Is SJW bullying good for the progression of feminism?

[1DAD2KIDS]

The following video I think is very valid and makes some very good points. I think it identifies problems with some of the loudest and IMO most toxic elements who go under flag of feminism.

It's 14 mins long. Please watch if you have the time. It would be nice to know the loudest most hostile voices are not representactive of the movement.

Apart from her describing herself as 'old' which clearly makes me dusty and ancient, I find it bizarre that she goes on and on about how people shouldn't act like they're the king/queen or holier than thou, that they shouldn't use feminism and SJW (keeps saying both for some reason) as a stick to beat people with whilst preaching away about how these other people should be acting and what's wrong with them, and aggressively telling them to stop doing it.

Pots and kettles from a privileged white girl who's maybe graduated and thinks that now she knows enough about life to lecture others. No real arguments, just a load of opinion unbacked up by example or reference.

Not really much to discuss there.

OP, you might find Slate Star Codex's writing on social justice and related topics interesting.

You could start here:

slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/

And then look at two other posts on his - Living By the Sword, Social Justice and Words, Words, Words.

"In my opinion, no, because your typical SJW is a lefty dudebro whose main interest in feminism is earning cookies for being right-on, and who will abandon it the first time it requires him to do anything harder than wear an "I'm a feminist" T-shirt. "

OP, did you see the thread where another guy was asking MN FWR to justify women's behaviour on Tinder?

I suspect the crossover between MN FWR posters and this woman's target audience is even less than the Tinder crossover.

Women aren't a homogenous bunch - one woman can't "let down" all women, as is often the narrative when a prominent woman does something wrong. Rarely see that narrative about men.

The question is poor. The video is mainly aimed at a group in the US and both the video poster and me have failed to identify the group clearly in the video or opening question. I was just interested to shared these thoughts I didn't really present the question well assuming people would know.

The things I find toxic are

The aggressive attack and harassment of people who have made errors in political correctness or have counter arguments. Although these people may not be right it doesn't mean that the need to harassed in this way. I think it does nothing to challenge concepts. Often these people are not bad per se but have not had the same cultural exposure.

A shouting down and unwillingness to engage in debate with a counter arguments.

An unwilling to source their information from a wide pool of perspectives.

The whole if you don't 100% agree with us or are critical then you are the enemy and evil. There is baiting going on.

Personally I believe that extremism on all end of the spectrum start to look the same.

Obviously I would expect a feminist lens on this board. Thanks why I am here for that perspective.

I also understand the element the video maker is on about may not be representative of feminism as a whole but they are getting attention. A lot of it being used by those who want to demonise feminism as a whole.

Dervel has explained things a lot better than me with regards to an almost fascist approach to silencing opposition and the closing of avenues for debate and arguments.

I don't see the video poster as an apologist. I think she highlights the reality of society and how change is not going to happen over night. She is not saying it's a good thing but it's hard to change people you don't understand. So always helpfull to see the world in other people's shoes now and then even if you don't agree. I still think some people have massively of read between the lines on this one.

... unwilling to source their information from a wide pool of perspectives.

What that means is that someone has formed an opinion which is different from yours. More often than not they have sourced their opinion from a wide range of sources. Just come to a conclusion. It is pretty insulting to suggest that because someone doesn't want to debate your point of view that they haven't considered several angles. Pretty arrogant of you too. What is far more likely is that they've heard your point of view ad in-fucking-nitum and have reached a different conclusion. Life isn't always some great debate where you must be heard. Especially when you are trying to debate people's lived experiences and feelings.

Why have you framed this toxicity around feminism? You said in you OP toxic elements of feminism. Nothing you've said sbove applies specifically to feminism. Why single out feminism?

1Dad2kids- where have you seen this behaviour?

Many Sjw seem to be resolutely anti feminist

I agree Winchester (place? gun? Dean and Sam?) I think the problem people can see with mumsnet feminism and other strongly feminist women's spaces is that we have limited patience with yet another bloke coming on and demanding to be educated.

We've been there, done that, we have robust opinions that we've had healthy discussion about, and having someone come in and dismiss all that as (to pick an example out of thin air)

A shouting down and unwillingness to engage in debate with a counter arguments

or

An unwilling to source their information from a wide pool of perspectives.

rather brings out obtuse and sarcastic answers.

Social media does far more damage in the other direction, against women.

Women aren't a homogenous bunch - one woman can't "let down" all women, as is often the narrative when a prominent woman does something wrong. Rarely see that narrative about men.

But men are frequently bunched together. Class analysis is a favourite tool of feminism. So men can be a homogenous bunch, but women can't?

You've been on here long enough to know the difference, Mr Grim

OP I am a bit quizzical about why this worth posting here. I got about half way through, read your explanations and responses and remain quizzical.

It's almost it seems, you are giving an argument that feminism should be more 'consumable' and the angry extreme ones are doing a disservice. So should be limited in their impact.

I just don't get that at all. I may be missing something in your purpose.
What is your purpose?

From your OP: "most toxic elements who go under flag of feminism."

So you can understand the IRA bombing the mainland, to get listened to.
Have you been complaining to the Irish Republicans about their "toxic elements", asking them to tone things down ?

Did you post on other fora asking campaigners for disability rights, education, for / against Brexit, Trident, fracking etc to condemn their toxic elements ?

Or are you just another bloke whingeing that feminists shouldn't be so strident ?

Well this has been a bit of a non starter. There seems to be a miss understanding that I am against feminism that is wrong. I was just interested on sharing some ideas from the video. I think all be it in a rambling way the poster raises some concerns about how a small but getting noticed group is acting and her more moderate take on their actions. Just interested to what people thoughts were on this type of aggressive calling out and responses to cynics was helpful? I think Dervel was the only person who recognised some of the elements of behaviour mentioned especially in terms of some of the videos.

StrictlyPan yes you have a handle on a big part of the question and a far better way of putting it. Are the extreme angry actions of some doing damage to image and progression of feminism?

Bigchoc there are toxic elements in most movements. This is a feminist area and I am currently looking to explore the feminist perspective. I am only one person, I can go round asking questions of every movements extremist factions (at least not all at once). Personally speaking I am usually critical of most radical elements. There is however not a Republican area of MN so could not raise concerns even if I wanted to. Personally I don't think you could morally defend the actions of the IRA's terror campaign. I think far more and moral achievements would have been done by concentrating on the civil rights movement. The IRA is not representactive of all Republicans but you can debate it's usefulness to the the Republican cause.

As to the worth of the post that is for you all to chose and you are more than welcome to ignore it. It was a topic I found intresting but doesn't mean you have too.

I am not demanding to be educated. I have added a video and asked a question. It is clearly a matter for people to feel free to take part or not.

I have no set opinion. My opinion is fluid as I chew the fat over this and that. I am a natural cynic. Often is the case with politics and religion that people are too blinkered or totally ridged in their views. I try not to be that's why I am always open to discuss and to change my views based on the validity of the argument before me. It's always important to ask questions and test theories.

I have no problem with differing opinions. As stated mine is fluid and open to different angles. If anything it would seem a problem with me not towing the party line on this forum. If this is a place for agreeing feminist only maybe we could suggest to MN some guidance be set on the use of this area to maintain the bubble from intrusion.

There has been huge sweeping statements, assumptions and reading between the lines here about me and the video. I think there is a certain hypocrisy about saying these things about me when it's done in turn.

I have been very misguided in this venture and to be fair asked a poor question about a poor video with little vision of where this would lead. Thought it was just asking for critique of the video and the points made (or rambled). Never thought it would open such a can of worms. But it has been very educational. I don't think anything fruitful will come of this thread as I think we are in general poles apart. To such an amount I don't think can be reconciled and brought into dialogue. This area is not a place for outsiders I get that now. This is very much a walled garden not to be explored by curious outsiders.

Thank you for all the genuine answers to the question and your take of what the poster was saying and how you interpreted it.

Are the extreme angry actions of some doing damage to image and progression of feminism?

Not being funny but you do look like a man telling women they're doing feminism wrong. If you took on board some of what you've learned on the thread perhaps 'poles apart' could change to 'ah i see what you're getting at'.

I think posters here have been very patient with you, 1Dad.

You're being very rude with your insinuations that this is a closed shop or an echo chamber. It's a place where feminists discuss feminism, for the most part. There is a near constant stream of people, mostly men, who find it entertaining to come in and poke at us, tell us we're wrong, call us names, bait us and so on, and your post looks very much like that. Google the Dunning Kruger effect - your level of awareness of feminism is such that you don't even know what it is that you don't know, but in your cluelessness, you assume that you have something to bring.

If there's a party line in feminist chat, it's that people at least have an interest in learning about feminism, but you're not even clearing that bar. People have tried to engage with you, but if they're not saying what you want to hear, you just seem to blank it. If you want better debate, bring better content.

I want to enter the debate but can't get back the moment she says "I'm a creature of chaos"

Op, I am the kind of feminist you think shouldn't be allowed. The shouty radical kind. Thought I'd get that in there at the get go.

You've posted two threads now where you have asked for a feminist perspective. Fair enough. However, when women have given you what you say you want, you have repeatedly told them they're wrong for doing so. You're also either ill informed or not being completely truthful on the military thread you started.

I've deliberately not posted in either of your threads, partly because I've seen very similar posts in the past and couldn't be bothered to get involved with another of that ilk and partly because you were getting such reasonable and well thought out answers to your questions that my contribution wouldn't have been welcome.

So, for you to now say that all the women who've taken the time to thoughtfully answer your questions are some kind of closed shop is pretty insulting. The women who have answered you are not a hive mind. We don't always agree on many things on this board, but we tend to post, read, learn and then either agree or not.

You asked skewed questions which a group of intelligent, thoughtful women (and a couple of men) answered intelligently and thoughtfully, you don't now get to flounce off pretending that you think we're all a bunch of meanies simply because you didn't like the answers. It doesn't reflect well on you.

Well said, xenophile

Hear hear Xen.

Perhaps if you tried engaging rather than lecturing you might actually manage a debate Dad?

Arm waving, non-specifics (well, much like the video itself) make discussion very tricky, and it's extremely disingenuous to flounce, saying you're open-minded but we want to be a closed group, just because we gave our opinions and asked you to do the same.

Well said, Xen. I expect that I am another of the loud shouty man hating feminist meanies thrashing around in the welcoming fug of a closed shop. Wail.

OP, you might be interested to know that there are at least three men on this thread. What does that do to your theory of how awful the place is, I wonder?

It was so poor of me to ask such a poor question. I wished I had have put something far better and not as wishy washy. But it's out there now.

My observations are just based on the responses I have got. It very hard not to think other wise as so many of the answers seem to say it's not OK to have a different view or to still be sceptical or to state a different opion on what's being said. Over and over again people have said things on the line of didn't like the answers. Like that not OK not to like the answers? I have no problem with people having a different view. I do have a problem with when I remain sceptical and further put across a point or my counter take on things people saying oh he doesn't like the answer. No I am happy with the answer but still sceptical. How can I hold a view this way or that until I have scrutinised it. My views are not set in stone and thanks to some of the fruit of this thread I have been given some real food for thought. But the immediate hostility to when I further question something leads me thinking this is not a place for outsiders or people pose questions that are critical of the actions of a few. I can a least see there is good solidarity between all who carry the flag. Also very much a case of go away peasant. A sense of this is just a space for the elite.

I sense an immediate hostility on here. Some not all have waded in and started making wild assumptions and stating I and this and I am that. Saying I and the video poster are saying things that we are not. It's almost like the area has gone into hedgehog mode when detecting discord and rolled up in to a ball all spikes showing.

Right, ok, you are here in the spirit of open see and honesty but we are all meanies?

Fresh I don't see that the fact there are three men on here has anything to do with it? Please can you tell me the significance of that?

Well there definitely is a sense of hostility to questionsomething HillaryFTW. I sure most if not are not meanies in RL. Neither am I. For some reason things often get more heat OL than the would probably face to face. But I have explained my the reason I sense hostility from some.