What do do about "good" feminists.

[Maquox]

Hey there everyone.

 

I know it's sometimes hard to believe because the media focuses too much on the batshit crazy ones, but in my experience I've interacted with a whole lot of rational, actually-looking-for-equality feminists.

That is to say, they are against all forms of abuse based on gender including the draft, unequal access to be with your children after divorce, etc.

 

They also recognise child abuse as the way by which gender (and other) abuse is perpetuated in society.

So, in short, they are allies in my eyes.

What do you feel would be a good way of separating these nice, egalitarian feminists from people like Anita Sarkeesian?

Thanks for your time. ♥

[Wuzzums]

What do you mean by "separating"?

[Mister Mister]

my feeling is these are all nice thoughts, but it means nothing if they aren't willing to push back against misandry and lies and authortiarian/statist feminists.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

If they're just as big on male issues, why do they call themselves feminists? Why wouldn't they identify as males rights activists?

 

I don't know how or why it's up to you to separate them if they chose to identify with a movement which is inhabited with lots of insane and violent people. It seems cowardly for them not to clearly and openly differentiate themselves from such a lot of people. 

 

How well do you actually know these good feminists and do you know why they chose such a cringe worthy label?

[dsayers]

looking-for-equality feminists.

Contradiction in terms. It's like saying "gender focused push for an absence of gender focus." I think that if somebody wanted for gender equality, they would not self-apply a label that excludes a gender. Does that make sense?

[Catalyst]

Hey there everyone.

 

I know it's sometimes hard to believe because the media focuses too much on the batshit crazy ones, but in my experience I've interacted with a whole lot of rational, actually-looking-for-equality feminists.

 

That is to say, they are against all forms of abuse based on gender including the draft, unequal access to be with your children after divorce, etc.

 

They also recognise child abuse as the way by which gender (and other) abuse is perpetuated in society.

 

So, in short, they are allies in my eyes.

 

What do you feel would be a good way of separating these nice, egalitarian feminists from people like Anita Sarkeesian?

 

Thanks for your time. ♥

Finding a way to separate good feminists and bad feminists is going by identity politics.

I believe you have the assumption that if they are an x-type of feminist then they must believe in one thing and are bad or good (based on your beliefs) versus if they are y-type feminists which they also have a tenant of beliefs which you find bad or good.

I think worrying about the identity of the feminist or worrying if someone is a feminist is irrelevant.

 

A person like Anita has bad idea and that is all that she should be recognized for, not being a feminist. A person like Christina Hoff Sommers should be recognized for having good ideas. Yes, they are both feminists and different kind, but by playing identity politics it creates too much stereotyping, which has the potential to make assumptions, mislead, or create labels about the person instead of reading into and judging the ideas themselves. (more concern for who the person is rather than what the ideas are).

 

Basically I think someone being called a feminist is redundant, just good or bad ideas is what matters. That is what the separation should be. I hope I answered your question.