The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Mavorpen]

At the very least, I don't have to deal with being kept awake knowing that Mary Koss is out there instituting the Lizard Peoples' plan to eradicate all men.

Hey, stick your head in the sand all you want. The evidence of her actions stands for all to see.

I agree. The evidence that you continuously asked me about a claim I addressed and a claim I never made while dancing around every question I asked is plentiful.

I'll just leave those there.

Jesus, you said you were going to stop responding two hours ago and yet here you are, still presenting shitty opinion as fact and whining that I didn't address a claim I did address and one that I never made. If you're going to present a terrible excuse for dodging my questions, at least stick to it.

[Galloism]

At the very least, I don't have to deal with being kept awake knowing that Mary Koss is out there instituting the Lizard Peoples' plan to eradicate all men.

I agree. The evidence that you continuously asked me about a claim I addressed and a claim I never made while dancing around every question I asked is plentiful.

The fact that you're not aware that you were doing the same is astounding.
Honestly, this whole discussion has been impressive.

Well, and this entire discussion has been him making up claims I never made, then demanding I prove them and screaming I refuse to prove my claims - except they weren't my claims.

He just tried to make them up as if they were my position to try and then declare victory when I couldn't prove the goalposts he invented.

I think there's some kind of word for that.

[Tahar Joblis]

I've proved enough.

You've proved nothing. So far the only thing you've done is just dance around my questions and try to deflect to something slightly related, with me being generous and following along to accommodate said deflections.

Mavorpen, your exchange with Galloism started like this:

I'm not surprised tbh. Both are really bastions of liberal feminism - the kind of feminism that utterly lacks intersectionality and focuses entirely on working towards a system where women are oppressed the same way as men, rather than working towards a system that removes oppression.

People are looking at me strangely because I bust out laughing so hard at the bolded.

Liberal feminism is nearly dead. Radical feminists have taken charge of the gender dialogue, which is why there is so much overt sexism in it.

Most feminists today believe trans people don't exist and believe all sex-work is misogynist and should be illegal? Do you have a source for this claim?

Galloism said, correctly, that:

(1) Radical feminists dominate "the gender dialogue," i.e., the feminist movement.
(2) The movement has a lot of overt sexism.
(3) That (2) is due to (1).

You responded with a dramatic strawman, demanding that Galloism provide sources that most feminists are TERFs and SWERFs (particular types of radical feminist).

You have continued to deploy strawman after strawman, alternately demanding that Galloism prove that either all or no academics agree with Mary Koss, for example, as you move farther and farther from the original point.

Which is that pretty much all radical feminism is sexist feminism, and the whole movement is pretty much run by radicals these days. The insiders holding the institutional levers of power are more radical than the base, and even the base embraces a lot of sexist hypocrisy.

[Galloism]

Hey, stick your head in the sand all you want. The evidence of her actions stands for all to see.


I'll just leave those there.

Jesus, you said you were going to stop responding two hours ago and yet here you are, still presenting shitty opinion as fact and whining that I didn't address a claim I did address and one that I never made. If you're going to present a terrible excuse for dodging my questions, at least stick to it.

Stop falsely slandering me and I'll stop responding to such vicious slander.

[Mavorpen]

He just tried to make them up as if they were my position to try and then declare victory when I couldn't prove the goalposts he invented.

I think there's some kind of word for that.

This is an odd claim. I took care to make sure that I did not state that these were your claims. I did this because, unlike you, I prefer intellectual honesty. I never insinuated that they were your claims or positions. I asked you questions based on a logical path that began when I noticed that your actual claims rested upon certain presumptions that I sought to get to the bottom of.

[Mavorpen]

Jesus, you said you were going to stop responding two hours ago and yet here you are, still presenting shitty opinion as fact and whining that I didn't address a claim I did address and one that I never made. If you're going to present a terrible excuse for dodging my questions, at least stick to it.

Stop falsely slandering me and I'll stop responding to such vicious slander.

Please, sue me.

[Galloism]

You've proved nothing. So far the only thing you've done is just dance around my questions and try to deflect to something slightly related, with me being generous and following along to accommodate said deflections.

Mavorpen, your exchange with Galloism started like this:

People are looking at me strangely because I bust out laughing so hard at the bolded.

Liberal feminism is nearly dead. Radical feminists have taken charge of the gender dialogue, which is why there is so much overt sexism in it.

Most feminists today believe trans people don't exist and believe all sex-work is misogynist and should be illegal? Do you have a source for this claim?

Galloism said, correctly, that:

(1) Radical feminists dominate "the gender dialogue," i.e., the feminist movement.
(2) The movement has a lot of overt sexism.
(3) That (2) is due to (1).

You responded with a dramatic strawman, demanding that Galloism provide sources that most feminists are TERFs and SWERFs (particular types of radical feminist).

You have continued to deploy strawman after strawman, alternately demanding that Galloism prove that either all or no academics agree with Mary Koss, for example, as you move farther and farther from the original point.

Which is that pretty much all radical feminism is sexist feminism, and the whole movement is pretty much run by radicals these days. The insiders holding the institutional levers of power are more radical than the base, and even the base embraces a lot of sexist hypocrisy.

I think the base embraces a lot of sexist hypocrisy without knowing or recognizing it though.

Much like your average Republican is usually an ok guy, but the people up in Washington are mostly horrific. He is unknowingly supporting that horribleness because he watches Fox News and there's a small group of people controlling a large part of the political dialogue there.

Similar to your average feminist seems to feel rape is an ever present threat against women and almost never affects men. Your average feminist believes that a man forced to have sex with a woman is a rape victim. However, he or she reads statistics that says rape is almost entirely suffered by women. This is because of the sexist basis of those statistics of which he or she is unaware.

Those in control of the gender dialogue are using sexist definitions to push a narrative. Those unaware of it follow the narrative to its logical conclusion.

[Galloism]

based on a logical path

Now I have milk up my nose.

[Mavorpen]

based on a logical path

Now I have milk up my nose.

That's not how you drink milk.

Oh no, did Koss turn you into a Lizard Person too?

[Tahar Joblis]

He just tried to make them up as if they were my position to try and then declare victory when I couldn't prove the goalposts he invented.

I think there's some kind of word for that.

This is an odd claim. I took care to make sure that I did not state that these were your claims. I did this because, unlike you, I prefer intellectual honesty. I never insinuated that they were your claims or positions. I asked you questions based on a logical path that began when I noticed that your actual claims rested upon certain presumptions that I sought to get to the bottom of.

They didn't rest on those presumptions.

That you think they did suggests you have embraced a large number of false dilemmas. E.g., either all experts believe Mary Koss, or she's an isolated rare figure. Either a feminist is non-sexist, or they are a SWERF and TERF.

[Luminesa]

Jesus, you said you were going to stop responding two hours ago and yet here you are, still presenting shitty opinion as fact and whining that I didn't address a claim I did address and one that I never made. If you're going to present a terrible excuse for dodging my questions, at least stick to it.

Stop falsely slandering me and I'll stop responding to such vicious slander.

This comic describes my life at home now.

[Forsher]

The fact that you're not aware that you were doing the same is astounding.
Honestly, this whole discussion has been impressive.

As I have already pointed out, discussion does not characterise Mav's behaviour.

Jesus, you said you were going to stop responding two hours ago and yet here you are, still presenting shitty opinion as fact and whining that I didn't address a claim I did address and one that I never made. If you're going to present a terrible excuse for dodging my questions, at least stick to it.

On the previous page:

I ignored none of my claims. Just because you can't be bothered to provide proof doesn't mean you have to lie.

Now:

didn't address a claim I did address and one that I never made.

Notice how the scope of what Mav did not ignore has shrunk?

And notice that it is easily demonstrated that the first claim is simply not true. Also, notice how two posts that have several different claims are reduced into two distinct claims... I am not sure to which Mav refers, hence it is impossible to validate the reduced case. It could be that Mav is thinking about the same thing TJ notes (which we might characterise as "all radical feminists are TERFs or SWERFs") but even if we were to decide this was the one Mav thinks wasn't made, what is the other?

Please, sue me.

It is to my deep regret I was not more familiar with defamation (and how publication works) several years ago.

There is, of course, the question of how defamation would work in the case of supposedly anonymous posting. I know more, now, but I have only a lay understanding (and once possessed no understanding).

He just tried to make them up as if they were my position to try and then declare victory when I couldn't prove the goalposts he invented.

I think there's some kind of word for that.

This is an odd claim. I took care to make sure that I did not state that these were your claims. I did this because, unlike you, I prefer intellectual honesty. I never insinuated that they were your claims or positions. I asked you questions based on a logical path that began when I noticed that your actual claims rested upon certain presumptions that I sought to get to the bottom of.

I happened to click on the Baseball Shooting thread and to my horror discovered pretty much exactly the same conversation that we have here in this thread. However, it highlighted the essential problem more clearly. That is, every opportunity someone had to use a few more words, to stop and explain what exactly they meant (to cover the implications thereof and/or to explain their assumptions) and to restore clarity after using page after page of pronouns and placeholders was not taken. Not one.

Intellectual honesty is an interesting calling card that I am sure reminds Gallo and TJ of the Choronzon era of NSG feminism (quite aside from the parallels between how Choronzon responded to points and Mav's rhetorical techniques in this thread). Yet, it's something of a weasel word in that its meaning is always presumed but never made exactly clear. Certainly, I am sure we would imagine that intellectual honesty involves:

1. taking ownership of one's statements
2. making clear where one's statements come from
3. not attributing opinions to people without evidence
4. developing substantive arguments for why claims hold certain implications
5. aversion of glib one-liners and other soundbites
6. respect for context (both within the conversation and external to the conversation)
7. responsiveness
8. consistency of parameters/bounds/goalposts
9. awareness of the burdens of the claims made (i.e. what needs to be so, if [author] is right about [phenomenon/concept/person/argument]

Find a post of Mav's or Gallo's that possesses (e)? The deep-love for that rhetorical dismissiveness in this conversation has led to a preference for breaking paragraphs up into three different responses of one line that can't possibly respect the original unity of the paragraph (a violation of f) and which makes it difficult to trace back exactly where the claims come from (b and c are done for). These glib remarks further lack the capacity to carry substantive arguments (bye-bye d) and give the faintest veneer of responsiveness but really simply obscure the degree of dropped threads/thoughts (oh dear, say ciao to g).

If intellectual honesty follows any traditional sense of the phrase in this thread, we have observed an extremely intellectually dishonest conversation... simply as a result of the preferred means of having it.

As professional historians tell each other: scholarship takes time. And scholarship is really just a stricter (special) case of intellectual honesty, no? I rather suggest time is a character of both.

[Costa Fierro]

At the very least, I don't have to deal with being kept awake knowing that Mary Koss is out there instituting the Lizard Peoples' plan to eradicate all men.

Are the numbers on the plantation dwindling that fast?

[Des-Bal]

This is an odd claim. I took care to make sure that I did not state that these were your claims. I did this because, unlike you, I prefer intellectual honesty. I never insinuated that they were your claims or positions. I asked you questions based on a logical path that began when I noticed that your actual claims rested upon certain presumptions that I sought to get to the bottom of.

That's true, you never said that he created the ludicrous arguments you propped up you just demanded sources for them and treated the fact that he would not provide them as victory.

[Swith Witherward]

Those in control of the gender dialogue use shit to their advantage. Those aware of it... the average feminist... don't follow them at all. We loathe them for various reasons.

The "average anything" vacillates, of course. That's why not all X are Y. People that hold to extreme views are not average. All extremist X tends to do Y. The average person is average because they are not above average, meaning they have no vehicle in which to gain attention, and their views are too average and mundane. Too sensible. Too boring. Why respond to me when there's more bang for the buck by responding to Chess?

People have better things to do with their lives that tweet rhetoric, spew nonsense, scream at those that don't agree with them, or waste an entire day ranting on forums. Based upon the TGs I receive, the average feminist avoids this thread like the plague because the extremists on both sides make dialog impossible.

If anyone would care to know what the average feminist really believes, please ask us. I recommending asking people in here who seem to have common sense rather than the feminists that seem incapable of putting aside their agendas to patiently explain things. It's alright to post feminist articles that get under your skin or that you feel strip away rights or shackle men. Frame your statements in a way that encourages and enables the average feminist to weigh in. It's alright if you're anti-feminism. "Those in control of the gender dialogue" do cast our various movements in a bad light. The average feminist understands that, and welcomes the opportunity to offer you a different feminist point of view.

Now can we please move beyond the Marvo and Gallo thing? The discussing of their argument is a bit of a derail. Thanks.

[Galloism]

Those in control of the gender dialogue use shit to their advantage. Those aware of it... the average feminist... don't follow them at all. We loathe them for various reasons.

The "average anything" vacillates, of course. That's why not all X are Y. People that hold to extreme views are not average. All extremist X tends to do Y. The average person is average because they are not above average, meaning they have no vehicle in which to gain attention, and their views are too average and mundane. Too sensible. Too boring. Why respond to me when there's more bang for the buck by responding to Chess?

People have better things to do with their lives that tweet rhetoric, spew nonsense, scream at those that don't agree with them, or waste an entire day ranting on forums. Based upon the TGs I receive, the average feminist avoids this thread like the plague because the extremists on both sides make dialog impossible.

If anyone would care to know what the average feminist really believes, please ask us. I recommending asking people in here who seem to have common sense rather than the feminists that seem incapable of putting aside their agendas to patiently explain things. It's alright to post feminist articles that get under your skin or that you feel strip away rights or shackle men. Frame your statements in a way that encourages and enables the average feminist to weigh in. It's alright if you're anti-feminism. "Those in control of the gender dialogue" do cast our various movements in a bad light. The average feminist understands that, and welcomes the opportunity to offer you a different feminist point of view.

Now can we please move beyond the Marvo and Gallo thing? The discussing of their argument is a bit of a derail. Thanks.

I'll bite Mr Average Feminist.

According to the CDC reports, at least among adults, men are raped at about the same rate as women. Men also suffer DV at about the same rate as woman. Perpetrators are typically their opposite sex partner.

What implications does this have for you personally, and feminist policy in general?

[Mavorpen]

Those in control of the gender dialogue use shit to their advantage. Those aware of it... the average feminist... don't follow them at all. We loathe them for various reasons.

The "average anything" vacillates, of course. That's why not all X are Y. People that hold to extreme views are not average. All extremist X tends to do Y. The average person is average because they are not above average, meaning they have no vehicle in which to gain attention, and their views are too average and mundane. Too sensible. Too boring. Why respond to me when there's more bang for the buck by responding to Chess?

People have better things to do with their lives that tweet rhetoric, spew nonsense, scream at those that don't agree with them, or waste an entire day ranting on forums. Based upon the TGs I receive, the average feminist avoids this thread like the plague because the extremists on both sides make dialog impossible.

If anyone would care to know what the average feminist really believes, please ask us. I recommending asking people in here who seem to have common sense rather than the feminists that seem incapable of putting aside their agendas to patiently explain things. It's alright to post feminist articles that get under your skin or that you feel strip away rights or shackle men. Frame your statements in a way that encourages and enables the average feminist to weigh in. It's alright if you're anti-feminism. "Those in control of the gender dialogue" do cast our various movements in a bad light. The average feminist understands that, and welcomes the opportunity to offer you a different feminist point of view.

Now can we please move beyond the Marvo and Gallo thing? The discussing of their argument is a bit of a derail. Thanks.

How I wish people followed this basic principle for having an actual discussion.

[Swith Witherward]

I'll bite Ms Average Feminist.

According to the CDC reports, at least among adults, men are raped at about the same rate as women. Men also suffer DV at about the same rate as woman. Perpetrators are typically their opposite sex partner.

What implications does this have for you personally, and feminist policy in general?

Fixed that for you.

Thanks for asking, Gallo.

I honestly don't believe the reports regarding domestic violence are accurate. DV includes aggressive behavior. Men aren't as apt to report angry flareups from their spouses or significant others. "Yeah, she was pissed off, but it was my fault because I didn't do X" sort of mentality. Throwing things, smashing something the man holds important (tv, game system, computer, musical instrument etc), throwing clothing out of the door or a window, screaming obscenities at him... why does this aggressive behavior go unreported, thus getting a free pass?

Don't get me wrong. Men can and do exhibit aggressive behavior as well, but it's more likely to be reported when the man does it.

I'm a bit surprised to hear that the CDC states that rape occurs equally between men and women. If accurate, it reflects hard efforts on the part of rape victim support orgs and other groups to encourage men to come forward.

Misconceptions regarding male rape contribute to his suffering. "He was hard so he wanted it". "Against his will: Female-on-male rape", an article written by CNN's Sarah LeTrent, sheds a bit of light on that misconception.

I can't speak for all feminists, of course. However, DV and rape are a problem that affects both genders. As a feminist, I feel it is my responsibility to empower younger women, to reassure them that they can say, "no", that they have options for getting out of abusive relationships, and that they should have say over their own bodies. However, unlike the extremist feminists, I'm also very stern when it comes to respecting men. We have to be just as responsible as men are expected to be. We need to recognize when our playful flirting starts to stray into sexual pressuring and unwelcome harassment.

But our voices are drowned out by the barking spiders with fat book contracts and lucrative speaking engagements.

What's your take on it, Gallo? If I recall right, you live across the pond. Do you feel women there get a free pass regarding aggressive behavior towards men?

[Costa Fierro]

Those in control of the gender dialogue use shit to their advantage. Those aware of it... the average feminist... don't follow them at all. We loathe them for various reasons.

The "average feminist" is a misleading title because anyone can call themselves an "average feminist" and still hold radical views. Not only that, but one only has to look at how widespread radical, or once considered to be radical, feminist views are not only in academia but also in media and in social media. There's absolutely no end to the women who would ordinarily be considered to be "average feminists" basically advocating for or supporting wholesale misandry and discrimination against men. That's what a lot of so-called "average feminists" fail to understand: the radical has become the mainstream. Western liberal feminists who sit there with their proverbial heads in the sand telling people that "oh, don't worry about them, there aren't that many of them to be of any concern" are enabling the further radicalisation of their movement. Giving non-feminists and anti-feminists platitudes about feminism being about equality is useless and ignores the reality. If you want people to actually start regarding feminism as something that isn't thinly-veiled misandry then actually start doing something about the radicalisation. Sitting there making up an argument that is basically summed up with #NotAllFeminists does absolutely nothing.

The "average anything" vacillates, of course. That's why not all X are Y. People that hold to extreme views are not average. All extremist X tends to do Y. The average person is average because they are not above average, meaning they have no vehicle in which to gain attention, and their views are too average and mundane. Too sensible. Too boring. Why respond to me when there's more bang for the buck by responding to Chess?

Firstly, responding to Chess is easier because Chess actually bothers giving her opinion on the subject and bothers making an argument and engages in discussions. As controversial as her opinions are, she nevertheless puts a lot of effort into the discussion and gives us things to discuss. Where have the moderate feminists been in those discussions?

Secondly, I personally would take moderate feminists seriously if they bothered to do anything about the radicalisation of the movement. I'm not interested in platitudes and I'm not interested in your virtue signalling by refusing to associate yourself with radical feminists, I want you to actually do something about it. Deny radical feminists the platform to advance their agenda.

Disclaimer, that's a plural you, referencing to all self described moderate or liberal feminists.

People have better things to do with their lives that tweet rhetoric, spew nonsense, scream at those that don't agree with them, or waste an entire day ranting on forums. Based upon the TGs I receive, the average feminist avoids this thread like the plague because the extremists on both sides make dialog impossible.

Moderate feminists can't get a word in because they choose not to. They think "well it's just a load of people screaming so I won't bother" and live their lives blissfully aware of the kind of platform they are giving said extremists to advance their agenda.

That's the disconnect I'm seeing in that paragraph. You won't get involved in any dialog because you see it as a waste of your time but then complain about not having your voice heard. How can people actually take moderate/liberal feminism/feminists seriously if they won't get engaged?

If anyone would care to know what the average feminist really believes, please ask us.

Why? I personally don't give a damn about what liberal and moderate feminists have to say or what they believe because they don't have any influence within the feminist movement. What I do give a damn about is whether or not you are all prepared and willing to fight back against the radicals and put feminism back on track as a social movement that fights for social good.

I recommending asking people in here who seem to have common sense rather than the feminists that seem incapable of putting aside their agendas to patiently explain things. It's alright to post feminist articles that get under your skin or that you feel strip away rights or shackle men. Frame your statements in a way that encourages and enables the average feminist to weigh in. It's alright if you're anti-feminism. "Those in control of the gender dialogue" do cast our various movements in a bad light. The average feminist understands that, and welcomes the opportunity to offer you a different feminist point of view.

I want to see moderate and liberal feminists do something about the radicalisation. I couldn't care less what they have to think.

[Hirota]

If anyone would care to know what the average feminist really believes, please ask us.

I'm curious who an average feminist feels most closely represents the average feminists views as a high-profile figure.

I'm also curious that given the textbook definition of feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes," - given most people tend to endorse this position, but still do not consider themselves feminists - what the average feminists view is. I mean it sounds based on these surveys it sounds like "the average feminist" (based on the textbook definition), does not actually consider themselves a feminist.

[Torsiedelle]

People have better things to do with their lives that tweet rhetoric, spew nonsense, scream at those that don't agree with them, or waste an entire day ranting on forums. Based upon the TGs I receive, the average feminist avoids this thread like the plague because the extremists on both sides make dialog impossible.

So...they get annoyed by the extremists and choose to sit back or lay low and aren't capable of standing their ground like radical feminists and anti-feminists?

Just sounds like more of the "not all X are Y but hey, they sure won't do shit about Y doing Y stuff because there's no point."

I worded that in quite a shitty way. Fuck me.

[Swith Witherward]

Firstly, responding to Chess is easier because Chess actually bothers giving her opinion on the subject and bothers making an argument and engages in discussions. As controversial as her opinions are, she nevertheless puts a lot of effort into the discussion and gives us things to discuss. Where have the moderate feminists been in those discussions?

Actually, we do chime in now and then. Our remarks go mostly unnoticed. That's to be expected, and I don't blame anyone for it.

Secondly, I personally would take moderate feminists seriously if they bothered to do anything about the radicalisation of the movement. I'm not interested in platitudes and I'm not interested in your virtue signalling by refusing to associate yourself with radical feminists, I want you to actually do something about it. Deny radical feminists the platform to advance their agenda.

Disclaimer, that's a plural you, referencing to all self described moderate or liberal feminists.

I understood it was "plural you", no worries.

We really do have our hands tied. How do you stop it? Personally, I tried back when I was still a full time student. My voice was drowned out and the prof made my life hell. As a possibly interesting observation, I returned to campus not too long ago and poked in on the activities. Gone where the neutrals and questioners, replaced by unwavering TERF/SWERF and other more malevolent forms of feminism.

Think of this as though it were Black Lives Matter. Not all blacks support the movement. Not all people involved in BLM support what a select few other chapters profess regarding an intolerance of whites. But how to get the movement on a positive track when so many people jump on board for the wrong reasons?

I really do wish I had an answer for how to stop the misandrist attitudes and outright hostility. It angers me that this shit is snowballing into what it is.

Moderate feminists can't get a word in because they choose not to. They think "well it's just a load of people screaming so I won't bother" and live their lives blissfully aware of the kind of platform they are giving said extremists to advance their agenda.

That's the disconnect I'm seeing in that paragraph. You won't get involved in any dialog because you see it as a waste of your time but then complain about not having your voice heard. How can people actually take moderate/liberal feminism/feminists seriously if they won't get engaged?

I understand where you're coming from here.

It isn't that we don't want to engage in dialog. We're slapped down by both sides and, frustrated, we walk away. This is why I'm not active with feminist activities (protests, rallies, gatherings) anymore. I should be, but the battleground got to be too much for me, personally. When we speak out, we get a lot of abuse. I just wasted an hour responding to Ostro's personal attacks, for instance. (They deleted their post.)

Why? I personally don't give a damn about what liberal and moderate feminists have to say or what they believe because they don't have any influence within the feminist movement. What I do give a damn about is whether or not you are all prepared and willing to fight back against the radicals and put feminism back on track as a social movement that fights for social good.

It's alright if you don't give a damn. The radfems have soured so many people. I understand your frustrations. I fought against it, and came away from it equally frustrated. However, I'm not a "career feminist". I can only do so much while working towards my degree, working on a contractual obligations (thus heavily-placed deadlines), and raising my kid.

I want to see moderate and liberal feminists do something about the radicalisation. I couldn't care less what they have to think.

What do you suggest we do? (That's not sarcasm. I'd genuinely like to know what you think the best solution is.)

For the record, I can understand why you've responded the way you have. It's easy to say, "You're on the inside so why don't you fix it?!" Going back to what I've said before, there are many forms of feminism. People like me aren't welcome in radfem circles. We have absolutely no sway with them. We're told we're not feminists. We're told we're parroting patriarchy. We're chastised if we support certain forms of equality (such as equal prison sentences for the same crime regardless of gender). I'm certain a few radfems will venture in here to chew me out for saying I personally believe men can be (and are) raped.

I've even gone rounds with brainwashed men who have told me, "If I find her attractive and hit on her, I'm raping her in my mind." Excuse my French, but the FUCK is that? The campus movement (on this particular campus) was actually promoting that flirting with a girl is as bad as raping her.

All that aside, if people don't care what we think, then how are we to make a difference? For instance, I was agreeing with Gallo. I was offering my support of his accurate statement that men are victims of DV and rape. It's not a 'stereotypical feminist' view. But those words were overlooked, and I was painted as being some sort of warped radfem bent on tearing down victims and supporting a gynocentric cause. That's what I mean by our voices are drowned out.

Thanks for asking these questions, though. You bring up valid points, and I appreciate you wording them sternly but not too severely towards me. I only wish I had better answers for you.

I'm curious who the average feminist feels most closely represents the average feminists views as a high-profile figure.

I'm also curious that given the textbook definition of feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes," - given most people tend to endorse this position, but still do not consider themselves feminists - what the average feminists view is. I mean it sounds based on these surveys it sounds like "the average feminist" (based on the textbook definition), does not actually consider themselves a feminist.

Don't go by surveys.

Some examples of feminists that most closely represents the average feminist's view as a high-profile figure:

• Eleanor Roosevelt, a woman that didn't limit her cause to just women, but also strove toward civil rights and equality for blacks.
• Maya Angelou. Yes, she used her talents to inspire women, but she also used them to inspire African-Americans to fight against gender and race discrimination. (I don't necessarily agree with all her views regarding feminism, but that's alright.)

But there are those that don't outwardly discuss feminism. Rather, they worked to prove equality was possible. Mary Feik and nearly every woman found here took up the cause from that angle.

You see, in my opinion, being a feminist doesn't always mean shouting about a cause. Being a feminist also means going forward and working towards it as Roosevelt and Angelou did. Also, by proving equality by working in fields that were, at one time, thought impossible for a woman. It means striving on our own merits, dispelling outdated beliefs. It means sometimes branching out our interests and energy to not only promote equality for women, but equality in general. A feminist may also be a socialist, a democrat, a liberal, a civil rights leader... being these things doesn't strip her of her feminist label. She just wears more than one.

Does discrimination still occur in Western society? Yes. It's on us (collectively, feminist or not) to change that. Not by ranting, or making prigs of ourselves, or by stripping away rights from others, but by proving society wrong and by making an effort to change Western society for the better. How best to do it? Dunno, but if we put our minds together, we can come up with a lot better than pulling fire alarms and writing nasty articles in biased magazines.

I am a feminist. I'm a nerd and an introvert, and I stutter. I would make for a lousy activist. Instead, I do my part by helping girls get interested in STEM. (Why not boys? They never signed up for the after school program.) I volunteered to work with rape victims and suicidal teens. All that is on my own time, as it doesn't involve my actual career. It doesn't do much to curtail the radfem movement, but I'd like to think that, by exposing people to a more egalitarian (and logical) approach, I'm swiping one less potential pawn from the claws of idiots that would use them to further their own cause.


Edit: Aw nuts. In my effort to edit, I cut off the top of my own post. Sorry about that.
Costa, you said, "The "average feminist" is a misleading title because anyone can call themselves an "average feminist" and still hold radical views. Not only that, but one only has to look at how widespread radical, or once considered to be radical, feminist views are not only in academia but also in media and in social media. There's absolutely no end to the women who would ordinarily be considered to be "average feminists" basically advocating for or supporting wholesale misandry and discrimination against men. That's what a lot of so-called "average feminists" fail to understand: the radical has become the mainstream. Western liberal feminists who sit there with their proverbial heads in the sand telling people that "oh, don't worry about them, there aren't that many of them to be of any concern" are enabling the further radicalisation of their movement. Giving non-feminists and anti-feminists platitudes about feminism being about equality is useless and ignores the reality. If you want people to actually start regarding feminism as something that isn't thinly-veiled misandry then actually start doing something about the radicalisation. Sitting there making up an argument that is basically summed up with #NotAllFeminists does absolutely nothing."

I believe I defined it a bit as the average feminist (or person) goes about their day and doesn't have a platform or vehicle in which to promote their views, whereas the above average individual has a medium they can use: academia, media, and social media, as you pointed out.

You're correct that radical is mainstream, however I tend to see that as "mainstream online" and in smaller groups in real life. There are plenty of blogs by average feminist that are never read simply because they don't troll.

I believe I answered the rest in the top part of this post.

[Costa Fierro]

We really do have our hands tied. How do you stop it?

Fight back. Show them that you don't take any kind of ridiculous misadnrist clap trap and empower those who are otherwise not otherwise radical feminists to follow suit.

Think of this as though it were Black Lives Matter. Not all blacks support the movement. Not all people involved in BLM support what a select few other chapters profess regarding an intolerance of whites. But how to get the movement on a positive track when so many people jump on board for the wrong reasons?

Same thing with feminism: suppress the extremists. Fight them intellectually and then deny them the platform. It doesn't need to resort to violence. All it needs to do is to get one person to stand back and reexamine their perspective on issues. The main thing to do is just to keep fighting, keep calling people out on their bullshit.

I really do wish I had an answer for how to stop the misandrist attitudes and outright hostility. It angers me that this shit is snowballing into what it is.

You can't stop them short of basically imprisoning all radical feminists. But you can reduce their influence.

It isn't that we don't want to engage in dialog. We're slapped down by both sides and, frustrated, we walk away. This is why I'm not active with feminist activities (protests, rallies, gatherings) anymore. I should be, but the battleground got to be too much for me, personally. When we speak out, we get a lot of abuse. I just wasted an hour responding to Ostro's personal attacks, for instance. (They deleted their post.)

I know it sounds ridiculous but the idea is first develop a sense of personal resilience. Realize that you have the superior morals and the better convictions and then actually fight for them. Abuse is merely a way to silence you and to gain your compliance, because without obstacles, they can do whatever the hell they want.

It's alright if you don't give a damn. The radfems have soured so many people. I understand your frustrations. I fought against it, and came away from it equally frustrated. However, I'm not a "career feminist". I can only do so much while working towards my degree, working on a contractual obligations (thus heavily-placed deadlines), and raising my kid.

You can still do good in this world by changing the attitudes of those around you. If any female co-workers say something demeaning towards men or boys, call them out on it. Tell them it isn't acceptable. Do the same thing for men who demean women.

What do you suggest we do?

Call them out on it. If you can't do that, call women out on their sexism towards other women and to men. You can't completely rid the world of radical feminism but you can lessen it's influence, even if it's a few men and women you know personally. I know it sounds redundant but if you can start convincing non-feminist women to rethink about what they say and their attitudes regarding gender issues, then that in my mind is fighting back against the radical feminists. That is success.

All that aside, if people don't care what we think, then how are we to make a difference? For instance, I was agreeing with Gallo. I was offering my support of his accurate statement that men are victims of DV and rape. It's not a 'stereotypical feminist' view. But those words were overlooked, and I was painted as being some sort of warped radfem bent on tearing down victims and supporting a gynocentric cause. That's what I mean by our voices are drowned out.

You're not going to go around preaching to the choir, or the radicals so try and convince those who display sexism without actually knowing it. Sounds redundant but you'll make a lot more headway with people who aren't that educated on gender issues.

[Giovenith]

We really do have our hands tied. How do you stop it?

Fight back. Show them that you don't take any kind of ridiculous misadnrist clap trap and empower those who are otherwise not otherwise radical feminists to follow suit.

Think of this as though it were Black Lives Matter. Not all blacks support the movement. Not all people involved in BLM support what a select few other chapters profess regarding an intolerance of whites. But how to get the movement on a positive track when so many people jump on board for the wrong reasons?

Same thing with feminism: suppress the extremists. Fight them intellectually and then deny them the platform. It doesn't need to resort to violence. All it needs to do is to get one person to stand back and reexamine their perspective on issues. The main thing to do is just to keep fighting, keep calling people out on their bullshit.

Nice in principle, not so nice in practicality. It's really easy to sit there and insist, "Just fight back! Fight back!" Specifically, how? You read the last post. Moderate feminists are not allowed into radical spaces and they're not the ones being given book deals and talk show appearances, even if they pursue them. They don't have any more power than you do just because they call themselves feminists.

"Fight back!" is not a solution or a plan, it's a vague and unspecific warcry. Just saying "Fight back" is like an army General telling his troops, "Just win" - it doesn't tell anyone anything, it's a loose conveyance of an already obvious goal with no tangible path towards getting there. How does a moderate feminist fight back? Do you want us to break down the university doors and scream at the radicals until they change their ways? Do you want us to make our way down to the UN, lift Sarkeesian onto our shoulders, and toss her into the Atlantic in front of all the world's leaders? Moderates are already doing pretty much all they can - blog, disagree with radicals in discourse, take up hobbies that push their own version of feminism. If that's not good enough for you, you're going to have to propose something else, something that's a little more substantial than, "Yell at the radfems!" Radfems have these things called lockable doors, so that only gets you so far.

[Swith Witherward]

Ah, I see what the confusion is. I thought you meant only online.

When it comes to real life, meaning those I interact with day-to-day, I speak up. I have no problem taking people to task for misandrist or misogynist nonsense (though I'm more polite about it than most). I'll do my fair share of finger pointing at unruly protestors regardless of the cause (unless they're actually being civil and not causing a disturbance). In the workplace, it really isn't a problem. People conduct themselves in a professional manner.

Online... there's no point in feeding the trolls. You can't fix stupid, nor change the mindset of someone hiding behind their monitor. They thrive on responses. Our commentary allows them to further their opinion. We can report the egregious shit (to Mods here, via report links on YouTube, to Twitter, whatever) but then it's out of our hands. The mods from various sites often let the comments stay rather than infringe on the radfem's right to free speech. Blog hosts refuse to shut down the blog. YouTube might take a video down for a short time, but it's up again a in record time.

In an academic setting, well, that's a whole other game. We've tried to get profs fired for discriminating against men (grading their work lower because they're not female), and my own group held a few counter-protests that really didn't do much good. It's the academic setting that poses the most challenge. The radfems have a captive audience. People buy into their rhetoric, then graduate and turn into insufferable agitators. It's discouraging.