When Men on the Left Refuse to See Their Sexism

[sigmasix]

63. Did not ask for that- why would you assume?

I was merely pointing out the fact that some of the so-called Men's Rights guys would and could use the use of sweeping generalizations about men in this OP as another example of "things to be scared of", if you're a guy.
I was having a hard time telling which of the sentences were written by you, and which were from the OP. If you didn't write "What’s disturbing is how white men and men of color..." or
"On one hand, there are male activists who reject feminism, as discussed above, but then there are men who consciously insert themselves into feminist discourse and assert authority over it."
The rules of DU are pretty clear about how we go about posting articles- and changing the writing of the OP is not within your discretion. I made the point for a couple reason's : sweeping generalizations about the "other" are part of the continued state of disagreement between women's movement feminism and men's movement masculinism.
If the writer of the OP is responsible for the two quotes, there ought to be some recognition that these sorts of sweeping generalizations are counter-productive and simply add fuel to the on-going social conflagration. I'm disappointed that the author did not proof-read her copy before it went to print; I'm convinced that she doesn't really mean that All white and black men "appoint themselves as “leaders” and use their “activist credibility” or “celebrity” status to hide and excuse their own sexism."- but the written word has nuances (especially English) that can be used to avoid giving these sorts of impressions. I also assume that she doesn't mean that all men fall into one of two camps; Anti-feminists or secretly Anti-feminist liberals- yet one could be left with this impression if they so choose (and probably use it as grist to convince another young man to accept a misogynistic mind-set)
Please don't take my points about the propensity for the written language to result in UN-intended implications as an attack. That is not what my intention was. Nor was it my intention for you to give the guys a break.
As I said; I was simply pointing out an (assumed) unintended vulnerability within the OP that could be used by the bad guys to discredit the whole thing. Acknowledging a mistake in syntax is not an attempt at an attack on you or the subject matter.
It is a very interesting article that certainly goes a long way in the critique of present power struggles within the movement itself.