Stalin said "No man, no problem." This urge to silence your opponents, to eliminate them, to deal with disagreement not by negotiation and understanding but by erasing the other party - this is the genocidal impulse.

Remember - when debating feminists, your goal is never to bring the feminist around. They cannot be reasoned with - their income depends on their not seeing your POV. The goal is always, always the other people listening in.

Quote from KellyMac

Misogyny, Misandry, and Free Speech Online

From the article:

Let there be no doubt, the hate campaign waged against Anita Sarkeesian was a concerted attempt to silence her voice, using intimidation and psychological warfare. The misogyny expressed may have been rooted deep in the personalities of her antagonists, but in most cases I doubt it. Instead I suspect it was instrumental, using vocabulary consciously chosen to wound as deeply as possible, and aimed at the (assumed) weak points of a woman and a feminist.

This boot can sometimes be on the other foot. While there is no direct symmetry, we have seen the same principle at play in the concerted attempts of some feminists (mostly, but not entirely historic) to stifle debate about male victims and female perpetrators of domestic violence, with activists, writers and academics being branded misogynists and abusers for even raising the issues. Anyone who dares to raise a sceptical voice in many feminist blog spaces can expect more aggression and abuse than reasoned debate. The urge to silence opponents is probably a human one, and for that reason it is all the more important we are conscious of it in ourselves and wary of it in others.

The dithering chap who wrote the piece, seems on the surface, a rather confused fence sitter. But upon reading some of his blog, where he states his support for the farcical Slutwalk, and writing 'extensively' for The Guardian (a renowned feminist/centre-left broadsheet) and the Good Poodle Project, also a predominance of feminist links, one can observe where his true leanings lie. It reminds me of Tera, trying so desperately to be 'right on' with every groups argument, then actually ending up standing for nothing!

Come on Kelly, you've pointed to an article by the discredited Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) in another thread, as to why we uppity males should temper our voices. And now a similar article from the Good Poodle Project who reside in the same ideological camp. If you could cite some more neutral and objective sources it would add to your argument, at this point - it doesn't.

Um, I'm sorry? The guy said something I thought made sense. No I didn't go back and research everything he's ever written. Is that a requirement now?

we have all noted that misandry is a non-word in the new age feminit lexicon but the reaction of men to the feminit hegemony is styled as misogyny ! gee ! ain't that a shame now

Reading KM's response to that which she quoted (and omitted quote tags, so it may be misread as her own words) I got the impression she was actually fighting on our side and saying to the author of that which she linked that things work both ways.

Quote from KellyMac

Let there be no doubt, the hate campaign waged against Anita Sarkeesian was a concerted attempt to silence her voice, using intimidation and psychological warfare. The misogyny expressed may have been rooted deep in the personalities of her antagonists, but in most cases I doubt it. Instead I suspect it was instrumental, using vocabulary consciously chosen to wound as deeply as possible, and aimed at the (assumed) weak points of a woman and a feminist.

This boot can sometimes be on the other foot. While there is no direct symmetry, we have seen the same principle at play in the concerted attempts of some feminists (mostly, but not entirely historic) to stifle debate about male victims and female perpetrators of domestic violence, with activists, writers and academics being branded misogynists and abusers for even raising the issues. Anyone who dares to raise a sceptical voice in many feminist blog spaces can expect more aggression and abuse than reasoned debate. The urge to silence opponents is probably a human one, and for that reason it is all the more important we are conscious of it in ourselves and wary of it in others.

To be clear, this was all from the article. I thought he made a good point that we all have to be aware of perceptions and our own blinders. We're all human. We all have blinders on.

P.S. I'm not sure how I coded this "South Africa". Fat finger syndrome or not patient enough to let the page fully load, I guess.

Quote from KellyMac

Um, I'm sorry? The guy said something I thought made sense. No I didn't go back and research everything he's ever written. Is that a requirement now?

Sure, a 'snapshot' of what he's ever said made some sense, which would be similarly true of all of us. There's context and underlying agenda to be factored in. I merely sought to add some depth and insight as to where his true allegiances were - via some old-fashioned dogged research.

And, I certainly didn't misconstrue the quote as Kelly's words. Reason why my first sentence in reply was: "The dithering chap who wrote the piece, seems on the surface, a rather confused fence sitter."

The only 'requirement' is not to take responses too personally.