To dislike "Radical Feminism"

[InternetPerson]

I've got nothing against feminists that fight for womens rights and genuinely want the best the best for everyone and don't hate anyone, but "RadFems" tend to be full of bitterness and hatred. And I'm not just talking about kids, these are high profile, intelligent women with power and influence. Do you think it's unreasonable to dislike something where most people think men are inherantly evil and to be feared? Or do you think their hatred is fair and we should respect them for their good work in trying to make humans hate eath other even more?

Like, I said, I have nothing against Feminism, it's done a lot of great work down the years and still does, but "Rad Fem" and "Feminism" are too completly different things in my opinion. Is this a wrong conclusion?

AIBU?

Ego, you can't go to radical feminist meetings, so how do you know who is often there and who isn't?

Ah Radfem hub. Home to comments such as:

"Females don’t have to kill baby boys. Just not nurture them. Females are forced to birth baby boys, but beyond that a female’s physical actions are her own.

Males will die without the constant infusion of female energy that they get from our wombs and from our lives. They are perfectly welcome to take the male infants from the hands of the midwife, and what they do with it from that point is their decision.

Females need to not be emotionally and intellectually invested in a male future."

From here: fstdt.com/Search.aspx?Board=Radfem+Hub

Would love to give a direct link to the site, but they don't have it in their archives, strangely enough.

Back in the day on MN (pre-FWR) a particular poster was very fond of parroting whatever was the current trend on RadFemHub. I think it was concepts such a "trauma-bonding", which did a lot to undermine the concept of Radical Feminism on here.

And whilst some people argue about what prominent RadFems did or didn't say about trans people a very senior member of the judiciary comes out with this
www.theguardian.com/law/2015/sep/22/gender-equality-warning-uk-legal-profession-supreme-court-judge-jonathan-sumption

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11880961/No-rush-for-more-women-at-the-top-of-the-legal-profession-says-senior-judge.html

We just have to be good girls and wait another 50 years for equality. This is from a man who sits in the Supreme Court deciding on difficult cases often of social importance.

This is what women face on a day to day basis. Half the population of this country being told that they should just wait patiently for fairness and equality.

IPity no comment on your untruthful statements about Cathy Brennan?

Chaz well quite. Perhaps that is what the PP meant by reasonable compromise. How dare we expect change in less than 50 years! Too radical and therefore irrational.

Just wanted to comment on the point about prominent radfems.

I think that they are presented in the same way as any other supposed representatives of a group of people, those with more extreme and controversial views are given a platform precisely because they cause controversy and attract attention. With a 24 hour news cycle, people with reasonable views don't really get listened to because they don't attract viewers/readers/clicks. It doesn't matter whether the subject is feminism, or Islam, or the price of cheese. The more ranty and oddball an opinion is, the more likely it is to get widescale attention.

Not sure if I explained that very well, hope it makes sense.

The Fail, UKIP and the usual suspects may quote Anjem Choudary and islam4uk - the name sounds quite mainstream, doesn't it.
Expresses the views of some extremists.
Bears no resemblance to the beliefs - or behaviour - of my Muslim colleagues, my boxing trainer, my gym partners, my cousin's wife.
But some use it as their reason to dislike all UK Muslims.

Or we could quote endlessly about violence and threats from trans activists or sites - e.g. check the trans glee over how MMA fighter Fallon seriously injures women opponents.

Pointless.
Just shows any movement can attract the cruel, as well as the magnificent.

And most of the media just exists to sell ads, clickbait. So guess who they choose to talk about.

Chaz - Yes, but this thread is about radical feminism. The OP has asked if it is unreasonable to dislike radical feminism.

Quite a few people would dislike RadFemHub's version of radical feminism and the strand of radical feminism that calls for female separatism. I don't think that's a hugely contentious statement.

Flora - Any comment on CB "helping" trans people more than most by outing, misgendering and mocking them?

What's wrong with female separatists?

Her advocacy for anti-discrimination laws has actually helped trans people. Most of the people who attack her have actually done nothing or very little to help trans people. I did not say she is the Mother Teresa of MTTs.

The point about the senior member of the judiciary is that it highlights a fundemental structural problem if someone like him can expect women to sit back and wait for equality. Arguing about what a few particular feminists say is a good way of distracting people from the real issue of how women are currently treated. Let's get the women arguing amonst themselves whilst the problems remain unresolved.

I could see a debate around whether issues like the inequality in the judiciary can be solved incrementally or is a major restructing of society needed.

Also, what I don't understand is reading horrible reports of trans folk being beaten up or even murdered, then seeing all the trans online vitriol against radfems, not men.
I'd expect it to be 99% expressing anger against men.

Mens rights groups and those who want to retain the status quo / privilege are just laughing.

This reminds me of various factions savaging each other within the Labour party, while the Tories sale happily along, actually ruling the country.

Why not "Keep your powder dry for the enemy"

Ego as I said above, I'm not interested in policing feminists' language. Call out culture is harmful to activism. It's a huge distraction and damages solidarity.

Buffy - firstly you're playing with semantics saying that quote doesn't strongly imply harming a male infant (not fulfilling the needs of a baby is extremely harmful and fits the criteria of abuse).

Secondly are you really saying that I am over-emotional (angry) and not able be concerned about more than one issue at a time?

Really? Those are the cards you want to play?

Can I just point out with regards IPityThePontipines post at 13:33:21 that no woman is actually killing or not nurturing baby boys they've given birth to. Certainly not radical feminists. Not even the highly criticised Cathy Brennan.

Men on the other hand are killing women and girls all over the world in their millions because they are female. That is, biologically female.

Pontipines, that quote is talking about getting MEN to nurture the male babies, not leaving them to starve:

'Males will die without the constant infusion of female energy that they get from our wombs and from our lives. They are perfectly welcome to take the male infants from the hands of the midwife, and what they do with it from that point is their decision. '

So you're suggesting that it's always womens' job to nurture babies, and to allow men to do it is abuse?
Are you a feminist?