/lit/ - Literature

>>6628362
I know better than to generalize, but the fact anyone can attach their hate to a movement, and have its authenticity as nebulous is worrisome. Nobody is saying if their right or wrong. Its an internal conflict and nobody can prove one side is right or not due to the loose definition. From an organization standpoint, the whole movement is doomed, unless there becomes a general consensus amongst everybody to ignore these weirdos.

>Examples
Safe spaces, women only gyms, women only viewings, women only classes, women only STEM avocation, Television stations like W, Oxygen, etc(or in lbgt, the gay channels, further drawing a dividing line), separate standards for women(big example being military), , there are many women-only groups that, according to the loosely based doctrine, shouldn't be closed off to just women. Not to mention getting support for anything ever, closing it off from half the population only draws a darker line in the sand. I thought the point was to prove women are equals, not that they need separate special treatment.

Anita Sarkeesian even said shes a strong advocate of segregation, especially amongst classrooms. Shes pretty much the only leader icon you can find for western feminism. I guess maybe b. hooks, but she doesnt even visit schools or speak out anymore. Intersectionality has caused this divide unintentionally. Dividing, rather than united under a common goal. and thus shooting the entire movement in the foot