fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3336 ]

[ SECRET POST #3336 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3336 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #477.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What community can you name that is NOT at fault for ignoring or not responding adequately to their extremist elements?

There's not very many groups that have extremists doing things like bullying people into suicide attempts, so it's hard to think of many to compare it to. Want to name a few?

Edited 2016-02-21 21:51 (UTC)

If personal experience counts as evidence, most feminist I've talked to criticize radfems too. Most of the feminists here are appalled and disgusted at TERFs and radfems, but you seem to be purposely ignoring that because it doesn't fit into your narrative.

Even with your examples of Christians and animal rights activists, what are they doing to stop their extremists? What can they do besides denounce them? Why don't you hold them at fault for not doing more to stop other Christians or PETA from hurting people? Why are feminists only at fault?

Most of the feminists here are appalled and disgusted at TERFs and radfems, but you seem to be purposely ignoring that because it doesn't fit into your narrative.

Is there something about radfems that makes them inherently extremists? They're feminists that don't believe being trans is a real thing, correct? That's a doctrinal difference, it's not the same as being an extremist. You could, theoretically, be a casual, shallow radfem, couldn't you?

Being disgusted at others in your group for disagreeing with you on doctrine isn't the same as being appalled at extremist elements.

In fact, what you're really implying is a group divide--that they're not of the same group, or are at least in opposing sub-groups. Hating an opposing subgroup isn't the same as being willing to call out extremist elements in your own doctrinal group.

No, a TERF is the one that thinks trans people are gender traitors or evil men trying to sneak into womanhood. A radfem is by definition a radical feminist aka extremist. Usually hates men and such. But they fall under the umbrella of feminism, like it or not (and most of us do not like it and are appalled that they continue to say they're feminists when they aren't for gender equality at all).

But they fall under the umbrella of feminism, like it or not (and most of us do not like it and are appalled that they continue to say they're feminists when they aren't for gender equality at all).

To me radfems/+TERFs and modern feminists have too big a doctrinal difference to be considered of the same group. Their beliefs are very divergent and based on very different theories. I don't even think of radfems when I think of feminism.

Add in that both are very willing to play No True Scotsman and insist that the other group doesn't qualify as feminist, ("one must be intersectional to be a feminist, and so if you're racist/sexist/transphobic/etc, you're not a feminist.") and it's easy to see why it doesn't count as an instance of calling out extremist elements in your group: if you don't believe a person is a member of your group/shares values with you, then how does it count as calling out someone within your group?

If you don't think TERFs or radfems are extremists what's your definition of extremism in the context of feminism? To me "extremism" implies taking something too far (to the extreme) and radfems are pretty much the definition of that (thinking that men are evil, men should be controlled/lashed back against, men don't deserve consideration because sexism exists, stuff like that).

Edited 2016-02-21 23:08 (UTC)

If you don't think TERFs or radfems are extremists what's your definition of extremism in the context of feminism?

Radfems are basically biological existentialists, yes? That's not necessarily an extremist opinion. What is extreme is for them to advocate that male babies should be killed at birth, which some of them do.

The problem with the nonnies' mention of radfems being called out by intersectional feminists as an example of extremism being called out is that intersectional feminists call out *all* radfems because they believe they have a harmful/evil/misguided ideology. Not because "that's one of our people taking our beliefs too far.

An extremist intersectional feminist would be one with extremist views based on intersectional feminism's tenets.

(*I assume I'm using a correct and accurate term with "intersectional feminist" but if what I mean by that is unclear let me know.)

Radfems are basically biological existentialists, yes?

Er...? Radfems are the sort of feminists who believe either that women are superior to men or that men don't deserve equal status because of their collective crimes. If that's what you're going for then sure? I think it's definitely an extreme application of feminism. Society treats women as worth less than men. Feminists think of women as equal to men. Radfems elevate the status to above that of men, which is an extreme application of the goal of feminism.

An extremist intersectional feminist would be one with extremist views based on intersectional feminism's tenets.

Can you give examples of what beliefs you're talking about here that are different from those espoused by radfems?

"Gender essentialism is the idea that men and women have inherent, unique, and natural attributes that qualify them as their separate genders."

I say "sex essentialism" instead only because of radfems/TERFs views on gender and transgender people.

But basically, radfems/TERFs are gender/sex essentialists, and intersectional feminists are usually not. Gender essentialism itself isn't an "extreme application of feminism" because it's not a uniquely feminist viewpoint in the first place. Many religious fundamentalists are gender essentialists, for instance, and aren't feminist in the slightest.

Can you give examples of what beliefs you're talking about here that are different from those espoused by radfems?

Are you familiar with the concept of intersectional feminism?

So when you said "biological existentialism" what you meant was "gender essentialism". I really don't know if I was supposed to pick up on that since the former term is one I've actually never heard. I am familiar with the concept of gender essentialism and reject it because it's pretty contrary to feminism. The idea that people cannot be trans is only one component of gender essentialism and arguably the only one TERFs definitely espouse (some might buy into it more, but I think it varies from what I've seen), and also, I was talking about radfems in general, not TERFs specifically, but if you want to talk about TERFs we can do that. However, from the standpoint of talking about radfems in general as taking the tenets of feminism to the extreme, I still think that is true.

Are you familiar with the concept of intersectional feminism?

Yes...can you give examples, please?

So when you said "biological existentialism" what you meant was "gender essentialism". I really don't know if I was supposed to pick up on that since the former term is one I've actually never heard."

It's a self-explanatory term, especially when used in the context of radfems, who base their arguments on biological differences. I don't really see the need to make a distinction between radfems and TERFs, because from what I've seen of radfem idealogy, it's transphobic in its basis whether they embrace the term trans-exclusionary or not.

Yes...can you give examples [of intersectional feminism], please?

From Wikipedia: "Intersectionality holds that the classical conceptualizations of oppression within society—such as racism, sexism, classism, ableism, biphobia, homophobia, transphobia, and belief-based bigotry—do not act independently of each other. Instead, these forms of oppression interrelate, creating a system of oppression that reflects the "intersection" of multiple forms of discrimination."

Ergo you have intersectional feminists, who understand that you cannot tackle sexism/gender inequality and defeat it separately: you have to attack oppression on all fronts.

If you categorically decide to ignore the oppression certain groups face, you're not an intersectional feminist. Radfems blatantly reject fighting transphobic oppression, so they're hardly intersectional feminists, are they?

Ok, I'm really not sure we're on the same page. Let me back up a sec.

Above you said radfems are categorically distinct from intersectional feminists, with which I partly disagree - there are some ideological distinctions but there is also an ideological spectrum, which is why I think the term "extremist" applies to radfems in comparison to intersectional feminists.

Then you made a claim: "An extremist intersectional feminist would be one with extremist views based on intersectional feminism's tenets."

To clarify: I'm asking for examples of what you call "extremists intersectional feminists", not examples of intersectional feminism in general. How would those views, as opposed to the views of feminism in general (e.g. gender equality) be taken to an extreme in a way that's distinct from the beliefs of radfems?

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2016-02-25 02:36 (UTC) - Expand

TERFs are biological existentialists. A TERF is a subset of radfem.

Shit, I meant "biological essentialist". That's what I get for using auto-correct.

Now I'm kind of curious if there are any actual biological existentialists...

They're biological essentialists, too. You're genderqueer, right? To them you'd either be a female at birth gender traitor, or a male at birth trying to sneak onto their side, nothing in between.

That IS taking feminism and gender equality to an extreme, making it out to be a zero-sum game of two genders only which are always in a competition where women must 'beat' men to achieve equality due to men historically being the winners, instead of working at cooperation for the future.

I'm familiar with how the TERFs view me, yes XD

That IS taking feminism and gender equality to an extreme, making it out to be a zero-sum game of two genders only which are always in a competition where women must 'beat' men to achieve equality due to men historically being the winners, instead of working at cooperation for the future.

I went into this more in my reply to diet_poison, but basically I see gender essentialist beliefs as so common, and hardly distinct to feminism, that I find it hard to view that as an example of feminist extremism in itself. Religious fundamentalists and Redpillers have the same gender essentialist views, and those views aren't taken as an example of extreme feminism in them, so why would it be the case for radfems?

That IS taking feminism and gender equality to an extreme, making it out to be a zero-sum game of two genders only which are always in a competition where women must 'beat' men to achieve equality due to men historically being the winners, instead of working at cooperation for the future.

Emphasis mine.

That's why it's feminist extremism, it's all about gender equality taken to an extreme. Gender equality is a feminist fundamental.

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2016-02-22 01:16 (UTC) - Expand

SA

I thought of an example I'm sure you're familiar with.

"There's a special place in Hell for women who don't help each other [and vote for Hillary Clinton]."

Qualifies as a radical feminist statement, as it reduces a presidental race into a single point: gender. Above all else.

Feminists all over the political spectrum decried that remark until Albright apologized and Hillary tellingly didn't.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-02-22 00:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-02-22 00:29 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

diet_poison - 2016-02-22 18:59 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-02-23 07:14 (UTC) - Expand

Shit, I meant "biological essentialist".

Thanks for clarifying. (Not being sarcastic. I was really confused by "biological existentialist")

What the fuck? It may be a doctrinal difference, but it's an extreme one. Therefore, TERFs are extremists. Fuck's wrong with you?

Christian - KKK
Christian - Anti abortion terrorism
White people - white power groups, stormfront
Animal rights - PETA, ALF
Islam - ISIS
Feminists - TERFs & radfems
Men - MRA

I could go on? Do you want me to?

Pretty sure most Christians these days aren't apologists for the KKK. Most white people seem disgusted by neonazies and blatant white supremacists.

ALF rarely comes up but I've known lots of environmentalists that were willing to express their disgust for PETA and never made excuses for it.

Feminists - TERFs & radfems

Funny you mention TERFs & radfems. You're making it look like a doctrinal split once again--modern feminists VS radfems. That's not an indication that feminists are willing to call out extremist elements within their own group, that's evidence of two subgroups with opposing doctrinal beliefs being willing to label the other as evil and misguided.

Men - MRA

That one doesn't even make sense. That would be like you going "Women - Feminism". Very few men identify as MRAs. We're talking about people calling out extremist elements of groups they belong to.

You're making it look like a doctrinal split once again--modern feminists VS radfems. That's not an indication that feminists are willing to call out extremist elements within their own group, that's evidence of two subgroups

You are literally making up your own interpretation of feminist reality that does not mesh with the understanding everyone else in this thread is operating on. Yet you seem to expect we're going to accept your interpretation over our own, and engage with you in a way that adheres to your own contrarian view of these issues.

But, like, no, we're not going to do that (at least I'm not). Because, from what I can see, most of us don't agree with several of the basic suppositions from which you are basing your arguments.

(at least I'm not

Of course you're not. You made a list and every single item was shown to be based on faulty reasoning. I'm not surprised you're creating an excuse so you can to bail out and avoid acknowledging you were wrong. Don't worry, I don't judge you for it nonny.

Edited 2016-02-22 01:56 (UTC)

Lol, nice try. I'm a different anon from the one who made that list.

I agree with their examples, and I think your ability to think clearly and logically is extremely compromised by your huge bias in this area, but I'm not the one who tossed out those examples. Or have you not realized that almost everybody in this thread disagrees with you? It's not just one person ganging up on you blitz; your warped ideas about this subject really are just that unpopular.

Also, I just want to take a moment to appreciate how hard you're projecting here, accusing me of creating excuses to bail, when you are basically saying "YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE YOUR LIST IS WRONG AND YOU'RE BUTTHURT I PROVED IT!" when A) it's not my list, B) that was my first comment in this thread, and C) saying those items were based on faulty reasoning does not make it true. So remind me again...who's creating excuses to bail? I'd say "I don't judge you for it" blitzy, but I'm really not that disingenuous.

Bottom line: People in this thread have already contested your illogical viewpoints, multiple times, and I've been watching you do all kinds of amusing contortions in order to deny the validity of their arguments. So no, I don't think I'll repeat their well articulated arguments for your willfully deaf ears. I'm happy to simply point and laugh.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only