There are moderate racists too. Moderate racists believe (for example) blacks are The Problem and they pose a threat to a civilised society. But being moderate they only think that and voice that. They don’t actually advocate using force to subjugate blacks (segregation, camps, etc). Radical racists do advocate the use of force. One might say the radicals take the claims of the moderates to their logical conclusion.
Radicals are just moderates with the balls to “walk the walk” as well as “talk the talk”. What tends to happen is the moderates become a widespread movement, which is not quite offensive enough to motivate people to do anything (freedom of speech etc). And this widespread movement shields the minority of radicals and nurtures them deep inside the movement, and this protection is what allows the radicals to gain power and influence and take over society. By the time anyone realises the radicals have taken over it is usually too late (classic example: Nazi Germany).
Moderate feminists claim men are The Problem and pose a threat to civilised soicety, and radical feminists just take this premise to its most logical conclusion and call for the subjugation of men, or even the extermination of men. Radical feminists are shielded by the moderate ones and nurtured deep within feminist movement, and that is how they are able to infiltrate the media, politics, education system etc.
Moderates (of any destructive and hateful ideology) end up acting rather like human shields, protecting the radical inner core. Criticise or condemn feminist ideology and you are generally told to stop ‘hating’ on all those lovely well meaning moderate feminists who have never spent half an hour researching the movement they support or thinking about what the implications of supporting it are.
Therefore you could argue that moderates (of any destructive and hateful ideology) are actually far more dangerous than the radicals, precisely BECAUSE they are able to maintain a thin veneer of social acceptability. The person advocating the subjugation of men is not a threat because they are openly hateful and dangerous….. but the person advocating He for She is dangerous because they are helping to implement the same basic ideology, but they are viewed as harmless and innocent – and even well meaning.
Radicals = “We want to subjugate men/ jews”
Moderates = “We just want to empower women/ Germany and protect them from outside threats”
> They would be the feminists who believe in equal rights and equal opportunity
Men actually have LESS legal rights than women. So in order to achieve ‘gender equality’ in 2015 we need to either strip women of their extra rights, or afford those rights to men too, so that men can be equal to women.
There are no rights that men have that women do not also have. There are many rights that women have that men have not yet been afforded (in areas such as reproduction, divorce law, child custody, health, genital integrity, criminal justice etc etc).
Now… you give me an example of a feminist campaigning for gender equality. Ready, steady, go…..
First, a minor disagreement. Claiming that blacks cause social problems is not racist, it is at worst a xenophobic expression. Claiming that blacks are inherently inferior as a race would actually be racist. Only a tiny minority of Westerners hold genuinely racist beliefs. There are far more racists in Asia and the Middle East than there are in the Western world.
With that out of the way, I think this is an excellent post because it makes one very important point:
Moderates (of any destructive and hateful ideology) end up acting rather like human shields, protecting the radical inner core. Criticise or condemn feminist ideology and you are generally told to stop ‘hating’ on all those lovely well meaning moderate feminists who have never spent half an hour researching the movement they support or thinking about what the implications of supporting it are.This is quite frankly a brilliant bit of analysis. Consider the case of Malala Yusufzai for example. Malala’s face was quickly hijacked by feminists which in turn made her an international feminist icon. Malala’s position on girl’s education is entirely moderate and acceptable and almost impossible to disagree with. The question is: Can Malala Yusufzai be classified as a feminist? I would think not. To the best of my knowledge, she has never whined about “Patriarchy” or “Institutionalized oppression” or “Male privilege.” I have read parts of her diary in Urdu and she sounds like a typical teenage girl who enjoys school and shopping for bargains at Jinnah market. I admit that I haven’t been keeping up with any news pertaining to Malala, so if she has turned into a textbook gender feminist subscribing to a dialectical reality, please feel free to correct me.
Anyhow, this is precisely what Curiosetta is talking about. Any attack on the extremist ideology of feminism will be misrepresented as an attack on sweet moderate Malala. This feminist icon is in fact a human shield protecting a hateful and intolerant ideology.