• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    61 year ago

    You’re not going to argue equality away by bringing up the worst people you can think of associated with the movement. There is no substance to arguments based on ad hominem character attacks. I don’t care how transphobic someone is, feminism is about equality for women. There is nothing misandrist about wanting to be equal to men in society. And here is a reality check for you, no one needs to be nice, or have a good public perception, to get human rights. Our rights are supposed to be something you get for being human.

    • @Dark_Blade
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      The ‘worst people’ shape the image of the movement. The core of the argument still doesn’t change, no matter what you say. The ones defining feminism as ‘women who hate men’ aren’t misogynists alone; it’s the misandrists within the movement itself.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        No the worst people of the movement are used be the people who don’t like the movement to discredited the movement. An ad hominem argument will always be a substanceless ad hominem argument. The image of the movement isn’t what’s important, it’s the substance of its arguments. Wanting equality with other people is not hatred of those people.

        • @Dark_Blade
          link
          11 year ago

          Again, this whole thread was about the image of the movement, and the culpability of misandrist feminists in painting an image of feminists as ‘women who hate men’. In this particular thread, the ‘image of the movement’ is literally the core topic of discussion.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            I would recommend checking the meme again. It’s about not letting men who hate women define feminism as women who hate men. This is a question about what feminism is, not its image or public perception. And misandrist feminists couldn’t be more off-topic.

            • @Dark_Blade
              link
              11 year ago

              Misandrist feminists couldn’t be more on-topic if they tried, since it’s their actions that provide the vast majority of the fuel for feminism’s perception as a misandrist movement. They, as members of the movement, define it far more than external factors like ‘men who hate women’.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                The actions of a minority of individuals in a movement do not define what the larger movement is. A movement is also not defined by the people who seek to misrepresent the movement to others. The actions of the majority of the people in the movement are what defines it. Arguments directed at individuals, especially those individuals that do not represent the larger movement, neither change what the movement is nor are they compelling.

                I personally recommend the hierarchy of disagreement. Arguments that focus on the refutation of arguments will be more compelling than those directed at the people giving the arguments.

                https://themindcollection.com/revisiting-grahams-hierarchy-of-disagreement/

                • @Dark_Blade
                  link
                  11 year ago

                  In that case, maybe you should’ve replied to the post itself to argue that ‘men who hate women’ can’t possibly define the movement, rather than this long defense of feminism and how only the majority of the movement can define it (which isn’t entirely true either)

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    2
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    maybe you should’ve replied to the post itself to argue that ‘men who hate women’ can’t possibly define the movement

                    I’ve been doing that. Your comments specifically seemed a good place to start.

                    Individual people can certainly try to define a movement, but the voices of the majority of people in the movement are going to best represent what the movement actually is. Most sizable movements inevitably have some bad actors that do not represent the majority of people in the movement. If we judged every movement by its worst individuals we would never have any kind of social change at all. edit: spacing