Well, that’s a fair way to look at it too. I’d be more than glad to work with anyone whose real goal is ‘improve others without hurting someone else in the process’, is all. Whether it’s a feminist of the non-misandrist variety or an egalitarian, it’s cool by me. It sounds like you and I want pretty much the same thing, but you may be taking a broader view of it while I’m saying “Well, this particular part of the equation is already MOSTLY fine… let’s leave that alone for now, fix this issue over here, then we’ll see where things stand.”
Your way of looking at it is valid as well, though!
It’s your classic motte and bailey tactics, frequently deployed to defend modern feminist activism on the internet. Basically whenever modern feminism is criticized for what it has become, its proponents respond by defending what it used to stand for. It’s similar to how politicians love to attach unrelated add-ons to important bills so that when a political opponent votes against it because of the add-ons, they can be attacked for their opposition to the underlying bill. You should learn to expect that whenever you criticize Sarkeesian, Quinn or any of the other figureheads of modern feminist activism you will be accused of opposing the old feminist ideals that you probably support.
Another variant of this tactic that they use a lot is one where they take words that already mean something, and then modify it unilaterally in the context of their discourse. So for example they take racism (discrimination based on race) or sexism (discrimination based on gender) and come up with their own definition for those words (discrimination based on race or gender by a person belonging to a race or gender that has historically enjoyed greater privilege). Then when you criticize racism as defined in feminist circles (ie. by that logic it is impossible for a black person to be racist towards a white person) they retreat to their motte and pretend that you are attacking the idea of racism as defined by the dictionary.
How much research have you personally done on the suffragettes and 1st wave?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2OybvMCKd0
And how much research have you personally done about various rights and obligations of males and females in the past and in various countries?
So what’s going to be the statute of limitations on this shit, because as of right now, looking at Razist post history does not paint a pretty picture for him or his soon to be even looser asshole. Hope you enjoy getting Eiffel towered up in Rikers for being a pig on the internet, you shitlord.
So I’m not entirely up-to-date on Sarkeesian/whoever else is similar to her because I tend to just ignore things like that and hope everyone else does the same so they go away faster. I don’t understand her points fully, don’t care enough about trying to bring someone’s views on society into video games because well…why it’s a video game get over yourself. Onto what I want to know though, how does she get so much attention and who actually wronged her in the first place? All I ever seem to see is people just disagreeing with her and then it gets labelled as some sort of cyber terrorism and stuff, not to belittle the core purpose of the feminist movement(The one that had a point, although the point it originally had seems to have become skewed with some people my age) she just seems to be a bit of a hack, nothing of substance has ever been taken away when I do pay attention to her.
What’s the angle, someone fill me in a little. Also a meeting with the U.N about this? Seems quite a trivial thing for the U.N to be meeting about, it all seems so needlessly fragile.
These people have no discernible talent and don’t want to get actual jobs so they make careers out of bullshit, kinda like the guys that run those free seminar scams.
Yeah, think of it like that unbearably unfunny Swedish douche who somehow makes a living screaming like a 6th grader on Youtube to video games. Only they think they’re actually being some kind of activist and are so twisted they legit buy the shit they’re selling.
