Hacker News Reader

> People will say "yes, but it doesn't mean literally kill all men", and of course it doesn't.

As an honest question: why “of course it doesn’t”?

Because both sexes are required for the species to survive. Killing all men would mean the end of all women too.

> Killing all men would mean the end of all women too.

There is some percentage of “feminists” who don’t love women but simply hate men.

There is some percentage of $x who hate $y for almost any value and combination of $x ad $y. It's not meaningful or constructive to look at the extreme nutjob examples when examining a movement in its entirety.

I completely disagree. As you know, the extreme nut job examples are always the loudest people in the group. It is not meaningless to account for them.

I agree many have an apparent outsized influence, but with some exceptions in most cases I think this is only optics, and they don't really represent all that many people.

"280 character soundbite" social media isn't helping either here, nor is "zomg person X said something ridiculous"-type "journalism".

Well, someone did seriously suggest getting rid of 90% of men, and invented a fairly popular slogan in the process. "The future -- if there is one -- is female" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Miller_Gearhart

Reply on news.ycombinator.com