7 Attacks On Feminism

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

7 Attacks On Feminism (http://www.gradientlair.com/post/40127641385/7-attacks-on-feminism)

[Clarion]

This doesn't seem to be about addressing seven attacks on feminism as portraying men as inherently violent. With added race baiting for the lulz.

Disgraceful piece.

Allowing people like this to get away with promoting their views under the label "feminism" just makes the rest of us look bad.

[Crux]

This doesn't seem to be about addressing seven attacks on feminism as portraying men as inherently violent. With added race baiting for the lulz.

Disgraceful piece.

Allowing people like this to get away with promoting their views under the label "feminism" just makes the rest of us look bad.
I doubt the article was written "for the lulz". What with your razor sharp critique I am already positively inclined to the piece and I haven't even read it yet. Do you feel you could perhaps expand what you think is so wrong with it?
Edit: I have now read it. Ah I see you must have read only point 3. And misread it at that. It says violent men shouldn't have leadership positions in feminist organizations. Why you would be opposed to that position is anyone's guess.

[Raúl Duke]

This doesn't seem to be about addressing seven attacks on feminism as portraying men as inherently violent. With added race baiting for the lulz.

Disgraceful piece.

Allowing people like this to get away with promoting their views under the label "feminism" just makes the rest of us look bad.


Umm, the piece doesn't argue that "men are inherently violent."
Sure it addresses the issue of violent misogynistic men, but it never really claims or even hint at the claim "men are inherently violent."

After reading it, I found it to be quite "light" despite its tone tbh, despite its use of serious terminology. By countering the "7 attacks on feminism" with clarifying position descriptions it mostly state things that social justice tumblr feminists believe in. It doesn't really get into something more profound about these attacks.

[Clarion]

I apologise if I've misread the tone of the article, it wasn't my intent to misrepresent its content. You're correct that it doesn't "argue" such a position, but it seemed to have taken it for granted. I accept the language is ambiguous and susceptible to multiple interpretations, and having re-read the article and some others on that site I accept that the intended meaning wasn't what I had initially concluded it was.

Alongside the unnecessarily racialised comments I concluded the worst.