Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Chelsea Clinton joins Expedia board of directors [View all]synergie
(1,901 posts)I did not insult anyone, that's projection on your part. I merely stated that what you did met the definition of misogyny and violated any principle of feminism, in your posts. I said nothing about anything else, that's merely you again, with the insults.
No, actually that's according to you false assertions of what I'm thinking, it's almost like you didn't bother to read what I actually said, instead preferring to reiterate the points you made, which I explained in clear detail were incorrect.
When you choose to criticize a woman for merely being a daughter or wife, utter failing to do your homework, you are engaging in misogyny. That's according to what I'm saying, you need not attempt to divine "my thinking", you're not very good at it.
Stating that you think there are ethical issues while never bringing up any such thing, other than "omg she's a mere appendage of a man and a woman I hate" is not criticism, it's smacks of something suspect ethically of a person making that statement while incorporating less than subtle insults and outright falsehood and fallacies.
What you are doing is the very antithesis of feminism, period. You may choose to call it what you like, but it doesn't change the nature of what it is, and engaging in misogyny and attacking those who call it out for what it is, simply is not ethical.
This labeling of something as "reverse" whatever, as if it's unidirectional and using that "crying wolf' nonsense and badly constructed strawmen to shirk simple definitions, is what's overplayed. What's disempowering is when people refuse to understand their own actions and be honest about what they're caught red handed doing.
It does nothing to actual feminism, just shines the light on those who seek to undermine it by engaging in misogyny. Words have meanings, and just cause you don't like it when the term is correctly applied, it doesn't mean you get to change them.