Criticisms of radical feminism.

I read the scum manifesto years ago when it was linked to on a thread like this. (It is terribly apparent to be the thoughts of someone very ill.) No radical feminist I have ever argued or debated with in the ten years since has ever argued any position close to that of Solanas, or cited Solanas. Not even the ones who called me a male rights activist, and said I wasn't feminist enough!

There was one 16 year old on a student forum who argued similar things once, who got roundly drubbed every single day she posted a thread, including from the rad fems, but one day she posted a thread, to explain she had recently been put on medication, and apologised for being an absolute twit for the last year. Either was true, or she'd been trolling all along.

It is becoming more and more apparent that radical feminists are seeking to play different groups against each other, so as well as detailing criticisms the aim of this thread is to highlight the divisive nature of radical feminists and what groups can do to unite against the misandrist hate group that is radical feminism.

I am not well acquainted with a Firestone, or a reader of Dworkin (although it would be helpful if you gave a full quote, rather than paraphrasing).

I am acquainted with a nine million claim, but I have only seen it on witchcraft and pagan sites. As prejudiced as it may seem, sites talking about the mystical properties of agate are hardly academic research. I imagine there's some women, who identify as feminists and as pagans who espouse this figure, but that isn't the same as academic scholarship. All I've found, while googling your claim, is a feminist (presumably) site called gendercide.org, which has pulled together various theses, which arrive at a figure of between 40,000 and 60,000. One of the quoted academics refers to "the wilder shores of the feminist and witch-cult movement" making 9 million claims. I think he's got the situation accurately summed up there.

You're also contradicting yourself here- if rad fems promote gender segregation, then bell hooks is hardly a rad fem! Bell hooks is an American feminist, who argues that the feminist movement was dominated by white middle class women, who did not recognise that they were a lot better off than poor black women, and claims that feminism had become unnecessarily divisive between men and women as a result of this. I can sort of see how you could see her as stirring up race hatred, or whatever. Although personally, I didn't find being asked to acknowledge that I wasn't automatically in a worse position in life than any random male, just because I have a vagina, that painful. I didn't find myself hating different ethnicities. I don't think it promotes racial tension if a black woman points out racism exists.

But promotimg gender segregation? No way, José.

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."
Andrea Dworkin; from her book Ice and Fire .

The problem with Hook's is that she was crudely trying to justify her desire to kill white males. Most people of all ethnicities do not want violence, the want peace and Hook's by deliberately misinterpreting this is causing tension and so the best response to her work is satire.

Okay, you've now justified your disagreement with Dworkin to some extent. Sounds pretty dreadful. To finalise it, what was the context leading up to that? I haven't read the book, but I have read the Origin of Species by quite a different person, and I've seen the quote-mining that goes on with that. Now, what about hooks? When did she want to be violent to men? I've read an entire book by her and there was no violence advocated.

You're still the only person who thinks this on the entire thread. "It is becoming more and more apparent" - how? Sources? ANYTHING to back up your claims whatsoever?

You're really not good enough at this to make your argument even close to believable. As I said yesterday, your opinion is not fact. If you want to convince people, you'll have to try a lot harder and stop talking a load of rubbish about a movement you have zero interaction with.

That is the thing there was little context, she was just trying to cause tension. It is not comparable with the distortion of Darwin who specifically spoke out against the views that many claimed him to have. As for Hooks, the criticism of many has been directed against Killing Rage where she speaks of her desire to murder an anonymous white person.

I just wanted to let you know that I have reported you misandrist comment which desired to vilify males to some organisations which are against sexism. It was wrong of you to try to cause gender hatred and I hope you can one day realise it. Your comments also contradict TSR rules.

I would argue that the misandry Solana's expresses is very much apparent in the radical feminist community, there is a quote by Dworkins about how she would like to see males rendered helpless, now we can put this down to the violent day dreams of an overweight and rather unpleasant person that Dworkins was, but I am not convinced, if you read works by radical feminists such as Firestone their constant narrow aim is that vilifying males if would be farcical if it was not so disturbing. Look at the radical feminist "scholarship" on witchcraft which has claimed that 9 million women were burnt as witches during the witch trials, this is farcical considering the actual number was more like 50,000 (that includes males). I sense in this a disturbing aims by radical feminists to rather offensively in my opinion somehow equate those burnt as witches first of all as only women, (the same blatant ignorance of facts that radical feminists show is displayed in their denial of female on male domestic abuse) and secondly to equate this with the holocaust, a comparison that sheds light on how individual lives and collective groups are used by radical feminists as mere pawns. The radical feminists proposals are also pathetic gender segregation being one. Finally if you check the OP there is a news report link provided which details a group of radical feminists advertising the mutilation of males.

What misandrist comment? The one where I said that your opinion is not superior to that of anybody else? That's not misandrist, that's true.

Pretty sure wasting the mods time filing false reports is a contradiction of TSR rules actually.

It's an odd pitch. You isolate a whole group of people, suggest everyone else units against them, and you're calling radical feminism divisive!

I feel like you're attacking a caricature here. Which is your right of course. But if your goal is to persuade other people, rather than just affirming the faith of those who already hate feminism, a more nuanced critique would be helpful.