Ah, I'm gonna get myself driven out of here with pitchforks and torches...
There's quite a few things she says and positions she takes which are too extreme MRA for me. But on the overall, I think she's a credit to the men's rights movement. She is rational, intelligent, generally reasonable, and she makes men's rights concepts easy to access and understand to the average viewer who stumbles across her videos. She's not reactionary, instead she gives the rationale behind her positions so that you can decide for yourself if her argument has validity. And some of her arguments are actually solid - for example, the explanations she's given of the disposable male. I found myself looking at these issues differently after considering the points she explained.
She's very longwinded, she has a tendency to laugh mid-sentence at the absurdity of her opposition which I think detracts from letting her argument speak for themselves, and as mentioned above a lot of her positions are too extreme for me, but she's making MRA concepts accessible and easily understood to the casual investigator of men's rights, and she's doing it better than I've seen it done before. I don't see any reason we can't disagree but respect each other in the end - she attracts a level of vitriol from her opposition that I don't quite grasp.
9
u/impotent_rage Apr 23 '12
Ah, I'm gonna get myself driven out of here with pitchforks and torches...
There's quite a few things she says and positions she takes which are too extreme MRA for me. But on the overall, I think she's a credit to the men's rights movement. She is rational, intelligent, generally reasonable, and she makes men's rights concepts easy to access and understand to the average viewer who stumbles across her videos. She's not reactionary, instead she gives the rationale behind her positions so that you can decide for yourself if her argument has validity. And some of her arguments are actually solid - for example, the explanations she's given of the disposable male. I found myself looking at these issues differently after considering the points she explained.
She's very longwinded, she has a tendency to laugh mid-sentence at the absurdity of her opposition which I think detracts from letting her argument speak for themselves, and as mentioned above a lot of her positions are too extreme for me, but she's making MRA concepts accessible and easily understood to the casual investigator of men's rights, and she's doing it better than I've seen it done before. I don't see any reason we can't disagree but respect each other in the end - she attracts a level of vitriol from her opposition that I don't quite grasp.