How better to do that than promote the underlying principles that pretty much everyone can agree with (as the article attempts to do) and point out when actions contradict these principles (as you have just done)?
Well, I would first start off as not comparing misandry to Freddy Kruger or some other boogeyman myth? That's the
problem. Even if they assume said misandry stems from other men, then it still exists. The person simply doesn't have the same "definition" of it as them (Which is a silly definition, it's like saying black cops can't racial profile....). So rather than hand wave and say "with my magic philosophy, the very real problems you have are reclassified
semanticallyto not exist."--why don't feminists say "Sure, they exist, BUT they are part of the problem we are working on." (I KNOW why they don't do this, explained below).
Most feminists, however, think that if they somehow admit these problems exist, they will waste political, social and economic capital and perhaps jeopardize their own goals. So tactically, they choose to use semantics, like that article does, to form a kind of psuedo-philosophical shield against the very existence of these legitimate gripes. By using their unassailable logic loop that any problem spawned from men can
notgo against men (Or be misandric), EVEN IF IT BENEFITS WOMEN, they have taken an extraordinarily
hypocriticalposition give the nature of gender equality.
It's a position I understand, sure. Tactically, if I'm looking to benefit my position, I'm not going to throw away resources by making mistakes with my rhetoric. Which is why you don't see feminists donating to fight "mommy state" courts. Because they are afraid that by changing their rhetoric, they might deflate popular support for causes that do actually matter--it's a common thing among institutions that are close to achieving their "ultimate" goals. This combined with moving goal posts is a tactic that tends to keep institutions alive, well after they should expire (See NATO--I can expound on this if you want, but you probably get it)...(Also, not saying Feminism should be done, but it's showing signs of becoming long in the tooth, as it were.)
Which is my problem with articles like that. She could have still made her point, without having to essentially say that all male problems are simply delusions of frightened, privileged, men. Her argument doesn't stem from any kind of rational basis, rather it is spawned from the need to have that semantic-shield which protects the movement from having to expand and thereby perhaps weaken it's core focus. Which, again, is fine (Because I'd do it if I were in a long fight
), but framing it as "truth", rather than saying "right now, these (Women focused) problems require a higher priority because overall men still are a bit ahead" can be really agitating when speaking to feminists.
(Overall too, these problems stem from the narrow scope of the ideology. You really can't frame every problem as spawning from Gender, but many feminists DO try to do just that, which makes things...dumb..especially now when major milestones in women's rights have been achieved. But that's a whole different issue and A LOT of social ideologies, from economic, to political, to racial, do that same thing.)
