I’ll Take My Feminism Without Snark, Thank You

46

Snark, noun. Combination of “snide” and “remark”. Sarcastic comment(s). Also snarky (adj.) and snarkily (adv.)

Ah, snark. If you spend any time on the internet, you become intimately acquainted with it. It can happen anywhere at anytime, but it seems to be most prevalent among people who think that their positions are so above comment that they can speak at their opponents with disdain, ridicule, and sarcasm. Snark is used by those who are so single-minded in their worldview that they believe it is beyond questioning, like the sky being blue or gravity pulling things downward. Anyone who does not agree with them is below contempt, to be cast aside with derision without a second thought.

Snark is the tool of the lazy and of cowards.

Unfortunately, you see snark in places where genuine, honest, debate and discussion is most desperately needed: in feminism.

No, I’m not really talking about serious academic feminist criticism. I’m talking about popular feministy websites like Jezebel and Feministing. I’m talking about conversations I have with my friends, articles I see written by feminist figures, and popular graphics I see passed around Facebook.

Seriously, it’s time for the snark to end, my feminist friends. You’re only hurting yourself.

Shockingly, equally reasonable people can disagree (and people don’t always have all the information).

Snark has one purpose, no matter who is using it: It undermines the legitimacy of the other person speaking and treats their point of view as not worth considering. The only problem with this is that two people with the same facts can disagree on the meaning of those facts, or the cause, or what to do about the “problem.”

Additionally, it is increasingly the case that people don’t always have the right facts. Maybe someone needs to sit down with all the “legitimate rape” government officials and sincerely explain to them how rape and reproduction works. Maybe they didn’t know. You never know until you approach someone with sincerity.

Snark convinces no one. Ever.

If our interest is really to bring about equality for women, I can pretty much tell you right now that snarking is not going to get you anywhere. When people snark, they immediately create an polarized audience: people who are circlejerking with you and laughing at all the stupid plebs—and people who are sympathetic to the opposition and are now really pissed off.

You have done nothing productive. All you have accomplished is you have made yourself and those who agree with you feel superior while isolating people who need convincing by disregarding their thoughts. You aren’t really advocating for women’s freedom.

There’s a reason the terms “feminazi” and “angry feminist” are a thing.

I’m not about to launch a defense against Rush Limbaugh, but, if we take a step back for a moment and look at the pure amount of sarcasm and disdain that feminists use to rip on others, is it really surprising that they have been branded as such? There are so many angry mainstream feminists that the real meaty critical analysis is drowned in the roar. The great points that even the mainstream feminists make are lost in their sea of slimy sarcasm.

Even if the terms are unfairly branded upon them, feminists would do well to notice that they are running uphill against them, and to adjust their rhetoric accordingly. Given the other two reasons (and many more), there’s no real benefit to being angry—even if we are justified in being so.

Women have a right to be angry about their lot in life. Representation of us in popular culture certainly isn’t great; we are still socialized to be submissive; we are expected to carry the weight of a career and family on our shoulders. That’s a lot to be angry about. Anger has its place, but this kind of anger-in-superiority does not belong in something public. Feminists have a lot of really important things to say, and there is a lot that could use refining. If feminists care about the robustness of their philosophies and want to truly change the world to help women, they are going to have to cut the circlejerking, the snobbery, and the snark and start having real conversations with people.

Tags

About the author

Gina Luttrell

Twitter Facebook Website

Gina Luttrell is the Editor-in-Chief of the libertarian women’s magazine, Thoughts on Liberty. She is an Arts and Entertainment columnist at PolicyMic, and her writings have also appeared in TownHall, The Blaze, and The Chicago Sun Times. She is also a Young Voices Advocate. When she’s not fighting for the future of the free world, she is probably sleeping. She also occasionally reads science fiction and fantasy, plays video games, and tinkers with web and graphic design. She currently resides in Philadelphia, PA. She graduated cum laude from Agnes Scott College in Decatur, GA with a Bachelor’s in philosophy and political science. You can follow her on Twitter and subscribe to her witticisms on Facebook.

  • ladydreamgirl

    You have done nothing productive. All you have accomplished is you have made yourself and those who agree with you feel superior while isolating people who need convincing by disregarding their thoughts.

    But reinforcing a feeling of community, airing frustrations and complaints towards an audience that is already on your side IS productive. I happen to generally disagree with you on your claim that ridicule doesn’t convince anyone to change their view, but even if we assume ridicule is counter productive to convincing outsiders you can’t dismiss it as totally unproductive when it serves to reinforce the feeling of community among readers of feminist leaning sites.

    • Josephine Jojo

      While I understand your point, I feel I must throw in my two cents. The author of this article believes that snark is detrimental to a feminist’s argument (and typically anyone’s argument). While it’s understandable that reinforcing a common viewpoint in the feminist community can bring a stronger group amicability it doesn’t really do much for the cause. Feminism is supposed to be about equality, and making a group unapproachable due to snark only hinders the cause. Outsiders are less likely to join if they see feminists as contentious rather than inclusive.

      Time and a place I suppose, but I can’t believe straight insults and snide comments are the way to further one’s cause. The feminism I follow is above that.

      • treacle

        Sorry. Civil and human rights are not about people’s *feelings*.

        • Paul Shelley

          ladies and gentlemen, the snark we can believe in!

        • Josephine Jojo

          No but rhetoric is.

      • ladydreamgirl

        I firmly believe in ridiculing the ridiculous. Treating ridiculous ideas respectfully, in my mind, does more damage to the cause than treating them with the contempt which they deserve.

        • http://thoughtsonliberty.com V.A. Luttrell

          Most ideas are ridiculous to someone but are not ridiculous to the person who has the idea. I think that’s important to realize. Most people genuinely believe in their ideas, and so ridiculing them is really only gonna turn them off to what you’re saying. You probably won’t convince them in one go, but you can at least make them less hostile.

          • ladydreamgirl

            Yes, people genuinely believe their beliefs, but the genuineness of someone’s belief does not alter the objective ridiculousness/non-ridiculousness of that belief. In open conversation, such as takes place in fora like internet comment sections, the person with whom you are directly engaging in conversation is not the only person you are trying to convince. The audience of the discussion also contains people who may be open to your ideas, so turning off your opponent or making them hostile is not necessarily a loss.

          • http://thoughtsonliberty.com V.A. Luttrell

            At the same time, your audience might also include people who are sympathetic to the argument—so might a well treat your opponents with respect. People are always gonna respond better to attempts to understand and reason than they are to hostility.

            A great way, I’ve found, to counter ridiculous ideas is to straight up ask people to give their argument better/expound upon their beliefs and then you can show how their reasoning is flawed. Showing someone that a belief is ridiculous is much more persuasive than telling them.

          • ladydreamgirl

            Showing someone that a belief is ridiculous is much more persuasive than telling them.

            Yes, that exactly what I mean when I say that I ridicule ridiculous ideas. Ridicule isn’t just “ha ha that’s ridiculous” it’s “look how this part of your position contradicts this other part how exactly do you manage to think both of these things at once eh?”

          • http://thoughtsonliberty.com V.A. Luttrell

            Well, snark is more of the former, and so it’s completely ineffective. Straight up calling someone’s idea ridiculous still isn’t terribly effective, in the grand scheme of things. I tend to take Socrates’ route–giving someone the benefit of the doubt and asking them questions to understand their ideas better. That way, if they truly are wrong, I have a better understanding of why they are wrong, and they might begin to understand that they are wrong also.

          • ladydreamgirl

            I don’t really see Socrates giving people the benefit of the doubt in the Platonic dialogues. He seems far to aware of the logical flaws in his interlocutors positions to be anything but a snarker.

          • http://thoughtsonliberty.com V.A. Luttrell

            cen·sor/ˈsensərˌSHip/
            Verb:Examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
            Me suggesting that snark is counter-productive is *hardly* censorship. Saying “hey, maybe you want to try a different tactic” is advice and crticism, but not censorship.

          • ladydreamgirl

            So that’s all you’re saying? That snarky feminists might wish to try a different tactic? Because as I read it, you are sort of saying that you think that snark is unacceptable in feminism and that it aught to be suppressed.

            Additionally here’s a snarky feminist’s reply to your advise: Thanks but no thanks, I’ll use a variety of tactics including sometimes not being nice, but it’s nice that you have found a tactic which you believe works. Please stop it with the “my way is the only one that works” thing though, it’s rather irritating.

          • http://thoughtsonliberty.com V.A. Luttrell

            “Please stop it with the ‘my way is the only one that works’ thing though, it’s rather irritating.”

            I know that feel, bro.

          • ladydreamgirl

            I’m sorry that people have been trying to require that you be snarky when you don’t want to be. I hope you won’t mind me asking if you can link to some places where this has occurred.

          • http://thoughtsonliberty.com V.A. Luttrell

            I was (unfairly, I admit) referring to you. Perhaps a better response, on my part, should have been something more along the lines of this:

            “I’m sorry that this discussion has now delved into the realm of snark and so I must now take my leave. Up until then, however, I enjoyed the discussion and found it interesting. Thanks for the snark-free debate, while it lasted. It’s uncommon for folks on the internet to stick around long enough to have a conversation.”

          • ladydreamgirl

            I’ve been doing my best to participate in this conversation entirely in ernest and snark free because I respect that you didn’t want to engage with people in that way. I do however genuinely read the message of your post as being ‘everyone aught to do feminism how I prefer to do feminism’ which is the root of my objection. I feel like both approaches can live together in peace (at least until someone can design a strong study focused on the effectiveness of various argumentation approaches). I’m sorry you feel the need to step out of the discussion, but I understand that you have to look after your own needs. It’s been nice conversing with you.

          • femi-nasty is more like it

            Well, if you want some rough data, I started reading as a impartial bystander and now I think you are an obnoxious bitch and I hope you get hit by fucking bus. Let that be 1 for “snark fails to persuade”.

          • http://thoughtsonliberty.com/ Gina Luttrell

            Hey now.

            I know that these kinds of debates inspire strong emotion and resentment. However, please be courteous and respectful to commenters. Expressing wishes that they be hit by a bus is also not a good way to convince people.

            Please also see our comment guidelines for more information on how we roll around here: http://thoughtsonliberty.com/about-thoughts-on-liberty/comment-guidelines

          • dumb shit

            I couldn’t care less about your dumb shit, thanks.

        • snarky feminism = verbal abuse

          As a female sexual assault survivor, I can’t stand feminists like the person above. You know why? Because they think bulling their enemies, and acting like bitchy high school girls is productive – I mean “the contempt they deserve”?

          Sheesh, it’s good to know that you have figured out for the rest of us who “deserves” contempt. It seems many modern feminists show the same slimy contempt for women that disagree with them that they do for men. Many average people walk away from reading their blog posts feeling like being a “feminist” means treating people like garbage while acting like you are above reproach.

          I personally have been treated with utter disdain and contempt by internet feminists for simply pointing out that they might to consider the privacy/feelings of rape survivors whose stories end up in the national media instead of making them pawns in their petty internet flame wars. The feminists I encountered were very condescending and rude, then ganged up on me, called me a conservative (which is weird because I am not, and I said nothing about politics) and told me to GTFO.

          Because of their nasty attitude and obvious disregard for the privacy of the girl who was assaulted, I decided to take action and start informing rape crisis services around the country of the exploitation of rape cases by the feminist blogosphere, and encouraging them to remove any links to pop feminist blogs on their websites. For instance, Jezebel recently showed screen shots of a rape victim and refused to take them down even when people complained that they were being exploitative.

          The feminists who want to be “snarky” and think they are justified are beyond help, it seems. But at least I can sleep better at night knowing that I can make a difference by not allowing them to exploit assault survivors in the process.

          • ladydreamgirl

            With regard to contempt, I would like to point out that I have not determined “who” deserves it, but I do believe that I am capable of determining “what” deserves it, namely harmful ideas.

            I am very sorry that you have been treated with distain and contempt by feminists on the internet. That is genuinely horrible behavior. It seems to me, however, that you are eliding inability to constructively respond to criticism or disagreement and snarkyness. While I don’t doubt that there is a certain comorbidity of the two, neither entails the other; there can be snarky feminists who respond to criticism constructively and non-snarky feminists who respond to criticism poorly.

  • treacle

    Whomever can’t handle a little snark probably can’t handle actual problems. Feminism has more important concerns than convincing a few people with a few too many first world problems that women deserve human rights. If snark invalidates the concept of human rights for women to you, even just a little, you were never that open-minded about feminism in the first place, and thus not worth taking seriously. At least, not enough to waste time trying to convince you. Convince yourself to be an ally of feminism, or don’t. Whichever you choose, it will have absolutely zero bearing on feminism, or the validity of feminism’s goals. Blaming snark sounds like a cop out you’re using as an excuse to ignore the voices and plights of your fellow humans because you’re secretly (or not-so-secretly) intellectually lazy.

    • http://thoughtsonliberty.com V.A. Luttrell

      So, it should be noted that I’m not really expressing anti-feminism here. As I said, I think feminism has a lot of really important things to say, and they deserve to be a part of the conversation of how we arrange our society.

      Unfortunately, snark stands in the way of real understanding. Core arguments and beliefs are hidden behind condescending hostility. As someone who is highly sympathetic to most feminist claims, seeing things expressed with snark really irritates me, even if I agree with what the person is saying! If it irritates me, imagine what it does to someone who isn’t as sympathetic or someone who is just coming to learn about the ideas.

      Also unfortunately, simply being right (which, as I mentioned, is debatable) is not enough to guarantee change. You can sit on your high horse and feel right all you want, but it doesn’t translate into actual change for people. Change comes through action and societal change comes from convincing people that you’re right. You can’t do that if you’re looking down your nose at anyone who disagrees.

    • RoughSea

      go ahead, keep thinking people hate feminists because you hurt their feelings. You’d rather look clever and right than actually make a difference.

    • oh, snap!

      Actually, the snarky bitchy attitude of feminists inspired me as a woman to take action. I am a progressive non-religious person, but I can’t stand this kind of shitty, passive aggressive attitude masquerading as social justice anymore. I used to consider myself an ally, but was turned off by how nasty the feminists I saw acted towards others. In return, I have convinced a number of women’s services and rape crisis centers to distance themselves from modern internet feminism because of it’s radicalism, vicious “snark” and lack of tact concerning sexual assault.

      So actually, you are dead wrong. I can still affect anti-feminist policy in real life whether you like it or not, and by being nasty and condescending you are really shooting yourselves in the foot. Also, you obviously don’t give a shit about voices and plights of your fellow humans because you are too busy insulting them for being “intellectually lazy”. Hilarious. ;)

  • Paul Shelley

    I am a feminist and have been discovering more and more that being a male feminist is like an oxymoron. I know I’m not the only man who believes in equality for women who feels like we are becoming less an ally and more an opponent for women lib groups because of this kind of snark. It turns the discussion away from equality and liberty and towards superiority of women.

    As the article points out it can make the feminist side circle jerk with pride while pissing off the opposing view, it can also piss off allies as the circle jerk gets to far often leading to “men are whats wrong with the world, women are superior and more loving and men are evil and bastards!” While this may be the feeling of a minority of the community its because of this snark that this minority feels empowered to speak and thus make male allies feel isolated and shut out. For those of you who honestly believe she is silly for making this argument you should really try and think about the argument being made, don’t be snarky and hostile, act like civilized human beings looking for open discussions and you will find a lot of people willing to talk if not support modern popular feminism.

  • TheIronFistOfDeath

    Great piece. Seems like a few people are sitting on the snarky, circlejerk, side of feminism and (surprise!) they don’t take criticism well. The jackassery so prevalent in modern feminism only serves to drive away reasonable allies and attract other assholes. Unfortunately, they’re often the loudest voice too, so they attract A LOT of other assholes.

  • MRAnonymous

    Fantastic article! I couldn’t agree more!

    I think it needs to be said that this applies equally to Men’s Rights activists. I think almost all groups have this problem within them.

    I think if we all relaxed a little and actually talked to each other as human beings, as equals, we would find that we’re not so different after all. I think we’d all end up striving for a better world under an egalitarian banner.

    A man (or woman) can dream….

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Anthony-Zarat/100002545695048 Anthony Zarat

    I am an MRA. To me, there is nothing more odious in the universe than feminism. I believe that feminism is a religion of hatred, bigotry, sexism, and discrimination. Most feminists are decent, kind, compassionate egalitarians. However, the feminism that is politically connected, financially relevant, and institutionally powerful is pure 100% distilled man-hatred.

    Every persuasive argument that a feminist has put to me has “persuaded” me of something I already agree with. I do not think that I can be convinced, because there is overwhelming evidence that my worldview is fundamentally correct. This is because I am not interested in fighting for equal opportunity (though I wish feminists well in their fight). I am interested in equal protection. As a feminist, you probably have no idea what the difference is. Which is why you are intellectually ineffective and morally bankrupt.

    Snark, however, works very well. It wound me, because I am naturally a peacemaker and I avoid conflict. After enough hate is thrown my way, I need a few days to recover.

    In summary:

    1) Trying to convince me is a waste of time.

    2) Snark is an effective silencing tool.

    Don’t knock snark. Silencing is the only weapon that you have against genuine MRAs (as opposed to conservative false flags). Because we are right.

    • LMEdwards

      I am curious about what makes your world view fundamentally correct. Don’t take that statement the wrong way. I’m not assuming that your worldview is not correct, nor am I here to argue it, but I am curious as to what it is. Also, I think that the idea of this piece is not a matter of silencing, although you’ve pointed out that silencing is a feminists’ best bet with a men’s rights activist, but rather that snark is not an appropriate tactic when trying to convince, or debate.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Anthony-Zarat/100002545695048 Anthony Zarat

        “I am curious about what makes your world view fundamentally correct.”

        EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW:
        1) Fact: Equal protection under the law is denied to men only
        Proof: Select any federal law from the past 4 years. Google “full text [name of law]“. Search for word “women” and for word “men”. In every case, you will find benefits that apply only to men. In contrast, try to find a law that discriminates against women.
        2) Hypothesis: By YOUR standards, men have far more need of government protection than women. Evidence: Make a list of the 10 worst things that can happen to a human being. Put whatever you want on your list. Any kind of violence, any kind of disease, any kind of accident, suicide, any cause of death, incarceration, homelessness, substance abuse (any kind), workplace death, alienation from children, WHATEVER. Then find out, for each item on your list, if it occurs more often to women or to men.
        EQUAL APPLICATION OF THE LAW:
        1) Fact: Massive judicial bias against men is the single most important determinant for guilt and severity of punishment in criminal law, and the single most important determinant of outcome (including property, income, and custody of children) in family court. Statistcial proof: Find out the total number of post conviction DNA exonerations that have occured in the United States. Determine the gender of each of theses. Given that women are 11% of the prison population, calculate the probability that this event can occur by chance using the formule (0.89) ^ N. If you want to, exclude from N all sexual assault cases (under the mistaken assumption that women do not leave genetic material when they commit rape). Do you believe that 1 chance in 5.7 x 10^21 is a random event?

        • http://www.clichegames.com Anthony

          I’m confused by your 1) for equal protection. do you mean that the benefits apply only to women? As written the statement doesn’t seem to line up with the rest of what you are saying.

          2) yes, people often overlook the fact that in several things men tend more towards the extremes on both ends.

  • http://www.facebook.com/melissa.eisner.7 Melissa Eisner

    “There’s a reason the terms “feminazi” and “angry feminist” are a thing.”

    I disagree that the only reason these slurs exist is because “there are so many angry mainstream feminists.” I think those words have been created primarily as a way of negatively identifying and stereotyping women who struggle for equality. As Faludi said in Backlash, “when the enemy has no face, society will invent one.”

    • Madfoot713

      You’re probably right, but in my case that is true. Most of my resistance to feminism comes from arguing with them on the internet. :x

    • internet feminists suck

      No, it’s because MOST feminists act like petty, nasty people on their blogs. I am a progressive woman and even I am sick of it. Take some responsibility for your selves for fuck’s sake. The victim plus bitch thing really isn’t impressive anymore. Seriously, spare me the “struggle for equality” bullshit- it’s 2013, sane women and men are going to leave your radicalism in the dirt because we don’t have time for this hateful shit. We have achieved equality. What feminists seem to want to do do is act like a pack of snarling dogs towards people that disagree with them but blame it on society so they can avoid taking responsibility when people call them out on their bad attitudes. Truth.

    • Archy

      I think the terms are CONTINUED by the snarky, angry attitudes that lash out. Do you think that appearing as an asshole will make people see you as NOT an angry feminist/feminazi? (not you you)

      The stereotype exists for a reason, n sadly it’s being kept well alive by snarky feminism and extremists. Being angry is one thing, but being angry at damn near everything, being full of snark n hostility is where people start to really question someone’s personality.

  • http://twitter.com/MissCherryPi Elizabeth

    “If I can get you to laugh with me, you like me
    better, which makes you more open to my ideas. And if I can persuade you
    to laugh at the particular point I make, by laughing at it you
    acknowledge its truth.” – John Cleese

    Humor is an incredibly powerful tool, and this entire post reeks of concern trolling. I’d rather be an angry feminist than a humorless one.

    • http://thoughtsonliberty.com V.A. Luttrell

      Getting someone to laugh with you is one thing. Snark is you laughing at them and them getting angry and defensive. Snark is only funny to the people who already agree with you.

  • Sarsemn

    So what I see from a lot of snarky feminists, even here in these comments, is this black and white idea that MRAs are all angry, macho, right wing woman-haters who literally oppose equal human rights for women and want to return to 1950s gender roles. This is what makes it so easy for them to justify snarking – people that backwards WOULD be worthy of mocking and dismissing out of hand without earnestly listening to their arguments. If they actually existed in any significant numbers.

    To add some nuance to this view of MRAs, I am an extremely left wing socialist male, who happens to go against every popular concept of masculinity, who was raised to believe whole heartedly in women’s rights by a liberal family, and who identifies more closely with and forms stronger bonds with the women in his life than the males. I am definitely not a woman hating, traditional values supporting neo-con. I am not Todd Akin.

    I’m also an MRA. It’s my belief men DO face a number of problems in our society, and that incidentally none of these problems’ existence negates or contradicts inherently the problems faced by women. Some of them are problems entirely independent of feminism – issues with gender roles imposed on men or societal biases against men in some cases. Others are tied to feminism – places where the feminist movement may have overstepped what was necessary and have introduced new problems for both men and women. The fact that I believe this doesn’t change the fact that I still support MOST of the rights and policy changes secured for women by feminists over the last century.

    Generally, I could easily be an ally of feminism as well as an MRA – the two aren’t mutually exclusive. But as I lurk in the bowells of gender relations discussions on the Internet, I run into countless feminists who have dismissed the MRA argument outright, usually without giving it any thought. They think mockery or dismissal such as “what about teh menz!” or “check your male privilege” are perfectly valid ways to end a discussion before it begins, because they think I’m a monster from the Dark Ages who wants to put women in chains, when really my argument is just “hey both sides have issues, lets just meet in the middle and get along”. They’ve allowed an extreme caricature to paint every single member of the movement. It would be like if I believe literally every feminist wants to kill or enslave all men, just because a few have advocated such.

    Being treated this way has really embittered me to feminists and their rhetoric, and I have to admit its drawn me into “us vs them” dynamic, where I feel like feminists are the enemy. I began life as and still consider myself to BE a feminist in the true sense of the word, but now I feel I can no longer trust them, specifically because of this snark and dismissal.

    So for those in these comments saying “its human rights – we shouldn’t compromise! snark away!”, just please try to remember that for the majority of MRAs, its not a simple argument of “women should have human rights vs shouldn’t”. It’s a lot more complicated than you think it is, and your attitude is preventing you from ever having a serious conversation with the other side long enough to see that and achieve a greater understanding for both parties.

    And for the record, this goes for a lot of the MRAs too. Plenty of you are kinda of jerks, all though not nearly as many as the feminists think.

  • notgoodatpickingnames

    Ok, as an avid reader of popular feminist sites since my teen years, I sort of disagree with you on this point. I agree that snark is inappropriate in serious debates. However, I am not sure the majority of the articles on feministing ect. are directed towards sexist people. How many sexist people would spend their spare time googling feminist websites? Snark is funny, it brings people together. Its like an inside joke amongst a community. I know the snark on both of those websites kept me going through high school. When things are rough, people need a release. Snarky comments and jokes are a healthy way of getting out stress and anger. Getting a few laughs in and sharing an inside joke with some people who are going through the same thing. I mean, if people are on the fence about these issues are they really going to want to look at a site that has a mudflap lady giving them the middle finger as the logo?

    • Goober

      Snark may bring a community together, but it also has a way of holding anyone outside of that community at arms length, and in most cases, turn people off that community.

      I’ve been looking up a lot of women’s rights stuff the past few days, and while I’ll always believe in equal rights, and equal justice under the law, for everyone, the feminist snark is really just making me think they’re just a bunch of assholes.

    • Archy

      I know countless people that get turned off to some parts of feminism in part because of snark and how hard it can be to find a place that doesn’t seem to have snark these days. You don’t win fans when you snark other peoples issues, and you especially don’t help the movement when you snark legitimate men’s issues and further create an us vs them mentality. Dislike someone who speaks bigotry, call em an A hole, but don’t snark serious issues.

  • Joanna Boese

    THANK YOU!

    I recently made a comment on Jezebel regarding an actor I liked and how I sort of feel bad for him because he’s on the tabloids almost every week when he’s much more than a fiancee. I get met with cynical or rude comments about it…although I got more likes than rude comments about it.

    But aside from the celebrity worship, it’s always these women who don’t get why people are pro-life or pro-adoption and they have to act like jerks about it. I’m sorry, but I thought Lois Griffin put it best that feminism is about CHOICE. And I’m choosing to be civilized, not cynical and to not give up on what I believe in despite what the majority thinks we should be doing.

  • KuroiAmaterasu

    Nope this is just the EVIL PATRIARCHY encouraging womyn not to express themselves! Anger is good! Anger is healthy! Reality is what we say it is!