JohnDoe

ah ok thanks for the clarification! wish i read this before replying to DragonTypeWyvern

i'm gonna be completely honest with you, almost everything you said after 'graduates' went over my head. i have no clue what an auror is, did you mean the aurora like the thing in the sky?

no i don't think they were "the original", where i see it now, they are in academic institutions (like the philosophy dept at my school, a few in women's studies) and publications (here's one from radical philosophy, she wrote for the london review of books which i really like and i thought the title was interesting, i thought it was a good piece that i'll have to revisit at some point.

you'll note there isn't really any provocative language. you mentioned female dating strategy, that's not a pleasant place to be. i browsed it a bit then noped out when all the acronyms started to come out, i checked the sidebar and thought yeah this is not a place which wants me...

i think the notion of 'convincing' is the issue. it really needs to be done by men, it's not as though what women are saying is factually incorrect or the content is off, it's often the opposite i find. when i say what women or feminists i respect say i always seem to get a better response than if a woman said it or the original author said it.

it's such a shame, there's already a ton of work done by a sizeable proportion of the population and it's ignored or misconstrued :/

i think the cool stuff the suffragettes did would be labeled way more negatively now. the civil disobedience was rad.

i do read that stuff, well, i don't consider it as such but it's been told to me to be as such. i still don't know why as i never got a chance to ask for an explanation

what a pain, sucks to hear that. do you think it is more common in like your field of study or is there not too much difference? i took cs classes and found a lot of the younger guys louder and obnoxious compared to those in my chem or bio classes (bio was majority women, chem was sorta equally spilt, obviously excluding other genders, it was not something i was really knowledgeable about the time and ignored)

i thought it's cuz their aero industry died?

i did see the low value men used; tbh i see men are trash more but that might be because of the places i stick around online

do you think it makes sense to distinguish between the kind of radical feminism you're talking about, and the dry academic stuff that's also called radical feminism by the people who are engaged in it at least?

it's tricky, i can't deny there aren't spaces which are predominantly women where a bunch of unfair or negative stuff about men is said.

thing is, radical, which in math is another term for getting the 'root' of something, like a square root, and also means like 'fundamental' does have more than one meaning. when you use it, that's one use of the word which makes sense, another which is the one i first learned and the places i go to use to describe themselves is rather dry academic, philosophical, and artsy (artsy in the way which is confusing as heck to me) and they are also radical.

so often i am confused because it's not as though when you use the word you're making anything up. other commenters will likely treat you like you invented that use of the word, people always police language. it'd be way nicer if we could understand each other better i really think you and i and the commenters which probably gave you a downvote all have way more in common than not.

damn, good way to put it

do you know if there is one for movember? i always felt that international mens day wasnt really popular because it wasnt 'themed' if you get what i mean. during movember in high school the girls would get those like moustache cutouts and wear them and it all raised awareness for men and boys and there was funding for like, i think it was prostate cancer?