Why do feminists blame 'radicals' for sullying the movement's reputation, yet do nothing to stop them?

Good point. If they don't agree with what the feminist movement is doing, why don't they distance themselves from it? It is quite simple. If I don't like the way the political party I normally vote for is changing, I vote for someone else and don't go around saying I'm a Democrat (or whatever party). It really is very simple.

'Professor' C: "VAWA is needed and gender neutral, there are no sexist divorce laws (talk to male judges about how they interpret them), abortions rights are best left alone, the stats speak for them selves, and wage gaps do exist".

Laughable lies and evasions.

- VAWA is the Violence Against WOMEN Act. You don't detect a slight bias there? Of course you don't.

- Yes, divorce laws are open to interpretation too and its usually men who get hit.

- Abortion rights are best left alone? Right, a very convincing argument Professor.

- The stats speak for themselves?? That is exactly what feminists want people to do - accept phony stats without criticism.

- The gender wage gap exists and it has nothing to do with discrimination. It has everything to do with the median wage for women being lower than for men because more women do less well-paid work e.g. administration rather than professional. But of course you would rather "let the stats speak for themselves" - LOL!

We have different definitions of radicals-I think you're radical for only seeing what affects men in our society, disregarding violence against women, blaming feminists for how sexist judges interpret divorce laws, throwing out abortion since you think it's wrong, plus you don't believe government stat's because they don't support your point of view. You sound a lot more radical than feminists who want to do something about violence, unwanted pregnancies, and poor wages.

Why don't you do something about the male violence against men if you care so much about men, instead of wasting your time trashing the few resources available for men and women who are the victims of violence?

The same conservative judges who try to limit abortion and birth control are the same ones who make sexist divorce and custody decisions-why aren't you working on electing non-sexist judges? You either have sexist judges or not, you can't have it both ways.

You are right in your observation that its the so-called 'radicals' who are the real movers and shakers behind any social movement. The "good feminists" have proved largely ineffectual, and anyway they have the 'radicals' to thank for the freedoms and rights they enjoy today.

The world needs more fearless women, more strong, gutsy, unapologetic feminists willing to take risks in order to get the job done.

"Radical" is very much a subjective term, a judgement call.

So you need to become the savor of your sisters rights? You are the man, and only you can help these poor defensless females. If you believed in the feminism you preach, then you should believe the women can handle their own. But "it seems only a certain radical feminism is going to be effective".Right? As long as that certain person is you or a man.

A couple of problems with your proposition, here.

1. The definition of what's "radical" may be highly subjective. To some people, the idea of a woman being able to choose abortion is "radical." And not everyone accepts that the wage gap is imaginary. So there needs to be agreement on that, and not just what YOU may see as radical.

2. I believe in free speech. What am I supposed to do with someone who is vocal about holding different beliefs than I do? Shoot them?

Believe me, there are a lot of other people whose beliefs and attitudes concern me more than than a tiny minority of women who still believe we should all move to single-sex communes and give away or boy children (for example).

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, and even express them. But I do not see why other people should be compelled to jump on the bandwagon if they don't agree.

The radicals will tolerate no opposition to their views and often used to treat any feminist who spoke out against misandry with contempt and labeled them an enemy of women.

It was basically using labels with negative connotations attached that quickly silenced the opposition. They justify their radical views through the misguided perception that it is a fight and they make it seem as though it's a constant struggle between men to women to see who's "better" or "who was first"

What really irks me is the way they claim to represent ALL women. Curiously they fail to actually consult most women when campaigning for those considerations you mentioned and anyone who dares question them is labeled a misogynist or is trying to undermine female progress. Non-feminist (not anti-femininists) are lambasted for not supporting the cause since "you're either with us or you're against us".

Ironic how segments of a woman's rights movement shares the thinking of man like Bush

Simple answer is if it works in your favour why raise it as an issue? Alot of women (radical or not) do benefit from these considerations so they have no incentive to forfeit them but they're more than eager to point out if (god forbid) ANY man takes liberties

What, exactly, do you expect me to do?

I can't stop people from spewing bile or advocating hate (though when I see it here -- whoever it's directed at, I click Report It if it's extreme, or answer, if it's not exactly a violation of this site's Guidelines).

I say what I think. I can't "stop" others from doing so.

How many times do I, and the vast majority of feminists, have to say we ARE bothered by all sexism -- that against men as well as that against women? However many times we say it, those who oppose feminist refuse to hear.

If I keep saying I oppose male-bashers, then yes, you ARE supposed to conclude that I oppose them. When you keep ignoring my saying that, then what am I to conclude about you?

I've never said ALL who call themselves feminists are pure and virtuous. So here you are, making up things that you say I say. Without proof. Without evidence. contrary to evidence.

If you refuse to read what I write, there's nothing I can do about it.

But you continue to blame me for views I explicitly deny having.

What do you suggest.

women are on here all the time saying they do not like the radicals point of view, and a lot really do not care about that.

It takes 2 sides, if someone doesn't want to listen there is not much hope.

Because they usually agree with the 'radicals'. They just don't want to take the heat.

Probably because I would rather spend my time advocating for women who have little voice than spending my scarce time bashing others who have a different view. It is your assertion that VAWA, sexist divorce laws, abortion rights, twisted femstats and imagined wage gaps are radical they aren't. - VAWA is needed and gender neutral, there are no sexist divorce laws (talk to male judges about how they interpret them), abortions rights are best left alone, the stats speak for them selves, and wage gaps do exist.