I don't do well with the quote things so I'll just break it down:
1. Why should they? It's not their job description to go and denounce every other person who has a different idea of feminism. Also did you ever think that they might have better things to do with their time (such as actually opposing existing inequality) rather than spending all their time denouncing people who share the same self-identification who they disagree with? I am prepared to trust that they manage their time well.
It doesn't take long to release a statement saying "these people don't represent us."
2. Who are these people who have different opinions? Are they anybody I should give a fuck about or are they youtube commentators? Where are the academic dissertations on Rebecca Watson and her adverse impact on Feminism?
Atheism+, for one. I may not like PZ Meyers, but I'm not going to deny his influence.
3. Nice way to avoid the point. I included the quakers, partly as a joke but also partly because they tend to act in a way that most Christians don't (you know in emulation of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels)
I'm sorry, but how do Quakers not act in emulation of Jesus?
Anyway, other than them, you're talking about groups with very little influence or popularity. Nobody likes the WBC, and the Klan hasn't been a serious threat since the 1970s. If you'd brought up Pat Robertson or the Crouch family, that would've been a decent comparison.
Finally why do you care so much about PR. You seem to be obsessed with people giving bad PR to groups like feminists and trans people. One of the things I've noticed is when doing it you always refer to the people whose PR you are concerned about (Feminists/ Trans) as 'them' - although later you will claim either to be part of the group or an ally of it.
Because, like it or not, PR is important. And when I say "them," I'm referring to the leadership and/or prominent members.
Also please let me know which of the points I consider central to feminism you disagree with? Is it that women are people?
None of them. What I disagree with are some modern feminist talking points, such as prominence of "rape culture," the idea that misogyny in the third world has impact on the first world, or the idea that the media should change for the benefit of the pearl-clutchers.
Back now the weekend is over. As for my position on Quakers that was a reading fail and Melon was right.
While it may not take long to release a statement, they first have:
1. To be aware of the incident;
2. Care about the incident enough to at least form an informed opinion of it;
3. Prepare a statement.
Given the number of piddling things you care about, I suspect denouncing those straying from the pure ideology you seek would be a full time job. Also I'm pleased that you don't believe they know how to best manage their time. No that's not a condescending attitude at all.
As for Atheism+ I'm going to have to plead ignorance, I have know Idea who they are.
