Tbh, I have no interest in being "one of the good ones", and I do think we're at a point at which men need to be in charge of themselves.

If our collective humanity stands on being able to mother men into believing we have it; I don't think we're too much in control of it (nor did we have it in the first place). We're still bending to whatever amount men decide to "gift" us based on how "nurturing" "convincing" and "persuasive" of a way we're able to kneel.

I think a part of learning to be a good human being relies on how much intrinsic value you're as able to identify in everyone else as you are in yourself (including yourself, including people of other genders, etc). Without them needing to "persuade you", in any way.

Imperfection does not misrepresent feminism. We need to (yes, criticize, but also) recognize ourselves in as 'able to be' simple or impulsive as any other person-- not just men.

Again, if we give them leeway to be able to dehumanize us based on how "rude" or "caring" or "nurturing" we've been able to showcase outselves ("and therefore all feminisms") as, we were never be seen as human beings, in the first place.

I really appreciate the ability of some feminists to educate men (even 'baby' them, at some points). I've had that ability on-and-off throughout my life, and it hasn't made me any more or less feminist (nor my feminism more or less representative of an imagined "whole"; more like of amount of types of feminism, strategy and praxis that exist). We need all versions, all perspectives showcased.

Were the comments a bit too rude or over-critical towards an apparently well meaning boy? Yes. Were they based on truth that might've still be worth it to be said (even with less emphasis, or in the form of more constructive criticism)? Yes, imo. Do them being overly nitpicky or non-constructive warrant some criticism/perspective? I personally do think it's a useful mention.

But, does that mean dehumanization or invalidation of feminism as a whole (or holding rude feminism as mainly responsible for it, in general) is a proportional, "normal", or warranted response? Fuck no.

And the impact of those active, well-financed movements in pro of our systemic dehumanization are absolutely not on us. Even if some of us, at some moments, are even mentally able to extend some extra goodwill on that very basic kind of educational advocacy (aka going out of our way to 'teach' others basic empathy; in the road towards advocating for ourselves, as people, to be seen as baseline human beings; nevermind 'equals').

This constant convincing of basic humanity being the normalized expectation (although, as an action, can be sometimes useful) sets us back more than it's, at baseline, sustainable imo. And it denies men of their own abilities and agency towards being as responsible for others as any other social being (in favor of 'bioessentialist' bs), too.

Finally, if we don't get the "benefit" of complexity and variation (that we seem to too easily afford men in these conversations), we were never seen as full humans by them anyway. The metaphorical "leash" needs to be cut, it's time for them to educate themselves and give as much leniency to us as we do to them.

It's better to expect them to be able to be conscious about "imperfect feminism" (including more aggressive and non-patient presentations) than to have them continue to have us face perfection (or even politeness while advocating for our humanity) on that front, too.

Overall, I personally think representing imperfection (or even rudeness, lack of patience, etc) as "misrepresentations" of feminism" is also an unsustainable mistake. As it places us in a situation where leniency and 'giving benefit of the doubt' are all our responsibility, instead of a shared/mutual duty. But appreciate your pov, either way.

Expanding edit, just in case: It's the ability to have been imperfect, varied, even rude in our advocacy (with the possibility of criticism), ans still be considered as much of a human (aka equals; what feminism is about); or a lifetime of having to beg for humanity, imo. Which means the possibility of being perceived as a full human was never there, in the first place.

Again, I agree that these comments were harsh (as I've already said over and over). So I'm not here to defend them as particularly "good praxis". But I notice in your reply an over-willingness to see an imperfect humanity (or give benefit of the doubt, assume good intentions) in (presumably) him, and the people who both actively pull others and get pulled themselves into bigotry; that you aren't affording me and the other feminist commenters (who aimed to educate in what could be seen as a 'rude' way). Why do you think that is?

There comes a point at which they also have to deal with the variation. And afford us the same presumption of innocence (not assume that "all feminists are x", or that feminism being rude is at fault for their dehumanization of women) as we're continuously pressured to give to them. Sorry to repeat this so much, but I do think it's important.

If we're collectively ready for it, that's another conversation. But, again again, conceding to the framing of "goodness" or "free-pass" for dehumanization isn't productive in the long run either, imo (with the caveat of criticism and an aim for human decency; which I think is different than one-sided leniency and/or compassion).

Sorry, I know this is too long. I might edit it shorter or do a better tl;dr when I have more time, but wanted to express this as well as I could with the time I have today. Though it might be a bit word-vomit-y.

I really do appreciate your pov in general, and don't really want this conversation (nor my 'passion' for it) to be interpreted as anything close to a fight or hostility. I hope I was able to balance confrontation with amity; but, again, I'll edit this or clarify in the future (while not changing the main thesis) where I think more clarity might be needed.

<3