“Some of my best friends are feminists” - Hugo Joss
Seems appropriate somehow…
I agree with his frustrations about the left constantly self-policing and I think a big dose of how we might overcome that purity culture is by accepting that none of us are the perfect people we strive to be - we can only be better than we were yesterday, and mistakes and problems are inevitable. What we want isn’t utopia, it’s just a better world here.
This sounds like a very honest and human condemnation about the way a lot of people choose to communicate in online social forums. I like to think that it is an extremely vocal minority, just like that one guy at the office that cannot help himself but talk loudly about Obama to no one in particular. A site like Twitter just allows that minority to find other mouthpieces to shout loudly with in whatever direction they feel like. I know that frequently the stereotype is that people from 4chan or “militant feminists” under perform in their personal social lives, but I think it’s more they are just obnoxious any time they talk.
Considering what I have to deal with everyday, I simply can’t tar & feather Joss Whedon for whatever infractions he may or may not have done over the course of many years of supporting feminism. The perfect is the enemy of the good. And I agree with him that in-house fighting within marginalized groups ends up further marginalizing ALL of the group. Having different goals isn’t the problem…it’s actively fighting each other for supremacy of ideology. Divide and conquer.
And of course, it took literally five minutes for people to start claiming that he was forced or threatened into saying that by the spooky scary SJW illuminati, that it was all Anita Sarkeesian’s fault and she’s personally leading a screaming horde of tumblr users over the hill to literally crucify him, and that Buzzfeed made the whole article up to get clicks from the social justice crowd because they’re buzzfeed, and also probably totally reptoids or something.
Yes, I’m treating these insane and absurd theories with an exactly appropriate level of seriousness, why do you ask?
IMHO, someone like Joss should be way to busy to use Twitter for anything but perhaps promotional purposes.
Every breed of feminism is attacking every other breed, and every subsection of liberalism is always busy attacking another subsection of liberalism
I think Jello Biafra put it best- Something to the effect of “The problem is that on the right wing, they can bring together Catholics, Mormons, and Baptists and say ‘we think you’re wrong about everything else, but let’s work together on this abortion thing’- While on the left, we’re like, ‘we agree with everything you’re saying, but we can’t work with you because you eat meat’.”
The minority might be vocal, but there are plenty sharing their views in the majority, they for one reason or another just can’t be arsked.
I blame humanity in general. And lack of wombats. But mostly humanity in general.
Did someone say wombats?
Oh sure he said that. I bet he was forced to say that.
When attacked, wombats dive into a nearby tunnel, using their rumps to block a pursuing attacker.
A wombat may allow an intruder to force its head over the wombat’s
back, and then use its powerful legs to crush the skull of the predator
against the roof of the tunnel, or drive it off with two-legged kicks,
like those of a donkey.
Good lord that’s some Marvel-level super power.
New Marvel comic… Wombat-Lord, arriving on shelves this November!
Oh, you know you did. Don’t deny it!
“Every breed of feminism is attacking every other breed, and every subsection of liberalism is always busy attacking another subsection of liberalism, because god forbid they should all band together and actually fight for the cause.”
This! I’ve come so close to not giving a shit entirely because of the rabid social justice assholes I seem to come across in every avenue I view as constructive. Nothing is more off putting than someone who presumes to know your intentions, and immediately grades them against their own impossibly fanatical values. I live in a hotbed of this bullshit, so I end up surrounded by it digitally and physically.
Truly accepting each other’s differences, no matter how repugnant we may find it personally, is our only hope for a livable future.
Right, but at what point are repugnant differences acceptable? Especially when they have real world consequences? If someone really thinks that women are intellectually inferior to me, and are in a position to hire people for a particular job, that has real consequences. Should we just wait to deal with the consequences or does something else need to happen prior to that?
Why are there only two options? And why are they simple polar opposites?
How did I post only 2 options… I posted questions. The problem that Whedon identified I think is quite real. There seems to be a problem with progressive causes shooting themselves in the foot with infighting. But you’re right that it need not be polar opposites.
Maybe I’m unclear what you mean by repugnant differences? Can you clarify that point. Where is the line in accepting that sort of different, in your view. Can we draw a line somewhere?
Maybe a real world example will clarify my position: Part of the reason that women broke off from the SDS in the late 60s was because they were relegated to essentially being secretaries and girlfriends. Women wanted a bigger role in the movement. Were they wrong? Should they have shut up and accepted the sexism of their colleagues in order to keep coherence in the movement? Was that more important than their own need to be treated as equal human beings? At what point does soft sexism need to be addressed, and when do you find that acceptable for us to do and why do you get to decide when sexism impacts me enough to make a stand?