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.

Hostility? That's odd? I read (and feel) confusion - trying to understand what you're trying to say, what your opinions are.

We have strong opinions that have been informed by years of experience and discussion on these boards and in real life, expressing these opinions is not hostile.

Can you point out some examples perhaps?

TBH, I'm finding it really hard to discuss with you, because you spend more time telling us off than actually talking about the subject in hand!

You've repeatedly apologised for a wishy washy question - so restate it? What are you trying to talk about?

I'm not hostile. I just don't know what either the woman in the video or you are getting at. And I don't think I'm alone. You seem to be agreeing with the many people who say "Oh, I'd help to do something about women's oppression if only feminists would ask nicely. But because they're all so strident and hysterical and agressive and humourless ( and dungaree clad and hairy ) I can't be expected to do anything about equal pay and sexual violence . Come back when you've learned how to be nicer"

But I presume you're not?

Could you try asking the question in a different way?

And could you define the toxic elements that go under the flag of feminism?

Oh dear 1DAD - you see this is like the equivalent of the video you posted - unsubstantial - you acknowledge that you posted a poorly constructed op - no actual question was posed and a vague niche video to accompany it. Yet our attempts to give your op some reasoned answers are rejected as elitist and hostile?

If you want a debate ask some real questions not ask for agreement and validation of your point of view. If you come on to a forum asking for everyone to back you up then how are you seeking a debate? "It would be nice to know the loudest and most hostile voices are not [representative] of the movement" What does that really mean? There are a range of voices in the feminist movement - some very innocuous campaigns are responded to with hate and vitriol, women are on a daily basis threatened with violence and shouted down using the most vile terminology possible to imagine on social media - very publicly. Yet a few reasoned and well put responses to your "poor" op is demonstrative of a hostile environment? I am not sure how anyone is supposed to respond to that really!

I'd like to know who the loud and hostile voices are, too.

OP, have you looked at the links I suggested? They all address the social justice phenomenon.

I honestly think you are not getting much of the response you're hoping for because feminists on this board have relatively little contact with SJW and so don't know what you're talking about. Added to which, neither you nor the video really explain what the SJW thing is; you're assuming people already have familiarity with it.

It's obvious posters on here are not greatly influenced by SJW because the SJW language rarely appears here. I don't know what you're expecting to get from asking your questions here; you seem to have come on with the assumption that SJW (a relatively small group of mainly young Americans) have such a massive influence on politics that everyone should be familiar with them and have formulated a critical response to their behaviour.

Well I have watched the video and read through the comments again. Yes it is not very well targeted and disjointed. I get her perspective on things may be different from others; as chocchoc puts Pots and kettles from a privileged white girl who's maybe graduated and thinks that now she knows enough about life to lecture others. Although who sets the mark to judge who or who does not know enough about like to state an opinion? Also a few examples or sources would have been good to add validity to the posters ramble. I am sure if you were to ask she would have some. We could always ask for her sources in the comments box? I asked for opinions on the video and thanks for all those who commented and picked holes in it, that’s why I asked.

I think the poster is critical of the what is going on in campus environment in the US and to some extent the UK. That a loud extreme element are starting to infringe on peoples access to free speech when not in line with the feminist out of fear of the repercussions from this group. There is a growing pressure to silence voices of opposing views. Well these people may be wrong personally I am against when an opposing agreement becomes stops being a rational agreement and turns into a personal attack on that individual. I think bullying is a fair enough phrase. An ex ample of the would be bullying, trolling and attempts to silence George Lawlor who questioned sexual concent classes:

This is something being seen more and more on campus. Should university not be a place where (sometime radical ideas) be explored safely and discussed? So I suppose what I am looking to explore is what is acceptable action and what is not acceptable action in oppression to a differing view point? What is affects on the feminism from the actions of these people?

Also I am still not getting the significance of some of the poster on here being men?

To be fair it is completely daft of me to comment on unbalanced view or echo chamber sort of thing going on. I am asking these question on a feminist area. Yes I don’t expect the same reply but of course they will be very similar. Is there anyone who has replied who is not a feminist? So apologies.

I must admit I think I have been a little oversensitive. I am sure you are probably all very nice (not that your looking for validation, I know that). The trouble with the OL world is things often get heated where in the RL I think we would be able to communicate far better and nicer. But there has been some pretty sweeping assumptions and statements about me, my “ilk” (or what is assumed to be my ilk) and the videos message. Its clear some think I am just some “bloke” come to rain on your parade. As we all know I am no expert but mainstream feminism has had its problems with inclusiveness. I understand it has had problems with differing ethnicity, sexuality and biological sex to how they fit into, are recognised by and represented in feminism. I understand that some who indentify as feminist are fearful of expressing their views in the wider feminist forum is they are not in line with doctrine. That to me is more evidence of a loud shouty down crowd who aim to crush opposition and decent. As to if feminism should be inclusive is another point of course? I am pretty sure there have been threads on MN questioning if a man can be a feminists for exaple. From what I remember there was various view for and against this argument. So you can see where I get the impression it is a walled garden and where some people find it an intimidation environment.

People didn't criticise George Lawlor because he did not agree with consent classes. They criticised him because he illustrated his point with a photo of him, nice looking middle class white boy in a nice jumper, saying "this is not what a rapist looks like". Which is exactly the kind of nonsense that helps rape myths thrive, victims not be believed, and feminists (or in fact any decent human being) want to call them out on being absurd twats.

• holding a sign saying "this is not what a rapist looks like".

I've never heard of George Lawlor.

I still don't understand what your question is.

Criticism is one thing. I perfectly understand criticism. But what about the bullying and harassment? What about the attempts to totally shut him down because he raised I point of view and made a photo people don't agree with? Is this bullying and harassment wrong? In context to the original question would you say these are toxic elements? To what level of they representative of the movement?

By the way I am not saying he's not a prat

1dad2kids let me try to help you reconcile these two approaches to feminism. Everyone broadly agrees women are equal, should be equal and engage and contribute to society on a level playing field. People have varying experiences of sexism, some women have had a particularly raw deal, and having a place to express that raw visceral emotion is both natural and healthy.

When you point and say it's doing feminism no favours you are essentially trampling, invalidating and silencing some of the very people who've been at the sharpest of the sharp end. The object of the excercise isn't necessarily to appeal to male sensibilities. It's to say "yes it sucks, you're not alone and we're going to do something about it!" Sometimes just that expression is valid and healthy even if to your eyes it isn't accomplishing anything.

Feminism isn't nation with a president or prime minister who sets an agenda. It's a grass roots movement of individuals with the shared experience of bieng women. Other than that you have the full spectrum of race, politics, religion, economic class that any human can be a member off.

You said you liked my post, and all I was essentially saying particularly by referencing Dworkin is just because you can't see an apparent value in an approach doesn't mean it does not have a tangible value to someone else. Look up intersectionality it's quite interesting.

I have now put you in an awkward position, as a man myself if you can see the merit in what I'm saying you will just have been spoken to by many women who took the time and effort to engage with you, but it took a man to sway you. Examine why that might be? We're all heirs to our own social conditioning, and it's quite challenging to break from it at times, and I am by no means free of it myself.

Just try and empathise and ask things like: I am not getting this, why am I not getting this? What is different between me and the person expressing this view I don't get or agree with? What set of experiences would give me cause to agree with it? Then onto things like why are there these differences even there in the first place?

I don't remember bullying and harassment, but I admit the case was some time ago and I can't remember the details, so I don't doubt that he received treatment that made him feel that he was being bullied and harassed...

But my point is George Lawlor wasn't trying to have a debate or anything in my view, he was saying "how dare you suggest a guy like me could be a rapist?". And someone getting angry with him about that is not bullying and harassmnet. If people did bully him, then you'd probably be better off asking them, than people on a forum who weren't the perpetrators.

Just like I wouldn't ask those seeking racial equality to explain and justify the actions of the cause junkies who were on the tarmac at City Airport last month. The fact that someone has hijacked the central topic and done/said something stupid in its name, does not devalue the racial equality cause for me.

By the way I am not saying he's not a prat

I'm not entirely sure in the value of these consent courses either, but I'd go to 101 of them if I was a student there, if it made women realise I took the issue seriously and was willing to listen. Besides I can't really speak to its value without going to one can I?

Actually I remember the case and I recall he was bullied out of a bar by men iirc. See you will get men who will virtue signal allegiance to women's rights whilst STILL practising toxic masculinity. Not entirely sure it's fair to put that on women.

Also, on MN, asking people to watch a 14 minute video without much context of what it is and why it's interesting to discuss it, is a big ask on the time of strangers, especially as your first question (which you acknowledged was poor) was phrased in quite a combative (one might say hostile) way - "is [unfamiliar acronym] bullying good for the progression of feminism".

It's easier to put OP comments into your own context so that people are able to respond to your post without watching the video if they don't have time, referencing the video for additional background if you like.

No, bullying and harassment are not representative of feminism.

There is a toxic element in the behaviour of many disparate groups of people, often online, which has been discussed and explored.

Why don't you go away and read up on it?

This is not a social psychology forum. Why should people on here having any particular knowledge or insight into how or why some totally other group of people are behaving the way they do?

Because it feels like you are asking a group of women to do the work for you, despite not displaying any real knowledge or even a position on the topic yourself.

So what is your opinion of George Lawlor and his stand against the course?

What do you think?

"Because it feels like you are asking a group of women to do the work for you, despite not displaying any real knowledge or even a position on the topic yourself."

Yup. Ditto with asking people to watch a 14 minute video rather than spending some time writing a bit about the video.

We gone over this before I think. This kind of behaviour is happening in many movements. This is not about me just saying it's an issue in feminism. I am not saying that every feminism agrees with these actions. The George Lawlor this is an example of the consequences dished out by a toxic element. My point is not about if he made a stupid point or not or weight of his point. It was just ment as example of some of the bullying being faced. Neither am I saying these bullies are represented of wider feminism.

And come on it was more than a bit of anger. They made his life hell, possibly affecting his grades, future career and mental health. I would call that bulling and toxic.

Dervel I did not know you where a man. Well not until you just told me. Still not sure of the relevance.

But do we accept these angry elements are there? Are they justified in any way? What affect do they have on the perception of feminism and how do they affect its advancement?

Sorry you all responded faster than I replied

What is your opinion of George Lawlor and his attitude to the course?

Was he justified in his position?

What do you think?

Do you think it's wrong for women to get angry?