Well that is pretty shit even by your standards mate.
It didn't address Murdin's point. It doesn't address the point as to why Meryl Streep or the Guardian writer should know or give a fuck about her. She's hardly the face of feminism.
Also I watched that video and I think there is a big difference between turning up at a Gay Pride parade and telling them they are going to hell and turning up to a rally and presenting the opposing view. - EDIT: The former is like turning up to a church and pissing in the communion wine, the latter is not.
I'm still pondering why I should give a fuck about this person - can you refer me to any of her published works?
Guys! Why are you nit-picking U.P.'s choice of picture? The point he was making was that some people don't want to admit they are Feminists because of the stigma put upon the word over the years and that some "Feminists" are people like Big Red, here. It doesn't matter if she's a leader or not. She's just an example U.P. used....NOTHING MORE. U.P. is not saying that Feminism is bad. Why are you guys always assuming something wrong or sinister when someone makes some point on this board?
All of you guys! NIT PICK NIT PICK NIT PICK! Well ExCUUUUUSSSE ME if some of use don't communicate perfectly to your satisfaction?! We're constantly arguing over word-choices, nuances, examples used, etc. and assuming the worst in a person rather than assume they're okay unless proven otherwise! You idiots can't get the gist of a statement or the spirit of a statement....you must get all anal over ever detail of a statement or post and assume the worst about the person posting!
You're getting as stupid as the subject of this webboard (bad 'Social Justice Zealots')! You're seeing bigoted context where there is none!
Okay! So he used what appeared to be a bad example to you. I know zilch about Red Lady...so I can't judge either way! But you're seeing bigotry where there is none.
WHY IS IT SO HARD TO COMMUNICATE ON THIS BOARD? DON'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND INTENT, NUANCE, READING-BETWEEN-THE-LINES, GISTS, OR CONTEXTS?
It's like words have different meanings or connotations. We're separated by a common language!
[rude statement removed here]This is why it's so easy for the wingnuts to steam-roll us! Because we progressives/moderates/lefties/egalitarians/whatever are constantly infighting over details! Why is is so hard to overlook differences and see where we are the same?! WE ARE IN THIS TOGETHER!
*yawn* Once again, I am apparently supposed to get outraged over the fact that a bunch of nobodies are getting outraged (more like slightly miffed, really) over something stupid. Some people really want to turn this topic into "dem dirty libruls being WRONG on the internet"... well, more than it already is.
You. You fanatics are the "some reason".
A passive-aggressive remark about an actress refusing to explicitly associate with her in-group? How could she! FANATICS! FANATICS I SAY!
Fact is, the main reason people don't want to call themselves feminists is because they don't want to be associated with people like this:
I had to search for this person we're all evidently supposed to know already, and suffice to say, I am not surprised. She's some obscure SJW jackass who apparently lost her cool while "debating" a bunch of MRA trolls and crossed the line on camera. As a result, she got viciously harassed by UP's friends bad people with no link whatsoever with the circles he frequents. As usual, we're apparently supposed to 1) give a fuck, 2) vaguely recognize that harassment is wrong but not care too much about it, and 3) collectively tut-tut at her.
Edit: just in case, "UP's friends" is intended to be every bit as much of an exaggeration as "bad people with no link etc.". No offense intended... on that particular point.
I mean, that woman was quite clearly defending rape paranoia and male suicide as intellectual positions, and anyone who doesn't go out of their way to lapidate her as the epitome of Everything That Is Wrong With Feminism is evidently a misandrist. Stay classy, UP.
If you want more people to call themselves "feminists," then condemn these extremists for what they are.
And you should keep up the good work on your self-awareness, as well.
Since I'm... probably not going to post again in the next month or so, here's one last thing: anyone who reads this response and comes to the conclusion that I am "siding" with anyone, has my deepest pity.
Or maybe she is a humanist.
She's got a good number of years under her belt watching the world evolve and hasn't exactly been kicked in the teeth for the crime of having a uterus so the idea that she is more of an egalitarian really isn't that far fetched.
This doesn't exactly fit with what she's saying about equal pay and decision-making in the film industry, though. One can hope she's one of those people who DOESN'T hold to the "egalitarian" label as an excuse to is-ought-fallacy away any actual example of gender inequality (one way or the other) that she personally finds too inconvenient to admit. *wink wink nudge nudge*
He should have posted a photo of Andrea Dworkin. I can understand his point even if he did make it in a "off" sort of way.
The fact is that sadly, some Feminists don't want to be called Feminists because of the years of propaganda and stigma plastered on said word.
Also, a lot of folks in the U.S. Govt. are nuts who say stuff about "legitimate rape" and "BENGHAZI!" and Ms. Streep didn't want to turn those guys off.
I commend her efforts.
One thing I have to say to those dumb Social Justice Zealots: Could you at least give a person points for trying?!
Hey my Aerospace Aerobics Instructor, I know you think disagreeing with UP is the same as attacking him but I think you actually disagree with his point. His point is that the 'bad' feminists have caused the stigma to the word feminism and that 'good' feminists should go around denouncing and ostracising 'bad' feminists. That is the stigma is the fault of feminists.
Your point, I think, (which I bolded) is that anti-feminist Propaganda has stigmatised the word. While you don't elaborate that propaganda is probably the product of those people who have vested interests in opposing feminism.
I think you have fallen into the trap of looking at who is saying something rather than what they are saying.
No. That's not what I meant. I know that it's not the Feminist's fault that "Feminism" as a word has been stigmatized. I'm aware that it's opponents of Feminism that are responsible. I assumed that you would get that unspoken nuance because I assumed that was common knowledge. I guess one has to world every little nuance perfectly on this board because a lot of folks are too literal & anal-retentive here! One can't talk in "Low Concept Language" here, they must say stuff in "High Concept Language" in the most perfect way possible using the most perfect words with perfect clarity & meaning or else we'll all look like Klansmen or something!
Okay! I get it! Some of us have a different view of what constitutes a "militant", "moderate", "fanatic", "radical", "respectable", etc. One person might look at a RadFem and see a nut while another sees a reasonable person. I get it!
Now, can we try to learn to get over it and assume that most here are good people with good intentions and try to find common ground?
This isn't about Ultimate Paragon, either. This is about commenting on this board in general. Someone posts something, trying to make a point but another thinks the worst of that person and their post because they see something awful that likely isn't there. Then an entire thread gets derailed over junk like semantics. It's ridiculous.
