JimC wrote:DaveDodo007 wrote:Brian Peacock wrote:Generalising from the particular much?
What type of answer is that? Any true activist movement wouldn't alienate 50% of the world's population if it wanted traction. I'm obviously happy feminism is treading water but you seem to be unconcerned by this fact. If you really believed feminism was a way to counter oppression against women you have a funny way of showing it. It looks like you just adopted the label as a form of virtue signalling (the whole 'good without god' bollocks) rather than you know doing any activism for the cause. You are not some hipster type goony beard are you because this looks like 'airport law' rite large.
You've missed his point. As many have pointed out before, you are generalising from one, narrow and rather extreme group of feminists to a much larger, general movement that simply does not include the over-the-top positions of the extreme minority.
This, I think, begs the question.
Formulating this another way:
Is the majority of feminism today a group of people who just advocate equal rights for women, or is the majority of today a group of people who advocate for more than that and harbor the "narrow, extreme" views referred to?
I.e. -- are those views being discussed really "narrow, extreme" feminism, or are they now more the norm.
If one looks at the feminists that grew out of the Skeptic movement, the prominent ones, we see Anita Sarkeesian (everything sexist, and you have to point it ALL out), Jessica Valenti (male tears - kill all men), the Skepchicks (Atheism+ on steroids), Laurie Penny, Bahar Mustafa (women can't be sexist against men, and minorities can't be racist).
Jessica Valenti writes for the Guardian (not a silly publication...) -- and, yet she thinks feminism means -- "We need to move beyond the stigma of “that time of the month”—women’s feminine hygiene products should be free for all, all the time." Is this stupidity the norm, or extreme?
She says, "denying that women are a victimized class is simply wrong. What else would you call a segment of the population who are systematically discriminated against in school, work and politics?…" Yet, women are not at all discriminated against in school - they are discriminated IN THEIR FAVOR, and they aren't at all discriminated against at work as a class (for example, female engineers have a 2 to 1 advantage in getting hired than men for the same job with the same qualifications), and in "politics?" She claims that women are "discriminated against" in democracies where women make up more than 50% of the electorate but choose to vote for men more than women....
Is this stupidity the "norm" or is it"extreme"?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
it's ridicule in the face of your continuing fallacious generalisations.