).


Really, the fight over how to define the word 'feminist' is totally stupid: If you don't have a common definition of 'feminism/feminist', with the person you're debating with, you're only ever going to be talking to yourself, because you can't debate with someone without a common dictionary/definition of words - and the only good authority on that, when there is a disagreement, is the dictionary.

hatrickpatrick

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Not one thing pathetic about me being critical of that obnoxious analogy in relation to the catholic church. Just the analogy itself was. Covering up child rape is being complicit in child rape. Saying you agree with aspects of feminism but condemn the extremism isn't comparable in the slightest.

It was pathetic because you were changing the subject without addressing what she actually said.

What? Of course I accept it. I never said that.

You didn't. It wasn't a comment from you which pissed me off, it was comments like these :

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seems to me if the idea of feminism is still pissing off certain men it must be doing something right as it is generally the men who whinge about loss of their 'dominance' who bitch the most.

jaja321 wrote: »

Starting a sentence with..I'm all for gender equality but...is kinda like ..I'm not racist but...

Belittling those who have valid reasons for shunning a political movement is not conducive to either reasonable debate or winning people over.

I just object to people saying feminism is all extremism and all who identify as feminists are extremists/supporting the extremists by association.

It's not all extremism, but I would argue that moderates are in the minority, or at least, among high profile feminist advocates moderates are very firmly in the minority. Harriet Harmen is a good example - she's held up by feminists all over the place as an example of a strong female politician, even though she is known to hold disgustingly misandrist views.

I don't agree. You even say yourself it's extremely vast, so it makes absolutely no sense to condemn it based on just part of it.

The Republican Party in the US is also vast and it contains a wide variety of different views and many good, decent people. But authoritarians comprise a sizeable enough proportion of them that when I hear the word "republican" that's the first thing I think of.

I'd of course not view you as supporting animal cruelty but I'd disagree with you saying you condemn all animalism when the nutters are only one part of it.

If the rest of the movement didn't distance itself from those mutters, if it stayed largely silent about them without telling them that they shouldn't be doing what they're doing, I absolutely would shun the word itself. I'd be an advocate for animal rights, but I categorically wouldn't use the word "animalism" - just as I am an advocate for gender equality and sexual freedom, but refuse to use the word "feminism" to describe my views.

Has anyone here said those who condemn feminism are therefore misogynists? I really don't think so.

They've come close enough. See the two posts I quoted above from jaja321 and Bannishidhe.

A Republican party member in the states asked if women can have abortions, shouldn't men be able to use their superior strength to force themselves on women? (He later apologised). I don't deem the Republican party overall therefore to hold his views.

Really? There's enough of those muppets in the Republican Party to ensure that I for one would never, ever vote for them, no matter how much the good ones balanced it out. They are tolerated within the party instead of being condemned by their fellow republicans, that's enough for me to be honest.

It kinda annoys me the way people are pretending that man is representative of the Republican party and as if it's full of rape advocates; it's not.

It's full of social conservatives and people who share the party with them without criticising their policies. If we're going to talk of political parties consider Fine Gael - they're not all as bad as Alan Shatter, but their collective refusal to oust him has caused me to seriously question if any of them will be getting a number from me on my next GE ballot paper.

I wouldn't expect men to identify themselves as feminists at all.

PLENTY of feminists do just that. Check out Reddit's feminism forum for an absolute hotbed of "with us or against us" crap, along the same lines as the two examples I cited from this thread.

hatrickpatrick

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

have no intention of being dragged into an endless point scoring debate like hatrickpatrick did.

Lets leave it there.

Ah, the sweet beauty of hindsight

Femme_Fatale

I guess, Patrick, it boils down to being of the view that an entire movement/party can be condemned due to extremist elements within its ranks, or not believing it. You believe the former, I'd subscribe to the latter.

If a party/movement's sole purpose is based on extremism, e.g. Youth Defence, the English Defence League, then I'd just condemn it outright. But if the party/movement's origins were not so malignant and the majority of its members/subscribers are decent people (e.g. the men's rights movement) I don't hold them all accountable for the extremist element.

tritium

Firstly, there's a distinction to be made here between what an ideology defines itself as, and what and how those identifying themselves as members actually advocate.

In the former sense, feminism is about advancing the equal rights of women. That means, in spite of the point KyussBishop makes, that the equal rights of men are an aside - if a feminist movement achieves advances in mens equality it is by definition a secondary consequence rather than an aim. To that extent, those wanting equal rights for all may identify with feminist ideas but they cannot be exclusively defined by that, regardless of the label they use for themselves (the flip side of this is that you can support womens rights without technically being a feminist)

That's not to say that many people who identify as feminists don't support rights for men purely because they see it as the right thing to do. If I can give you an analogy, I know a mechanic who also happens to be a very good electrician. That doesn't however mean that all mechanics are comfortable playing with a fusebox, rather its a feature of that individuals own perspective and experience. It also makes them a more rounded person, and I do wish more mechanics took the time to do the same.......

In terms of the wider feminist movement, it frankly suffers from an image problem. Much of this is borne from the academic feminism that is particularly good at getting airtime, and which in many instances looks more like tolerated hate speech than academic endeavour. Its all well and good when those who identify as feminist say that they don't align with the radicals, but how can the ordinary person square this with the fact the people like Janice Raymond have both so heavily influenced social policy making and also that they still sup at society's top table, their dirty laundry conveniently pushed under that table. That's not a criticism of feminists by the way, a call for accountability should come from wider media and society. However when that doesn't happen, then someone like this becomes the face of feminism in popular culture.

More insidious is that their position of influence within academia often provides a platform for the promotion of these extremes.

There are other examples of the prominent public face of feminism appearing to be an endorsement of hate rather than equality. Harriet Harman in the UK springs to mind, who in spite of dodgy expenses, links to paedophile groups and endorsement of openly discriminatory legislation continues to have her champions in the media - would it be a stretch to suggest that many senior male politicians in the UK have resigned from public life for far less.

In a sense my criticism would probably be more that those who identify with a more tolerant form of feminism simply aren't prominent enough, though this is I guess true of most moderate positions. Its not that there's not a soapbox, rather that they've ceded this to more radical views and don't seem to know how to get it back.


BTW Paul Elam is often cited as an counterexample of MRA radicalism. The difference is that Elam is a somewhat marginalised soul who, if we're being honest, has a fairly minimal and niche reach for his rantings (Thats not to say there aren't sexists bigots in the mainstream).

Legs.Eleven

Soooooo has this issue been resolved yet?