Why go back to the 1940s. You can look in the 90s at least. Women were still getting a slap in movies and it wasn't seen as unacceptable. The "dumb blonde" was still being portrayed constantly. What's the male equivalent? [..]
The utterly incompetent man who was a staple in sitcoms and adverts. Also,
real violence against men is generally seen as acceptable as well as screen violence.
Your position is so ludicrously sexist that it's just blathering nonsense with no connection to reality. And you're proud of being that irrationally prejudiced, so proud that you use it as the way you identify yourself. That's why you see sexism everywhere - you're projecting it from yourself.
really you’re going to argue the semantics of feminist? There are so many versions but the one I was describing myself as is what I think The majority see it to mean. Clearly some guys in here see it as some form of extremism which as I said before is laughable.
To someone as devoutly prejudiced as you, maybe. To me (as well as all the other people who advocate equality), biological group advocacy is an inherently extremist position.
There are two requirements for biological group advocacy:
1) Belief in biological group identity. Obviously a person can't advocate for a group identity unless they believe in that group identity. Belief in biological group identity is the belief that "they're all the same". "They're all the same" and "they all have the same identity" mean exactly the same thing. People using the older phrasing didn't mean that every person they regarded as being a group identity were exactly the same, precise clones of each other. Adding the word "identity" is just expressing exactly the same belief in slightly better English.
2) Belieg that only the "right" biological group identity is worthy of consideration. That's the
least extreme position possible for a biological group advocate as it merely dismisses the "wrong" biological group identity or identities. Mainstream biological group advocacy targets the "wrong" biological group identity or identities to some degree, using them as a scapegoat at the very least. That's prety much required for biological group advocates because they need to blame their victims in order to "justify" their position.
I think the most eloquent opposition to belief in biological group identity came from Martin Luther King when he talked about his dream of a society in which people are judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character. I think he was right and I extend that idea to all strains of belief in biological group identity. You think people should be judged not by the content of their character but by their sex. Or more precisely, by the collection of grotesque stereotypes you associate with each biological group identity you believe in so that you can "rationalise" your sexism. I think the opposite to you, unsurprisingly. I reject the entire idea of biological group identity because it's wrong both objectively and ethically.
So yes, I do see biological group advocacy as a form of extremism and inherently so. It comes in various strains with various degrees of extremism, but I think the entire concept is inherently extreme. The idea that some version of some trivial and mostly irrelevant biological characteristic should be attached to simplistic stereotypes and used to judge everyone and determine what rights and opportunities and status they have in society is, in my not at all humble opinion, an extremist position.
