History of Feminism
In reply to the discussion: If I Admit That ‘Hating Men’ Is a Thing, Will You Stop Turning It Into a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy? [View all]patrice
(47,992 posts)ts. Men can't define for feminists who is and who isn't likely affected by misandry. That's women's responsibility.
NOT that anyone should expel misandrists from the movement if it's just an error, of course, just that that sort of thing CAN happen and awareness is good. And even if it isn't just an error, feminism should be for women, so the main thing that would be necessary is to just recognize misandry to whatever degree of probability, *IF* that's the case, for what it is, without judging it personally.
That's a good discussion to have and I think the article cited in OP suggests that. Kind of like teachers do, or good teachers that is; you just state honest accountable behavioral descriptors without personal judgements attached. And if personal judgements do become necessary somehow, all that is needed is that they are identified as such, "My bias is _______________", "This is my personal evaluation ____________" so that, as the movement develops, others don't assume that such a voice is speaking for the entire social effort and others can ascertain the position of a given voice within the wider discourse.
The more specifically concrete and functional the descriptive language, the less loaded the language, the more functional for discussion it is. That kind of language CAN still be very strong, but keeping it out of the realm of personal attack is what frees the discussion to say more and more and go deeper and wider. There are no limits in an effort to discover what reality might be, even the extent to which that effort is being colored/skewed this way or that is a useful part of the discussion, as long as ground rules about considering one's own biases and avoiding personal attack are respected.