fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2518 ]

[ SECRET POST #2518 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2518 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 060 secrets from Secret Submission Post #360.
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

NAYRT and I personally think MRA are the shit of the world, but I do notice 1 flaw in your argument: MRAs are to men's issues as Radfems are to feminism

In the early years of the movement, all feminists were radical out of necessity. given how laughable the world (rightly) finds 'mens issues' they might be able to argue the same "We have to be radical to be herd" mindset?

Once more for clarification, I do not agree with this mind set. In my mind the existence of MRAs justify the existence of testicular cancer. Just playing devils advocate.

early feminists were not radfems in the sense that term has had in the ~last 30 years. they were, by the standards of the time, extremely radical, and they were feminists, but in terms of their actual positions, they were not Radfems - in fact they were by our standards extremely moderate and even conservative. that's kind of how time and politics work, I guess.

More to the point, I think the force of the analogy is not just about radicalism; it's about extremist idiots within each movement. I think it's reasonable to say that radfems and MRAs play basically the same role with respect to the feminist movement and the men's right movement (whatever you want to call it); the problem is that the latter is a lot less developed, so the radical idiots are more pronounced, but that doesn't mean they're not idiots.

Don't have much to argue with in your post, but I invite you to remember Emily Davison, one of the greatest heroes of feminism, who committed a very public suicide for the cause. It was obviously necessary, but let's be honest, that's pretty fucking radical.

What?

It was necessary? how? and from what I'm reading it's not even clearly a suicide

Well not necessary that she die, obviously, but it was necessary for radical action to be taken, because this was in 1903 (I think. somewhere around that era) and serious action needed to be taken for the movement to be taken seriously.
How do you not know this? This really is feminism 101.

And she Threw herself under a fucking horse to protest the inequality how is that not clearly suicide?

I'm sorry, do we need to know details about a certain list of historical women in order to keep our feminist cards? lol

Her Wikipedia article says it was dubious whether she was trying to kill herself or just grab the bridle of the horse or attach something to it. I'm overall rather puzzled as to what it would accomplish in any case. You don't just go "I'm going to be a martyr for my cause!" and find a public way to off yourself, you do it for a reason. The motivation for that particular action to me seems to be lacking.

I should have read your thing first, but that's not even the case.

If she said "i'm going to be a martyr for my cause!" then at least it'd make sense and be clear she intended to die. If you don't make that clear, well, you just have what we have today.

Anon, the onus is on you to show she intended to die, because... objective historical facts disagree with you that this was a clear intention. And one would assume somebody who intended to die so publicly would, you know, leave a note or make a speech or scream out what she was doing as she ran on the goddamn tracks or something.

Edited 2013-11-25 05:46 (UTC)

Emily Davidson wasn't a martyr. Or if she was she didn't make it clear. It looks more like she miscalculated grabbing a horse or putting something on one and got trampled to death by said horse instead on account of doing something stupid (daring and bold certainly, but standing infront of a charging horse is not a smart idea). There appears to be some debate on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Davison

"The most recent theory is that she intended to throw a "votes for women" sash around the neck of the King's horse to gain publicity for her cause. A sash apparently found at the scene immediately after the collision was recently purchased at auction by author Barbara Gorna, the closest losing bidder being the Jockey Club, and now hangs in the Houses of Parliament. This theory received support from a 2013 examination of the incident, in which forensic experts examined and correlated footage captured by three different newsreel cameras, and determined that Davison was much closer to the start of the bend than had been previously assumed, and so would have had a much clearer view of the oncoming horses than previously thought.[5] It concluded that Davison, who clearly carried in her hand something that could have been the folded Votes for Women sash as she ducked under a barrier and onto the course, did intend to attach it to the king's horse, and that there was no question of her deliberately throwing herself under the horse.

However, in his 2013 book The Suffragette Derby, Tanner examined the provenance of this 'sash', which is in fact a scarf, and found it wanting: its original owner, Richard Pittway Burton, was not Epsom's Clerk of the Course, as claimed, but an East End docker with no racing connection whatsoever. Nor, he argued, could the article in Davison's hand be safely identified as a scarf in the first place: the evidence was skewed to suit. In a letter to the 'Racing Post' Tanner went on to deplore the reiteration of 'several myths' attached to Davison that he had debunked in his book, and expressed deep reservations about the film footage analysis, stressing once more that 'from her position wedged tight against the rail, Davison would need to have been on a 20-foot ladder to have seen over the heads of the people to her right and then the leading bunch of 9 horses to single out the figure of Anmer hidden behind...she was already ducking under the rail as the first horses passed and had missed two-thirds of the field altogether - which for all she knew may have contained Anmer. It was pure chance that she stumbled upon Anmer.'"

However... If it was an intentional suicide, it was poorly thought out. She didn't announce her intentions nor leave any sort of clarification as to why she did it. If she intended death by horse to emphasize the point, it wasn't very apparent. Nor frankly does getting trampled at the horse really make you think "hmmm, these ladies seem to make a good point!" so much as "good lord that bird's balmy"

TL;DR: no suicide note, no speech or indication to anybody beforehand it was intentional suicide, no evidence that makes it clear. you say she martyr'd herself? Prove it.

Edited 2013-11-25 05:47 (UTC)

RADFEMS ARE NOT "FEMINISTS WHO ARE RADICAL." IT'S A SPECIFIC FACTION. THEY TEND TO ACTUALLY HATE MEN AND BY EXTENSION TRANSWOMEN. YOU KNOW THAT "POLITICAL LESBIANISM" BULLSHIT? WHEN IDIOTS CLAIMED YOU CAN CHOOSE YOUR ORIENTATION ACCORDING TO YOUR POLITICS? THAT'S FROM SOME OF THEM. THEY ALSO DIDN'T EXIST UNTIL THE LATE 60s. REFERENCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism#Ideology_emerges_and_diverges

YOU ARE PROBABLY A DUMBASS RADFEM TRYING TO REDEFINE THE WORD. GO BACK TO THE FUCKING WOMYN'S FESTIVAL AND LET THE REST OF US DRAG YOU KICKING AND SCREAMING INTO SOMETHING APPROACHING PROGRESS.

Edited 2013-11-25 05:38 (UTC)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2518 ]

Re: MRAs

Re: MRAs

Re: MRAs

Re: MRAs

Re: MRAs

Re: MRAs

Re: MRAs

What

OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE