Animavore wrote:DaveDodo007 wrote:
That the misandric views of many feminists are allowed to be voiced because they can hide under the umbrella of respectability of many feminists who don't hold those views.
But you think feminism itself is man-hating and nothing in this post you wrote suggests that you think there are feminists who don't hold those views.
It's entirely rational to hold the position that any woman who claims to be a feminist and doesn't hold man-hating views is not a feminist, given the all-too-common man-hating agenda of feminists. Indeed, many "feminists" will excoriate other females who refuse to be as man-hating as they are. It's pretty much like being a "moderate" Marxist. According to Marxists, it's all or nothing and if you deviate from the radical party line, you are a counterrevolutionary who must be liquidated. Feminism looks quite a bit like Marxism in that respect, and I don't think calling it "man-hating" is either irrational or unreasonable. The fallacy in your statement is that, presumably, if one woman is a non-radical feminist, it's somehow trolling to excoriate those who are because of that idiotic "group attack" rule over there that only protects favored groups (for example it's fine to tar every Christian or Catholic with the same brush, but not every feminist) and sanctions those who make a general reference to the radical side of a group as a matter of simple convenience rather than describing every flavor of "feminism" every time the word "feminism" is used. The same sort of pettifoggery takes place with respect to the word "Islamist" or "Muslim" where a conversation is clearly about radical, violent Muslims, but failing to specify that every time "Muslim" is used is deemed a breach of protocol.
If you're discussing radical feminism, and you're not a radical feminist, but just a plain old feminist, then the discussion doesn't apply to you or to anybody like you, and that should be very obvious from the context of the discussion. But there's a lot of butthurt out there from "feminists" who don't want to be associated with the Andrea Dworkin radical feminists but still want to use the label. Well, it suck to be them. That's why I created "Tolerism™" as my preferred alternative to "Atheist." I don't want to be associated with the negative radical aspects of atheism, so I don't try to parse words and pettifog, I simply make up a different label that doesn't carry the baggage of "atheist." Women and men who are not radical feminists should probably come up with a different term so as to distinguish themselves from the radical fringe. You might be a peace-loving, tolerant, accepting believer in National Socialism, but using the acronym "NAZI" is going to carry some inevitable baggage with it.
I've never seen any post of yours which suggest the view you are tryng to pretend to us here that you hold in your attempt to garner sympathy. All I've ever seen from you is a pathetic whining that the wimminz are emascalating you somehow.
And he's not entitled to that opinion why, exactly?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
