2 ms·

"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 wh

by 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.
    - gnosis 16y ago
      "I meant 'enough for me to randomly meet several in everyday life'" Well, I'm not sure how representative one person's experience with "feminists" is. Personally, I've never met any "feminists" of the kind you describe. But, instead of taking two such datapoints as representative, why don't we look at what the NOW, the National Organization for Women, "the largest feminist organization in the United States" (with 500,000 contributing members and 5,987 chapters in 47 U.S. states) has as its stated purpose: To take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men. Does this sound so "crazy" or "extreme"? This is what feminism is about. What you've encountered is a minority deviation and what you've heard about feminism is a distortion. Feminists are not after dominance. They're after fairness and equal treatment. "My main point is that there are sufficiently many for the outside world to perceive the entire movement as mostly crazy." I don't think this is a consequence of people meeting lots of "crazy feminists". I don't think most people meet any feminists of any sort whatsoever. Their views are largely shaped by the media. Which, in the US, is largely controlled by the right wing, who are rabidly anti-feminist. Also, the media tends to jump on any sensationalist story. So it's not really surprising that it's the extremists who'd get much of the spotlight. But they are not representative, by any means.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        From my original post: "...the rest of the world is treating the entire group as the boy who cried wolf." NOW is the girl crying wolf. "Oh noes, a vampire show depicting sex and violence against a woman!" (It's the media's latest "Outrage") http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/index.php http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/index.php If you want people to do something other than dismiss you as one of those "social justice people", you need to disassociate yourself from NOW and their ilk. Also, NOW explicitly opposes equality when it gets in the way of special privileges for women/minorities. See section 5 of their proposed "Constitutional Equality Amendment". http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/concept.html#THE http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/concept.html#THE

by gnosis 16y ago

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.
  - gnosis 16y ago
    "I meant 'enough for me to randomly meet several in everyday life'" Well, I'm not sure how representative one person's experience with "feminists" is. Personally, I've never met any "feminists" of the kind you describe. But, instead of taking two such datapoints as representative, why don't we look at what the NOW, the National Organization for Women, "the largest feminist organization in the United States" (with 500,000 contributing members and 5,987 chapters in 47 U.S. states) has as its stated purpose: To take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men. Does this sound so "crazy" or "extreme"? This is what feminism is about. What you've encountered is a minority deviation and what you've heard about feminism is a distortion. Feminists are not after dominance. They're after fairness and equal treatment. "My main point is that there are sufficiently many for the outside world to perceive the entire movement as mostly crazy." I don't think this is a consequence of people meeting lots of "crazy feminists". I don't think most people meet any feminists of any sort whatsoever. Their views are largely shaped by the media. Which, in the US, is largely controlled by the right wing, who are rabidly anti-feminist. Also, the media tends to jump on any sensationalist story. So it's not really surprising that it's the extremists who'd get much of the spotlight. But they are not representative, by any means.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      From my original post: "...the rest of the world is treating the entire group as the boy who cried wolf." NOW is the girl crying wolf. "Oh noes, a vampire show depicting sex and violence against a woman!" (It's the media's latest "Outrage") http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/index.php http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/index.php If you want people to do something other than dismiss you as one of those "social justice people", you need to disassociate yourself from NOW and their ilk. Also, NOW explicitly opposes equality when it gets in the way of special privileges for women/minorities. See section 5 of their proposed "Constitutional Equality Amendment". http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/concept.html#THE http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/concept.html#THE