Social Question

SecondHandStoke's avatar

"Radical" feminists vs. the transgendered: What are your thoughts?

Asked by SecondHandStoke (9492points) August 1st, 2014

I have just read this article in the New Yorker.

Is this the way the feminist mentality will finally be dismantled in public opinion?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

15 Answers

janbb's avatar

There is no one “feminist mentality” and radical feminists – who also probably do not speak with one voice – do not speak for all feminists. We invent binary systems because we are more comfortable with black and white than grey but there is still room for a feminist movement in this country. The feminism I know is the “free to be…you and me” philosophy with room for all at the table.

ragingloli's avatar

These particular specimen, I do not consider feminists.
I consider them egomaniacs. They have lost all empathy with groups other than themselves, and demand a monopoly on suffering.

Blondesjon's avatar

What the penguin said.

I’ll join you at the table. What are we having?

canidmajor's avatar

“What the penguin said” for me, too. To compare what the article calls “radical feminists” to regular people that are concerned with equal treatment for women is like comparing Westboro Baptist Church members to theists that aren’t affiliated with organized religion.

Lack of compassion for the members of any group that has to overcome so many hurdles to simply find happiness is wicked. We should all be helping each other. And yes, I know how sappy that sounds, but sometimes the simplest of good motives is the most powerful.

dappled_leaves's avatar

There is not even a single definition of “radical feminist”. I appreciate what the author says about transgendered women not “feeling our pain” – I’ve been through this with friends of various sexuality and gender expressing their femininity before. But I don’t see any reason why we can’t all agree that equality is a need and a goal that every one of us shares (including straight men). That is the very point of feminism, after all.

Blondesjon's avatar

@canidmajor. . . Often the simplest answers/motives are the hardest to achieve.

canidmajor's avatar

And, @Blondesjon, just how screwed an example of irony is that?

Jaxk's avatar

Sounds like there’s trouble in paradise. All these splinter groups are beginning to break down and hate each other. Apparently it’s not enough to claim victim status but it’s important to note, what kind of victim. Way too many layers for me.

Response moderated
DrasticDreamer's avatar

I hope the “feminist mentality” isn’t dismantled, as feminism still serves a purpose. There is no equating radical feminism with feminism in general. Every single group on the planet ends up having radicals or splinter groups – because people don’t, nor will they ever – completely agree on anything. And yes, of course there are layers, because life is not black and white. Discussion, in any form, is the key to understanding. Closing your mind off from things because they’re “too complicated” will never enable you to learn. No single person is an expert about anything… it requires a collective effort to grasp and understand most things in life. Even infuriating people/opinions serve a purpose on the road to enlightenment.

jerv's avatar

This proves why radicals are silly yet dangerous, whether they be feminists, Conservatives, Furries, or what-have-you.

@Jaxk The same is true of Republicans and Christians as of about a decade ago, but especially noticeable now. The former cite “War against Business”, while the latter cite “War against God”, but it’s really the same sort of in-fighting.

Jaxk's avatar

This question brings to light a trend among liberals that I’ve been struggling to define. Liberals and/or Democrats seem to be exclusionary depending on birth conditions. Kind of a reverse royalty thing. If your not born into a certain category or victim group, you can’t play a part in it.

Justice Sotomayor made this point when she said (I’m paraphrasing) ‘a wise Latina woman will make better decisions. In other words the conditions of here birth made her better. Justice Ginsberg made the same point recently by saying the men on the court had a blindspot on the Hobby Lobby decision. In both cases the point was, they were born women and therefore had better insight. During the last election, Romney was criticized constantly because he was born rich. Apparently you must be born poor to understand the poor. I have seen many times on this very site where liberals state that men should not even be allowed to argue the abortion issue. It’s not the position they take but rather the fact that they were born men that disqualifies them. Now we are looking at an issue where women don’t want anyone that was not born a woman to be included in their cause. It seems that liberals are moving down the path of birth right entitlement.

It didn’t used to be that way. During the civil rights movement everyone was welcome. It had to do with you ideas, your philosophy. If you believed in civil rights you were welcome. You didn’t have to be born black to participate.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@Jaxk That’s why these women are termed as “radical feminists”, because most people – liberals included – realize that safe, open discussion and participation, from multiple people, are the requirements for true progression. I also think that there’s a difference between saying, “you’re a man, you can’t talk about abortion!” vs., “As a man, you may not have quite the same knowledge/experience as a woman”. That doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to talk about it, it just means that you should probably acknowledge that your understanding of that particular issue isn’t going to be as intimate as a female’s might be. There’s nothing wrong with it, either.

Just like as a white person, I fully acknowledge racism, but I will never, in any way, be able to personally understand it the way that a lot of minorities do, because I haven’t lived it to the same degree they have. That doesn’t mean I’m completely ignorant, it just means that my reality isn’t the same.

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk That behavior isn’t limited to just “Liberals” either. Those who consider it acceptable to exclude, dismiss, or denigrate based on economic status, political affiliation, nation of origin, age, or just out of sheer ego would never admit that they or those who agree with them could ever even think of engaging in such behaviour, but both sides do it. To imply otherwise is offensively false.
Society in general has become a bit nastier, especially within the last decade though; more radical on all sides as fewer people (on either side) are willing to give even the least bit of respect to those outside their own demographic.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther