3 ms·

By focusing on the gender pronoun thing, most of the replies here seem to be missing the more important point. The larger and more important issue is the utter

by gnosis 16y ago

By focusing on the gender pronoun thing, most of the replies here seem to be missing the more important point. The larger and more important issue is the utter contempt for feminism (which, at its best simply strives to have women be treated no worse than men), and the contempt for "social justice people" (ie. people who actually care about justice for everyone) that the poster's friend demonstrated. And this contempt came from someone who feminists and "social justice people" were concerned with helping. Instead of any kind of constructive or even thoughtful comment on the issue, the author's friend simply contemptuously dismissed her and everyone who cares about any of these issues. That's the larger problem. Contemptuous dismissal of people who are actually interested and motivated to help move society forward.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
yummyfajitas 16y ago
The larger and more important issue is the utter contempt for feminism (which, at its best simply strives to have women be treated no worse than men), and the contempt for "social justice people" (ie. people who actually care about justice for everyone). Like it or not, many people who self-describe as feminists are actually seeking a privileged position for women. Many people who self-describe as seeking "social justice" are actually far left wing extremists pushing fairly radical proposals. Extremists in these groups tend to use minor offenses as a club to tar their political opponents [1], and the rest of the world is treating the entire group as the boy who cried wolf. It's hardly an issue restricted to feminists or social justice types. The Tea Party faces similar issues - they didn't immediately kick the racists out when they started and now the entire movement is viewed as racist. [1] I don't think the author of this blog post is necessarily one of them. She is just a young kid who took the rhetoric of her tribe too seriously. By the way, why the double post?
- gnosis 16y ago
  "Like it or not, many people who self-describe as feminists are actually seeking a privileged position for women." This is a media distortion. "Many people who self-describe as seeking "social justice" are actually far left wing extremists pushing fairly radical proposals." I could see how that might seem to be the case in a country that's been driven as far to the right as the US has. Where Jimmy Carter, Clinton, and Obama are also branded "far-left radicals" and "socialist Nazis". Wanting people to be treated fairly is now seen as an "extremist", "radical" position. "By the way, why the double post?" Because the first post was just a reply to the first person who got distracted by the gender pronoun point to the exclusion of the more important point I addressed in my post. Then a whole bunch of other people effectively started saying the same thing. So I decided to post a general reply instead. I would have deleted the original reply, but it already had a reply, so I kept it.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    This is a media distortion. Are you seriously asserting extremist feminists seeking privileges for women don't exist? I've met them. In the interests of being verifiable, I'll link to a particularly noxious example: "At a stroke, the one thing that women had going for them [the ability to commit paternity fraud] has been taken away, the one respect in which they had the last laugh over their husbands and lovers. DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science…" http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6391918/whos-the-daddy.thtml http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6391918/whos-the-daddy... All organizations, movements and political affiliations have crazies, and very often they will come to dominate the media attention. It's just a sad fact of life. And no, your favorite organizations are not immune. And no, I won't be drawn into a discussion of the merits of "social justice" (whatever that means). It's utterly irrelevant to the point I was making. As I said, my point applies equally well to the Tea Party, a rather disorganized group who's aims I'm moderately sympathetic to.
    - gnosis 16y ago
      "Are you seriously asserting extremist feminists seeking privileges for women don't exist?" Of course they exist. But I wouldn't call them "many", as you did in your original reply. They're a minority. The vast majority of feminists are simply after being treated no worse than men. A "radical" and "far-left" idea, I know. And since when did some Spectator columnist become the spokesperson for feminism?
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        To clarify, by "many", I meant "enough to get lots of external visibility". If I meant a majority, I would have said "most". By "many", I meant "enough for me to randomly meet several in everyday life" and "enough for me to dig up newspaper columns with a quick google search". My main point is that there are sufficiently many for the outside world to perceive the entire movement as mostly crazy. And no matter how much you try to make this a political thing, it isn't. Right wing groups (like the tea party, libertarians, etc) face similar problems.

by gnosis 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

yummyfajitas 16y ago

The larger and more important issue is the utter contempt for feminism (which, at its best simply strives to have women be treated no worse than men), and the contempt for "social justice people" (ie. people who actually care about justice for everyone). Like it or not, many people who self-describe as feminists are actually seeking a privileged position for women. Many people who self-describe as seeking "social justice" are actually far left wing extremists pushing fairly radical proposals. Extremists in these groups tend to use minor offenses as a club to tar their political opponents [1], and the rest of the world is treating the entire group as the boy who cried wolf. It's hardly an issue restricted to feminists or social justice types. The Tea Party faces similar issues - they didn't immediately kick the racists out when they started and now the entire movement is viewed as racist. [1] I don't think the author of this blog post is necessarily one of them. She is just a young kid who took the rhetoric of her tribe too seriously. By the way, why the double post?

gnosis 16y ago
"Like it or not, many people who self-describe as feminists are actually seeking a privileged position for women." This is a media distortion. "Many people who self-describe as seeking "social justice" are actually far left wing extremists pushing fairly radical proposals." I could see how that might seem to be the case in a country that's been driven as far to the right as the US has. Where Jimmy Carter, Clinton, and Obama are also branded "far-left radicals" and "socialist Nazis". Wanting people to be treated fairly is now seen as an "extremist", "radical" position. "By the way, why the double post?" Because the first post was just a reply to the first person who got distracted by the gender pronoun point to the exclusion of the more important point I addressed in my post. Then a whole bunch of other people effectively started saying the same thing. So I decided to post a general reply instead. I would have deleted the original reply, but it already had a reply, so I kept it.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  This is a media distortion. Are you seriously asserting extremist feminists seeking privileges for women don't exist? I've met them. In the interests of being verifiable, I'll link to a particularly noxious example: "At a stroke, the one thing that women had going for them [the ability to commit paternity fraud] has been taken away, the one respect in which they had the last laugh over their husbands and lovers. DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science…" http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6391918/whos-the-daddy.thtml http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6391918/whos-the-daddy... All organizations, movements and political affiliations have crazies, and very often they will come to dominate the media attention. It's just a sad fact of life. And no, your favorite organizations are not immune. And no, I won't be drawn into a discussion of the merits of "social justice" (whatever that means). It's utterly irrelevant to the point I was making. As I said, my point applies equally well to the Tea Party, a rather disorganized group who's aims I'm moderately sympathetic to.
  - gnosis 16y ago
    "Are you seriously asserting extremist feminists seeking privileges for women don't exist?" Of course they exist. But I wouldn't call them "many", as you did in your original reply. They're a minority. The vast majority of feminists are simply after being treated no worse than men. A "radical" and "far-left" idea, I know. And since when did some Spectator columnist become the spokesperson for feminism?
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      To clarify, by "many", I meant "enough to get lots of external visibility". If I meant a majority, I would have said "most". By "many", I meant "enough for me to randomly meet several in everyday life" and "enough for me to dig up newspaper columns with a quick google search". My main point is that there are sufficiently many for the outside world to perceive the entire movement as mostly crazy. And no matter how much you try to make this a political thing, it isn't. Right wing groups (like the tea party, libertarians, etc) face similar problems.