Reddit reviews Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From Inside The Strange World Of Women's Studies

I don't mean to ruin this, but what GardeniaBlossom is saying here is just a paraphrasing of Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge in Professing Feminism (1995), although this line of thinking is more generally associated with second wave feminists like Catharine Mackinnon or Andrea Dworkin.

>I like to think that I was raised right... "

What anyone raised in a totalitarian belief system is taught is that the 'ingroup' is good, and the 'outgroup' is not.

>" They taught me to... respect women no matter what..."

The ingroup are virtuous...

>"Whenever I see a man... I recognise that he could very well be a predator"

The outgroup are evil.

>"I weep for the women of the World"

Do you think that you have been programmed? Brainwashed? Before you say 'of course not', if you were brainwashed, what would you think that is different to the sentiments you have expressed here?

Try reading this book or read the men's rights sub-reddit, or some other resource to challenge the 'Ovaries good, testes bad' belief system into which you have been inculcated. Above all, the starting point is the recognition that you can only change yourself, not 50% of the World's population

I wish you well

Marcotte is certainly one of the most prominent SJW's, but SJWism was around even prior to the internet. See this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Professing-Feminism-Cautionary-Strange-Studies/dp/0465098274

>Good solid sources like what?

Independent research as opposed to the advocacy research that has been produced inside feminism that isn't peer reviewed outside of feminism except by the likes of Patai, Straus, Hoff Sommers who say that its mostly ideological, fundamentalist and fraudulent, and back up their claims.

Ask me for our sources on any of the issues, a good example would be domestic violence, wage gap or rape - and I will show you the modern solid independent research, show me the corresponding feminist research and I will show you how its agenda driven convoluted advocacy research dressed up as academia.

For example, here an article that appeared in real clear science about a fraudulent piece of feminist research. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-07-26-men-women-feminism-sexism_n.htm

Here is Murray Straus on the methods that feminist academics use to cover up abuse.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

Patai

In this "illiberal education" of feminism, two feminist academics speak out, showing how political correctness has turned academic feminism into a parody of itself. They assert that official feminism has become irrelevant to or misunderstood by people inside and outside of academic circles, playing into the hands of right-wing critics and creating a gender cult dedicated solely to furthering its own interests. The authors call for feminism to abandon its intolerant and self-destructive modes and explore how to regain the positive vision that attracted so many women in the first place.
http://www.amazon.com/Professing-Feminism-Cautionary-Strange-Studies/dp/0465098274



Yet you, without evidence or giving an example of on piece of research that mra's typically use, characterize the stats and studies that MRAs cite as being inherently suspect.

Shes pretty critical of feminist shenanigans and specifically the method that alarmed you.

This feminist is too a critic.

http://www.amazon.com/Professing-Feminism-Cautionary-Strange-Studies/dp/0465098274