(no subject)
Something that clouds feminist discussion is misogyny.
Obviously this is a bit of a stupid thing to say, but hey it gets better. No, I mean: when for example someone makes a post to a general-audience group about a key issue in feminism, and there are maybe some problems in what she's saying, that post isn't responded to in the same way as any other topic that has some problems in the argument. There's no 'that's great, but I don't agree with the part where you say XYZ'. It's responded to with a massive shitstorm of virulent hate.
I don't see this so often with many other topics (such as, in anarchists right now, including use of CCTV cameras, G20 protest support, and alternative teaching methods - all of which have produced agreement, disagreement, even-handed debate from varying perspectives on the topics).
Basically feminists aren't allowed to make mistakes, or propose less-than-perfect argumentation. Because everything a feminist says and does is entirely representative of the movement, and anything that is ill-considered also discredits any other points or legacies associated therein. And if you get it wrong, you're fair game and should get raped and die.
It's a symptom of defensiveness, of course. It fucks up the possibility of a lot of discussion on feminist topics, especially the more sticky or marginal ones. It means that perspectives that are difficult to defend are not explored with clarity and generosity, instead it locks down discussion in a way that only hate speech merits. And then those who wanted to discuss that thing get marginalised and spiral into little groups with barely any reference to mainstream points of view and then they reinforce what it is to be a man-hating feminazi.
Obviously this is a bit of a stupid thing to say, but hey it gets better. No, I mean: when for example someone makes a post to a general-audience group about a key issue in feminism, and there are maybe some problems in what she's saying, that post isn't responded to in the same way as any other topic that has some problems in the argument. There's no 'that's great, but I don't agree with the part where you say XYZ'. It's responded to with a massive shitstorm of virulent hate.
I don't see this so often with many other topics (such as, in anarchists right now, including use of CCTV cameras, G20 protest support, and alternative teaching methods - all of which have produced agreement, disagreement, even-handed debate from varying perspectives on the topics).
Basically feminists aren't allowed to make mistakes, or propose less-than-perfect argumentation. Because everything a feminist says and does is entirely representative of the movement, and anything that is ill-considered also discredits any other points or legacies associated therein. And if you get it wrong, you're fair game and should get raped and die.
It's a symptom of defensiveness, of course. It fucks up the possibility of a lot of discussion on feminist topics, especially the more sticky or marginal ones. It means that perspectives that are difficult to defend are not explored with clarity and generosity, instead it locks down discussion in a way that only hate speech merits. And then those who wanted to discuss that thing get marginalised and spiral into little groups with barely any reference to mainstream points of view and then they reinforce what it is to be a man-hating feminazi.