Discussion History Main / VocalMinority

Am I the only one who finds this article disturbing on the grounds that it subjectively relegates certain people as \\\"the bad ones\\\" to be excluded and looked down upon? I mean, within any group there are going to be many many ways of dividing people up into smaller subgroups, and this article seems like an invitation for people to do that and then say which ones they don\\\'t like. It leads to a lot of public lynching and members of the group will even get in on it to try to distance themselves from X stereotype.

There are always going to be people who fit X stereotype, but it\\\'s not necessarily accurate to claim that the existence of such people GAVE BIRTH to that stereotype and there can be all kinds of reasons someone might fit into the stereotype or for it to be possible to make it look like they fit into the stereotype.

I realize no one has any reason to listen to me, but I would feel much more comfortable if this article were removed. Past that, I would like it much more clearly define when a \\\"vocal minority\\\" is appropriate for this article. I mean, just being vocal and a minority isn\\\'t bad in itself, right? So there should be some criteria beyond \\\"ticks me off.\\\"

Edit- example here could be saying \\\"Not all feminists are like Andrea Dworkin.\\\" Some people are, in fact, like Andrea Dworkin. They may be wrong about some things or many things, but that doesn\\\'t mean we need to set up internet pogroms against them to show how superior we are and that kind of thing definitely happens and is happening (and isn\\\'t confined to the internet).

The idea that radical feminists or even just certain radical feminists (and \\\"radical feminism\\\" means something specific rather than \\\"crazy feminists\\\") spoil the \\\"good feminists\\\" is a huge value judgement on what feminists are SUPPOSED to be like and in my experience frequently comes from people who don\\\'t even consider themselves feminists except maybe in the most abstract ways (\\\"oh yeah, sure, equality for women be great\\\"). So then a lot of the criteria is actually how much you conform to societal standards and don\\\'t offend anybody, when feminism is supposed to be all about calling the power structure and current societal values into question even if that\\\'s not what everyone wants to hear.

Am I the only one who finds this article disturbing on the grounds that it subjectively relegates certain people as \\\"the bad ones\\\" to be excluded and looked down upon? I mean, within any group there are going to be many many ways of dividing people up into smaller subgroups, and this article seems like an invitation for people to do that and then say which ones they don\\\'t like. It leads to a lot of public lynching and members of the group will even get in on it to try to distance themselves from X stereotype.

There are always going to be people who fit X stereotype, but it\\\'s not necessarily accurate to claim that the existence of such people GAVE BIRTH to that stereotype and there can be all kinds of reasons someone might fit into the stereotype or for it to be possible to make it look like they fit into the stereotype.

I realize no one has any reason to listen to me, but I would feel much more comfortable if this article were removed. Past that, I would like it much more clearly define when a \\\"vocal minority\\\" is appropriate for this article. I mean, just being vocal and a minority isn\\\'t bad in itself, right? So there should be some criteria beyond \\\"ticks me off.\\\"

Edit- example here could be saying \\\"Not all feminists are like Andrea Dworkin.\\\" Some people are, in fact, like Andrea Dworkin. They may be wrong about some things or many things, but that doesn\\\'t mean we need to set up internet pogroms against them to show how superior we are and that kind of thing definitely happens and is happening (and isn\\\'t confined to the internet).

The idea that radical feminists or even just certain radical feminists (and \\\"radical feminism\\\" means something specific rather than \\\"crazy feminists\\\") spoil the \\\"good feminists\\\" is a huge value judgement on what feminists are SUPPOSED to be like and in my experience frequently comes from people who don\\\'t even consider themselves feminists except maybe in the most abstract ways (\\\"oh yeah, sure, equality for women be great\\\"). So then a lot of the criteria is actually how much you conform to societal standards and don\\\'t offend anybody, when feminism is supposed to be all about calling the power structure and current societal values into question.

Am I the only one who finds this article disturbing on the grounds that it subjectively relegates certain people as \\\"the bad ones\\\" to be excluded and looked down upon? I mean, within any group there are going to be many many ways of dividing people up into smaller subgroups, and this article seems like an invitation for people to do that and then say which ones they don\\\'t like. It leads to a lot of public lynching and members of the group will even get in on it to try to distance themselves from X stereotype.

There are always going to be people who fit X stereotype, but it\\\'s not necessarily accurate to claim that the existence of such people GAVE BIRTH to that stereotype and there can be all kinds of reasons someone might fit into the stereotype or for it to be possible to make it look like they fit into the stereotype.

I realize no one has any reason to listen to me, but I would feel much more comfortable if this article were removed. Past that, I would like it much more clearly define when a \\\"vocal minority\\\" is appropriate for this article. I mean, just being vocal and a minority isn\\\'t bad in itself, right? So there should be some criteria beyond \\\"ticks me off.\\\"

Edit- example here could be saying \\\"Not all feminists are like Andrea Dworkin.\\\" Some people are, in fact, like Andrea Dworkin. They may be wrong about some things or many things, but that doesn\\\'t mean we need to set up internet pogroms against them to show how superior we are and that kind of thing definitely happens and is happening (and isn\\\'t confined to the internet).

The idea that radical feminists or even just certain radical feminists (and \\\"radical feminism\\\" means something specific) spoil the \\\"good feminists\\\" is a huge value judgement on what feminists are SUPPOSED to be like and in my experience frequently comes from people who don\\\'t even consider themselves feminists except maybe in the most abstract ways (\\\"oh yeah, sure, equality for women be great\\\"). So then a lot of the criteria is actually how much you conform to societal standards and don\\\'t offend anybody, when feminism is supposed to be all about calling the power structure and current societal values into question.