I am biased towards the center.
Yeah you and everyone else in the world
Seriously I am surprised by your 'violent' reaction to something you perceived as a grave dissent of your philosophy.
My reaction was passionate and reasoned, look it over again. Just because someone passionately disagrees with a bunch of bollocks you copy/pasted does not mean they are practicing violence. If you think passionate and reasoned arguments on the internet are violence, you are probably quite unfamiliar with actual violence.
FFS I didn't write that article!
No need to take my and other people's critique of it so personally then
It was in the nature of an exploratory post, I wanted to see how people reacted to it more so because it was a western woman who was writing it.
Meh, don't really care who is writing it - it's what they are saying that matters. Who they are is only useful for placing what they are saying in context. This woman born into privilege and of a dying generation has pretty much no clue what is going on in the world today, and we know this because of what she says in her own words.
I am mystified why you called her a misogynist.
Just because she expresses an opinion you don't like she becomes a misogynist?
I said Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly are misogynists. I implied that this woman may also be one, but I only just heard of her a few days ago so I can't say for sure. From what I've read of her, she may just be a misogynist i.e. a person who hates women. From her article she sure seems to have pretty much all bad things to say about women, while she both lauds men as being better at everything, and yet also coddles men for being poor widdle victims. More than enough to qualify as misogyny.
I have read Ann Coulter's outpourings and don't like what she has to say,because she's an extremist .[I assure you I am not her stealth admirer!]
Oh goodie. Well, I'm glad you can at least see her extremism.This author is so much different from Coulter... she spends a lot of time painting men as hapless, powerless, innocent little victims of the feminist conspiracy
If it was 'black' instead of 'white' and 'poor' instead of 'middle class' it would have been more credible. I am reserving my judgment here because I have not had access to the works of neutral historians.These days it has become a tough ask!
Newsflash: there never was, is not and never will be a "neutral" historian. You are not neutral, you are not centre-based, you are not unbiased, you are not objective. None of us is. You are as biased, you have an agenda, you have insecurities, uncertainties, and life experiences that you are basing your opinions on. Just like we all have our unique lives, experiences, etc. You do not have a monopoly on objectivity. This author doesn't, I don't and neither does any historian. Best you or anyone can do is genuinely try to see things from other people's perspectives, because that is all we actually have. There is no neutral perspective.
Feminism is credible whether you think it is or not. Whether you think it has to have been the domain of only non-whites or not. It's just an evolving, changing, diverse set of ideas, it is not a philosophical discipline - it is not a dogma that everyone follows the same way.
If you can not see the nuances I am talking about, please do yourself a favour and go to your local library and read some books on the history of feminism. Really, don't just get all your info on the internet, there are wildly differing views on just about everything within feminist thought. Different racial, ethnic, religious and sexual orientations, economic classes, occupations, languages, regions... all have representations and voices. READ these things before painting a set of ideas with a broad stroke. This is how you can avoid embarrassing yourself in the future. Generally, it's a good idea to educate yourself a whole lot before you claim to know everything about something.
MWestern Secularism was indeed started by white,etc.etc and IMO it's a good concept and I have no problems with it at all ,so why should I rail against it?
Then you are engaging in hypocrisy, which literally means not doing the thing you claim you do. You claim feminism is not very credible because it's white, middle class, academic based. You do not apply the same reasoning to question the credibility of secularism. That is hypocrisy and it makes obvious that you hold a bias against strong, independent, confident, self-respecting, feminist women, because you judge them through a different standard than what you apply to yourself or to secularists in general.
It's not a radical notion if you accept the fact that women are human beings. I accept that unconditionally.[though some self proclaimed feminists might have a different spin on this one in that they feel they are some sort of super human beings and men are animals,etc.etc.]
The women who spin it that way, are wrong. They are reacting to pressures put upon women for generations, and they are misguided, like I said in an earlier post here. Their behaviour does not invalidate the need for feminism, the need to break down preconcieved gender roles, the need to liberate women and men from "old fashioned morality" as granny in your article put it.
Some women are assholes. So are some men. Do you think the number of all the asshole feminists put together is more than the number of all the men who abuse, rape, violate and exploit women today around the world and have done so throughout history? Think about it.
That does not mean you or any man should be at the receiving end of a feminist's anger, if he has not abused, violated or exploited women. It does mean that you have to think of things in the context of history and not just presume that your narrow worldview is true everywhere all the time.
Any reasonable human being[especially a gender blind one] wouldn't find this notion threatening at all!
You are as "gender blind" as a white person who does not like the idea of having a black man as president is "colour blind".
For argument's sake how do you know her case was a one-off?
Because it is her article and she is stating what it says. I am sure others have had similar experiences. Still does not invalidate the work of feminists who are actually human rights activists. That is feminism: human rights activism. Unless you believe women are not human beings.
As Abood said, today's feminists do not generally look down on housewives, stay at home moms etc. if these are the women's own choices. Your and this author's fantasy about a feminist conspiracy to force women to work, is very outdated.
And that's precisely what she was trying to point out--how feminists denigrated the family and stay at home mothers. They deemed that it was not a choice for 'real liberated' women
Again, you are stuck in the 1970's and 1980's. Go read some feminist literature that is more contemporary, please. Consider going to a library.
The problem arises when the daddy of this particular mommy has a dick that doesn't engage in extra curricular activities because his biggest sex organ[brain] is engaged in more fruitful activities that benefit him and the family,what then?
Huh? Translate into English, please.
I do believe in equal pay for equal work all things considered,no quarter asked none given.
Equal rights without manufacturing equal outcomes.
What? "Manufacturing equal outcomes"? LOL WTF?
One Andrea Dworkin is enough for this world.
She like Big Mo are probably one-offs hopefully!
I don't support her views a whole lot, but tell us this: which of her books or articles have you read yourself? Or have you only read the people who criticize/despise her?
Topic: Equality ???