I’ve got mixed feelings about this article:
Anti-feminism, the new heresy (spiked-online.com)
On the one hand, I appreciate a woman standing up for the basic human rights of men, and the basic human right of dissent, and that she’s taking some risk of (highly practiced) outraged condemnation by doing so. She makes several good points.
Still, on the other hand… the author, one Ella Whelan, uses phrases like:
“… a meeting organised by Justice for Men and Boys, a typically sad group of men’s rights activists.”
“… as most women will no doubt be aware, men’s rights activists meetings are pretty lame affairs.”
“… about feminists plotting to thwart sad men’s rights activists…”
Really? Does that seem even remotely even-handed?
To be honest, I think I know what she’s saying, and there may even be a valid criticism in there somewhere… but let’s apply the obvious touchstone. If you flip the genders, would she be saying anything like that about ANY women’s groups, calling them “sad” and “lame”? Would she use similar phrases to describe nascent feminism meetings in its early days, or early, persecuted suffragettes?
I doubt it.
Does it even occur to her that “sad” and “lame” may be directly connected to the open and blatant persecution that the article is supposedly about? It could equally be applied to meetings of small oppressed groups anywhere in the world.
Sad that we’ve reach a state when this is about as far as “open minded” and “fair” journalism goes, anymore.
– Robert the Wombat