Edit: I dont mean to say all fems are like this, I mainly mean Rad Fems. As I understand your trying to say feminists are against rad fems, you have to understand your voices are not heard. And while your voices are not heard, theirs are. Now as you would wish to call them a TURF, in the the end of the day they are Feminists. You cant change that. They are FEMINISTS. To say they are not real feminists, is a no true scotsman. I wont say your a bad person by association, because your a feminist. I will only judge by personal action. Not all are bad, but I speak of the bad ones and the bad ones alone. Now, in the end there I feel you were trying to shame me by association. Saying it is funny I make my comparisons, while MRA's dont shame something anti's do. If that was not the case I apologize. But, in all honesty, it does appear to be what you were doing. Shaming some one may be effective in a debate, but it is just as shameful, as whatever you perceived them to do. I dont need an apology, but do let me know if I got it all wrong. Id rather it be you were not trying to silence me.
Off the bat if you actually looked at what I had to say then you would see, Bendel was a few typos. After proof reading I did correctly say Bindel on plenty of points in the post. Though it may not be prooven, I am assuming you did not read, or paid very little attention to my post. Or at least, I feel that way. You had seen the name, recognized her and instantly jumped to say something. Deciding not to afford me the time, even if I was right. Because my opinion is different, I am automatically wrong. In fact, you did not for a second try to refute any of my points. But merely jumped to a no true scotsman fallacy, saying feminists are not like one way, when you cant speak for them all. I dont say all feminists are bad, and if I ever allude to or say as such I assure you it was a heated moment for I do not feel ALL of something is all ONE WAY or ANOTHER. I know there are exceptions. Any way, your Stating "OH but she is condemned rapidly." With no evidence towards as such. Why? Because she is NOT. At least not publicly. And if there are feminists against her, or others like her, as I am certain there are. NONE have the platform to speak. And if they did they would be publicly ridiculed for being against women, as any feminists that disagreed with a more outspoken and radical feminist has. IE, Christina Hof Summers. Im not saying, never did, that it is her actions SPECIFICALLY that made the term feminazi. That would be redundant.
Hey how about International Castration day folks!http://www.politicalforum.com/womens-rights/346066-all-men-should-castrated-international-castration-day.html
Or pulling fire alarms, to silence open dialogue, which has a right to exist with freedom of speech. A part of freedom which feminists would abolish towards their ideologies, if given the choice.
A man openly ruined for his shirt.
But know what, how do you expect things to be any different with these people. They have a Blik, a social lens. Let's imagine a pair of goggles, and when you wear them everything you see, is what you WANT it to be. Things that dont support what you believe to be true, are twisted in your head, and when you cant see anything that can obviously be twisted you look closely wherever you can just to find something. ANYTHING, you can twist, point out, or find. That is a blik, and it is the entire basis of how rad feminism cling's to dear life. Hell, Anita Sarkesian said this her self in a talk among other prominent feminists. No one refuted her. She said, you have to look in a social lens, everything is sexist, this and that and you HAVE to point it all out. She admitted she looks through a blik, and everyone else on that stage admitted on default for not speaking against such a policy. Sadly, I only have a clip from the other half of her quote, stating everything is sexist and such. If you want to hear her say, you have to look at life through a social lens, Id recommend listening to the whole panel, as she DID say that. I just cant find a clip of her doing it, without giving you a 20 minute video. Sorry.
It's not about making things equal any more, it's about staying relevant with a false narrative that everything is sexist and wrong. So that they (They being rad fems) can feel relevant in the west. When in reality, they are not relevant at all here. ESPECIALLY, when women and people of color are deemed more important then white or male. As if, because your white and or male you have no right to a dialogue and you are the problem. It's exactly what the nazi's did to the jews. They pointed and said, "Look, they are the problem in society. They corrupt it, they make it TOXIC, they are our countries issue. Let's eradicate them." The nazi's devalued jews, made them look inhuman and wrong, so that so many of their people hated the jews that any one with a lick of sense were to few in number to do anything. And why would they want to do anything when they would be killed or publicly condemned for protecting jews? THAT IS HOW IT HAPPENED. The country did not wake up one day and decide Hitler was right. It took time, it took effort to make their people believe that Jews were inherently a problem to society. Can you really say feminism at this point is any different? When they say men are toxic, evil, and rapists by nature? That white people are a issue in society and keep colored individuals down? Women and people of color are systematically oppressed, even though plenty are in western politics. But thats the thing, it wouldn't matter how many women or people of other ethnicity's there are that are successful or in power, because as long as there is one male, or white person in any position of power then there must be a patriarchy. This is not eqaulity, this is segregation. Feminism is making men and white people their bad guy, their villian. The common enemy to rise against. Just like the Nazi's, who did so to, the jews. thank god they are not the majority.
You're also wrong on both why "feminazi" exists and how it's used. It was popularized by Rush Limbaugh (though he credits a friend with coining it), defined as “a feminist to whom the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur”. This is, for the record, a set with zero members. When he decided to cite examples of "feminazis", he came up with such radical kill-all-men examples as Gloria Steinem and Susan Sarandon. So no, it doesn't exist to describe people like Julie Bindel. It exists to smear all feminists by claiming they just want to cause abortions and casually linking them to the best-known genocide in human history. In short, "feminazi" basically means "feminist as defined by someone who hates feminism".
It's used... pretty much that way today.
Ya I know Rush said it, but it is POPULARIZED for a number of different reasons. My description is simply stating why the connotation is NOT wrong. For someone acting like I am an idiot, you sure lack evidence to prove feminists are not like this. When I have and can continue to provide evidence on the matter. (Edit, dont have to disregard that statement. But upon re reading this post I feel it was unfair, and redundant to say as such. IE; that you didnt provide evidence of them not being bad. It is redundant due to the fact you werent trying to disproove they exist but merely trying to say they are laughed out by 'real feminists.') Lol, and I said already that it is used as a term to silence FEMINISTS, so the links you sent (Edit:About how feminazi is meant to silence feminists.) are pointless. Feminazi is no different then Misogynist, Neckbeared, over priviliaged white boy. Oh ya, there is a difference. It is different to
(Edit: Them) because it is used against feminism, and any ideology that silences all others that disagree with it on a daily bases should be untouchable right? There should be laws against criticizing it. http://www.infostormer.com/un-wants-to-censor-internet-to-prevent-feminists-from-suffering-hurt-feelings/
. Oh ya thats happening, The un is considering this shit. What is Anita Sarkesian identifying as harassement online for the UN to recognize as ilegal? "Harassment is not just what is legal or ilegal. It is not just the threats of violence it is also the day to day grind that you are a liar, you suck." Etc. She is trying to get the un to make criticism of any kind, be it in good or bad taste, illegal. I understand threats of violence, but the attempt of extending it to accusations of being a liar? Or something as simple as you suck? Sounds an awful lot like trying to SILENCE, CRITICISM'S. Everything is open to criticism my dear, be it in good or bad taste. If your feelings are hurt, I am sorry. But under the constitution I have every right to say "Anita, You are a liar. You dont actually play games and have openly admitted as such on video years before your non profit organization. Your just trying to manipulate feminists, you suck." But as it seems. For now on, calling out a feminist on their bullshit for saying they are a liar, counts as cyber violence. And this is the same women that thinks, everything is sexist, everything is misogynist, everything is homophobic. And you have to point it all out. Ha ha, wow Anita, what a hypocrite. Her and Zoey quin are actually calling out to the UN, right now, for laws. With Chinese style internet Censorship that would shut down anyone. Who hurts their feelings, by disagreeing with them on the internet.
The un, and I quote: Concluded the political and government bodies needed to use their Licensing Prerogative to better protect human and womens rights. (Notice how for some reason they couldn't just leave it at human.) By only granting licenses to those telecoms and search engines whom. "Supervise content, and it's dissemination." http://www.infostormer.com/un-wants-to-censor-internet-to-prevent-feminists-from-suffering-hurt-feelings/
Translated: They will only allow one to connect to content, if it is supervised, and filtered. Like the Chinese government does, with anything that the government does NOT want their people to see or know about. It is a form of THOUGHT CONTROL. So if a search engine does not comply with UN mandated feminist harassment policies, and dont censor out any form of anti feminist content, they will be shut down. Meaning one cant even say a feminist is a liar, with out breaking internet laws. The likes of Facebook, Twitter, or youtube are to quote; Proactively police it's every profile and post. And if you think that is, unimaginable. Then just look at Canada, where a man now faces a 6 month sentence, for the horrible crime of simply disagreeing with feminists on twitter. 54 year old, Greg Elliot was also banned from using the internet for the duration of his trial. And more then likely, his sentence, if he is found guilty of any crimes. And if you think it wont be that bad when the UN try's to push this agenda, remember this is all done by an agency that appointed Saudi Arabia to head a key pro human rights panel. The same country, that is currently CRUCIFYING, a young girl, for anti government hate speech.
EDIT: Something I meant to touch on but forgot: I find it funny that one fringe character that happens to fail at feminism is justification for calling feminists Nazis, but at least four well-known anti-feminists murdering people en masse isn't enough to slur the "men's rights" movement that way. I wonder why that might be.
Ha ha ha. I never said I was an MRA. I am egalitarian, I dont support the rights of one sex over the other but search for equality between the two. I dont focus on men or women. Like MRA's or feminists. And I find it so funny how you try to do that right there, you just shamed me. You know Hilary Clinton excepted money from Iran and it's organizations? You know Hilary is a supporter to planned parenthood, baby butchers that sell their parts on the black market? How does being shamed by association feel? Bitter I take it. You know what, your proving me right. Every one, notice while I did make facts in my first post and simply critiqued a feminist that is not publicly villianized for her views. And instead of talking about anything specific, or refuting me on anything I said this person goes straight to shaming me. His/Her (Edited that, sorry I didnt notice your a liege.), post showed that she would rather tell me to take it at faith that no one agrees with Julie Bindel, without any evidence of it publicly happening. (Edit, thats my issue. I know people are calling her out. I am speaking, PUBLICALLY. Ie, news, social media.) This person wanted to shame me. Know it or not, thats what you just did. This person wanted to silence me. (Edit, know it or not, that is what you just did.) See, she is grabbing things and trying to point me in a negative light. And now in her little edit, she outright try's to ridicule me as some one who would not pay attention to the crimes of men, as if I dont pay attention to the crimes of BOTH sexes. This is for the soul purpose of silencing me, shaming me. Because, if I am shameful who would listen? This is no different then what social science teaches today in it's schools and classes. They are taking straight from the play book of mass public manipulation, Saul Alinsky's magnum opus, Rules for Radicals. Here, allow me to tell you about the book. It is a fascinating look into the tactics of a feminist. I know for a fact they use this book, I have friends who are told to read this book in their own Social Science classes.
Straight from Wikipedia:Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals is the late work of community organizer Saul D. Alinsky, and his last book, published in 1971 shortly before his death. His goal for the Rules for Radicals was to create a guide for future community organizers to use in uniting low-income communities, or "Have-Nots", in order to empower them to gain social, political, legal and economic equality by challenging the current agencies that promoted their inequality. Within it, Alinsky compiled the lessons he had learned throughout his personal experiences of community organizing spanning from 1939-1971 and targeted these lessons at the current, new generation of radicals.
The Rules behind Saul Alinsky's methods.
“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
The main theme throughout Rules for Radicals and Alinsky’s work was empowerment of the poor. Alinsky used symbol construction and nonviolent conflict to create a structured organization with a clearly defined goal that could take direct action against a common enemy. At this point, Alinsky would withdraw from the organization to allow their progress to be powered by the community itself, not by Alinsky. This empowered the organizations he worked with to create change for whatever issue they were battling. Symbol construction, nonviolent conflict, direct action, and empowerment of the poor were the main themes of Alinsky’s work in organizer, and whether reading Rules for Radicals, or examining his work directly, they can be distinctly observed within every community he organized.
Rules for Radicals is dedicated by Saul Alinsky to the original radical, Lucifer - also known as Satan, the Devil, The Old Serpent, and The Dragon (Rev. 12:2; 20:2). In this book is found the following: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."
A few other quotes of the man:
[t]he job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a 'dangerous enemy.'" According to Alinsky, "the hysterical instant reaction of the establishment [will] not only validate [the organizer's] credentials of competency but also ensure automatic popular invitation."
In an interview for play boy, when asked if he would rather go to heaven or hell, he stated:
ALINSKY: ... if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.
ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I've been with the have-nots. Over here, if you're a have-not, you're short of dough. If you're a have-not in hell, you're short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I'll start organizing the have-nots over there.
PLAYBOY: Why them?
ALINSKY: They're my kind of people.
So ya, our youth in college are told to read the life's work of a man. That dedicates his book on manipulating others, to the original evil. Be you religious or not, it is straight creepy to dedicate your last book to the universal figure head of pain and torment. Oh ya and Saul Alinsky was friends with Hilary Clinton. He was in fact a mentor to her.
Edit: I dont mean to say all fems are like this, I mainly mean Rad Fems. As I understand your trying to say feminists are against rad fems, you have to understand your voices are not heard. And while your voices are not heard, theirs are. Now as you would wish to call them a TURF, in the the end of the day they are Feminists. You cant change that. They are FEMINISTS. To say they are not real feminists, is a no true scotsman. I wont say your a bad person by association, because your a feminist. I will only judge by personal action. Not all are bad, but I speak of the bad ones and the bad ones alone. Now, in the end there I feel you were trying to shame me by association, by mentioning MRA's and something anti fems did. If that was not the case I apologize. But, in all honesty, it does appear to be what you were doing. Shaming some one may be effective in a debate, but it is just as shameful, as whatever you perceived them to do.