Fits with my personal view that feminist "leadership" was (and still is) a minority group of would-be bullies - children who never matured beyond the juvenile tactic of throwing tantrums to get their way.
Possibly the Marxist/Communist elements provide the bombs, tactics etc? - they seemed to be closely aligned.
Not that I know much else about her, but Erica Chenoweth apparently showed that historically, non-violent revolts have been roughly twice as successful as violent ones.
I think two of the most evilly genius moves of mid-20th century feminists were to: 1. call themselves "the women's movement" (nobody asked *all* women if they wanted feminists speaking in the name of women), and 2. wording their demands as "women need x, y & z" when in fact feminists *wanted* x, y & z.
I can remember being vaguely disconcerted when first hearing that phrase, but then thinking no more about. An easy thing to disregard if you’re male - just accepting that women's equality (as I then naively understood the movement to be about) would naturally apply to all women. I can see how being female would automatically cause you to question this generalisation however. False but superficially plausible generalisations are a classic technique for misleading people. Thanks for pointing that out.
Fits with my personal view that feminist "leadership" was (and still is) a minority group of would-be bullies - children who never matured beyond the juvenile tactic of throwing tantrums to get their way.
Possibly the Marxist/Communist elements provide the bombs, tactics etc? - they seemed to be closely aligned.
Not that I know much else about her, but Erica Chenoweth apparently showed that historically, non-violent revolts have been roughly twice as successful as violent ones.
I think two of the most evilly genius moves of mid-20th century feminists were to: 1. call themselves "the women's movement" (nobody asked *all* women if they wanted feminists speaking in the name of women), and 2. wording their demands as "women need x, y & z" when in fact feminists *wanted* x, y & z.
I can remember being vaguely disconcerted when first hearing that phrase, but then thinking no more about. An easy thing to disregard if you’re male - just accepting that women's equality (as I then naively understood the movement to be about) would naturally apply to all women. I can see how being female would automatically cause you to question this generalisation however. False but superficially plausible generalisations are a classic technique for misleading people. Thanks for pointing that out.
What one needs, what one wants and what one deserves are almost always completely different.