If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
There you go telling other people what they think AGAIN. It's a speciality of yours.
You've taken that out of context yourself mate. Spliffie did not liken feminists to the KKK and you know it.
Adnyou fail to recognise that HIT may not have used the word feminist as insult, becasue your too busy looking for an argument.
Again I don't think anybody has said. Speaking for other people again?
WTF?
That was his argument.
No, its not out of context.
He likened men fighting for female equality to black people fighting for a white supremacist organisation.
If he wasn't trying to argue that feminists are as bad as the KKK why on earth would he choose that particular similie?
If he wasn't trying to argue that female equality is as bad for men as white supremacism is for blacks then why on earth would he choose that particular similie?
Give me an example of when "cult" is used in any other context other than derogatory.
And why on earth would he attack all feminists because of the ramblings aof a few extremists and attention-seekers if he wasn't trying to imply that all feminists are extremists and attention-seekers.
As I say, if I've misrepresented him I'm sure he'll be along to tell us what he really thinks.
No he said men fighting for feminism when people like greer and others say misandrist things is like a black man supporting the kkk.
No he didn't argue that feminists are as bad as the kkk, that's you taking it out of context.
In movie criticism, "Donnie Darko the cult movie has been widely acclaimed by critics and audiences alike"
She didn't imply anything - she stated it exactly as i quoted it. If you don't like the woman and don't give a fuck why not just condemn her comments instead of continuing to provide excuses and distorting the facts?
You haven't provided any reasons either which haven't been shot down without response.
The context makes no difference as anyone can readily observe -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,839992,00.html?=rss
Where did I say any of this Kermit? Care to provide some quotes? Oh wait, let me guess, you can't be bothered.
What a crackpot.
I understand YOUR logic, but is she PRESCRIBING that course of action in that article ? I may have missed it. I perceived the article to be more of a descriptive one. :chin:
How did you come to that conclusion ?
Did you read the "article"? She talks about the genocide of the male gender. It doesn't matter if it's hypothetical, if you had a BNP member talking about the hpyothetical extermination of ethnic minorities you'd get everyone up in arms attacking them.
I find it kind of scary that people are so eager to defend her attitude! Personally, I think she should stick to womens issues rather than making grand generalisations about men.
As for Germaine Greer, one read of the article Spliffie linked to shows she holds some pretty odd views, regardless of what she may or may not have done to further the feminist cause.
With regards to the use of “feminist” in the thread title, I think that hairs are being split. I’m guessing that a number of posters are used to adopting defensive stance as soon as the word “feminist” is mentioned and have done so again in this topic. Still, I agree with a lot of what GWST says about the fact that all men should be feminist as far as believing that women should be treated equally in all aspects of life. I can, however, understand why this riled a few posters as respecting women as equals is a given for most people, and not something that active feminists can claim exclusive rights to.
Either way, it’s been an informative read, if not somewhat off-topic!
Good post.
I have just read it for the third time today.This time even slower !
Does she ? :chin: :chin:
I guess,as always,it depends on your definition of genocide. I find a consensus among definitions that "planning"/"intent" is needed to qualify as genocide.I can`t find that anywhere in the article that I read .
I wouldn`t say I was eager to defend "her attitude",whatever that is. I read an article that someone posted a link to, and I`m puzzled why some are getting their knickers/boxers in a twist.
Are you judging her on some past performance ?
Can you give me some examples from the article in question ? I`m (genuinely) puzzled as to what I`m missing in that article.
Well I don`t think it is a "factual account of reality". (Is there such a thing ?
What I`m failing to see is the cause of the antagonism. No-one seems willing ( or able ?) to point it out.
I read the last paragraph to which you refer (AGAIN) and I see parts of it as a kind of celebration of men,in general, from the female perspective.
So what am I missing ?
Wiping out males. :chin:
Generalisation much? And that's her first paragraph which according to her...
What is clearly true is she knows nothing about the real world.
I don't even know who she is.
But nobody said that.
I just found it funny that hairs were split over HIT's choice of words even after he admitted he knew little about feminism, yet Greer was defended for calling men 'freaks of nature'.
Nobody here said equality for men and women was a bad thing.
But there does seem to be an undercurrent of feeling that feminists have got their way and now that there is this perceived all-round equality they should be happy to stfu. There definitely was the suggestion that feminists should now be content to rest on their laurels, as obviously all the work is done and the job's a good'un. So inaccurate it hurts.
I - for one - continue to think there were implications behind his use of "feminist" in the title, whether he'll admit to that or not [and it seems to be "not"]. He should've said academic... or used her name. But in the grand scheme of things, who cares? This debate on here is a bit like a dog chasing its own tail.
For FUCK sake! My point is that if she replaced males with muslims or jews or even women she would be labelled a racist and a nazi and she would be widely discredited! The fact that she's defended makes it clear that men are fair game for this kind of abuse.
There may be a problem with men being disempowered, but that's got sod all to do with feminism and more to do with a lack of backbone and that some men want to join a culture of victimhood.