no, sometimes it’s just people who value accuracy in terminology, and find it hard to back any statement where people refuse to attempt accuracy in communication.
obviously, there are also people who will pedantically argue such points just because they don’t like feminism. But we’re not trying to reach them.
It’s the people who do care about equality, even to the point of terminology, that are the potential win here.
The criticisms remain valid regardless of your opinion on the people who say them. Ultimately optics do matter in any social movement, and quite a lot. If feminism wants to be perceived as an egalitarian movement, then it has to brand itself as such. It’s slogans, terminology, mentality, and the behavior of its supporters have to adjust to reflect a true adaptation of this principle. Otherwise, it’ll remain a movement that will be perceived as one that is solely focused on the advancement of women in a society irrespective of the status of men.
The current position is just inconsistent from an optics perspective. Either feminism is synonymous with egalitarianism and it adapts to reflect that or it remains as it is and gets viewed as a separate movement. I’m of the opinion that the direction the movement should take should depend on the society its in, but I digress. The point is you can’t have it both ways. As long as that inconsistency exists, it will always be pointed and criticized by people.
No it’s not. The people who make these sort of pathetic criticisms will find a new reason to not support women.
The reason we have individual words is that we can apply labels to issues that only affect certain people.
no, sometimes it’s just people who value accuracy in terminology, and find it hard to back any statement where people refuse to attempt accuracy in communication.
obviously, there are also people who will pedantically argue such points just because they don’t like feminism. But we’re not trying to reach them.
It’s the people who do care about equality, even to the point of terminology, that are the potential win here.
The criticisms remain valid regardless of your opinion on the people who say them. Ultimately optics do matter in any social movement, and quite a lot. If feminism wants to be perceived as an egalitarian movement, then it has to brand itself as such. It’s slogans, terminology, mentality, and the behavior of its supporters have to adjust to reflect a true adaptation of this principle. Otherwise, it’ll remain a movement that will be perceived as one that is solely focused on the advancement of women in a society irrespective of the status of men.
The current position is just inconsistent from an optics perspective. Either feminism is synonymous with egalitarianism and it adapts to reflect that or it remains as it is and gets viewed as a separate movement. I’m of the opinion that the direction the movement should take should depend on the society its in, but I digress. The point is you can’t have it both ways. As long as that inconsistency exists, it will always be pointed and criticized by people.