[NTlazerman]

I have to be honest here. I totally hate SJWs. They ruin everything, support restrictions to free speech, are totally ignorant themselves, claim others are nazis and refuse to listen them only because they have one differing opinion. They are very judgemental, annoying, take offense on everything, claim to support equality while being the biggest bigots themselves, don't understand humor, try to find stupid messages and implications from everything even if there is none, think everything is about them etc.

They are the very thing that they claim to fight against. They are the most judgemental and bigoted people of all. I have one message to them; MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND STOP HARASSING THOSE WHO WON'T CARE.

I know that many of those things they fight for are real, but really, most those issues are REALLY MINOR and concern a very small amount of people at least in the developed countries. Please leave us alone. The only ones who make those things such a big deal are the SJWs themselves.

I want to feel free to talk in the future. I don't want my every word to be controlled by the damn SJWs. WE ARE THE PEOPLE not them.

 

[Jinsei]

Well @NotSoSpecialSnowflake their antics are an endless source of cringe worthy humor for me.

However I had an experience recently that made me feel like in general many people are pretty oblivious to how their own bias comes out when speaking. I was in a briefing where they were talking about the mass migration crisis in Europe from all of the conflict in Syria and the middle east. The comment made by a man in a rather high position was, "They estimate over 10,000 young women and children have gone missing due to criminal organizations abducting individuals and selling them into slavery. UNFORTUNATELY, this is not just young women and girls, but also young boys."

My first thought was "unfortunately"?! Seriously?! Would it be less unfortunate if it was just women and girls?! I think things like this could possibly betray a lot about an individuals worldview... or it just might be a mental slip / oversight.

On the other side however, I also had an experience once where I was giving a safety briefing to my Soldiers before MLK weekend. I said something to the effect of, "I know it isn't as big of a weekend as far as drinking and driving is concerned as the New Years weekend we just had, but please be smart and safe out there." Afterward I was pulled aside by someone who brought to my attention that how I worded that could have offended some of my Soldiers who were African American because it sounded like I was saying MLK day wasn't as big a deal as New Years. I was pretty taken aback because that was a complete misinterpretation of what I was trying to communicate which was: "There probably won't be as many people drinking and driving but that is no reason to be any less vigilant while on the road." It felt like the individual was calling me racist. It upset me because I have a huge amount of respect for Martin Luther King and honestly when I look at an individual, I don't see anything other than a fellow human being. So to that end I think the SJW/PC crowd takes things just a bit to the extreme.

 

[Antipode]

Oh no... no don't make me post this video again... nooooo.

 

[WickerDeer]

I aim to misbehave. A message to anyone willing to stand up to the Regressive Left, the Social Justice Warriors and the Third Wave Feminazzis, to anyone who is willing to stand for free speech:

Start here: The Factual Feminist

Funny that you would use that speech...I love Serenity and Firefly btw.

Here's a speech by the director and writer of that movie (and that speech about misbehaving). He uses some similar sentiment in the end of his speech, where he says that he does not believe there will be an ending to 'fighting' for the cause of gender equality in our lifetime (at about 13:00 ) "I say to everybody of that other side of the line, who believe that women are to be bought, or trafficked, or ignored...we will never not be fighting...we will always work this issue 'till it doesn't need to be worked anymore. There are and will be great heroes, great women, extraordinary movements..."

He takes issue with the word feminist--not because it's 'all about women' but because the word itself makes it sound like believing that women are equal is an ideology, like racism.

He says at about 8:14 in-- "People feel removed from sexism...[they grumble] 'I'm not a sexist, but I'm not a Feminist'...they think there's this fuzzy middle ground. There's no fuzzy middle ground. You either believe that women are people or you don't."

So yeah...I thought that was a fitting speech to go with the one you provided. I think it's a pretty good one, which seeks to figure out how to solve people's issue with the word 'feminist,' and make it clear the harmful ideology isn't feminism, but sexism (or genderism, as he decides is the best term.) And to stop treating the idea that women are people and equal as if it's some kind of ideology, rather than a fact.

The Jezebel Article
Watch Joss Whedon Make the Perfect Speech About the Word Feminist

 

[MrSlunk]

@Meltedsorbet

The problem is that feminism HAS turned into an ideology based on cultural marxism.
It believes it is the ONLY way to promote female rights.

Kind of like saying communism is the ONLY political system that guarantees equality and fair treatment for all.

To anyone who says "i'm egalitarian", they respond "so you support female rights? you're a feminist then" clearly missing the distinction.

It's not about the end goal. There are still important issues in womens rights, but they're so rabidly pushing their agenda that they refuse to subject their ideas to criticism.

It's about the foundation of their methods. Cultural marxism and Critical Theory. Mob mentality. The hierarchy of oppression.
If they were advocating in Saudi-Arabia, or Iran, or Pakistan, where women are systemically oppressed (the ACTUAL patriarchies). I would STILL disagree with their methods, but they would be the lesser of two evils.

I guess it's ok though. Mobs like that end up eating themselves. I just hope that they don't destroy too much of their society in their attempt to "do good".

By the way, it's the same people we're talking about who attacked Joss Whedon for "not being feminist enough".

 

[UraniaIsis]

So what's you opinion on today's Social Justice Warriors as an INFJ? Perhaps you consider yourself to be one, but you're not an extremist who wants to censor and defame everybody.
At least 25% of the SJWs I meet who actually work their asses off to define and outline the purposes of the causes they fight for before they implement them have my utmost respect. I would say a good 75% of the ones I meet make me cringe. Shouting/tweeting a slogan doesn't mean shit is getting done. Most of them really don't KNOW what they are actually standing for. Every time I inquire some SJW's as to their cause they cannot provide any general outlines, definitions, or course of actions their movement might take or what they represent. I shouldn't have to go to Wiki page to understand a movement. A movement isn't going to last very long if all it has is a catchphrase to link it with other similar movements, but no one knows or understands why or how those movements are linked or what their common theme is? Look at all the "Occupy" movements that couldn't be tied to their "parent" cause. All I get are vague and parroted catchwords and phrases. *Insert Jackie Chan WTF! expression here*
/mini rant

How about this Political Correctness push? If you disagree with my personal views, please disagree respectfully, or else you'll trigger me!!
^^^I shall respect nothing. PC my a**! Go on ahead and get triggered! I don't give a rat's derriere! *Clings to rifle and grimoire*
:tongue: /joking

*Swallows an Aspirin* But, seriously. I feel, yes FEEL, that the PC push is a passive aggressive censorship and control psych-ops tool used to incite Lead-nose-itis and Beat-around-the-bush Syndrome with side effects of band-wagon and emotional appeal. It's all about securing the voting bases, not civil and government efficiency. In short, we're screwed.

 

[WickerDeer]

@Meltedsorbet

The problem is that feminism HAS turned into an ideology based on cultural marxism.
It believes it is the ONLY way to promote female rights.

By the way, it's the same people we're talking about who attacked Joss Whedon for "not being feminist enough".

Right--so what I'm getting from this is that there are other ways to promote 'female rights' that do not include treating women as equal human beings. Yeah, I can see how those ideologies would go against feminism.


Oh--there are individual people who criticized Joss Whedon. It's not surprising, and I am being sarcastic when I say that it...must mean feminism is rotten to the core.

@UraniaIsis

I couldn't help but hear your criticism on SJWs as if they are supposed to be some kind of business in which you can make a Yelp comment, criticizing how the beliefs were served a little too cold, and how you would have preferred them a different temperature.

I still have yet to meet the elusive 'SJW' in real life, but I am assuming they are not actually a business...? Or IDK...maybe I just 'buy' my beliefs based on whether or not they actually check out analytically as well as with my subjective experiences, and my knowledge of empirically gathered data? So going and doing independent research is not ridiculously wrong, considering my mentality is not based on expecting to be persuaded, but rather to make decisions on my own?

I certainly think it's useful to criticize people's 'methods' and look at reception...but it's also useful to do some analysis and consideration beyond that, if possible. I tend to look at the activists I've met as people, and try not to discount their beliefs because someone has spinach in their teeth.

I do think that it's valuable for people to be informed and thoughtful--including myself, especially if I am to criticize them. But of course, general criticism is useful if it's objective and not personal, as I see much of this thread as. Every movement requires criticism as there must be some progression.

For some reason, the criticism of 'sjws' seems to be stepping around issues such as racism and sexism, and perhaps income inequality, in favor of focusing on the disfashionable qualities of various individuals who've expressed notions related to these issues.

As far as your 'FEEL' about PC pushing--I almost wonder if it's related to personality (to bring it back to the forums and also this thread in particular), as in this one socionics site; INFJ behavior, as grouped together as Beta, is described as:


'Preference for larger groups where participation is "collective" rather than focused on individuals for any length of time, but with likely "domination" by more assertive individuals. This means that beta groups discuss topics that everyone could contribute to. Frequent unexplained inside jokes are considered impolite because they exclude other people.Jokes are loud and general, often about stereotypes. Betas attempt to draw others into the group activity: for example, in a situation where there are "group rituals" going on (as in drinking, dancing, etc), there is good-natured pressure on "outsiders" to also participate in them, with a sort of puzzled dismay if they prefer not to. They also try to draw attention to people who might otherwise feel left out - usually this is done with general jokes directed at individuals. In more subdued moments, discussion of ideas involving present trends and political implications, with strong views voiced. Personal experiences tend to be discussed from the point of view of their external impact rather than the individual's own personal view of them.

When larger social events are organized by Betas (such as parties, receptions etc), they show an inclination to promote activities that will lead to the guests involved as a single group, such as games and shows; dislike for the "quieter" form of events where guests tend to quietly form smaller groups in more intimate atmospheres, which Betas tend to see as boring.

For Betas atmosphere is more important than specific activity or topic. Groups of betas spend time together to entertain each other. They exchange fun (and often loud) stories to feed the atmosphere, so that the group energy won't run out. People talk fast and they often add comments to other people's stories if they feel that the pace is slowing down. When someone starts to talk, he takes on the obligation to entertain for the duration of the monologue and, in a friendly group, other people only interrupt to try and help him keep control of the atmosphere.

Talking about personal matters in a group is not something that Betas generally do. It's viewed almost as treachery when something that was told in a one-on-one conversation is retold in front of a group, or when someone criticizes another person's traits in front of the group. Betas believe such things should be told in private and should not be used to embarrass or belittle a friend.

Betas also don't like it when people tell long, slow stories. Betas try to be polite and listen to the story, and they will forgive you if it was boring for them, but if someone does it too often they might not be invited back. Betas restrict long-winded stories to one-on-one conversations. However, IEIs are more likely to adjust to the slower stories because they are very flexible conversationalists.'

And INFJ interaction with INFP (which is mentioned in the original post of this thread) is described as:

• Delta: Betas tend to regard Delta types as noncommittal in their unwillingness to support goals decided in a group, lack of drive, and ethical self-righteousness. Rather than back group efforts that require vision and concentration of effort, Delta types prefer to just work on personal projects. Equally mixed groups of Betas and Deltas get along just fine. Nothing great, nothing horrible. Deltas tell their personal views, but they don't feel comfortable enough to get too personal and Betas make general jokes to entertain others but don't feel playful enough to make loud jokes that might offend Deltas. But when there's a quadra dominance, things go bad very fast. The Beta group is too loud and impersonal for Deltas and the Delta group is too muted and personal for Betas. Betas want to express their views and opinions very openly, while Deltas want everyone to keep any possibly offensive views to themselves. (This reminds me of the 'PC' thing.)

Here's an excerpt to describe how INFP might see INFJ (INFP being Delta, and INFJ being Beta):


'Beta: Deltas tend to see Beta types as people who "dream big" and always want to turn things into grandiose endeavors, yet can't manage day-to-day affairs effectively. Also, Beta types seem unwilling to consider things from the point of view of others, which gives them a streak of meanness and cruelty.'


This is from this site--which I honestly am not that familiar with, but it kind of struck me at how Fi types were more so described as PC, while beta types are more loud and obnoxious.

Socionics - the16types.info - Four Quadra

As I said--IDK the veracity of this, but it reminded me a bit if the original post about sjw...and fi doms, and pc etc. I don't think that the whole internet squabble can be reduced to mbti type, but I thought it was kind of interesting to think about--the dynamics as described by that site.

 

[MrSlunk]

Right--so what I'm getting from this is that there are other ways to promote 'female rights' that do not include treating women as equal human beings. Yeah, I can see how those ideologies would go against feminism.


Oh--there are individual people who criticized Joss Whedon. It's not surprising, and I am being sarcastic when I say that it...must mean feminism is rotten to the core.

You do know that two things can be true at the same time, right?
That someone can promote female rights, and not be a feminist?
That someone can advocate gender equality, without subscribing to an ideology?
That people can push human rights issues without being part of the vocal, and crazy left?

Just like someone can believe in God without being a Christian.

There is hardly ever only one way to solve a problem, and you get a better solution and a better understanding of the issues if you rationally consider every voice.

Especially the dissenting ones.

Now.
If you somehow managed to turn feminism away from it's marxist roots, and instead adopted a skeptical and rational approach...
If you somehow managed to get the institutions who teach "gender issues and women studies" to critique ideas, to search for evidence, to design unbiased experiments and to demand accurate portrayal of statistics...
If you somehow managed to turn it away from a paradigm based on "systematic oppression", to one based on celebrating common humanity...
If you somehow managed to convince everyone that an idea has no rights...

Then when someone says "the gender gap is bull!" instead of yelling "MISOGYNY", you would demand to see the data. If the data was not sufficient, you would run well designed, unbiased surveys until you had enough.

Then when someone suggests an approach towards domestic violence that isn't based on a premise from "patriarchy theory", they're actually considered, instead of ramming Duluth down their throat.

Well.
If you did that I'd get feminist tattoo on my forehead.

Until then, i will disagree strongly with feminism.

Again, i want to make it perfectly clear that feminist are people, some objectively good, some objectively bad.
What I am hating on is an idea. One that is taught in our university system, pervades culture and the law system.
It's an idea that has great intentions, ones which i am strongly aligned with.
However, it's approach is diametrically opposed to absolutely everything I stand for, and if the ideology took a good hard look at itself, it would find that it's opposed to everything IT stands for..

 

[Carpentet810]

Right--so what I'm getting from this is that there are other ways to promote 'female rights' that do not include treating women as equal human beings. Yeah, I can see how those ideologies would go against feminism.


Oh--there are individual people who criticized Joss Whedon. It's not surprising, and I am being sarcastic when I say that it...must mean feminism is rotten to the core.

@UraniaIsis

I couldn't help but hear your criticism on SJWs as if they are supposed to be some kind of business in which you can make a Yelp comment, criticizing how the beliefs were served a little too cold, and how you would have preferred them a different temperature.

I still have yet to meet the elusive 'SJW' in real life, but I am assuming they are not actually a business...? Or IDK...maybe I just 'buy' my beliefs based on whether or not they actually check out analytically as well as with my subjective experiences, and my knowledge of empirically gathered data? So going and doing independent research is not ridiculously wrong, considering my mentality is not based on expecting to be persuaded, but rather to make decisions on my own?

I certainly think it's useful to criticize people's 'methods' and look at reception...but it's also useful to do some analysis and consideration beyond that, if possible. I tend to look at the activists I've met as people, and try not to discount their beliefs because someone has spinach in their teeth.

I do think that it's valuable for people to be informed and thoughtful--including myself, especially if I am to criticize them. But of course, general criticism is useful if it's objective and not personal, as I see much of this thread as. Every movement requires criticism as there must be some progression.

For some reason, the criticism of 'sjws' seems to be stepping around issues such as racism and sexism, and perhaps income inequality, in favor of focusing on the disfashionable qualities of various individuals who've expressed notions related to these issues.

As far as your 'FEEL' about PC pushing--I almost wonder if it's related to personality (to bring it back to the forums and also this thread in particular), as in this one socionics site; INFJ behavior, as grouped together as Beta, is described as:


'Preference for larger groups where participation is "collective" rather than focused on individuals for any length of time, but with likely "domination" by more assertive individuals. This means that beta groups discuss topics that everyone could contribute to. Frequent unexplained inside jokes are considered impolite because they exclude other people.Jokes are loud and general, often about stereotypes. Betas attempt to draw others into the group activity: for example, in a situation where there are "group rituals" going on (as in drinking, dancing, etc), there is good-natured pressure on "outsiders" to also participate in them, with a sort of puzzled dismay if they prefer not to. They also try to draw attention to people who might otherwise feel left out - usually this is done with general jokes directed at individuals. In more subdued moments, discussion of ideas involving present trends and political implications, with strong views voiced. Personal experiences tend to be discussed from the point of view of their external impact rather than the individual's own personal view of them.

When larger social events are organized by Betas (such as parties, receptions etc), they show an inclination to promote activities that will lead to the guests involved as a single group, such as games and shows; dislike for the "quieter" form of events where guests tend to quietly form smaller groups in more intimate atmospheres, which Betas tend to see as boring.

For Betas atmosphere is more important than specific activity or topic. Groups of betas spend time together to entertain each other. They exchange fun (and often loud) stories to feed the atmosphere, so that the group energy won't run out. People talk fast and they often add comments to other people's stories if they feel that the pace is slowing down. When someone starts to talk, he takes on the obligation to entertain for the duration of the monologue and, in a friendly group, other people only interrupt to try and help him keep control of the atmosphere.

Talking about personal matters in a group is not something that Betas generally do. It's viewed almost as treachery when something that was told in a one-on-one conversation is retold in front of a group, or when someone criticizes another person's traits in front of the group. Betas believe such things should be told in private and should not be used to embarrass or belittle a friend.

Betas also don't like it when people tell long, slow stories. Betas try to be polite and listen to the story, and they will forgive you if it was boring for them, but if someone does it too often they might not be invited back. Betas restrict long-winded stories to one-on-one conversations. However, IEIs are more likely to adjust to the slower stories because they are very flexible conversationalists.'

And INFJ interaction with INFP (which is mentioned in the original post of this thread) is described as:

• Delta: Betas tend to regard Delta types as noncommittal in their unwillingness to support goals decided in a group, lack of drive, and ethical self-righteousness. Rather than back group efforts that require vision and concentration of effort, Delta types prefer to just work on personal projects. Equally mixed groups of Betas and Deltas get along just fine. Nothing great, nothing horrible. Deltas tell their personal views, but they don't feel comfortable enough to get too personal and Betas make general jokes to entertain others but don't feel playful enough to make loud jokes that might offend Deltas. But when there's a quadra dominance, things go bad very fast. The Beta group is too loud and impersonal for Deltas and the Delta group is too muted and personal for Betas. Betas want to express their views and opinions very openly, while Deltas want everyone to keep any possibly offensive views to themselves. (This reminds me of the 'PC' thing.)

Here's an excerpt to describe how INFP might see INFJ (INFP being Delta, and INFJ being Beta):


'Beta: Deltas tend to see Beta types as people who "dream big" and always want to turn things into grandiose endeavors, yet can't manage day-to-day affairs effectively. Also, Beta types seem unwilling to consider things from the point of view of others, which gives them a streak of meanness and cruelty.'


This is from this site--which I honestly am not that familiar with, but it kind of struck me at how Fi types were more so described as PC, while beta types are more loud and obnoxious.

Socionics - the16types.info - Four Quadra

As I said--IDK the veracity of this, but it reminded me a bit if the original post about sjw...and fi doms, and pc etc. I don't think that the whole internet squabble can be reduced to mbti type, but I thought it was kind of interesting to think about--the dynamics as described by that site.

I run across the ''elusive'' SJWs quite frequently, but then I am in college. They don't survive to well in real world where their ideology gets castrated, unless they stick solely to causing academic woes. There are a few careers that they can pursue like Sociology and Political Science, but those have limited numbers of positions so most end up pretty impotent compared to their college ''glory'' years.

 

[jaeric]

I hate all that safe space and PC stuff. First things first, people need to stop being offended by everything. Every now and then I like to say something offensive not because I mean offence, but because it's slightly shocking and purely in jest. If someone says something offensive and does in fact mean it, then lets us hear it. How are we ever supposed to know who someone really is if they are constantly censored? Granted that doesn't mean we should say everything that pops into our heads, tact is a very important social tool.

I think people become SJWs because they feel the need to fight against injustice, but feel powerless to effect change on a scale that matters. They end up settling for bruised feeling like an over protective stage mother. If someone is going to be a SJW, then let them fight for something that makes a real difference. Let them fight for equality, narrowing the wage gap, protesting unjust laws, ect... You know, REAL social issues.

 

[UraniaIsis]

@UraniaIsis

Typed in normal reading voice…the following is not a rant.

I don't know where you might have gotten the idea that I was aiming this at Fi-doms. I wasn't aiming for any particular type at all. I never consider an SJW's type at all. SJW might be stereotyped as a Fi domain, but it's not. Although, I won't deny it's that powerful inner fire that gets the ball rolling and the closer to the upper levels of consciousness, the stronger. My emphasis of "feel" was more of a mock self-deprecating potshot of how some of the thinkers on this site have a penchant for snubbing Fx-users for using their "feelings" to assess social situations before thinking of a process to put some practical change into motion. Ya, my sense of "humor" can be a bit bizarre to say the least.

In general, my mini rant was about those who pass themselves off as SJWs and shout slogans without being able to explain what those slogans mean, what their movement represents, or what they themselves are fighting for. Slogans and catchphrases are not a substitute for explanation. I'm not talking about those who see a genuine injustice being done, but don't know how to go about getting their cause into the forefront. I'm not talking about those who are in it because their friends and/or family are in it and they are providing psychological/emotional/physical/spiritual support. I'm not talking about those who are getting their feet wet fighting for a greater good, the neophytes to the social justice scene. I live in California, so pardon me for sounding a bit jaded, but I'm talking about those who are just along for the vainglory. They're the ones who grind my gears and I have met more of the self-important glory hounds then not. Of course with the PC push it's one thing to speak with tact, but it's something else to not even address whatever elephant may be in the room.

With regards to me making it sound like a movement is a business, well in a sense it is. Anything that involves an exchange of finances for licenses, permits, and materials to provide informational services under a fictitious name is functioning like a business. Albeit, more akin to a small nonprofit business though. People who donate to a cause are, in a sense, investors. The interest being whatever the movement promises to provide. So yes, the ‘warriors’ have to sell their cause and influence potential ‘buyers’ to invest in their cause. An SJW that KNOWS what their cause does, what it wants to achieve and some idea of how to get there is what sells their cause. They are the salesperson of their cause and they need to be able to provide a basic description of their cause for a buyer to consider donating to or assisting in their cause. And just like any business you need figureheads/spokespeople, a general organization outline of definitions, purpose, codes of conduct and so forth to unify supporters with a common voice and to help those outside the movement understand the basics of said movement and even gather more support. Something that helps build faith in the stability of the movement. This may not be as important on a very small local level, but it would sure help out a lot as the movement expands and needs stability and demands acknowledgement. Movements are orchestras, and an orchestra gathers more ears when individual instruments play in tune to the same score at the same tempo than a cacophony of instruments trying that play their own favorite piece at their own tempo at the same time.

Please don’t take offense but I’m going to disregard the Socionics portion of your post for the time being. Since (1) I’m barely grasping MBTI and (2) too many people are exchanging and interjecting INFJ/INFP/INFj/INFp so flippantly with each other throughout this site that my head feels absolutely scrambled. But, Socionics is on my bucket list for certain.

 

[WickerDeer]

Typed in normal reading voice…the following is not a rant.

I don't know where you might have gotten the idea that I was aiming this at Fi-doms. I wasn't aiming for any particular type at all. I never consider an SJW's type at all. SJW might be stereotyped as a Fi domain, but it's not. Although, I won't deny it's that powerful inner fire that gets the ball rolling and the closer to the upper levels of consciousness, the stronger. My emphasis of "feel" was more of a mock self-deprecating potshot of how some of the thinkers on this site have a penchant for snubbing Fx-users for using their "feelings" to assess social situations before thinking of a process to put some practical change into motion. Ya, my sense of "humor" can be a bit bizarre to say the least.

In general, my mini rant was about those who pass themselves off as SJWs and shout slogans without being able to explain what those slogans mean, what their movement represents, or what they themselves are fighting for. Slogans and catchphrases are not a substitute for explanation. I'm not talking about those who see a genuine injustice being done, but don't know how to go about getting their cause into the forefront. I'm not talking about those who are in it because their friends and/or family are in it and they are providing psychological/emotional/physical/spiritual support. I'm not talking about those who are getting their feet wet fighting for a greater good, the neophytes to the social justice scene. I live in California, so pardon me for sounding a bit jaded, but I'm talking about those who are just along for the vainglory. They're the ones who grind my gears and I have met more of the self-important glory hounds then not. Of course with the PC push it's one thing to speak with tact, but it's something else to not even address whatever elephant may be in the room.

With regards to me making it sound like a movement is a business, well in a sense it is. Anything that involves an exchange of finances for licenses, permits, and materials to provide informational services under a fictitious name is functioning like a business. Albeit, more akin to a small nonprofit business though. People who donate to a cause are, in a sense, investors. The interest being whatever the movement promises to provide. So yes, the ‘warriors’ have to sell their cause and influence potential ‘buyers’ to invest in their cause. An SJW that KNOWS what their cause does, what it wants to achieve and some idea of how to get there is what sells their cause. They are the salesperson of their cause and they need to be able to provide a basic description of their cause for a buyer to consider donating to or assisting in their cause. And just like any business you need figureheads/spokespeople, a general organization outline of definitions, purpose, codes of conduct and so forth to unify supporters with a common voice and to help those outside the movement understand the basics of said movement and even gather more support. Something that helps build faith in the stability of the movement. This may not be as important on a very small local level, but it would sure help out a lot as the movement expands and needs stability and demands acknowledgement. Movements are orchestras, and an orchestra gathers more ears when individual instruments play in tune to the same score at the same tempo than a cacophony of instruments trying that play their own favorite piece at their own tempo at the same time.

Please don’t take offense but I’m going to disregard the Socionics portion of your post for the time being. Since (1) I’m barely grasping MBTI and (2) too many people are exchanging and interjecting INFJ/INFP/INFj/INFp so flippantly with each other throughout this site that my head feels absolutely scrambled. But, Socionics is on my bucket list for certain.

Oh hah--I didn't read your post as a rant, but I did sort of imagine my own post in the voice of a drunken Sarah Palin ranting, so you may feel free to read my post in this voice (my other post, not this one) :

 

I didn't really think you were talking about Fi at all, but only added that in on thinking about the criticism of PC and also the idea of 'buying' a belief etc. Just curious if it was related to the nature of the types, as INFJ were sort of described as looking for a charasmatic leader to follow...wanting to do everything in a group or what not. Your image of movements being like business models reminded me of that.

And I can agree with you, to a degree, that they are...and of course movements need good organizing and the best movements are able to reach out and bring together various interests and groups. I am still trying to understand the motivations surrounding the widespread complaining about 'sjws' online, as well as all the personal accusations and projections people seem to be making. It's a bit confusing to me still. I think that perhaps that group mentality is part of it--that maybe many people are less concerned with making their own informed decisions about issues and perhaps showing insecurity at having little conviction, so projecting that outward onto 'sjws' as their own fears/insecurities about 'following the herd.' But IDK--apologies for the attempt to pseudo-analyze the motivations, but it's just something I'm rather curious about as to me the anger sort of looks as ridiculous as everyone hating on a certain type of tomato...

And so I do see what you're saying about the business model--I would suggest that if an activist is affiliated with a particular event happening in real time, such as a protest or some other organized event, then it's a good idea to consider that person as a spokesperson of that particular movement in the moment, and so if they are acting out of hand or inappropriate, the organizers need to address that etc. Or if someone is say, employed by greenpeace or something, and acting as a spokesperson for green peace.

But otherwise, I, personally, would try to consider people's beliefs more individual, rather than as part of some 'social justice' movement...the fact that 'social justice' is portrayed as a negative thing is just rather alarming to me. And that people are attributing individual's behavior to 'problematic ideologies' like 'not believing women are below men' or 'not wanting to be racist,' and complaining about all of those, is just disturbing to me.

I think people need to be given some individual respect to have individual beliefs, and not be seen as 'spokespeaple' of various causes, just because they have individual beliefs...it's really kind of silly to lump all people with strong beliefs into one nebulous 'sjw' caricature...and I still struggle to actually believe the 'definition' of SJWs people seem to be suggesting--as I have yet to meet someone as shallow, and one dimensional as is generally described. I suspect such 'people' are nothing more than projections of the observer's insecurities, which is why I've never actually 'seen' one.

Also, I hope you don't feel I am personally criticizing you--I am just still trying to understand all the sentiment (and pseudo-analyze it in my own way)...plus, I am not speaking on behalf of a cause...it's actually quite hilarious to consider what that would be in this context, that I would be 'fighting on behalf of SJWs,' especially since I don't even really believe in the category.

However, it does seem that politics/beliefs/ideologies are always sort of unwelcome in everyday life...perhaps because they can be so conflicting. Even before the 'sjw' phenomena (of people complaining about them) there was some distaste and caution of discussing politics at the dinner table, because nothing can ruin the mood quicker. So it seems important to question where the appropriate venues for debate are, and what is a worthy reason to disrupt social harmony...as well as just the mechanics about actual causes and whether they are effective.

And yeah, about socionics--it can be helpful with typing. MBTI INFJ are INFp in socionics, so it can be a little confusing because the names are switched. I don't even know if I believe that about the quadras. I just thought I would throw it out there.

 

[WickerDeer]

You do know that two things can be true at the same time, right?
That someone can promote female rights, and not be a feminist?
That someone can advocate gender equality, without subscribing to an ideology?
That people can push human rights issues without being part of the vocal, and crazy left?

Just like someone can believe in God without being a Christian.

There is hardly ever only one way to solve a problem, and you get a better solution and a better understanding of the issues if you rationally consider every voice.

Especially the dissenting ones.

Now.
If you somehow managed to turn feminism away from it's marxist roots, and instead adopted a skeptical and rational approach...
If you somehow managed to get the institutions who teach "gender issues and women studies" to critique ideas, to search for evidence, to design unbiased experiments and to demand accurate portrayal of statistics...
If you somehow managed to turn it away from a paradigm based on "systematic oppression", to one based on celebrating common humanity...
If you somehow managed to convince everyone that an idea has no rights...

Then when someone says "the gender gap is bull!" instead of yelling "MISOGYNY", you would demand to see the data. If the data was not sufficient, you would run well designed, unbiased surveys until you had enough.

Then when someone suggests an approach towards domestic violence that isn't based on a premise from "patriarchy theory", they're actually considered, instead of ramming Duluth down their throat.

Well.
If you did that I'd get feminist tattoo on my forehead.

Until then, i will disagree strongly with feminism.

Again, i want to make it perfectly clear that feminist are people, some objectively good, some objectively bad.
What I am hating on is an idea. One that is taught in our university system, pervades culture and the law system.
It's an idea that has great intentions, ones which i am strongly aligned with.
However, it's approach is diametrically opposed to absolutely everything I stand for, and if the ideology took a good hard look at itself, it would find that it's opposed to everything IT stands for..

It really depends upon the definition of feminism...and the definition that the vast majority of people who identify as feminists is that 'women are equal to men.' That's it...it's not a very complicated 'ideology.'

So yeah...of course someone could promote 'female rights' and not believe women are equal to men. It would be like someone who's racist, who owns his slaves, and he wants to be a 'good master' so he promotes the idea that they should be fed beef with cauliflower once a week, rather than porridge, or something. Sure...he is 'promoting the rights' without actually believing they are equal humans to him. It's mostly because it's in his benefit to 'promote the rights' of them, because obviously they are doing a service to him...just as all minority groups are performing services to society. There are always various motivations for caring about the rights and health of others.

I don't really see the point of your testing my ability to imagine various situations in which 'two things are true at the same time.'

I think what you are getting at, is something like what Joss Whedon was talking about--in which the problematic part of this is the word 'feminism' and how easy it is for people to distance themselves from it, and lose sight of the actual meaning behind it...as he said 'there is no fuzzy middle ground' when someone says 'I am not a sexist...but I'm not a feminist.'

Because feminism is defined as a belief in the equality of the genders...not whatever ridiculous caricature that people like to promote of those who identify--such as 'man hating' and whatever other bullshit drivel I won't repeat here.

Some of what you're suggesting--I am not going to reply to because I am not some big granter of finances to studies to suit your tastes etc.

But I will say that institutions that teach 'gender issues and women's studies' can be critical of ideas...and offer balanced perspectives. My women's studies class was so lopsidedly 'tolerant' of the fucktarded views of ignorant WASP students, that I spent much of class listening to rich college girls complaining about how their housecleaners weren't good enough...and how 'easy' it was to clean...and defending the low wages in that way. Nice to hear that a job she's never even lifted a finger to is 'so easy.' Or listening to frat boys make jokes at the female teacher's expense, about how feminism ruined their educational experience, because now they have to have female co-students, and be taught by female teachers, and how much better school must have been when only rich men were allowed. So please...the college environment is hardly some totalitarian dictatorship run by evil feminazis torturing poor little spoiled frat boys.

Also--I have never even heard that the approach to 'domestic violence' is based on patriarchal theory. From what I understand...the approach is based on what seems it would work to lower the rate of domestic violence, or prevent (mostly women) from being murdered by their partners, before it happens. I am pretty sure most domestic violence interventions are not overly concerned with doodling around in patriarchy theory.

I don't care if you are not a feminist--if you don't believe women should be treated as equal to men then that's your right. I just don't believe you should be in charge or agree with you.

 

[MrSlunk]

@Meltedsorbet
1. The definition of feminism by Mirriam-Webster1:
- the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.
- the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

Let me put this as simply as possible.
Gender equality: ABSOLUTELY.
Feminist theory: NO, HELL NO.

If feminism was JUST about equal rights there wouldn't be literally pages and pages of feminist theory on wikipedia.

2. Regarding domestic violence, you might like to read more about the Duluth model. It is an extremely common and heavily embedded into our legal institutions. It's founding principal is that "domestic violence is the result of patriarchal ideology in which men are encouraged and expected to control their partners".

3. I guess what it comes down to is that there are different types of people who assign themselves the label 'feminist'. I work at a university, so maybe i'm exposed to a significantly large proportion of these folk. However if you look at the research coming out of all of social science (and research is what informs policy), it's almost all based on the feminism i was talking about earlier. This i have a serious problem with. There is no actual peer review. Dissenting voices are shouted down, or silenced using political correctness. It actually CREATES an oppressor-oppressed dynamic, which is what it's supposed to solve.

4. There is a belief that men and women should be treated equal, that's not based on feminist theory. It's called egalitarian and if it's associated with any political ideology, it would be classical liberalism. That's where i stand. I'm not going to be particularly offended if you think that makes me sexist.

 

[WickerDeer]

@Meltedsorbet
1. The definition of feminism by Mirriam-Webster1:
- the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.
- the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

Let me put this as simply as possible.
Gender equality: ABSOLUTELY.
Feminist theory: NO, HELL NO.

If feminism was JUST about equal rights there wouldn't be literally pages and pages of feminist theory on wikipedia.

2. Regarding domestic violence, you might like to read more about the Duluth model. It is an extremely common and heavily embedded into our legal institutions. It's founding principal is that "domestic violence is the result of patriarchal ideology in which men are encouraged and expected to control their partners".

3. I guess what it comes down to is that there are different types of people who assign themselves the label 'feminist'. I work at a university, so maybe i'm exposed to a significantly large proportion of these folk. However if you look at the research coming out of all of social science (and research is what informs policy), it's almost all based on the feminism i was talking about earlier. This i have a serious problem with. There is no actual peer review. Dissenting voices are shouted down, or silenced using political correctness. It actually CREATES an oppressor-oppressed dynamic, which is what it's supposed to solve.

4. There is a belief that men and women should be treated equal, that's not based on feminist theory. It's called egalitarian and if it's associated with any political ideology, it would be classical liberalism. That's where i stand. I'm not going to be particularly offended if you think that makes me sexist.

Why would you saying your beliefs are virtually identical to the Merriam-Webster definition of "feminism" make me "think that makes [you] a sexist"?

"Men and women should be treated equal" (you 4.) is quite comparable to "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities" (def. of feminism 1.)

The Duluth model seems to have some legitimate points--and from what I can see, it isn't claiming to explain ALL violence, but to approach male on female domestic abuse. I don't see any reason to believe that we don't still need to research domestic violence and to refine intervention programs--and fund them and that research. And I suspect that it could use refinement, and hopefully it has been refined somewhat in the last 35 years. But it is interesting.

Huh--yes, there are a lot of interesting 'characters' in universities, in general, in my experience. I can see how political correctness could be harmful if it compromises the objectivity of research, and certainly that should be avoided.

It seems to me that prevailing 'authority' and established notions have always been a threat to objectivity and new research--and there are plenty of examples of people getting lazy or ignoring information that conflicts with a popular theory.

Historically, the sexist and racist biases have been very profound though, and they existed before feminism--so I do not believe that feminism is responsible for the presence of that kind of bias, however I agree that it should be avoided when possible.

But I don't agree that anything aligned with feminist theory must not be legitimate because of that.

But I don't work in a university and so I don't have experience or knowledge about that to contribute to this conversation.

 

[MrSlunk]

Why would you saying your beliefs are virtually identical to the Merriam-Webster definition of "feminism" make me "think that makes [you] a sexist"?

"Men and women should be treated equal" (you 4.) is quite comparable to "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities" (def. of feminism 1.)

The Duluth model seems to have some legitimate points--and from what I can see, it isn't claiming to explain ALL violence, but to approach male on female domestic abuse. I don't see any reason to believe that we don't still need to research domestic violence and to refine intervention programs--and fund them and that research. And I suspect that it could use refinement, and hopefully it has been refined somewhat in the last 35 years. But it is interesting.

Huh--yes, there are a lot of interesting 'characters' in universities, in general, in my experience. I can see how political correctness could be harmful if it compromises the objectivity of research, and certainly that should be avoided.

It seems to me that prevailing 'authority' and established notions have always been a threat to objectivity and new research--and there are plenty of examples of people getting lazy or ignoring information that conflicts with a popular theory.

Historically, the sexist and racist biases have been very profound though, and they existed before feminism--so I do not believe that feminism is responsible for the presence of that kind of bias, however I agree that it should be avoided when possible.

But I don't agree that anything aligned with feminist theory must not be legitimate because of that.

But I don't work in a university and so I don't have experience or knowledge about that to contribute to this conversation.

I sincerely apologise if i took your words the wrong way, but it seemed to me that your were implying if you're not a feminist you're sexist (which i disagree with) instead of saying if you don't believe men and women should be equal in the eyes of law and culture, then you're sexist (which i do agree with). Things sometimes get lost in translation on the internets.

You've touched on the exact problem however. Duluth HASN'T really refined in the last 35 years, for the express reason that, because it's based on feminist theory, legitimate criticism are more often than not labeled 'sexist' or shouted down with biased statistics.

I'm of the belief that feminist theory is illegitimate. However, i might be wrong. But the ONLY way to know for sure is to subject feminist theory to scrutiny and criticism. Part of the problem lies that in feminism now has the dual meaning as per the webster definition.

The majority of people don't understand how research works, and don't appreciate that when a government commissions "a report on xyz", what they are saying is "go read what all the university researchers are saying. Check their models and statistics. Go talk to people in xyz field. Come back with a bunch of conclusions and options for us to consider implementing."

Given this, can you see why people (myself included) have a problem with the state of feminism in academia?
If the field dogmatically suppresses criticism, how can we expect our politicians to be well informed? (never mind the corruption question)
How can we ever expect equality to filter out into society, if the place where new knowledge is created is broken.

 

[WickerDeer]

I sincerely apologise if i took your words the wrong way, but it seemed to me that your were implying if you're not a feminist you're sexist (which i disagree with) instead of saying if you don't believe men and women should be equal in the eyes of law and culture, then you're sexist (which i do agree with). Things sometimes get lost in translation on the internets.

You've touched on the exact problem however. Duluth HASN'T really refined in the last 35 years, for the express reason that, because it's based on feminist theory, legitimate criticism are more often than not labeled 'sexist' or shouted down with biased statistics.

I'm of the belief that feminist theory is illegitimate. However, i might be wrong. But the ONLY way to know for sure is to subject feminist theory to scrutiny and criticism. Part of the problem lies that in feminism now has the dual meaning as per the webster definition.

The majority of people don't understand how research works, and don't appreciate that when a government commissions "a report on xyz", what they are saying is "go read what all the university researchers are saying. Check their models and statistics. Go talk to people in xyz field. Come back with a bunch of conclusions and options for us to consider implementing."

Given this, can you see why people (myself included) have a problem with the state of feminism in academia?
If the field dogmatically suppresses criticism, how can we expect our politicians to be well informed? (never mind the corruption question)
How can we ever expect equality to filter out into society, if the place where new knowledge is created is broken.

Huh? Oh yeah--I was just quoting you and the Merriam-Webster dictionary, in its definition of feminism. So like...it seems that the foundation of feminism as an ideology is the belief that men and women should be treated as equals...and that's basically the definition of feminism...and that's also what you claim to believe.

So I suppose it's kind of like...maybe compare it to evolution as a theory. You could say that you don't believe in the theory of evolution, but you just believe that organisms slowly change over generations to adapt to their environment or as a response to various stresses and advantages, and the means of this change appears to be mostly through reproduction and survival. And that's great! No one's going to tell you that you didn't think of that all on your own, and you don't have to credit those who actually worked towards that being an accepted theory. You can go ahead and bash evolution as a theory...and claim they are all tyrannical nut jobs if it's fashionable.

I mean...you could decide that if you don't agree with string theory...physics is just bunk. Physicists are all just lunatics because some of them have cultivated string theory. *shrugs* I'm not here to manage whatever inconsistencies other people have within their own beliefs and claims.

So yeah...not sure how to answer your question. If feminism is the belief that men and women are equal...and someone doesn't believe in that...it's hard to say that they aren't sexist...because thinking that men and women aren't equal sounds kind of sexist to me. But idk and I really don't care to work that little conundrum out right now.

Duluth does appear to have received criticism--but I'm not sure that the critics have developed an appropriate or more useful model for it, or rather perhaps some of them are just trying to 'denounce' it because of the feminist bent on it, which of course is going to just seem stupid because the problem with a domestic violence program that isn't working ISN'T feminism--it's that the domestic violence program isn't working. So perhaps those critics could present a viable alternative that stands up to criticism on its own--and not just in that it negates or calls out feminist influence.

I can see how you could have a problem with people who are lazy about their research methods, and who allow their bias to overwhelm their objectivity and genuine creativity. I personally think that would be a problem whether the bias is towards 'pc things' like respecting women and minorities, or whether it was towards being sexist and racist in a traditional sense.

Certainly, I would think that at least with feminist influence, people might think twice about their own racist or sexist biases (hopefully), and make an effort to avoid contaminating their research with those, which are much more harmful than 'pc'. However--yes--I can see how authority can squash thoughtfulness at times, and how it's important to question the status quo no matter what it is, and to accept that sometimes the truth goes against authority or status quo. But that does not mean it is worthless to question one's own biases--especially in the form of sexist or racist--especially in the social sciences.

 

[UraniaIsis]

No offense taken and no criticisms felt on my end. I don't personally see the social justice movements as negative in and of itself nor do I disregard individual beliefs of those soldiering a cause. But I do see and agree with what you mean by the label of SJW being raked through the mud and being over-sensationalized in a negative light. It is as you have mentioned in a previous post, it's all in the methodology the individual employs. I'm just not a fan of particular 'SJWs' who use a topic of interest as personal life resume fluff or even weld it over others heads and start impeding upon others unnecessarily.

However, it does seem that politics/beliefs/ideologies are always sort of unwelcome in everyday life...perhaps because they can be so conflicting. Even before the 'sjw' phenomena (of people complaining about them) there was some distaste and caution of discussing politics at the dinner table, because nothing can ruin the mood quicker. So it seems important to question where the appropriate venues for debate are, and what is a worthy reason to disrupt social harmony...as well as just the mechanics about actual causes and whether they are effective.

I quite agree.

 

[WickerDeer]

No offense taken and no criticisms felt on my end. I don't personally see the social justice movements as negative in and of itself nor do I disregard individual beliefs of those soldiering a cause. But I do see and agree with what you mean by the label of SJW being raked through the mud and being over-sensationalized in a negative light. It is as you have mentioned in a previous post, it's all in the methodology the individual employs. I'm just not a fan of particular 'SJWs' who use a topic of interest as personal life resume fluff or even weld it over others heads and start impeding upon others unnecessarily.



I quite agree.

Yeah--I think your idea of looking at the technique of a cause is important to consider, not only in the overall efficiency of communicating a movement, but also in just unifying it more.

I was recently watching some political criticism from a more seasoned activist who campaigned with Jesse Jackson, and he mentioned his feelings about how it seemed that some of the members promoting Black Lives Matter seemed to belittle the amount of work previous civil rights activists--such as himself and other authorities--contributed.

And that reminds me of what you said about efficiency of movement, and also the importance of organization and also connecting to the past--but also many strong movements are able to unite people with diverse interests--environmentalists, feminists, civil rights activists, anti-war activists, anti-nuclear activists, people who just want less crime in their neighborhoods, people who've suffered from lax environmental regulations, or war etc. together. The ability to connect with broader values is so important to a movement, as much as having integrity and distinct goals and motivations.

It's so essential to create those interpersonal bonds--and understanding and respect for others in and affected by a movement, and the ability to communicate that. And that understanding of others seems a type of interpersonal intelligence that is perhaps lacking in some individuals, especially those less experienced or serious. And to me it has seemed that there was a generational gap of activism--at least where I lived, when younger--many of the activists were decades older than me, and now the newer 'sjws' are perhaps almost a decade younger--so that's a big gap where there is less support and continuity...if it's true (but I'm mostly just speaking from limited personal experience).

And so I do think it's important to consider the reality beyond one's own beliefs--and the way one can connect or repulse another. Perhaps that's one key to the 'sjw label being raked through the mud.' That individuals are fractured from the roots of causes, or that very few individuals purposefully fracture causes. But that is one important lesson--that we do need to connect with and unite with individuals who are different, rather than just focus on promoting ideologies with little regard for their reception.

I think that especially with all the information we consume now, it can be so overwhelming to consume the news and know of all the problems in the world. It only makes sense that we would need to somewhat compartmentalize those issues from our regular life--and find ways to discuss issues in a way that does not impede our own survival, because individual people could easily be buried by all the problems of the world.

It's not really a healthy tactic to act as if every issue is a huge emergency, when there are so many legitimate issues--though it's still important to have a place to debate and discuss things without impeding on others unecessarily. So I think it would be unhealthy never to discuss problems and issues--but it is helpful to have an appropriate venue for that, or else to really deeply care about something enough to look at in depth as well as present it in important ways.

So thanks--I feel I've gotten a better understanding of what 'sjw' issue is, and some of the issues surrounding it. And it's nice to be able to see valuable lessons in that. It sounds pretty complex, and I appreciate your ideas. I am hardly an expert in this--just some random person on the internet trying to understand and define what is going on. So I appreciate your patience and ideas! Thanks!

 

[MrSlunk]

Huh? Oh yeah--I was just quoting you and the Merriam-Webster dictionary, in its definition of feminism. So like...it seems that the foundation of feminism as an ideology is the belief that men and women should be treated as equals...and that's basically the definition of feminism...and that's also what you claim to believe.

But this is my point;

To be a feminist, you must believe that women are equal to men.
If you believe women and men are equal, you're not NECESSARILY a feminist.

A implies B, does not necessarily mean B implies A.

So I suppose it's kind of like...maybe compare it to evolution as a theory. You could say that you don't believe in the theory of evolution, but you just believe that organisms slowly change over generations to adapt to their environment or as a response to various stresses and advantages, and the means of this change appears to be mostly through reproduction and survival.

But that is evolution by definition and, unlike feminism, there is no room for ambiguity. There are no other definitions.

Where as Feminism IS gender equality AND socio-political theory.

And that's great! No one's going to tell you that you didn't think of that all on your own, and you don't have to credit those who actually worked towards that being an accepted theory. You can go ahead and bash evolution as a theory...and claim they are all tyrannical nut jobs if it's fashionable.

I mean...you could decide that if you don't agree with string theory...physics is just bunk. Physicists are all just lunatics because some of them have cultivated string theory. *shrugs* I'm not here to manage whatever inconsistencies other people have within their own beliefs and claims.

Actually this is a really good discussion point, and a really good distinction point.
No respectable physicist would say "string theory will never work and nobody should ever research it".
They will instead say "string theory as it stands doesn't work and this is why". Then the string theorist go "hmmm, yes you're right." and they go off and try to fix it.

If you said to a feminist researcher "feminist theory doesn't work and this is why", you do not get shown the same courtesy.

So yeah...not sure how to answer your question. If feminism is the belief that men and women are equal...and someone doesn't believe in that...it's hard to say that they aren't sexist...because thinking that men and women aren't equal sounds kind of sexist to me. But idk and I really don't care to work that little conundrum out right now.

See first comment of this post.

Duluth does appear to have received criticism--but I'm not sure that the critics have developed an appropriate or more useful model for it, or rather perhaps some of them are just trying to 'denounce' it because of the feminist bent on it, which of course is going to just seem stupid because the problem with a domestic violence program that isn't working ISN'T feminism--it's that the domestic violence program isn't working. So perhaps those critics could present a viable alternative that stands up to criticism on its own--and not just in that it negates or calls out feminist influence.

Indeed Duluth has received criticism, but it has really only been vocal and accepted in the last few years.
To be honest, that can mostly be credited to the MRA. Who, like feminists, have some great ideas and some interesting points, but also have some objectively stupid and regressive ideas too.
It seems we are, as a society, at a kind of tipping point. It will be interesting how long Duluth remains.

I can see how you could have a problem with people who are lazy about their research methods, and who allow their bias to overwhelm their objectivity and genuine creativity. I personally think that would be a problem whether the bias is towards 'pc things' like respecting women and minorities, or whether it was towards being sexist and racist in a traditional sense.

Certainly, I would think that at least with feminist influence, people might think twice about their own racist or sexist biases (hopefully), and make an effort to avoid contaminating their research with those, which are much more harmful than 'pc'.

Both you and I would like to think that. The problem is they don't see the bias because (i'm assuming) they believe they are good and moral people. As individuals, they probably are.
The problem, as i was saying, is their theoretical basis which needs to be subjected to intense rational scrutiny. Instead of saying "i'm a feminist, i believe in gender equality, so everything in the feminist academic literature must be right and moral".

However--yes--I can see how authority can squash thoughtfulness at times, and how it's important to question the status quo no matter what it is, and to accept that sometimes the truth goes against authority or status quo. But that does not mean it is worthless to question one's own biases--especially in the form of sexist or racist--especially in the social sciences.

I think though, this is the crux of it. Nearly every other scientific discipline values constructive criticism.
As a scientist, that's part of the territory. You learn, and improve, by recognising mistakes in logic, miscalculations. In the end you're better for it. Is it painful when you're wrong. Sometimes. My supervisor found a mistake in my Phd thesis that took me 6 months to repair, and even then i wasn't able to completely fix it, since the problem was much harder than it seemed.

In gender studies and social sciences, it seems like criticism of feminist theory is criticism of the person. That only 'racist, misogynist bigots' could possibly criticise feminist theory.
This does nothing to advance the gender rights cause, instead it encourages progressive more authoritarian behaviour, self-censoring etc, because they refuse to look at the principals they are basing their theories on. As this filters out into society,
hypothetically we end up in the cultural equivalent of the USSR.

What's worse, the millions of women who do strongly identify with gender equality and call themselves feminists (which is great imho. more support for gender equality), in the spirit of the suffragettes and the second wave feminists, lend support to this sense of ideological 'moral superiority'.

I guess i should relate this back to the OP.
The SJW's and radical social rights movement learnt every tool in their book from feminist theory.
These tools.