Interesting comment by Ginko….
“When we hear that feminism is not a monolith, this is what it means. It (means) that no, not everyone has the same views, especially the odious ones, but no one is willing to come out and denounce those odioius views and distance themselves from them. And that means there really is no distance between those odious views, is there?
And this is not some impossible standard that no one else is held to. Nationalist or ethnic identity movements sooner or later have to cut their racist elements loose, which is pretty hard for them to do because nationalism is almost always ultimately racist. The only way it really works is if the ethnic pride movement reaches out and advocates for others, especially whatever group they were vilifying. So likewise for a feminist to prove to me she is not a man-hater, she has to at least talk like an MRA.”
Chuck Rudd analysis an article by Amanda Marcotte here.
“People like Marcotte remind us every day that feminists are not monolithic. According to them, one cannot characterize a feminist’s philosophy or values based only on her feminist label. Unfortunately, Marcotte doesn’t extend the same flexibility to MRAs, and she even forgets her leniency for certain feminists. She focuses on four issues and constructs the most extreme MRA argument to support her disdain for the group and posits a soft brand of feminism while pretending that feminism was created for everyone rather than just for women.”
So how come that bigot with the flashing sarcasm button lumps everyone who thinks “men are people too” as a large monolithic group of stupid, red neck misogynists (even the women)?