Emob78: All political and social movement are capable of being co-opted. The hippy counter culture, Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party, the UKIP, Code Pink, the Seirra Club, PETA, CAIR, they've all been radicalized at one time or another. Taking groups to the furthest extent of their ambitions and radicalizing their membership is the quickest way to marginalize the group's exposure and influence of larger portions of society. It's an old trick and still used frequently because it's very effective.
Klumpen0815: Yes, but this isn't even a radicalized social justice movement.
For a radicalized movement, the end justifies the means, but the end is still the same, in this case it would theoretically be exterminating sexism and racism for example by rather bashing than simply sueing a boss for not hiring someone simply because he/she is of whatever sex/color this boss doesn't want for the job and by raising awareness about the fact, that such things still have an unnecessary big influence in some places on this planet.
This isn't what is happening at all.
What we have is a movement that has an agenda that is just another form of sexism, racism, etc... (straight white men are bad, mkay?) and which stands in contrast to the ones it claims to integrate.
I think we're talking semantics. The SJW movement is easily radicalized because it's a leader based movement. Sarkeesian and Wu and those types are the mouth pieces at the top shouting orders to all of their underlings... revelation of the method (to the lay persons and uninformed). I'm sure there's plenty of moderate and sensible feminists out there who are simply fighting to keep women relevant in the marketplace, employed, fighting against religious persecution in the middle east, etc. Plenty of those middle-road types don't care one bit about male tears and bra burning nonsense. And where's their voice? Sure, there's feminists like Christine Sommers or whatever her name is, but she's easily lumped in with the evil 'gators because she's not towing the company line... and that line is a radicalized one.
If a poll was conducted by Gallop or somebody asking if feminism should either be about equality or destroying the male sex, I think that vote would be split. The fact that the equality voters are marginalized and not given a voice from the screaming fanatics shows that it is indeed a radicalized movement. That's part of the problem with democracy in general. We tend to end up painting with too large a brush in order to fulfill the goals of PROGRESS. So for that extreme element that shouts down everyone else, their goals are the ends. And if you don't like it, well we have a government minister of health on hand to chat with you in private about your 'ethical concerns.'
In the end, Big Sister is no better than Big Brother. Only difference is that instead of a jackboot stepping on the face of humanity forever, it's a high heeled shoe.
