What's Your Opinion On Feminism?

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Much of this "discussion" of feminism is based on ignorance, "impressions", and familiar stereotypes of feminism. I am an academic feminist and have yet to meet the man-hating professional victim that you're all so concerned about. But don't let that get in the way of your stereotypes. Carry on.

 

 

Can you explain post #7?  Those who do not like the name are on a crusade because they are hiding their hate for women.  Does that strike you as reasonable?

 

What about last year when a third party publicly accused me of supporting rape?  And why would some people upvote those accusations?

 

Before your time I was the favorite punching bag of a certain female poster.  You can look at the archives to see what I had to endure.

 

While I don't have home movies my aunt is not a stereotype.  Ever since I was a child she informed me that I hate women and I can't help it because I am male.  Even back then the idea stuck me as absurd but to my aunt denying it was only proof that it was true.  She still pulls that card on me whenever we disagree about anything.

 

But I just have to put up with all of this because I am male.  I should keep it to myself because mentioning it is ignorance.

 

Your response shows me that you have had bad experiences with certain women. Feminism is a movement that transcends those experiences. I already tried starting a thread with the actual scholarship on feminist issues, but it was denied in the same way as putting geological facts in front of a creationist. I'm not going there again, it's a waste of energy.

 

 

 

Yes I have had some bad experience with women.  I had one just a few days ago on Feb 22nd when I was called an ignoramus for trying to help in the Equality movement.  From my perspective Feminism does not transcend these events.  Rather it is being held back by them.  Why am I constantly chased away from Feminism if everybody who wants equality is a Feminist?

 

Don't let my graduate study on the feminist movement's history, philosophy, and politics get in the way of your personal experience. Because clearly a global movement is trumped by it.

 

 

I didn't say that.  You know I didn't imply that.

 

In post 40 you said we were talking ignorance.  I provided examples.  Do my examples not demonstrate that my experience happened?

 

For the record I am not concerned about a "professional victim".  I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion.

 

Ignorance of the feminist movement, its history, goals, and accomplishments is what I was referring to.

 

 

 

Well just off the cuff it began a couple of centuries ago.  I've seen the black and white pics of women demonstrating.  In the early days they wanted to vote and eventually they got it through an amendment.  (I don't remember which one without looking it up.)  After that they began lobbying to have the more sexist laws removed from the books - including barbaric things like a husband being allowed to beat his wife with a stick as long as it was thiner than his thumb.  Then they lobbied to have marital rape and domestic violence criminalized.  I suppose they had to fight to make it into the workforce in the early 20th century because when WWII kicked off there were already a significant number of women working.  But the pay and available fields were highly restricted based on gender.  The war was an event when women were allowed to move into roles that up to that point had been reserved for men.  When the war ended Feminists fought to stay in those roles and not go back to the previous restrictions.  Then Feminism lobbied for equal pay.  Wasn't it around the 60's when they were able to get minimum wage equalized for gender and women started breaking the glass ceilings.  They made inroads into leadership positions and began to be elected in higher numbers.  These days you never hear the phrase "the first woman to" as a current event.  Domestic violence began to be viewed as not normal by society as a whole.  And then there was a shift when men started going to jail for beating their wives.  Feminism started to influence movies and television as well.  Having a hero date rape a woman slowly became unacceptable.  Characters in the story gradually stopped being there simply as romantic interests and started to become part of the plot.  Female protagonists eventually became normalized such as Kim Possible.  Compare the female characters of Frozen to those of Sleeping Beauty.  Today there is still a bias for many in the business world will assume a candidate is smarter simply because he his male and so on.

 

How is that for a summary without looking anything up?  But what does any of that have to do with our current discussion?  When males are met with hostility for no apparent reason this does not motivate them to help.

 

Because I'm so mean to you, post-crush.

[mymistake]

Huh?  This is going sideways.  It was my expectation that you would correct any major mistake I made with that summary.  I'm less confident with the earlier era.  I did look up the proper spelling for Pelosi's name but I figured that wasn't cheating because it wasn't about spelling.  So for some reason I remembered her name as a Scandinavian variation.  Anyway I don't get it.  I don't think I accused you of being mean, Orbit.

[Leo]

From reading Orbit's posts, I hear the same as what I hear from Muslims on Twitter saying Isis is not Islam. Well, Isis has a name. Perhaps some of these more hostile entrapment-based arguments need a name, just as Isis has a name, and Al Qaeda has a name. Put it to you this way: In my prior post I described some ridiculous things I don't actually do as a blind person, re: claiming sight is a defective sense, etc. If someone was disabled and did make these claims against able bodied people, I would go to great lengths to distance myself from that, and wouldn't want that anywhere near disability rights advocacy.

 

So, why is Andrea Dworken such a popular academic figure? She claims in one of her works that all penetrative sex is rape. How about Valerie Solanas? If she advocated reducing any group but men by 90% we would call that advocating genocide. But since it's men, it's all right, she's in any university library. Look up the SCUM Manifesto. It's not being studied for what not to do.

 

I really appreciated Redstar's posts re: being logical and getting to the bottom of an issue.

 

Again, I'm all in if there's a movement for doing things constructive, helping out, giving less fortunate human beings a hand, whenever and wherever possible. But I'm not interested in women or men self-flagellating and constantly checking themselves for no other reason than to feel badly about themselves.

[Thurisaz]

Much of this "discussion" of feminism is based on ignorance, "impressions", and familiar stereotypes of feminism. I am an academic feminist and have yet to meet the man-hating professional victim that you're all so concerned about. But don't let that get in the way of your stereotypes. Carry on.

 

Just for the record, I don't remember anyone of us having ever said (in this thread or anywhere else) that feminism as a whole would be wrong... because of course it isn't. And if you don't know any of those self-proclaimed "feminists" who are out of touch with reality, all the better for you. Sadly, many of us have run into enough of them.

 

I seem to remember you having said in other threads that you are very familiar with "academic feminism" indeed, i. e. with the theoretical foundation of it. I can't speak for everyone but I sure don't have a problem with the basic theory of feminism, not at all. My issues are with how certain people - mostly, but not exclusively, women - twist that theory until it becomes a sick perversion of its laudable goals.

 

Just saying. You know... getting told to your face, literally, that you don't even deserve basic human rights, or that some of your own kind need to get thrown behind bars even though they are officially innocent of any crime "just to send a message"... kind of can have the effect of turning you off the people who say that.

[Thurisaz]

...and I note, with a sad feeling, that this thread has been very reasonable, with pros and cons exchanged as it should be, until... certain people... basically jumped in to just say "you're all wrong (and, as implied, evil because of it)" without being able to provide any reason for it.

 

Sigh.

 

Where do we have seen that before indeed? Like... with morontheists?

 

Oh well.

[Orbit]

...and I note, with a sad feeling, that this thread has been very reasonable, with pros and cons exchanged as it should be, until... certain people... basically jumped in to just say "you're all wrong (and, as implied, evil because of it)" without being able to provide any reason for it.

 

Sigh.

 

Where do we have seen that before indeed? Like... with morontheists?

 

Oh well.

Right. Because that's what I, the evil feminist, said. "You're all wrong and evil".  I was especially vicious when I called you evil. Ouch.

You're treating me the same way you treat feminism.

[Bhim]

Hi Orbit, please allow me to generally address your comments from your past few posts.

 

As I hope I've made clear throughout ex-C, I greatly respect academic scholarship.  If you've done professional research into feminism or if your Ph.D. thesis touched on this field, then I think your opinions should carry more weight than those of anyone else here (myself included, since I'm not a sociologist and am a non-expert in this field).  However, just as a climate scientist's role is to advise public policy makers on climate change, rather than to actually make the public policy, I do believe that the sociologist's role is that of adviser to decision-makers.  We, as American voters, are collectively the decision makers in these matters, and I feel that you should enlighten us as to the nature and specifics of feminism so as to inform our votes.

 

If you'd be so kind, I would like to submit the first question and hear your expertise on this topic.  Could you please comment on the Washington Post opinion piece by Zerlina Maxwell, which I referred to in my first post on this thread?  How prevalent is the view that accused rapists should be presumed guilty?  More importantly, do most feminists take the time to unilaterally condemn this view?  The bottom line is that I do not ever want to live in a world where society presumes me guilty for a crime of which I am accused, before I am tried before an impartial jury of my peers.  Furthermore, I believe that this proceeding should be heavily biased in my favor.  Does the bulk of modern feminism agree with this?

[Thurisaz]

 

...and I note, with a sad feeling, that this thread has been very reasonable, with pros and cons exchanged as it should be, until... certain people... basically jumped in to just say "you're all wrong (and, as implied, evil because of it)" without being able to provide any reason for it.

 

Sigh.

 

Where do we have seen that before indeed? Like... with morontheists?

 

Oh well.

 

Right. Because that's what I, the evil feminist, said. "You're all wrong and evil". I was especially vicious when I called you evil. Ouch.

You're treating me the same way you treat feminism.

How else am I supposed to "read" you when you never actually address what we say and keep beating and burning a strawman?

 

We've said it repeatedly, and not just in this thread - no one of us, NO ONE, is against equality. No one argues that feminism has not done much good already. No one claims that full equality has been reached already (and that therefore we don't need feminism or a similar thing anymore). NO ONE.

What we do say, and what apparently either does not get through to you or what you willfully ignore, is that not everything or everyone who gets called "feminist" is one and/or supports feminist principles. And what's called "feminism" by the opinion shapers specifically is all too often just cheap misandric bullshit.

Misogyny and misandry are not mutually exclusive. You can (sadly) have both side by side, in the same country. What we argue is that misandry is just as wrong as misogyny, and the existence of the latter does not mean the automatic nonexistence of the former. Both are wrong and both must end.

 

I'd appreciate it VERY much if you would deal with my actual points instead of just regurgiposting that we're supposedly all ignorant. Because THAT lets you sound just like the average morontheist.

[Orbit]

Hi Orbit, please allow me to generally address your comments from your past few posts.

 

As I hope I've made clear throughout ex-C, I greatly respect academic scholarship.  If you've done professional research into feminism or if your Ph.D. thesis touched on this field, then I think your opinions should carry more weight than those of anyone else here (myself included, since I'm not a sociologist and am a non-expert in this field).  However, just as a climate scientist's role is to advise public policy makers on climate change, rather than to actually make the public policy, I do believe that the sociologist's role is that of adviser to decision-makers.  We, as American voters, are collectively the decision makers in these matters, and I feel that you should enlighten us as to the nature and specifics of feminism so as to inform our votes.

 

If you'd be so kind, I would like to submit the first question and hear your expertise on this topic.  Could you please comment on the Washington Post opinion piece by Zerlina Maxwell, which I referred to in my first post on this thread?  How prevalent is the view that accused rapists should be presumed guilty?  More importantly, do most feminists take the time to unilaterally condemn this view?  The bottom line is that I do not ever want to live in a world where society presumes me guilty for a crime of which I am accused, before I am tried before an impartial jury of my peers.  Furthermore, I believe that this proceeding should be heavily biased in my favor.  Does the bulk of modern feminism agree with this?

I'm not here to argue on behalf of the feminist movement, which is incredibly diverse and global. I simply won't be dragged into a another thread that turns into "dogpile the feminist". My PhD is in the field of feminist movements, yes.

 

I said what I wanted to say, I'm done.

[Orbit]

 

 

...and I note, with a sad feeling, that this thread has been very reasonable, with pros and cons exchanged as it should be, until... certain people... basically jumped in to just say "you're all wrong (and, as implied, evil because of it)" without being able to provide any reason for it.

 

Sigh.

 

Where do we have seen that before indeed? Like... with morontheists?

 

Oh well.

Right. Because that's what I, the evil feminist, said. "You're all wrong and evil". I was especially vicious when I called you evil. Ouch.

You're treating me the same way you treat feminism.

How else am I supposed to "read" you when you never actually address what we say and keep beating and burning a strawman?

 

We've said it repeatedly, and not just in this thread - no one of us, NO ONE, is against equality. No one argues that feminism has not done much good already. No one claims that full equality has been reached already (and that therefore we don't need feminism or a similar thing anymore). NO ONE.

What we do say, and what apparently either does not get through to you or what you willfully ignore, is that not everything or everyone who gets called "feminist" is one and/or supports feminist principles. And what's called "feminism" by the opinion shapers specifically is all too often just cheap misandric bullshit.

Misogyny and misandry are not mutually exclusive. You can (sadly) have both side by side, in the same country. What we argue is that misandry is just as wrong as misogyny, and the existence of the latter does not mean the automatic nonexistence of the former. Both are wrong and both must end.

 

I'd appreciate it VERY much if you would deal with my actual points instead of just regurgiposting that we're supposedly all ignorant. Because THAT lets you sound just like the average morontheist.

 

Have you no sense of irony?

 

 

I'm not here to argue on behalf of the feminist movement, which is incredibly diverse and global. I simply won't be dragged into a another thread that turns into "dogpile the feminist".

I said what I wanted to say, I'm done.

[mymistake]

Female characters in video games are too feminine? Some women can't drive or get justice against their rapist in other parts of the world but anyway...

 

 

You know there is something the US can still do to improve the situation for women.  If your state ever gets the opportunity to bring service industry workers up to minimum wage I strongly encourage people to vote yes. Of course that would benefit men as well but from what I have seen there are more women in the affected industries.  Essentially these people survive on gratuities in states that do not extend minimum wage protection.  Some waiters and waitresses are paid just a couple of bucks an hour and are expected to make up the rest with gratuity.  And if we make this change it would make a significant difference.  If Oprah were to make an extra billion dollars next year that wouldn't improve the plight of anybody else even if it did bump the often quoted wage ratio.  But if we could improve the lives of those at the very bottom a little change could boost society as a whole.  I live in a state where the workers are already protected and the system works great.  Detractors might claim that restaurants can't function like that but it isn't true.

[Thurisaz]

A helpful hint to Orbit and whoever else shares her weird view...

 

 

(Source: https://4thwavers.wordpress.com/)

 

And with that I'll start ignoring their particular brand of anti-feminism (according to their own definition which is covered by the bottom panel, their acting out the view in the upper panel is then anti-feminist) and focus on those who act reasonable.

 

Let's see whether this thread will now die a more or less slow death or whether it goes back to some good stuff.

[Orbit]

A helpful hint to Orbit and whoever else shares her weird view...

 

 

(Source: https://4thwavers.wordpress.com/)

 

And with that I'll start ignoring their particular brand of anti-feminism (according to their own definition which is covered by the bottom panel, their acting out the view in the upper panel is then anti-feminist) and focus on those who act reasonable.

 

Let's see whether this thread will now die a more or less slow death or whether it goes back to some good stuff.

Wow, you claim to know my view of feminism that I've never told you. Way to go straw man.

[Castiel233]

Like other "isms" one can point to your goodies and baddies depending on your world views.

 

Andrea Dworken, Valerie Solanas, and Annie Besant, all three feminists.

 

The first two come across as man hating lunatics. Besant on the other hand threw herself at the gates of injustice  until they broke open, She was one of the very bravest women of her time and did not hesitate to champion social justice no matter what the cost and risk to herself. Besant even had her children taken from her, promoting Robert Ingersoll to write a very sympathetic letter to her regarding such injustice.

 

Besant's memory  is so deserving of respect and honor for being a true feminist heroine, Dworkin and Solanas I consider extremists of the crazy fringe........ 

 

I once went to a political meeting with a couple of feminists in attendance, one of which made a big song and dance about sitting next  to me, presumably because of my gender. It was highly embarrassing and she really showed her distaste of men. It was all "why can't you sit elsewhere, go on sit over there" kind of rant and delivered unpleasantly .She came across as a loon and I withdraw my support and assistance  for the party , largely because of her and her co- feminist, who also came off as a bit odd...........

 

 I do support real equality where sensible. All genders to get the same pay for the same work, etc 

 

Still I am no expert in these matters......so *shrugs*

[Leo]

I'll still say, the radicals need a name, if they are to be separated from mainstream feminism. Words have meaning. And when people start saying "You can't judge ..." and "it's too diverse ..." that means the word no longer has any meaning at all. I have always thought that ideas worth having are ideas worth challenging. Maybe that's why I am an ex-Christian. If an idea or an ideology must be coddled and protected from scrutiny, perhaps that ideology or idea has little merit on its own two legs?

 

I really like the ideas put forth by the likes of Ayn Rand: The nonaggression principle, for one. That's not something you see characterized by the popular feminists, or whatever name one who wants to distance themselves from those would call it, nor do you see it among the Christians.

 

I'm not going to argue with any feminist who claims the radicals don't represent the theory, just as I don't argue with men's rights advocates who make the same claim in their movement. I'm just going to ask the question "why", then. Why, on the street, where it counts among the masses who live with the consequences, do the radicals own the argument? Why is that? Retreating to academia as a feminist, or to Youtube as a men's rights advocate, or to a theological institute as a theologian, simply is not a respectable answer. It can't be: it's evasion.

 

I have my own guess and it goes for all the movements equally: Radicalism sells. Radicalism feels good: hate is a rush of adrenaline that deprives the user of any and all responsibility. So the Southern Confederate I knew in Florida didn't need to go get himself an education, because "All those <blacks> are taking all the good jobs." What an easy out. My own industry? Women aren't in technology because all of us, usually us lower-paid working types, are somehow at fault. Never mind the women in technology who have taken the harder road and become excellent, far beyond anything I'll ever be. The reason is the engineering principle of "the path of least resistance." That's why, in my opinion, you see all these apocalyptic movements. No need to be personally responsible or uphold one's personal honor is you're going to get rescued from life itself pretty soon.

 

I'm not sure why the academicians and theolopgians are so loath to contaminate themselves by mixing it up with us masses, explaining their position as a counter to the radicals of their movements. But I've seen it in the sciences as well. Not the applied sciences, such as computer engineering, structural engineering, etc., because we by necessity are in touch with the public, and we actually care how our products are perceived by the public. Perhaps it's this distance from the marketplace of ideas, this distance from people outside "your people" that causes this. If you want to create a new social theory about banning father's day, or males are a problem in yet another sphere, you just have to present it to people who automatically agree with your base ideology, and of course, you face the rigors of peer review for your data. However, if I as an engineer want to present a new solution to a third party, as an asset to their existing systems, I have to convince people who don't want to buy what I have, who aren't committed to software in any way whatsoever, and convince them in a meaningful way to buy this upgrade. That comes after I've already had internal reviews of the code, quality control testing, etc. And when we blow it, we have no hiding place to go to and say how hurt we are, because people talk about the asshole developers who didn't consider the trouble users were going to have with this new upgrade. There aren't even words to describe people who oppose us. In fact, from our standpoint, we take it as a challenge to do better, because we have to. The masses, not just fellow developers, are the direct recipients of what we produce. In academia and in the Church, the target audience are the already-converted. To the State, Academia and the Churdch, it ultimately doesn't matter if the average person doesn't fully understand or buy it; because you've got control, you can still get them to pay for it.

 

If that whole system could be turned over, then I'll bet you'd see the radicals no longer having center stage. Because then they would be like us in the applied sciences, and those in the applied arts if that is a thing. You'd have to package it in a way people will actually buy it.

 

I see these Muslims, Christians, feminists, men's rights activists, and other cloistered saying, "I shouldn't have to explain that!" My answer: "I should have to, and I do have to, every day." And therein lies the grand distinction between the elite and the average, the latter being most of us on the street.

[mymistake]

 

Wow, you claim to know my view of feminism that I've never told you. Way to go straw man.

 

 

Your other posts in this thread communicate . . . something.  Maybe it is not the message you wish to convey but to sent a different message would require something different to happen.

[Orbit]

 

Wow, you claim to know my view of feminism that I've never told you. Way to go straw man.

 

Your other posts in this thread communicate . . . something.  Maybe it is not the message you wish to convey but to sent a different message would require something different to happen.

 

I could say the same to you.

[mymistake]

 

 

Wow, you claim to know my view of feminism that I've never told you. Way to go straw man.

 

Your other posts in this thread communicate . . . something.  Maybe it is not the message you wish to convey but to sent a different message would require something different to happen.

 

I could say the same to you.

 

 

Nope.  I'm quite happy with sending the message that I love gender equality and I would do anything I can to help achieve it.  I like that message.  I'm not going to let the way certain people have treated me get in the way.  

[Orbit]

 

 

 

Wow, you claim to know my view of feminism that I've never told you. Way to go straw man.

 

Your other posts in this thread communicate . . . something.  Maybe it is not the message you wish to convey but to sent a different message would require something different to happen.

 

I could say the same to you.

 

 

Nope.  I'm quite happy with sending the message that I love gender equality and I would do anything I can to help achieve it.  I like that message.  I'm not going to let the way certain people have treated me get in the way.

 

Because I've treated you so bad.

[Thurisaz]

I do support real equality where sensible. All genders to get the same pay for the same work, etc

 

 

...I'm just going to ask the question "why", then. Why, on the street, where it counts among the masses who live with the consequences, do the radicals own the argument? Why is that? Retreating to academia as a feminist, or to Youtube as a men's rights advocate, or to a theological institute as a theologian, simply is not a respectable answer. It can't be: it's evasion.

 

I have my own guess and it goes for all the movements equally: Radicalism sells. Radicalism feels good: hate is a rush of adrenaline that deprives the user of any and all responsibility. So the Southern Confederate I knew in Florida didn't need to go get himself an education, because "All those <blacks> are taking all the good jobs." What an easy out. My own industry? Women aren't in technology because all of us, usually us lower-paid working types, are somehow at fault. Never mind the women in technology who have taken the harder road and become excellent, far beyond anything I'll ever be. The reason is the engineering principle of "the path of least resistance." That's why, in my opinion, you see all these apocalyptic movements. No need to be personally responsible or uphold one's personal honor is you're going to get rescued from life itself pretty soon.

 

I'm quite happy with sending the message that I love gender equality and I would do anything I can to help achieve it.  I like that message.  I'm not going to let the way certain people have treated me get in the way.

This, this, and this. Especially Leo's posting actually, I think. Radicalism sells - even if 99 % of feminists world-wide are decent, reasonable people on a noble mission, the media and such will tune them out totally to babble 24/7 about the remaining 1 % of batshit insane fuckturds. Because that shit sells.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

Wow, you claim to know my view of feminism that I've never told you. Way to go straw man.

 

Your other posts in this thread communicate . . . something.  Maybe it is not the message you wish to convey but to sent a different message would require something different to happen.

 

I could say the same to you.

 

 

Nope.  I'm quite happy with sending the message that I love gender equality and I would do anything I can to help achieve it.  I like that message.  I'm not going to let the way certain people have treated me get in the way.

 

Because I've treated you so bad.

 

 

 

What are you talking about?  Cryptic answers are not helping.  I'm trying to have a constructive conversation and you are making it personal.  I don't get it.

[Castiel233]

Perhaps slightly off topic here, but on the question of equality.

 

I do believe in sensible equality, but would like to hear posters opinions on this.

 

I once worked for a company with,where  I would say that women outnumbered the men by far . One woman hated it there and had been there a few years. Nice lady and I got on very well with her. Anyway she decided to get pregnant because she wanted a year off paid from the company, I can't recall exactly  how the pay worked, but I think she would get 100 percent of pay for six months off, followed by 50 percent pay for the following six months.......of course the company had to pay up, even though she wasn't making a penny for them......so she had the year off, came back for a few months and fell pregnant again. Of course the boss also has to keep her job open.

 

So here is the question of equality. As far as I am aware without plodding through too much UK law on this matter, a man can only take one to two weeks off paid for maternity leave if his partner stays off work, while she can take 52 weeks off. I may be a bit off here, but that is my general understanding. Is it equal that mom can take off a lot more than pa...........

 

What of the boss, he is forced by law to pay for a new mom to be off . If she decides to have three children during her contract, he is committed to paying her for being off work. If he decides to only employ men, he will no doubt fall foul of employment law......

 

For the boss, both genders are not equal in terms of maternity leave and the men are a better financial risk surely

 

UKIP leader, Nigel Farage (of whom I am not a fan) has said that "woman with children are worth far less to employers". He has defended this remark with an " I can't change biology"

 

I have no strong thoughts on the matter, but am using it to show that not all things are equal between genders.

 

 

Thoughts?

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, you claim to know my view of feminism that I've never told you. Way to go straw man.

 

Your other posts in this thread communicate . . . something.  Maybe it is not the message you wish to convey but to sent a different message would require something different to happen.

 

I could say the same to you.

 

 

Nope.  I'm quite happy with sending the message that I love gender equality and I would do anything I can to help achieve it.  I like that message.  I'm not going to let the way certain people have treated me get in the way.

 

Because I've treated you so bad.

 

 

 

What are you talking about?  Cryptic answers are not helping.  I'm trying to have a constructive conversation and you are making it personal.  I don't get it.

 

You are making it personal. Feminists are bad because they treat you bad is what I'm hearing. I'm a feminist and I don't treat you bad. The message is that you don't notice the majority of feminists who don't treat you bad--they, and the movement that is comprised of them is invisible to you. When you say feminists are bad, you're saying I'm bad, by extension.

[NoOne]

I've been watching from the sidelines for a while and I have to say, not too impressed by the lack of objective arguments and rationality in this thread now. Can we please try to bring it back?

 

Also, for my sake, can the non-Americans who are posting describe women's conditions in their countries. I've got an idea but I'm also losing track.

[mymistake]

 

You are making it personal. Feminists are bad because they treat you bad is what I'm hearing. I'm a feminist and I don't treat you bad. The message is that you don't notice the majority of feminists who don't treat you bad--they, and the movement that is comprised of them is invisible to you. When you say feminists are bad, you're saying I'm bad, by extension.

 

 

I never said that.  I never implied that.  None of that follows from what I actually wrote.