*Sigh*.

Steel, calm down. You're displaying the kneejerk tendencies I described as being indicative of extremist attitudes.

You missed the 'solely' bit. A crucial distinction.

I said it's foolish to judge "solely" by the fringe. My closing remarks were intended to convey that the nutbags can and should be judged harshly.

I've *never* called you a misogynist. I think this label is applied too quickly. It shouldn't be, unless it can be categorically shown.

Though I wouldn't "expect someone with such a blinkered vision as you," to acknowledge I've never resorted to the misogynist smear, except after a long, long discussion where I came to this conclusion after sharing dozens of posts with HRS, where he essentially said anyone called themselves a feminist could never, ever do anything good, which is simply illogical.

Some define themselves as feminists because they believe in equality. By this definition, HRS thinks equality of women is evil. This is misogynistic.

(Note, you can argue feminist definitions, but to say people who just call themselves that are automatically evil? Even if I call myself a terrorist but never do anything violent, am I incapable of good? 'feminist' is just a word, with different meanings to different people).

I've seen plenty of feminist propaganda and called it such, though only when it's unreasonable.

When hearing reasonable arguments highlighting inequalities for both genders, I simply don't foam at the mouth if the word 'feminist' is mentioned.

R0bert, for example, is one who doesn't react with vitriol and calmly discusses some problematic aspects of feminism. He advocates reforming attitudes regarding female-initiated DV. Although I'm still skeptical, after hearing his rational, long standing discussions, I now accept it's a significant problem.

Frankly I'm insulted by how quickly you exploded and called me a 'misogynist labeller', when I take great care not to.

Ultimately it says more about you than me, and alienates people from your cause.

Every cause has fringe elements on BOTH sides. Only those within one fringe, deny their fringe exists. Usually, something particularly harrowing has driven them there and left them with reduced objectivity.

TRTL,

'I stand with those who say it's idiocy to define a group solely by the fringe. You piss off plenty of reasonable people for no good reason. Plus, when you say that the moderates are just sheep for the fringe, you dismiss them and refuse to listen to their arguments, which doesn't wash with me either.

Oppose the actions, not the name. When there are idiotic and unfair moves by fringe feminists, by all means, highlight them. Don't go tarring decent people by the same brush.'

Good point. I see the sence in that, and I am guilty of this. But like Steel, I do see what is published by people who call themselves feminists and find a lot of it offensive. Now whether the ones I hear are radical or not is subjective. But I will stop using the term altogether as people who see themselves as feminists in turn get offended when I use the term to refute the ism I see via the opinions I am exposed to.

Incidently, this is all too late anyway. I did start to alter my 'behaviour', but when some posters will only see you in a certain 'misogynist' way, anything you say is discounted anyway. Actually a few of the feminists on OLO are very apt at setting themselves up as 'victims' of 'bullying' right off the bat as soon as a gender topic is opened and regardless of anything I have even said. The Irony is these same victims of bullying even follow me around just to wind me up, or ignore my points but talk about me in the third person. Anyway enough whinging, I just thought you should know it's a good point you make.

Thanks US. For the record, aside from HRS, I don't think I've seen any real misogyny on this website. Like overt racism, it's very rare (though I have seen some instances of that, and by which I don't mean the attacks on muslims, I mean people saying that other races are genuinely inferior) and I think such terms (misogynist/racist/elitist and so on) are used more often by people attempting to position themselves as victims.

I do see the problems with people assuming a mantle of victimhood, and I agree some sections of feminism go too far in applying this label to themselves, though I think we agree that when you launch broadside attacks on a multitude of people with a wide variety of views, it provokes a backlash from people who might otherwise agree.

I think people can either accept this as a reality and focus their efforts, or continue feeling marginalised when large tracts of people react negatively.

Steel - I also note that you implied the use of the word 'church' together with feminism, was an implication they're all followers who act as one.

I'd dispute that meaning. The phrase "a broad church" is used for many things and signifies the opposite, meaning that within a (well, I'll say 'movement' though I don't mean that in a 'zealot' sense, I just don't have a more neutral word), there is significant dissent in approach and attitude.