Doubtdispelled wrote:Audley Strange wrote:Yes actually I did. I've been paying this debaclé very close attention. In essence it is a word that says "it's not they disagree with our beliefs, we must also believe they're asleep/hypnotised/collaborators"
It's comedy.
Que?
whether consciously or un- -- denying sexism/ misogyny, and even perpetuating it in ugly ways, in order to gain male approval.
Person A using the word assumes a problem with sexism and misogyny. Person B being called it does not agree.
The opinion of Person A is that their belief that there is a problem with sexism and misogyny is objective fact so persons B's disagreement can be discounted because either conciously or unconciously the person disagreeing is doing so because they seek male approval, thus proving person A's belief right. Person B is not just someone who disagrees but part of an recognised social group of "chill girls"
So in turn, let's say I recognise a phenomena of whining snowflakes who's damsel in distress and flouncing routines make a mockery of universal suffrage, women's rights and currently the atheism/skeptic networks in order to get as much male attention as they can. It doesn't matter that the attention is positive or negative, as long as they are the centre of it. Would it be acceptable to label them attention whores?
I mean if it's fair game it's fair game right?
It's a terrible tactic and another reason women with any sense should be opposing such behaviour, it has made feminism a laughing stock and is pushing away a lot of people who support fundamentally support women's rights as human rights.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man
is as close as we get.