= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Yvain comments on Can the Chain Still Hold You? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (354)
It's inspiring to know that we really can create a better and more peaceful society, just by pursuing some simple ideals like killing fifty percent of males.
(I didn't fully understand that part. So the males who ate the infected meat didn't spread the TB to females? And when the male/female ratio changed, that shifted the social dynamics and made everyone more peaceful because there was less reason for status competition? Or because the next generation had only nonviolent female role models and so learned less violence?)
This is otherwise known as the Dexter Principle: if you're gonna kill 'em anyway, you may as well make the world better while you're at it.
Faint memory-- I think the higher status males had more access to the tainted food.
As I've heard it explained, there was a lot of contention for the free food in the garbage pit. It was highly desirable, so the most agressive alpha males took it over, and jealously guarded it. So, the weaker males (and females and young) stayed behind.
So the true lesson of this post is that we should get rid of all the aggressive alpha males in our society. I guess I always found the idea obvious, but now that it has been validated, can we please start devising some plan for implementing it?
You might want to be extra-careful with your plan. Because, you know, power corrupts.
Sod off! Overt aggression is a pleasant relief compared to the subtle, catty 'niceness' that the most competitive humans excel at. Only get rid of aggressive alpha males who act out violently (ie. those without sufficient restraint to abide by laws.)
Or just use advanced technology to make it so that violence has no overly unpleasant or permanent consequences.
Hmm... Doesn't this look like something an aggressive alpha male would say?..
Uh-oh!
It's almost as though I responded to scheming to kill all people with the traits 'male' and 'aggressive' with benign aggression deliberately. For instance it could be that I would prefer to designate myself as part of the powerful group as opposed to the embittered group trying to scheme against them!
If we want to keep the aggressive alpha males who don't abide by the rules of subtle catty 'niceness,' why not also keep the aggressive alpha males who don't abide by 'laws'?
I don't understand the relevance here. Why on earth should keeping people who aren't bitchy Machiavellian moralizers mean you must also keep people who break the laws to do physical violence upon one another. That's a seriously bizarre reference class to try to enforce consistency within.
In general I don't put much stock in moral, ethical or values based arguments of the form "If X then why not also Y. I say X is similar to Y!". Usually the appropriate response is "because I want X and I don't want Y - the fact that you identify one common feature between the two is meaningless to me". In this case however the "if then you must" barely makes sense at all!
There are some things we collectively discourage one another from doing.
Some of those, we discourage via laws. Call that set A.
Some of those, we discourage via "the rules of subtle catty 'niceness'". Call that set B.
(Of course, A and B are not disjoint.)
For some of those discouraged things it turns out to be valuable, or at least desirable, to have some people around who do them anyway. Call that set C.
It seemed to me you were suggesting that the intersection of B and C is non-empty (and therefore we should keep the people who ignore "the rules of subtle catty 'niceness'") but that the intersection of B and A is empty (and therefore we should get rid of people "without sufficient restraint to abide by law").
I find it pretty implausible that we've defined our laws in such a way that that's true, especially given how much variation there is in law from place to place. So I find it implausible that getting rid of the A-averse B-doers in each municipality is the optimal approach.
I have no idea what the phrase "if then you must" is doing there.
For what it is worth, I didn't. I didn't suggest anything about set B whatsoever. The closest relationship of that concept has is that the behavioral tendencies declared to be more undesirable than aggressive alphaness - the more sophisticated and hypocritical aggression - can sometimes superficially portray themselves as "set B enforcement".
It means I would probably have rejected the game of "Moral Reference Class Tennis" even if this one wasn't non-sequitur. I reject nearly all of them.
No. I have heard Sapolsky tell that story before, and unless I completely misunderstood it the point is not that killing males made them peaceful, but that the strongest and most aggressive males disappeared. Then the remaining baboons in the troop were females and submissive males, and any new arrivals were integrated in a baboon "society" that had been created by females and submissive males.
It probably won't work with humans. It has been tried during the Paraguayan war and I don't know of any evidence that Paraguay is an extraordinarily peaceful society today.
The relevant section of the Radiolab episode explains this in more detail.
I think some famous feminist recommended unspecified disappearing of 90% of males to make the world a better place, but right now I can't find the quote.
However, from scientific point of view, this situation could be an inspiration for some interesting experiments. If you remove dominant males from one generation, how long does it take until the next generation creates new ones? (I would expect one or two at most.)
It's Mary Daly, Catholic theologian and radical feminist: http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j16/daly.asp?pf=1
Well, there's some evidence that having a ratio skewed in favor of males in a society increases violence. I don't know if you could make the contrary claim that one skewed in favor of females would actually decrease violence.
You'd have to distinguish between the relatively uncontroversial claim that unmarried males (who'll be more common with a pro-male sex ratio) are the most likely group to commit violence, versus the very speculative claim that even if all males have sufficient opportunity to marry off, more female presence will make them less violent - either because "female values" dominate the society, or because the less competition for "sufficiently good" mates they expect, the less competitive they will act.
If I'm understanding you right, you are assuming that a ratio not skewed to favor males or females would result in no more unmarried males than a ratio skewed to favor females.
Am I understanding you right?
If so... that seems unlikely to me. Can you say more about why you expect it?
You are of course right, although I stick to the general point that we have to distinguish an effect of fewer unmarried males from an effect that does not directly involve fewer unmarried males.
This is a really bizarre desire for a feminist to express -- not saying it didn't happen, just that whatever feminist said it didn't think too far ahead.
I guess a feminist that imagines a perfect continent inhabited only by women, does not imagine it inhabited by heterosexual women.
All my information about this topic is second-hand, but it seems to me that a few feminists were promoting female homosexuality as a weapon against "patriarchy".
Some were, and some were promoting something they called "lesbianism" but that didn't involve any actual sex. More like an asexual society that encouraged sort-of-romantic relationships between women.
Ok but these are the radical minority, and an outdated radical minority at that. Feminism at its core is adopting a dialectic of gender/sex and becoming more aware of the power structures in both these social constructions. Feminists, at least any you would work under in a legitimate research program today, would never support ridiculous claims about getting rid of 90% of men or weaponizing lesbianism to combat patriarchy. Quite frankly these ideas are somewhat offensive to the field of feminism both as a humanistic pursuit and a branch of academia.
I support studying law even though trial by combat used to exist, I don't support claiming that "Some judges liked trials by combat" is offensive to modern judges.
You seem to think I am arguing to hold the past to the modern standard, I am not. I am arguing the necessity of distinction between antiquated and current practices. It is commonly understood that within the sphere of law death matches and blood sport in general are antiquated practices and do not represent the normative thoughts and actions of "law". On the other hand, from reading the comments on this essay it does not seem so clear that the practices and ideas that are discussed are antiquated forms of feminism that have been obsolete for several decades. All I did was point out that the ideas being represented as feminism in this discussion are a gross misrepresentation of it, and I don't see what is negative about that.
I thought the point of the gender/sex distinction was to separate the social-constructedness of being a woman or man from the biological facts. That men want to pee standing up is socially constructed, that it is easier for them to do so is just a fact about biology and physics.
Also, I agree with your persepctive and think it is sorely lacking here, but you are using a fair amount of technical jargon ("dialectic", "power structure"). Technical jargon inherently excludes, and I think your message would benefit from avoiding that dynamic. Additionally, it helps ensure that there is a meeting of the minds about the content of the disagreement. In other words, labels inhibit communication.
Anyway, welcome to LessWrong.
The baboon story implies that how males are treated has something to do with their behavior-- it's not innate.
I think the more interesting question is whether pacific baboons can co-exist with the more usual sort.
The line between the nature and learning is often blurred. Simply said, if someone's genetic code contains an instruction "when X, do Y", should we say that the behavior Y was caused by the code (is innate) or by the presence of X (is learned)?
The story implies than in conditions X1 baboons behave violently, and in conditions X2 baboons behave peacefully. The word "conditions" here includes both their environment and their history, and it seems that X1 = "lack of food OR recent history of violence" and X2 = "enough food AND recent history of peace". When there is enough food, both X1 and X2 seem self-perpetuating, though the experience with X2 is very short yet.
My prediction is that adding violent baboons to the group would create an X1 situation. (A less certain prediction is that even without external baboons, sooner or later the group will generate a violent individual. Problem is, due to the "sooner or later" part, the second prediction is unfalsifiable.)
I thought there were violent baboons added to the group?
How the hell did anyone reading this subthread (including me) miss that?
Possibly because the concept of a violent male disrupting a peaceful group is a violent adult male, perhaps even a violent alpha, while the violent males actually coming in are relatively young.
We can guess that abundant food is needed to stabilize peacefulness among baboons, but the hypothesis isn't tested, though it's plausible.
I don't think it's obvious that one violent baboon would be enough to get a peaceful troupe to return to the usual-- it sounds as though systematic mistreatment of new males is needed to get a standard troupe, and I don't think one violent male has enough time or attention for the job.
This is one of the situations that would be better answered by experiment. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, but I would like to know how exactly I am wrong. How exactly would a new violent baboon not disrupt the peace in the group?
Would he be like: "see, there is enough food, and no one is preventing me from eating as much as I want, so why don't I just relax and enjoy this piece of paradise"?
Or would he attack the other males, but when no one fights back, he would be like: "oh, this is so boring, and by the way there is enough food, so what don't I just relax..."?
Or would the other males fight him back, but despite their new first-hand experience with violence, they would keep the libertarian ethics that it is wrong to initiate violence, and it is only ok to defend oneself?
Or perhaps would the males in the group instinctively attack any other new male (even without him attacking first), but would maintain the peace among themselves?
There are many alternatives to return to global violence, but I would like to know which one of them will happen. Though, at this moment, the return to global violence seems the most probable option to me.
There are no baboons in the Pacific, as far as I can tell.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Either my model is wrong or this story is false. Specifically, I doubt an famous feminist's considered opinion was that the world would be better if a substantial number of people "unspecified disappeared." Cocktail party quips do not count.
Read the reference Ozy gave.
Admittedly, this can be interpreted as sex selection of gametes and embryos, not disappearance of currently living people.
Your model of feminism is probably wrong. Feminists are varied and complicated. Some parts of feminism are completely rotten and people in them claim that all porn is rape, that rape of men doesn't matter, that no woman enjoys blowjobs. In particular, Mary Daly said some awful things about trans people, and refused male students in her classes.
Wowzers! Daly is so essentialist (i.e. thinks women all inherently have certain mental characteristics). I'm not surprised that someone held her positions so much as I am surprised that she's considered an (recent) influential feminist. I thought that all (contemporary?) feminism was just applied post-modernist (i.e. noticing that gender roles are historically contingent). But that's clearly inconsistent with Daly. Model updated.
That said, I suspect I'm a lot more sympathetic to many of the arguments than you are. I don't think I need to reject Andrea Dworkin in order to reject the essentialism of Daly. That said, I hope that Dworkin hasn't said that the gender of the rape victim matters, because it shouldn't matter. (She essentially agrees with your other examples, I think).
(Academic) feminist theory has gotten much more postmodern (perhaps more specifically poststructural) over the past three decades, but constructionism isn't the major axis of differentiation. When difference feminists were important they tended to be a bit more post-y than the dominance theorist, who were very often as modernist as the day is long.
Thanks. My recent experience is that my philosophical reach often exceeds my philosophy terminology grasp. I know what I think - and people have told me that it's a "deconstructivist" position.
But I definitely don't know the ins and outs of particular schools of thought - I had a discussion recently with a third-wave feminist who argued that rejecting intersectionality was an essential element of being second wave feminist. I don't doubt that many second-wavers implicitly (or explicitly) rejected intersectionality - and I think intersectionality is an important structure in the correct theoretical framework. But I'm not familiar enough with the schools of thought to know whether second-wave is inherently inconsistent with intersectionality.
In short, are there accessible references that lay out the central positions of the various schools of thought - at a more nuanced and detailed level than wikipedia? The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is at the right level, but doesn't seem to be directed at the topics I'm referring to here.
As with most things, my experience is that specialist encyclopedias are your best bet for knowledge per effort. There's nothing as high-quality and legally accessible as the SEP, but the standard other places should have you covered. Depending on the level of detail you're looking for, Cambridge Companions, Oxford Handbooks, and Very Short Guides tend to be pretty accurate and accessible.
(As for intersectionality I have yet to see a definition which isn't either trivial or theoretically problematic. Which isn't to say that realizing and incorporating the trivial form is itself trivial, but I don't think either version would really hold up as a necessary or sufficient condition for differentiating waves. Waves are noticed based on broad shifts in theory and are thus necessarily fuzzy. But this is just IMO.)
I can't find a cite but I'm sure someone in that school of thought has made that claim explicitly ("Men can't be raped").
That said, Dworkin and others have indicated that all penetrative sex is rape, specifically of the sort that a male perpetrates upon a female, so that would suggest that it could not happen the other way 'round.
Yes, I agree that Dworkin equates coercive sex and penetrative sex. If Dworkin thinks that understanding rules out male rape victims (female tool use, to say nothing of homosexual rape), that would make me sad. After all, male tool use on females would be coercive according to her.
Edit: Forgot central point, which is that saying "men can't be raped" is very different from saying "male rape victims don't matter" The first is an argument about definition and perspective. The second blatantly contradicts the assertion that rape is wrong.
At a certain level, I think it is right to say sex is generally coercive, in much the same way that going to work is generally coercive. If you don't go to work for a long enough period of time, you will be the subject of violence. (e.g. eviction)
That understanding of coercion has the twin failings of (1) not being the ordinary usage of the word, and (2) not saying much that is interesting. Everything is Dworkin-coercive, just about.
"Its not wrong when it happens to the out-group" is standard human thinking. Also overall people do tend to care less about average male than average female suffering.
I don't understand this analogy. It really is necessary to work. It's not necessary to be in any intimate relationships. Taking a vow of celibacy does not lead inevitably to getting raped. Within a relationship, there will be increasing pressure to have sex as time since last coitus increases, but there is typically the alternative of ending the relationship, at least in modern Western society.
It's not necessary to be in a relationship. Nor is it necessary to engage in sexual relations within the relationship. But there is social pressure to be in a (hetero-normative) relationship and to perform sex acts. Dworkins' first point is that this pressure is gendered. The social norms function to make women feel worse for violating them than men. And the amount of pressure isn't close.
Dworkins' suggested response is to remake society to remove (and prohibit) this type of pressure. Whether she admits it or not, this conflicts with "freedom of speech." But so do most anti-discrimination and anti-group defamation laws (the latter have not been generally implemented in the United States). That doesn't meet we must implement Dworkins' vision to avoid hypocrisy. But I think it is valuable to notice the trade-off we are making. To use economic language, one might call the gendered norms an opportunity cost of arranging society the way we have.
And if the referenced norms seem wrong to you, then you ought not to think of Dworkin as an idiot. Feel free to continue thinking badly of Mary Daly (with my blessing and encouragement).
I don't follow. Dworkin criticises something stupid, that doesn't make ver not an idiot.
They're not very different in how they are actually understood by listeners. The perceived differenced is based on a notion that humans consciously manipulate their mental categories by arbitrarily choosing explicit verbal definitions and that's not the case.
Meghan Murphy has written a blog post entitled "Can women rape men? I'm not sure I care.", though she later retracted it.
I don't think anyone has explicitly said "penetrative sex is rape"; they do use phrases like "inherently degrading and violent", but I've only ever heard opponents rephrase it as such.
Yes, I think the furthest Dworkin has gone is saying that a) penetrative sex is inherently violent, b) sex that is not initiated by "the woman" is never consensual, and c) men's pleasure is necessarily linked to victimizing, hurting, and exploiting.
Is this a generally accepted notion in feminism, or does it represent a fringe view ? The reason I ask is because this sounds exactly like something a Straw Feminist might say...
What algorithm do you use to tell the difference between a feminist and a straw feminist? According to this algorithm, are Mary Daly and Andrea Dworkin straw feminists?
It seems to me that any feminist suddenly becomes a straw feminist when an offensive or clearly irrational quote made by them is presented in a discussion about feminism.
It fits well into the memeplex of radical feminism. While I haven't had my finger to the pulse of feminism for a few years, I've gotten the impression that radical feminism hasn't been mainstream since the 1990s.
That's ... pretty far. I mean, damn.
That distinction seems pretty fine; "degrading and violent sex" sounds a hell of a lot like rape (or perhaps some BSDM simulating rape, I guess.)
Rape is very often not violent, and there are many contexts where it wouldn't be thought degrading by the victim or by the culture, such as marital rape in a culture where it's considered normal.
Consensual degrading and violent sex is certainly kinky, but not necessarily a kind of kink that counts as BDSM and certainly not necessarily rape play. (I feel like I should be making innuendo here about developing your imagination or something.) The "cunnilingus and cuddles" feminist crowd probably don't think it can truly be consensual, but they're just obviously wrong; people might be brainwashed by the patriarchy to go along with something their partner wants, but not to seek it out secretly.
Excellent points.
Even if the word "rape" isn't being used, it seems to me - and this may be a failure of imagination - that it nonetheless simulates rape, or at least something close to it.
You sure about that?
"Suggest" very loosely, in that we would have to ignore both cases where both the penetrator and the penetratee are male, and cases where artificial tools of various sorts are used to perpetrate penetration, in order to draw that conclusion.
Which is not to say that there aren't people who would argue precisely that.
I thought it would be sufficiently damning that it already rules out 'ordinary' female rape of males. If your definition of 'rape' includes consensual sex and does not include this, then we've stopped talking about rape.
I've heard non-obviously-bogus arguments that it should, e.g. men cannot get pregnant as a result of rape.
Some can. It's probably a very different experience though.
And many women can't. If it's unknown to the rapist, asserting power through a threat of forced pregnancy might still happen, but if she's like sixty-five that's not going to happen.
But gender does matter. A man raping a cis woman has a gender wars element to it, usually something like "Men want sex and women don't, so this man is taking it from this woman, scoring one for Team Men. She's a slut for letting it happen, unless she can prove she's a perfect victim and he's a complete monster, in which case she's a victim of female weakness and needs protected by a strong good man.". Conversely, a man raping a man hinges more on "A man weak enough to let someone rape him is not a real man, but gay-female-feminine. He is ridiculous and pathetic.". There are other gender-dependent examples with female perpetrators, with prison rape, with corrective rape, with rape as a weapon for cultural domination, with isolated communities, and so on.
Of course it doesn't matter in that some rapes count and some don't, and it shouldn't matter at all. Just saying, you should expect different support structures, not identical rape shelters which just happen to be 25% male-populated.
Unwanted pregnancy can be a result of rape, but rape seems like a separate Bad Thing that can happen to someone.
In addition to what MixedNuts said, the question I was raising was whether this was a feminist position. To the extent that it is, I'd like to know whether it is from the methodologically incorrect branch (represented in this discussion by Mary Daly) or the methodologically more correct branch (represented by Andrea Dworkin).
It would surprise me to hear that Dworkin has asserted that men can't be raped - and if I heard it, I'd need to re-examine whether her arguments about the social effect of porn are valid (even if she's right, there are knock-on concerns that weigh against censorship).
More generally, conflating Daly and Dworkin is like conflating Stephen J. Gould and Stephen Pinker.
I think I saw a comment subthread on The Good Men Project along the lines “What's it matter whether it's a man who has sex with a woman too drunk to consent [or something like that] or the other way round?” “The woman can get pregnant, etc., etc.” “Wow, that's some serious Dworkin you're channeling”, but I can't find it right now, so I might have dreamt it or something.
Yup. Mysandry is a real thing, if rarer than the reverse. Hell, since stereotypes of men are much less likely to be challenged then those of women, it's arguably more common (on a far lower level than your examples, obviously.)
The mistake is to stereotype all "feminists" as spouting such nonsense, of course.
Hooray, I get to recommend No Seriously, What About Teh Menz? and other nifty things by Ozy Frantz.
...and zie's the only person I know of who writes about misandry without turning into a giant douche.
... is that a stealth insult?
Do you mean to Ozy? It was supposed to be praise.
Or do you mean to you? If you write about misandry, I have yet to see your writings, so I'd be hard-pressed to insult you based on them.
Or do you mean something else?
Well, I wrote a comment on it. Right there. You replied to it.
... I guess I was just imagining things, although your comment was slightly ... tangential. Such comments are rarer than those criticizing the parent. Hell, I even opened this comment by contradicting you.
... thanks for the recommendation.
Plenty of posts on The Good Men Project in general are surprisingly sane given their subject matter, too. (The comments are less good though, especially recently with the allegations of rape apology.)
I haven't seen any good ones that were about misandry specifically, but yeah, there's lot of good stuff. The series on male depression's good.
Most of the articles are fluff along the lines of "Hats are cool", though. And right now I'm just a little bit reluctant to recommend the site that published the "I raped a few people, but partying is fun so I don't mind" article.
I do see the point of publishing such articles; but unfortunately they (and I) overestimated the sanity (in the LW sense) of the readers -- see the third paragraph of “Belief as Attire”. Turns out that some of the readers are more like Alabama bar patrons than like nerds, and unfortunately there's no way of saying ‘X did Y because of Z’ to Alabama bar patrons that won't sound like ‘it was right for X to do Y’.
"Rapists justify themselves by claiming consent is complicated" goes over well all the time. "I'm a rapist, but consent is complicated so it's a risk I'm willing to take" is supposed not to go over well.
Knowing the justifications rapists use is not useless. But "I had an e-mail exchange with an anonymous rapist, and here are some quotes" would suffice, whereas "Here's an article by a person I disagree with" implies some degree of respect for the defended position.
Can't argue with you about the hats, but I'm not sure what people's problem is with publishing that article. It's not like he was defending himself, just giving useful information on how someone's life can lead them to rape despite consciously committing to the principle that Rape Is Bad. Are they worried that understanding the enemy better will force them to stop viewing people as Evil Mutants?
It could be, but, after reading that interview, I get the feeling that MD wouldn't mind it at all if currently living people (male ones, that is) got disappeared, as well. That interview is actually quite fascinating.
I imagine females will also be reduced to 10%. Gender is pointless. I know I'd like to be (sexually) female sometimes, futanari (is there an english word for this?) sometimes, and male sometimes, and the rest of the time something totally different. Probably with tentacles. I think I'd like to be totally sexless sometimes too.
When you spend enough time on certain places on the internet, radical feminists look like conservatives on gender issues.
Indeed. Reading about the details of sex between one "male" and one "female" partner as though it's the only kind of sex, really reads to me like trying to enforce a (outdated and sexist) traditional view of how humans are supposed to self-identify and relate to each other.
Depending on what you mean by futanari, 'hermaphrodite' or 'shemale' are common, though the latter is almost surely slang (and checking what Google has to say on the subject is almost surely NSFW).
The latter is a slur.
Well, by that link, both "transvestite" and "hermaphrodite" (NTM "it") were on the list of slurs. I think it was just indicated as a slur for transsexual people, not inherently a slur.
I'll just keep calling it futa. It's the only word for that mode of being that I have not seen used offensively.
I must say that I haven't seen it used offensively either. Nor, for that matter, have I seen the sun rise && false.
(ie. Using the word futa may not be optimal for communicating object level content with people who speak English.)
Modern, generally accepted term in english is intersexed
I'm pretty sure "intersexed" is more general than the sense of "futanari", or at least the sense meant above.
"No-op trans woman"?
Technically accurate, but not general enough. A futanari, as I understand, is a person who has a penis, but otherwise has the physical characteristics typically designated "female" (breasts, wide hips, etc.). A no-op trans woman would fit this description, but so would someone who started out with the typical "female" phenotype but had their genitals modified and kept the rest of their body the same. (As far as I know, this hasn't happened in real life, but it's theoretically possible.) Also, though I'm not aware of any such condition, I suppose there could be an intersex condition that produces a "futanari" phenotype. (If anyone is aware of one, I'd be curious to hear about it.)
I dunno. The option would be nice, but I think I'd still spend easily 90% of my time as a "male" and I doubt that's unusual; the categories of "male" and "female" still have meaning if some women spend their holidays as dolphins.
You are pretty unfamiliar with some of the more obscure aspects feminism. Even if the SCUM manifesto was really satire (which I don't think it was), there where plenty of calls for the elimination or even enslavement of men by academics and radicals.
As with all political and ideological movements some join them just because they seem the best available tool to harm a despised out-group.
Some feminists really do just hate men.
The SCUM Manifesto was written by someone with severe mental health issues and isn't taken seriously by the vast majority of feminists. It isn't representative in any useful way. Edit: That is not to say that there aren't some people out there with extreme views of this sort, they'll show up in any large movement. But that context is important.
I think Mary Daly did.
It appears your model is false, then. Progress!
(Not that you should switch to a model with even poorer predictive history, i.e. the "feminists just hate men" one.)
Are you perhaps thinking of Valerie Solanas, and the SCUM manifesto?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas
(I'm pretty sure it was just an example of game-changing social upheaval; the actual reason it happened isn't described and may or may may not have been determined.)