Once again, a look at some of the comments that people try to leave here, but which for assorted reasons don’t get past the rigorous We Hunted the Mammoth screening process.
I kid; the process is not rigorous at all. You just need to pass a minimal standard of basic human decency. Here’s an assortment of comments from people who, well, fell short. In each instance, I’m pretty sure you’ll be able to guess why.
I’ll take “Protocols of the Elders of [BLANK]” for $400, Alex!
This fellow, like a lot of manospherians, seems really, really obsessed with cuckolding.
This fellow tried to post a number of comments on the same theme. This is is most succinct:
I’ll take “I don’t condone violence but you feminists totally deserve it for making jokes” for $200, Alex.
tl;dr: This guy, not really a big fan of women. (Spot the “we hunted the mammoth” for bonus points.)
You thought that last one was the worst it gets? Unfortunately not. Whoever sent this one — from a dubious IP address — is either a giant douchebag of a troll, or the next Elliot Rodger. (Please be the former.)
I’m going to just stop now. This post turned out a bit darker than I expected.
Andrea dworkin and Marilyn French are both dead and what did they say or do that is considered hateful?
Padapool: you do both? You said it not me.
Moving on…….
“Radical feminism” is more than one thing. I would urge you to be reluctant to lump all radical feminists together into one group. Radical feminism is best understood in contrast to the primary alternatives, which are liberal feminism and difference feminism (these are not the only alternatives, just the major ones).
Radical feminism is “radical” because it doesn’t seek to tweak the edges of the current system, but to completely do away with it and replace it with something else. Liberal feminism wants to see women raised up to be the equals of men without really changing much of society. Difference feminism says that men and women are intrinsically different, but that the two roles are capable of being equal in status. Radical feminism rejects both of those positions, saying that the current system is rigged, and if we want to improve society, “radical” changes are needed.
One very common type of radical feminism goes like this: the necessity of the basic structure of society, which places people in hierarchies, needs to be questioned. Our current hierarchical system is patriarchal, but so long as society is structured hierarchically, someone is going to be underfoot. If it isn’t women, it has to be someone else. Radical feminism recognizes that this is not inevitable, that social structures are choices, and that a different kind of structure would make it so that nobody has to be under anyone else.
There are other types of feminism that also self-identify as “radical,” and correctly, because they also seek to replace the current system with something different, but the end goal is different. So “radical feminism” is not just one thing, and I wouldn’t call the concept intrinsically cartoonish.
Fruitloopsie: Good for us, I guess, huh?
No final Solution, for now
You don’t want to do any work at all, apparently.
I’ve read what they say about men. I didn’t find anything about how they wanted to kill 90% of men. You’re making an absurd assertion. You need to back it up with evidence, or else you’re just demonstrating how you pulled shit out of your ass and tried to pass it off as gold.
@bigboy
When presenting an argument, one tend to present these little things called facts. It’s not Policy’s job to make your argument for you. If you have specific proof, link it here, don’t just throw out names.
@bigboy
No, dead feminists are not going to kill 90% of men. Are you ignoring my previous comment, or did you just miss it?
bigboy | May 23, 2015 at 8:18 pm
Treehugger can’t get over the insults, huh
I’ll give you some advice
Insults = weakness and in-security, which concludes a weak argument.
Strong and Independent, you claim?”
And yet you called LBT a mangina.
Here it talks about Andrea dworkin and others.
http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2013/11/13/feminism-has-right-anger/
Ok, Policy…..
How many different feminists are their?
Their radicals, we established that.
Different groups? Agendas or whatever?
Femitheist specifically states that she is not a feminist. @bigboy is just making the assumption that any woman he doesn’t like is a feminist.
https://twitter.com/femitheist
For someone who has no interest in any of this, that’s quite a few questions.
Because I didn’t see an attribution for it above, the fucking awesome GIF heading this article is from Drew Fairweather / Toothpaste for Dinner.
I think he would approve. 😀
@bigboy
This might be a hard concept, but *every* feminist has a different view on feminism.
And the other two?
Stone and sally?
Fruitloopsie, you did your homework, good job.
@PoM
But, that’s like all feminism, though. I don’t think I know of any one feminist or feminist idea that would willfully make someone the bottom rung of society for anything or accept that. At least ones that aren’t boogeywomen.
Maybe I really should read more feminist works.
Sorry, I meant “I think it was the bit by Saintluger”. I should REALLY start proof reading my comments. ^^;
My. Bigboy thinks he gets to give out the good job cookies.
Sorry, dude, but you’re the one here making untenable claims. You get to prove them.
Of course, you seem to still be ignoring me, so…
Policy, here’s your chance to prove me wrong!
That all feminists are radicals, who hate men!
Still waiting for you to prove feminists want to kill 90% of men, your 1 example isn’t a feminist.
That last comment was to @bigboy
Difference feminism is a genuine strain of feminism that some feminist genuinely follow. Liberal feminism is actually the most widely-accepted version (although it, to, has different manifestations).
It’s not that these other two major types of feminism would willfully put some other group at the bottom of the hierarchy. It’s that they don’t think it’s necessary to completely overhaul society in order to achieve true overall equality. Radical feminism is “radical” because it asserts that radical (that is, ground-up, down to the very first assumption about what society is and how it works) changes are necessary to achieve meaningful improvements.
Also: TERFs are a thing. They are radical feminists. They are also kind of terrible. They are the major reason I kind of resist the idea that all radical feminists are the same. The basic recognition that fundamental changes to society are needed are the same across all radical feminists, but some radical feminists take this into a really unacceptable direction. Radical feminists who are not TERFs exist, and in fact TERFs are a tiny minority of radfems in my experience, but other radfems find themselves brushed off because of the association with TERFs.
And you didn’t do your homework you are just spouting nonsense. We are still waiting for you to provide clear evidence on feminists who want to kill 90 percent of men.
What makes you think I care what you believe? Why, exactly, would I want to spend my time proving you wrong?
Hi, bigboy! I’m going to prove your claim wrong. Men are not inherently bad. Privilege does not make one evil. Some men are bad. Some men are bad due to entitlement that stems from privilege. By the way, did you know that some men are feminists? This blog is even written by one! Shocking!
However, you seem to be inclined to call any man who supports the idea that women should have rights a… haver of a metaphorical vagina? With or without teeth?
Snuffy, even if I did you still would deny it, so it’s irrelevant.