Difference between revisions of "Primacy"
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
This is the point of [[Big Red]]'s famous 2012 rant to [[MRA]]s in Toronto. She kept insisting that because (in her mind) feminists were addressing issues facing men and boys that all other groups should cease attempting to do so. Feminists implicitly assume primacy. |
This is the point of [[Big Red]]'s famous 2012 rant to [[MRA]]s in Toronto. She kept insisting that because (in her mind) feminists were addressing issues facing men and boys that all other groups should cease attempting to do so. Feminists implicitly assume primacy. |
||
| − | An [[IMD]] event at [[ |
+ | An [[IMD]] event at [[University of York]] in 2015 was cancelled by the University. One of the main reasons given was that the men's groups had not engaged enough with the women's groups. The feminists, and the University, implicitly presume that it is necessary to engage with feminist groups before holding an IMD event. They implicitly assumed that feminists were entitled to primacy. This is a good example of [[feminist entitlement]].<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/17/row-after-university-of-york-cancels-international-mens-day-event</ref><ref>https://archive.is/fjfQX</ref> |
During a screening of [[The Red Pill]] held at the University of Sydney one of the principle objections voiced by feminists protestors was that they should have been invited to co-host the screening. Setting aside how disingenuous a comment this is, feminists are again assuming primacy in that they should not only be involved but that they should be ''invited'' to be involved. |
During a screening of [[The Red Pill]] held at the University of Sydney one of the principle objections voiced by feminists protestors was that they should have been invited to co-host the screening. Setting aside how disingenuous a comment this is, feminists are again assuming primacy in that they should not only be involved but that they should be ''invited'' to be involved. |
||
| + | |||
| + | == See Also == |
||
| + | |||
| + | *[[Feminist entitlement]] |
||
{{Featured}} |
{{Featured}} |
||
{{Feminism}} |
{{Feminism}} |
||
| + | |||
| + | == References == |
||
Latest revision as of 09:25, 4 June 2023
Feminists presume primacy. They argue (inaccurately) that they are working on men's issues too. They often make the point, as they claim, that because they are working on men's issues that no one else should do so. Regardless of the veracity that they are working on men's issues this claim implicitly includes the notion that because they are doing so no one else should do so. They presume primacy. They believe because they wish to address an area that no one else should do so.
This is the point of Big Red's famous 2012 rant to MRAs in Toronto. She kept insisting that because (in her mind) feminists were addressing issues facing men and boys that all other groups should cease attempting to do so. Feminists implicitly assume primacy.
An IMD event at University of York in 2015 was cancelled by the University. One of the main reasons given was that the men's groups had not engaged enough with the women's groups. The feminists, and the University, implicitly presume that it is necessary to engage with feminist groups before holding an IMD event. They implicitly assumed that feminists were entitled to primacy. This is a good example of feminist entitlement.[1][2]
During a screening of The Red Pill held at the University of Sydney one of the principle objections voiced by feminists protestors was that they should have been invited to co-host the screening. Setting aside how disingenuous a comment this is, feminists are again assuming primacy in that they should not only be involved but that they should be invited to be involved.