Agreed. This leave self-identified Feminists with a conundrum: either claim that Feminism means X and publicly scorn and excoriate these ideas and the people who make them, or tacitly endorse the comment by remaining silent and endure the stigma that is associated with the term.
If they do the former, they must express, explain, and demonstrate what the very precise elements in terms of content and logic that constitute what they claim that Feminism is, then demonstrate that this is consistently agreed to and acted upon by the preponderance of those who claim the title Feminist. Rather than a campaign to #banbossy, they would have to campaign to #banbigotry and be seen, very publicly and long-term as consistently adhering to this.
Were this their choice, they would be forced to abandon Feminist Theory in and the greatest part of its particulars, stop campaigning and raising money, changing and interpreting laws that serve only gender-biased political interests and eschew gynocentrism. The end result is that these people would be enacting some form of egalitarianism, and thus, the term Feminism as is currently described in most dictionaries would become meaningless. They would have to literally pull themselves out of the ground by their own roots and deal with the consequences. This would most certainly be Radical Feminism.
If they do the latter and fail to distinguish themselves from “the fringe”, they are in fact acknowledging that “the fringe” is, at least in part, an accurate representation of what they stand for.
The choice for them is between changing what they do, which would most likely suit me, or resort to tacit acceptance and to hand-wave No True Scotsman when called out on it, as they are currently doing.
That is only what feminism looks like when you discount and avoid all the conservative and moderate feminists in the world. Most of us just want our rights to be equal to yours and to stand with men who are fighting for their rights to be equal to ours (when considering that most domestic laws ignore men altogether it is easy to admit that there is as equal a mismatch of practices in favor of women domestically as there are against them in the workplace/career field)
Widening the view of feminism to accept all feminist types may alter this perception, though many who feel scorned against probably have a hard time seeing past the radicals. Let us not pretend that the men’s rights activists can’t get just as radical and perverse as radical feminists. I don’t think anyone wants to be seen as only the most radical sects of their groupings. Likewise, not all Christians are in the KKK.
That is only what feminism looks like when you discount and avoid all the conservative and moderate feminists in the world.
This argument is known as Not All Feminists Are Like That (NAFALT). Either this is a No True Scotsman fallacy, or Feminists need to be very specific as to what type of Feminism they adhere to. The problem is that the mildest and meekest, the “nice” Feminists do not excoriate the “bad” feminists. To the degree that the conservative and moderate feminists do not rise up and make public outcasts of such individuals, they are stuck with being lumped into the same bunch. I claim that Feminism is utterly unneeded in North America, current day; it is baggage. To the degree that the moderates are unwilling to shuck the burden, they must bear the weight.
To be honest, I need to see The Moderates, fang and claw, with eyes glowing red by torchlight storming the castles of “the fringe” to take your claims seriously.
Most of us just want our rights to be equal to yours and to stand with men who are fighting for their rights to be equal to ours (when considering that most domestic laws ignore men altogether it is easy to admit that there is as equal a mismatch of practices in favor of women domestically as there are against them in the workplace/career field)
First, I refer you to the above. Second, I do not accept that there is a specific discrimination against women qua women by males in the workplace. I welcome your arguments in favour of this notion.
Widening the view of feminism to accept all feminist types may alter this perception, though many who feel scorned against probably have a hard time seeing past the radicals.
Not at all. I have a fairly comprehensive view of what Feminism is. Note that I usually (or at least as I frequently remember to do so) refer to Radical Feminism.
Let us not pretend that the men’s rights activists can’t get just as radical and perverse as radical feminists.
Agreed. I believe that it requires a preponderance of individuals exhibiting certain behaviours and that these individuals have a significant impact on the larger population. Were the examples that I’ve provided above unique, I would have simply shaken my head and dismissed them. Many people have pain, anger and ignorance. The fact that I am capable of finding at least 100 examples of this kind of thinking in as many minutes, across a variety of media, and some among the most venerated Feminist leaders, past and present is indicative that such comments are very far from being rare or isolated. This kind of behaviour, within a scope, I believe, is a preponderance. I welcome arguments to the contrary.
I don’t think anyone wants to be seen as only the most radical sects of their groupings. Likewise, not all Christians are in the KKK.
Agreed. Here’s the difference: we publicly excoriate our nutbags. We correct them, call them out and disown them. You’ll find examples of my doing so on this very blog.
When moderate Feminists do so, en masse, they’ll have a bit of a stronger moral position. Until the moderates actually learn about what Feminism is in practice, here and now, and think sceptically about it, they will continue to accept something that is utterly unneeded.
I offer you the following question and am sincerely interested in the answer: what is it that you think that Feminism can do for you, or society, that cannot be done independently of all of it’s theories or movements? Feminism offers you manpower, and government funds, but, the cost is that they trespass upon the moral authority of what was once the good name of Feminism–and they cause actual damage to men and women both.
If you know that turning a blind eye to what you think of as “fringe” (which I believe is mainstream) is a sully to the name that you care about, and you are aware that there are those that engage in goals and actions that are anathema to your stated goals, yet do not directly and very publicly confront them, what is the point of making the distinction between the “nice” Feminists, and the nutbags?
I want to slightly revise my previous comment. A good night’s sleep and coffee has let me reread my previous comment with fresh eyes. I had claimed “Agreed. I believe that it requires a preponderance of individuals exhibiting certain behaviours and that these individuals have a significant impact on the larger population.”
I don’t think that it’s correct to say that for a subsection of the group to be representative of the whole that it must have an impact on the larger population. Let us imagine an imaginary group, let’s call them The Blues. Were a preponderance of the group in fact Orange, they could still be representative of a group by sheer predominance, even if they had no effect on the external population at all. I think this is a somewhat fairer statement.
Then I have to ask myself, what does “preponderance” mean, in this context. Is it a numeric mass, or of the vocal minority that creates the greatest impact? Now I’m merely thinking out loud. I need to parse this out a little bit. The thought process itself will probably deserve more time. Let me put that argument on reserve for a short while, say, until the weekend. I suspect that the trap in that is a poor choice of words, but, I’ll parse it though anyway.
Francis Roy's Blog 
To be fair, while this is most decidedly feminism, it is the fringe of feminism that even most feminists wish to distance themselves from.
Agreed. This leave self-identified Feminists with a conundrum: either claim that Feminism means X and publicly scorn and excoriate these ideas and the people who make them, or tacitly endorse the comment by remaining silent and endure the stigma that is associated with the term.
If they do the former, they must express, explain, and demonstrate what the very precise elements in terms of content and logic that constitute what they claim that Feminism is, then demonstrate that this is consistently agreed to and acted upon by the preponderance of those who claim the title Feminist. Rather than a campaign to #banbossy, they would have to campaign to #banbigotry and be seen, very publicly and long-term as consistently adhering to this.
Were this their choice, they would be forced to abandon Feminist Theory in and the greatest part of its particulars, stop campaigning and raising money, changing and interpreting laws that serve only gender-biased political interests and eschew gynocentrism. The end result is that these people would be enacting some form of egalitarianism, and thus, the term Feminism as is currently described in most dictionaries would become meaningless. They would have to literally pull themselves out of the ground by their own roots and deal with the consequences. This would most certainly be Radical Feminism.
If they do the latter and fail to distinguish themselves from “the fringe”, they are in fact acknowledging that “the fringe” is, at least in part, an accurate representation of what they stand for.
The choice for them is between changing what they do, which would most likely suit me, or resort to tacit acceptance and to hand-wave No True Scotsman when called out on it, as they are currently doing.
Agreed and well put.
That is only what feminism looks like when you discount and avoid all the conservative and moderate feminists in the world. Most of us just want our rights to be equal to yours and to stand with men who are fighting for their rights to be equal to ours (when considering that most domestic laws ignore men altogether it is easy to admit that there is as equal a mismatch of practices in favor of women domestically as there are against them in the workplace/career field)
Widening the view of feminism to accept all feminist types may alter this perception, though many who feel scorned against probably have a hard time seeing past the radicals. Let us not pretend that the men’s rights activists can’t get just as radical and perverse as radical feminists. I don’t think anyone wants to be seen as only the most radical sects of their groupings. Likewise, not all Christians are in the KKK.
This argument is known as Not All Feminists Are Like That (NAFALT). Either this is a No True Scotsman fallacy, or Feminists need to be very specific as to what type of Feminism they adhere to. The problem is that the mildest and meekest, the “nice” Feminists do not excoriate the “bad” feminists. To the degree that the conservative and moderate feminists do not rise up and make public outcasts of such individuals, they are stuck with being lumped into the same bunch. I claim that Feminism is utterly unneeded in North America, current day; it is baggage. To the degree that the moderates are unwilling to shuck the burden, they must bear the weight.
To be honest, I need to see The Moderates, fang and claw, with eyes glowing red by torchlight storming the castles of “the fringe” to take your claims seriously.
First, I refer you to the above. Second, I do not accept that there is a specific discrimination against women qua women by males in the workplace. I welcome your arguments in favour of this notion.
Not at all. I have a fairly comprehensive view of what Feminism is. Note that I usually (or at least as I frequently remember to do so) refer to Radical Feminism.
Agreed. I believe that it requires a preponderance of individuals exhibiting certain behaviours and that these individuals have a significant impact on the larger population. Were the examples that I’ve provided above unique, I would have simply shaken my head and dismissed them. Many people have pain, anger and ignorance. The fact that I am capable of finding at least 100 examples of this kind of thinking in as many minutes, across a variety of media, and some among the most venerated Feminist leaders, past and present is indicative that such comments are very far from being rare or isolated. This kind of behaviour, within a scope, I believe, is a preponderance. I welcome arguments to the contrary.
Agreed. Here’s the difference: we publicly excoriate our nutbags. We correct them, call them out and disown them. You’ll find examples of my doing so on this very blog.
When moderate Feminists do so, en masse, they’ll have a bit of a stronger moral position. Until the moderates actually learn about what Feminism is in practice, here and now, and think sceptically about it, they will continue to accept something that is utterly unneeded.
I offer you the following question and am sincerely interested in the answer: what is it that you think that Feminism can do for you, or society, that cannot be done independently of all of it’s theories or movements? Feminism offers you manpower, and government funds, but, the cost is that they trespass upon the moral authority of what was once the good name of Feminism–and they cause actual damage to men and women both.
If you know that turning a blind eye to what you think of as “fringe” (which I believe is mainstream) is a sully to the name that you care about, and you are aware that there are those that engage in goals and actions that are anathema to your stated goals, yet do not directly and very publicly confront them, what is the point of making the distinction between the “nice” Feminists, and the nutbags?
I look forward to your reply.
I want to slightly revise my previous comment. A good night’s sleep and coffee has let me reread my previous comment with fresh eyes. I had claimed “Agreed. I believe that it requires a preponderance of individuals exhibiting certain behaviours and that these individuals have a significant impact on the larger population.”
I don’t think that it’s correct to say that for a subsection of the group to be representative of the whole that it must have an impact on the larger population. Let us imagine an imaginary group, let’s call them The Blues. Were a preponderance of the group in fact Orange, they could still be representative of a group by sheer predominance, even if they had no effect on the external population at all. I think this is a somewhat fairer statement.
Then I have to ask myself, what does “preponderance” mean, in this context. Is it a numeric mass, or of the vocal minority that creates the greatest impact? Now I’m merely thinking out loud. I need to parse this out a little bit. The thought process itself will probably deserve more time. Let me put that argument on reserve for a short while, say, until the weekend. I suspect that the trap in that is a poor choice of words, but, I’ll parse it though anyway.