Black Twitter Is Upset Over Controversial Shea Moisture Ad

[The Lonious Monk]

Are we not talking now about the possible consequences from the fallout of this shit? Cause, guess what? If black women tell Shea Moisture to kiss our butts, they'll be receiving a lesson in "how business works" when they alienate their base. How about that!

Most of the white corporations like L'oreal earn most of their revenue from its global brand division and receive the majority of those sales from Latin America, Indian, and African markets. That's the reason we are seeing more hair product companies securing a bid to act as multi-national corporations. So if they want to expand, don't give me this shit about needing to put 2 white bitches in our commercials. It's really only economically viable to produce in the U.S when Americans are the primary consumer for those products. We saw that in Chris Rock's movie a long time ago. The goal is for them to keep their production low in an effort to sell at competitive prices in global markets. The primary consumer is no longer the American market. Most white companies are already doing this. If they want to tap into white consumers, they better do so without putting two white girls in the commercial and no black women.

lol You're basically talking about destroying a black company just because you don't like their attempts to reach out to whites. Based on this, companies would do well to avoid catering to black women. Ya'll aren't nearly as loyal or pro-black as you claim.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

lol

I think you're being disingenuous

but ok

not even sure what you are implying, to be honest

are you saying that they is a large contingency of blk women who do not acknowledge the racial, gender disparities?

What reason do I have to be disingenuous? If I'm wrong, just post facts to prove me wrong, that's all it takes. And I'm not implying anything. I'm flat saying I never heard any of these females that supposedly broached this subject in a nice civil matter. Every time I've ever heard it spoken on, the women were always antagonistic and accusatory.

And women in gender don't acknowledge the fact that women are not always the victims in this society. There are a lot of instances where men are actually victimized more. Hell a former feminist explored it in a documentary called The Red Pill.

advancing or asking for inclusion is not inherently divisive...especially when the request has merit

yea some ppl's tactics to push their agenda can be divisive

can't say I've seen a lot of that or at least on the same scale as I see with ALM or blue lives matter

from what I observed most blk women still support blm and other anti police brutality movements without any conditions

It is if it deflects from the goal at hand. If the goal is to end police brutality, bashing partners in that goal because they aren't going about it the way you want is divisive. And of course black women support BLM, it's the brain child of black women. They don't call out BLM specifically. They take aim at the concept focusing on Black men and individual protests that they don't believe have enough black woman representation.

And just to repeat what I said before. I don't have a problem with women seeking more representation. My problem is the need for black women to attack any and everything that doesn't focus on them or put them in a positive light. Case in point, the subject for this topic.

not necessarily so

our general goals may be the same ...but the concern is the ways in which certain groups are more vulnerable than others aren't addressed that still leaves that one group vulnerable.....e.g. the civil rights movement

reason why sayhername and the like want policies be developed using an intersectional gender and racial lens

and again the lack of narratives from, concerning blk women has led to the idea that women and girls of color are not doing as bad, or that we’re not at risk at all

lol I'm not really sure how you apply intersectionality here. Suggested policies for this problem wouldn't be race or gender specific anyway. Still, if you wanted to go that way, then black men would still have to be the focus. In this case, the intersection between black and male is what has the greatest impact. Again, being a woman helps when it comes to criminal justice issues. Or does intersectionality only count when it serves to put women and their problems in the spotlight?

yea um...no

its ridiculous

Agree to disagree I guess.

 

[obnoxiouslyfresh]

Are we not talking now about the possible consequences from the fallout of this shit? Cause, guess what? If black women tell Shea Moisture to kiss our butts, they'll be receiving a lesson in "how business works" when they alienate their base. How about that!

Most of the white corporations like L'oreal earn most of their revenue from its global brand division and receive the majority of those sales from Latin America, Indian, and African markets. That's the reason we are seeing more hair product companies securing a bid to act as multi-national corporations. So if they want to expand, don't give me this shit about needing to put 2 white bitches in our commercials. It's really only economically viable to produce in the U.S when Americans are the primary consumer for those products. We saw that in Chris Rock's movie a long time ago. The goal is for them to keep their production low in an effort to sell at competitive prices in global markets. The primary consumer is no longer the American market. Most white companies are already doing this. If they want to tap into white consumers, they better do so without putting two white girls in the commercial and no black women.

lol You're basically talking about destroying a black company just because you don't like their attempts to reach out to whites. Based on this, companies would do well to avoid catering to black women. Ya'll aren't nearly as loyal or pro-black as you claim.

No actually I stated earlier that I hope they self correct their shit and prosper. That's up to them.

 

[2stepz_ahead]

@obnoxiouslyfresh give it a listen are you still mad and boycotting?

So he apologized, showed accountability, and explained that they would like to expand their markets. Okay, fine. But I could care less about the other talking out the side of his mouth about how they've given us a platform consistently for this long. By his own admission, black women supported that company for years. It wouldn't have thrived without us. How are BW "not loyal" when it was our consistent and damn near exclusive buying power that made SM a lasting brand. Just don't forget who put you there.

So they forgot about y'all by putting out one commercial that had people of another race in it? How exactly were they supposed to reach those other markets without attempting to appeal to them.

I'm sure the company will survive but I also expect it'll suffer in the interim while it rebuilds trust. Tough titty. From what I've seen of the marketing team, they're too far removed from black hair to really understand how what they put out was so tone deaf. I'm not sure how they're gonna pull it back, but I hope they do.

It's my understanding that they had like 30 commercials and 8 of them including the one that caused all the problems weren't centered around black women. Is that really being tone deaf, or is it just underestimating the need black women seem to have to always be the focus. I mean I get that nobody wants to be abandoned by something they've supported, but did the company really abandon ya'll by releasing one commercial that wasn't meant for ya'll. I could be missing something, and if so I'm sorry, but this just seems like a huge overreaction right up there with threatening to boycott K. Dot because he doesn't like photoshopped women.

What you mean "the need black women seem to hav to be the focus?" That's exactly what the product has been since its inception. There's no reason to market directly to other women. Why? Because white hair care does not, yet they still get tons of women of color to use their product. Can't have shit to ourselves. He did all that mumbling and stumbling in that interview just to in a round about way say that white investors are changing his purpose. The commercial was fuckin stupid and that's really what it boils down to. He better figure out how to not alienate the people who fattened his pockets for years or good luck to him!

You really don't see a problem with the bold?

I get both sides of the argument. Black women feel like they don't have to market their products to other races because other brands that are tailored for/to white people dont try to appeal to blacks, while others feel like it's nothing wrong with trying to expand their brand.

Well the first side seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of how business works. These people are trying to make money. Why should they care that white owned companies don't care about black business?

Are we not talking now about the possible consequences from the fallout of this shit? Cause, guess what? If black women tell Shea Moisture to kiss our butts, they'll be receiving a lesson in "how business works" when they alienate their base. How about that!

Most of the white corporations like L'oreal earn most of their revenue from its global brand division and receive the majority of those sales from Latin America, Indian, and African markets. That's the reason we are seeing more hair product companies securing a bid to act as multi-national corporations. So if they want to expand, don't give me this shit about needing to put 2 white bitches in our commercials. It's really only economically viable to produce in the U.S when Americans are the primary consumer for those products. We saw that in Chris Rock's movie a long time ago. The goal is for them to keep their production low in an effort to sell at competitive prices in global markets. The primary consumer is no longer the American market. Most white companies are already doing this. If they want to tap into white consumers, they better do so without putting two white girls in the commercial and no black women.

see this is a problem...

this is why women cant be the head of household...always want to flex power when it's not needed.

its business.

but if you wanna be dtank...then go after all the once black businesses that sold out to whitey..but still got y'all as a base.

now go make me a gotdamn sandwich an be naked when you come back.

I sticking it ya ass tonight no lube for talking shit

 

[2stepz_ahead]

I'm sorry ob

you didn't deserve that.

 

[farris2k1]

Black twitter?

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Are we not talking now about the possible consequences from the fallout of this shit? Cause, guess what? If black women tell Shea Moisture to kiss our butts, they'll be receiving a lesson in "how business works" when they alienate their base. How about that!

Most of the white corporations like L'oreal earn most of their revenue from its global brand division and receive the majority of those sales from Latin America, Indian, and African markets. That's the reason we are seeing more hair product companies securing a bid to act as multi-national corporations. So if they want to expand, don't give me this shit about needing to put 2 white bitches in our commercials. It's really only economically viable to produce in the U.S when Americans are the primary consumer for those products. We saw that in Chris Rock's movie a long time ago. The goal is for them to keep their production low in an effort to sell at competitive prices in global markets. The primary consumer is no longer the American market. Most white companies are already doing this. If they want to tap into white consumers, they better do so without putting two white girls in the commercial and no black women.

lol You're basically talking about destroying a black company just because you don't like their attempts to reach out to whites. Based on this, companies would do well to avoid catering to black women. Ya'll aren't nearly as loyal or pro-black as you claim.

No actually I stated earlier that I hope they self correct their shit and prosper. That's up to them.

Again, what is there to correct. They made one commercial appealing to a group out of their demographic. You're acting like they've started a pattern of neglecting ya'll. Again, just because you buy their shit every now and then, doesn't mean you get to dictate business practices.

 

[D. Morgan]

@obnoxiouslyfresh give it a listen are you still mad and boycotting?

So he apologized, showed accountability, and explained that they would like to expand their markets. Okay, fine. But I could care less about the other talking out the side of his mouth about how they've given us a platform consistently for this long. By his own admission, black women supported that company for years. It wouldn't have thrived without us. How are BW "not loyal" when it was our consistent and damn near exclusive buying power that made SM a lasting brand. Just don't forget who put you there.

So they forgot about y'all by putting out one commercial that had people of another race in it? How exactly were they supposed to reach those other markets without attempting to appeal to them.

I'm sure the company will survive but I also expect it'll suffer in the interim while it rebuilds trust. Tough titty. From what I've seen of the marketing team, they're too far removed from black hair to really understand how what they put out was so tone deaf. I'm not sure how they're gonna pull it back, but I hope they do.

It's my understanding that they had like 30 commercials and 8 of them including the one that caused all the problems weren't centered around black women. Is that really being tone deaf, or is it just underestimating the need black women seem to have to always be the focus. I mean I get that nobody wants to be abandoned by something they've supported, but did the company really abandon ya'll by releasing one commercial that wasn't meant for ya'll. I could be missing something, and if so I'm sorry, but this just seems like a huge overreaction right up there with threatening to boycott K. Dot because he doesn't like photoshopped women.

What you mean "the need black women seem to hav to be the focus?" That's exactly what the product has been since its inception. There's no reason to market directly to other women. Why? Because white hair care does not, yet they still get tons of women of color to use their product. Can't have shit to ourselves. He did all that mumbling and stumbling in that interview just to in a round about way say that white investors are changing his purpose. The commercial was fuckin stupid and that's really what it boils down to. He better figure out how to not alienate the people who fattened his pockets for years or good luck to him!

You really don't see a problem with the bold?

I get both sides of the argument. Black women feel like they don't have to market their products to other races because other brands that are tailored for/to white people dont try to appeal to blacks, while others feel like it's nothing wrong with trying to expand their brand.

Well the first side seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of how business works. These people are trying to make money. Why should they care that white owned companies don't care about black business?

Are we not talking now about the possible consequences from the fallout of this shit? Cause, guess what? If black women tell Shea Moisture to kiss our butts, they'll be receiving a lesson in "how business works" when they alienate their base. How about that!

Most of the white corporations like L'oreal earn most of their revenue from its global brand division and receive the majority of those sales from Latin America, Indian, and African markets. That's the reason we are seeing more hair product companies securing a bid to act as multi-national corporations. So if they want to expand, don't give me this shit about needing to put 2 white bitches in our commercials. It's really only economically viable to produce in the U.S when Americans are the primary consumer for those products. We saw that in Chris Rock's movie a long time ago. The goal is for them to keep their production low in an effort to sell at competitive prices in global markets. The primary consumer is no longer the American market. Most white companies are already doing this. If they want to tap into white consumers, they better do so without putting two white girls in the commercial and no black women.

Your emotions in regards to this has made you completely irrational in how you are seeing this.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

@obnoxiouslyfresh give it a listen are you still mad and boycotting?

So he apologized, showed accountability, and explained that they would like to expand their markets. Okay, fine. But I could care less about the other talking out the side of his mouth about how they've given us a platform consistently for this long. By his own admission, black women supported that company for years. It wouldn't have thrived without us. How are BW "not loyal" when it was our consistent and damn near exclusive buying power that made SM a lasting brand. Just don't forget who put you there.

So they forgot about y'all by putting out one commercial that had people of another race in it? How exactly were they supposed to reach those other markets without attempting to appeal to them.

I'm sure the company will survive but I also expect it'll suffer in the interim while it rebuilds trust. Tough titty. From what I've seen of the marketing team, they're too far removed from black hair to really understand how what they put out was so tone deaf. I'm not sure how they're gonna pull it back, but I hope they do.

It's my understanding that they had like 30 commercials and 8 of them including the one that caused all the problems weren't centered around black women. Is that really being tone deaf, or is it just underestimating the need black women seem to have to always be the focus. I mean I get that nobody wants to be abandoned by something they've supported, but did the company really abandon ya'll by releasing one commercial that wasn't meant for ya'll. I could be missing something, and if so I'm sorry, but this just seems like a huge overreaction right up there with threatening to boycott K. Dot because he doesn't like photoshopped women.

What you mean "the need black women seem to hav to be the focus?" That's exactly what the product has been since its inception. There's no reason to market directly to other women. Why? Because white hair care does not, yet they still get tons of women of color to use their product. Can't have shit to ourselves. He did all that mumbling and stumbling in that interview just to in a round about way say that white investors are changing his purpose. The commercial was fuckin stupid and that's really what it boils down to. He better figure out how to not alienate the people who fattened his pockets for years or good luck to him!

You really don't see a problem with the bold?

I get both sides of the argument. Black women feel like they don't have to market their products to other races because other brands that are tailored for/to white people dont try to appeal to blacks, while others feel like it's nothing wrong with trying to expand their brand.

Well the first side seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of how business works. These people are trying to make money. Why should they care that white owned companies don't care about black business?

Are we not talking now about the possible consequences from the fallout of this shit? Cause, guess what? If black women tell Shea Moisture to kiss our butts, they'll be receiving a lesson in "how business works" when they alienate their base. How about that!

Most of the white corporations like L'oreal earn most of their revenue from its global brand division and receive the majority of those sales from Latin America, Indian, and African markets. That's the reason we are seeing more hair product companies securing a bid to act as multi-national corporations. So if they want to expand, don't give me this shit about needing to put 2 white bitches in our commercials. It's really only economically viable to produce in the U.S when Americans are the primary consumer for those products. We saw that in Chris Rock's movie a long time ago. The goal is for them to keep their production low in an effort to sell at competitive prices in global markets. The primary consumer is no longer the American market. Most white companies are already doing this. If they want to tap into white consumers, they better do so without putting two white girls in the commercial and no black women.

Your emotions in regards to this has made you completely irrational in how you are seeing this.

She's never rational when it comes to stuff like this. I think she'd probably admit that herself.

 

[obnoxiouslyfresh]

I can be emotional if I want. It's my money. Buy what yall want with your own money.

 

[D. Morgan]

I can be emotional if I want. It's my money. Buy what yall want with your own money.

HUH?

Never said you couldn't be emotional and never even remotely implied about how or who you should or shouldn't spend your money with.

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

@The Lonious Monk

1. maybe you aren't being disingenuous

but what are you accusations based on? twitter , tumblr?

because if you actually would google "sayhername" or follow any of the organizations/creators of the hash tags they are pretty reasonable ppl, with reasonable requests

from my experience, when any one broaches the subject even in a civil matter the responses are either antagonistic from the jump or dismissive

2. same as their is male privilege, there is also female privilege ...the dualistic mindset that locks everything into male/female makes this an inescapable fact of modern life and somewhat a given

the primary points of contention, from my observations, is whether these privileges outweighs the disadvantages of being female or exist as the natural order of things

this is also contingent on your race and cultural background, not to mention tempered by your age, appearance, socioeconomic status, etc

so not everyone has benefited from all these privileges and the power structure from which they flow

from my experience and just from my observations, being a woman and any privileges that comes with that is largely offset by the fact that she is also blk.....

for example, in the job market we have to contend with racism and sexism

some jobs are considered too labor intensive for women and women are considered less for managerial positions ... whatever advantages we may have from being a female, we as blk women have to compete with non blk women

could explain a lot why blk women are at the lowest rung of the socioeconomic ladder

3. everyone wants and should want fair and balanced representation, especially the historically disenfranchised

with shea moisture, some blk women are just frustrated...very few companies in the beauty and hair care industry cater specifically to blk women.....blk women with natural hair have even fewer options ...so it's hard not to get frustrated

and as many other ppl besides blk women have commented the ad was tone deaf af

otherwise, please stop pushing this false narrative that blk women have a monopoly on "faux outrage" and are trying to co-opt everything

and as you insinuated you not be totally objective

4. again while we may not be killed at the same rate as blk men...no group is with maybe the exception of native American men ....if I'm not mistaken

however blk women and girls are killed more than other group of women...and additionally brutalized and discriminated by the criminal justice system and law enforcement against in ways that blk men aren't....and in ways a lot of ppl are unaware of, which is obviously problematic

so while blk men should be the focus, not sure why blk women don't deserve to also be recognized and heard

and color and gender blind policy making will not work.....the disparities exist for a reason...

what would policies be developed using an intersectional gender and racial lens look like?

more blks, women of color could be recruited to law enforcement, sensitivity training, greater surveillance in jailing facilities, etc

5. that said, this idea that gender has some how been a protective shield blk women that has been perpetuated by the absence of our narratives when discussing police brutality and racial discrimination is what really fuels contention and division....not anyone acknowledging said absence

 

[The Lonious Monk]

@The Lonious Monk

1. maybe you aren't being disingenuous...

You're right. I'll check "sayhername" out to see what you're talking about... However, let's not act like the people on twitter or facebook or youtube or all the other avenues out there are imaginary. Those are real people. So if I see a video on the net of chicks at a rally tearing down people right there with them for not giving women enough attention, that's a valid example. Now if you're saying that's only one side, alright that's fair. I'll check for the other side at your suggestion.

2. same as their is male privilege, there is also female privilege ...

It all depends on what comparisons you're making. If you're talking about the differences between black women and white women, then yeah, I'd agree, black women are always at a disadvantage. But for the purposes of this discussion, I was contrasting the differences between black men and black women. And black women do not have it worse than black men across the board. As I've said many times. black women are doing better than black men in damn near every trend these days. So with that being the case, it doesn't really make sense to always insist that black women are the ones that need more attention.

3. everyone wants and should want fair and balanced representation, especially the historically disenfranchised...

I didn't say black women have a monopoly on "faux outrage." Lots of people are guilty of that. I still believe black women feel the need to be focus. We can agree to disagree there.

Why do black women need a company to cater specifically to them? That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's a hair product company. As long as they are still supplying your needs, what difference does it make if they also reach out to others? Why do you guys feel the need to control something even when you have no real right to do so? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're fighting with me about my claim that black women have to co-opt everything, while you basically defend black women trying to co-opt something.

4. again while we may not be killed at the same rate as blk men...no group is with maybe the exception of native American men ....

Black women do deserve to be heard. I've never said otherwise. As far as I know, black women have never been fully ignored the way some portray. I've only been to two protests, but in both cases there were signs of female victims too. Yes, the men were the focus, but it was also the men that were on camera being gunned down.

5. that said, this idea that gender has some how been a protective shield blk women that has been perpetuated by the absence of our narratives when discussing police brutality and racial discrimination is what really fuels contention and division....not anyone acknowledging said absence

Gender has been a shield, not an impervious one, but black women have not been demonized the way black men have. Again, I'm not saying that black women don't get it bad, ya'll do. But females love pointing out this is a patriarchy. If you want to hurt a community, how do you do it in a patriarchy? You go after the male. So yeah, black males have absorbed a lot more of the damage than females have, and whether you want to admit it or not, that is benefiting you. Look up the numbers, black women are outpacing not just black men but other groups in secondary education, entrepreneurship, and a few other things. Meanwhile, black men are lagging behind in all those things. You think that's a coincidence? You don't think it's possible that while so much effort is being put into tearing black men down, that it makes it easier on black women in some degrees? Maybe not easier than it is for white women, but easier than it would be if you had to endure the same treatment we do. I'm really not trying to make this an us against ya'll thing. The only point I'm making is that sometimes more focus is put on black me because we simply need it more not because you guys don't need attention too.

 

[Madame_CJSkywalker]

@The Lonious Monk

no one is arguing that blk women need the attention more or more of the attention....

cool, you may see more signs of female victims at the rallies...but that's only a small part of the battle

we have a long way to go. but to suggest it was never or doesn't continues to be a problem would be ignorant and or disingenuous

yes, blk men have are disadvantaged in ways that blk women are not. but the world, at least america, sees us both as a threat. while i have to deal with ppl assuming i'm a thief or a societal leech or a baby factory. the worlds sees you as thugs, criminals, drug dealers...so i don't think you can argue one group has it better than the other. what i will argue is that the ways blk women are discriminated against are far more insidious... so yea it's no surprise that ppl tend to graviate or sympathathize more with the story of a trayvon martin over an marissa alexander or anna brown

yes, we are doing better by most metrics. but again we still occupy the lowest rung of the economic ladder. so i would argue we are persevering despite the obstacles that are placed before us....lol

patriarchy hurts men too. but the solution is not to perptuate or chase patriarchy while women are largely left to suffer under it's burden. overemphasize the problems of the blk community being problems of blk men. it's cricitical we include female narratives in our social movements and challenge the patriarchal power structure with the same energy ....or as i said before the structural and systemic economic discrimination and abuse of blk women will continue

that said, you paint this as part of some long trend of blk own attempting to co-opt or control everything all willy nilly without just cause or reason, but the examples you're presenting paint a different story beneath the surface

with shea moisture, same as a company has the right to want to expand their markets...same as the consumers have the right to voice their dissatisfaction with the direction of a company and withhold their dollars...it's a free market, at least it's suppose to be

why is product that specifally caters to blk women, or even blk men, necessary? well because we have specific needs that requires specifity. we aren't a monolith but generally speaking our hair is different than non blks. and our skin is different. you may not know but it's hard af for blk women to find a decent foundation (make up). and also it matters because it's highly important for young children and young adults growing up to see reprensentations of themselves in the media, especially positive representations. this may seem unfair to blk business owners, but if we don't look out for our own who will

 

[The Lonious Monk]

@The Lonious Monk

no one is arguing that blk women need the attention more or more of the attention....

cool, you may see more signs of female victims at the rallies...but that's only a small part of the battle

we have a long way to go. but to suggest it was never or doesn't continues to be a problem would be ignorant and or disingenuous

yes, blk men have are disadvantaged in ways that blk women are not. but the world, at least america, sees us both as a threat. while i have to deal with ppl assuming i'm a thief or a societal leech or a baby factory. the worlds sees you as thugs, criminals, drug dealers...so i don't think you can argue one group has it better than the other. what i will argue is that the ways blk women are discriminated against are far more insidious... so yea it's no surprise that ppl tend to graviate or sympathathize more with the story of a trayvon martin over an marissa alexander or anna brown

yes, we are doing better by most metrics. but again we still occupy the lowest rung of the economic ladder. so i would argue we are persevering despite the obstacles that are placed before us....lol

patriarchy hurts men too. but the solution is not to perptuate or chase patriarchy while women are largely left to suffer under it's burden. overemphasize the problems of the blk community being problems of blk men. it's cricitical we include female narratives in our social movements and challenge the patriarchal power structure with the same energy ....or as i said before the structural and systemic economic discrimination and abuse of blk women will continue

that said, you paint this as part of some long trend of blk own attempting to co-opt or control everything all willy nilly without just cause or reason, but the examples you're presenting paint a different story beneath the surface

with shea moisture, same as a company has the right to want to expand their markets...same as the consumers have the right to voice their dissatisfaction with the direction of a company and withhold their dollars...it's a free market, at least it's suppose to be

why is product that specifally caters to blk women, or even blk men, necessary? well because we have specific needs that requires specifity. we aren't a monolith but generally speaking our hair is different than non blks. and our skin is different. you may not know but it's hard af for blk women to find a decent foundation (make up). and also it matters because it's highly important for young children and young adults growing up to see reprensentations of themselves in the media, especially positive representations. this may seem unfair to blk business owners, but if we don't look out for our own who will

I'm not really arguing against anything you're saying. Again, I acknowledge that black women have problems that need to be address. I acknowledge that black women have the right to make their concerns known. I just disagree with the reasoning a lot of black women employ, the methods many use, and the conclusions that many make.

For instance, just look at intersectionality. I'm sure many like you employ that theory with the best possible mindset. But wouldn't you agree that there are women out there that use it as a means to basically create victim hierarchies? Black men have it bad, but straight black women have it worse, and gay black women have it even worse. That's not productive, and the problems in the world are not as simple as saying so and so is a double minority so she has it worse. Whether you believe me or not, that is how a lot of people see the things that feminists and other SJWs stand for, and a lot of that is how the message is presented.