Conservative Dopers, please explain the concept of "FemiNazi" to me

[Mr. Evil Breakfast]

You know the phrase that your drugaddicted leader Rush Limbaugh uses all the time.

I see it this way, and do tell me if I'm mistaken or somehwo taking it out of context.

Rush is obviosly combining feminists and nazis, which means that he gets at least one of his favorite things in there.

Now feminists as I have always understood them, basically want to be on the same level as men when it comes to equal pay for the same amount of work, etc.

Feminists are also seen as being "liberal" and on the left side of the political spectrum.

Nazis on the other hand, wanted and tried quite hard, to wipe out an entire race of people, namely the Jews and thought that the Arayan (blonde hair and blue eyes) were chosen and destined to be The Supreme Race.

The Nazis are just about as far away from feminists as one can get, being quite close to the end of the "conservative" and right end of the political spectrum.

So, how can these two fit togther in anything resembling a logical and rational way?

And spare me the crap about how Rush is just being ironic or Rush is just having fun, it's funny.

Rush has never been ironic or funny.

Ever.

[electric!sheep]

Originally posted by Mr. Evil Breakfast
Now feminists as I have always understood them, basically want to be on the same level as men when it comes to equal pay for the same amount of work, etc.

And feminazis want specifically more pay for women, special accomodations, replacement of --> signs with 3 (I suggest 3<----, but nevermind that), always condemn men for everything from bad breath to cancer, and look butch. There are some of them out there, much like with neo-Nazis, but the term is as abused as "fascist."

[PatriotX]

Originally posted by Mr. Evil Breakfast

You know the phrase that your drugaddicted leader Rush Limbaugh uses all the time.

Why isn't this in the Pit? Please don't deign to tell me about my "leader". This is very, very weak technique. I believe that the bar is much higher than this in GD.
Originally posted by Mr. Evil Breakfast

Rush is obviosly combining feminists and nazis, which means that he gets at least one of his favorite things in there.

Please be more specific and provide a cite.
Originally posted by Mr. Evil Breakfast

Now feminists as I have always understood them...

How about instead of discussing how you've always understood them, you provide some relevant quotes and citations to back up your assertions? IOW, cite, please. Provide a definition of feminist and provide something to back-up your definition.
Originally posted by Mr. Evil Breakfast

The Nazis are just about as far away from feminists as one can get, being quite close to the end of the "conservative" and right end of the political spectrum.

Please provide a relevant definition of 'conservative' and provide thropugh citation examples of how the National Socialist Party fit this definition.
Originally posted by Mr. Evil Breakfast

And spare me the crap about how Rush is just being ironic or Rush is just having fun, it's funny.

Rush has never been ironic or funny.

Ever.
You don't want to consider the idea that an entertainer is pandering to an audience? Why don't you just tell us what feminazi means?

It would be helpful if you would provide examples of who Mr. Limbaugh has called a feminazi so that we can see the term in context.

[Scylla]

A feminazi is an extremist man-hater, the kind that think all sex is equivalent to rape, and would gouge your eyes out if you held the door for them.

Like the KKK their import and numbers are vastly over-stated, and they serve the purpose of boogeywomen (boogymen? Boogypeople? Boogeywomyn?) illustrating the dangers of liberalism run amok.

Though common this kind of demonization goes tiresome whoever's doing it, IMO.

[errata]

I went to one of the most liberal colleges in the nation and I have never met anyone meeting Scylla's or electric!sheep's characterization (hell, I even dated one of the founding member's of the Lesbian Avengers).

As far as my personal experience and readings on feminism are concerned, the characterization is bogus. I do recall some people with serious personality disorders (like Valerie Solanas), who latched on to feminism in a bad way, but I don't think that's what Rush and his ilk are really referring to.

[electric!sheep]

Originally posted by errata
I went to one of the most liberal colleges in the nation and I have never met anyone meeting Scylla's or electric!sheep's characterization (hell, I even dated one of the founding member's of the Lesbian Avengers).

As far as my personal experience and readings on feminism are concerned, the characterization is bogus. I do recall some people with serious personality disorders (like Valerie Solanas), who latched on to feminism in a bad way, but I don't think that's what Rush and his ilk are really referring to.

I agree, there really aren't any 100% "true" feminazis. However, advocating the use of governmental power to enforce a cultural agenda does get you half way, and when combined with hilarious ideas like changing signs as I described, people are inclined scream "feminazi." In such cases, it's probably best to think of the term as being analogous to "grammar nazi."

[pervert]

I can't believe you didn't do this before posting, Mr Breakfast. But straght from his web site come this

I have said thousands of times that there were never more than 12 feminazis, but some people love to say I mean anyone who wants equal pay for equal work is a feminazi. You've been mislead or are deliberately misleading others.

Once again, let me give you the definition, which never included Boxer, Pat Schroeder or anyone else: "Fem·i·na·zi: [fe-m&-"'nät-sE] - 1: A woman to whom abortion is the most important function in human activity. 2: A radical feminist who demands that you accept and believe everything she does - or else."


I haven't heard his show in years, but he was always very specific about this.

I'm not sure where you got the ideas you espoused, but I think you should definately check your sources. Criticizing something you have not made an honest attempt to understand is naughty at least and can lead to very bad intellectual habits.

There is some of his writing available to unsubscribed people www.rushlimbaugh.com (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com).

[Zoe]

...1: A woman to whom abortion is the most important function in human activity. 2: A radical feminist who demands that you accept and believe everything she does - or else.

Have any of you ever met anyone to whom abortion is the most important function in human activity? I can't imagine such a person! I can understand why some people might choose to work toward insuring that women retain the right to choose, but that certainly doesn't mean that anyone thinks it is the most important function!

The second definition is also interesting to me because it continues to assume that a feminist is female. Also, part of the statement seems to be missing. "She" demands that you accept and believe whatever she does...or what???

Someone could just as easily say that Rush Limbaugh demands that you accept and believe whatever he does. (There is no follow through threat and either can demand all they want and it doesn't matter.)

So we are still left with very, very vague definitions of feminazi.

Webster's says that a feminist is someone who believes in equal opportunity and equal pay for equal work for women. I suspect that Rush Limbaugh considers that any woman who is assertive and vocal about equal opportunity and pay is a feminazi. -- though he would never admit that.

But I think that the word feminist itself has come to have all sorts of negative connotations it doesn't deserve.

Don't you support equal opportunity for women?
Don't you support equal pay for equal work?
Then you're a feminist.

As for Limbaugh's definitions, I don't know anyone who fits his definitions -- and that is after 33 years as a feminist.

[sajwalke]

I'm certainly not conservative, or a fan of Rush, but I have to say that "nazi" in that sense just means a person with rabidly strong beliefs who try to pin the faults of society in general on a particular group of people. The original nazis tried to pin the state that Gemany was in on the jews, just as, at least in some peoples eyes, some feminists try to pin everything on men. It's a tem used only to describe the really radical feminists, not the ordinary everyday feminists.

[pervert]

I'm sorry, Zoe, I wrote the earlier post, but I must be missing something in it.

1) The first paragraph clearly states that he never considered there to be more than 12 feminazis, so it is not surprising that you have never met one. Also it specifically says that he does not consider the term to apply to equal pay for equal work.

2) "or else" is a figure of speech. It means that the person will become angry and retaliate against you.

3) I don't think that the second definition assumes a female. It is common now to use she in a generic nuetral sense. Similar to the way "he" was used to mean people. I don't know for sure, but it may be that he simply did this to be cute.

And, just for good measure,

4) if there are not more than 12 feminazis he might know for a fact that they are all female.

So I think that the definition is quite specific.

There are many reasons to disagree with Rush. This is one of the weakest.

[John Mace]

Evil wrote:
Rush has never been ironic or funny.

Ever.

I'm no fan of Rush's but you are clearly throwing out some bait and hoping someone will bite. You know very well what is meant by FemiNazi, but you're interest is to nit-pick it to prove that you are either smarter or funnier than Rush. He gets paid rather handsomely to dish out his schtick. And you?

[MEBuckner]

Moderator's Note: This does seem like more of a rant than a debate.

Down to the Pit with ye!

[PatriotX]

Thanks perv.

Mr. Breakfast, I await you rebuttal.

[Idlewild]

I don't see anything heinous per se in wanting Governments to make law that is socially progressive in its nature, but then I'm one of the many, many feminists in the world who would probably consider being called "liberal" to be quite a mis-statement. There's a stream of feminism generally referred to in political theory as "socialist feminism" and it's just a hair more radical than "liberal feminism" and that's where you'll find me.

As for calling groups of people you don't like "nazis" of one sort or another, even to describe their position at what you perceive to be the extreme of the spectrum, I've always found this genuinely bewildering and insulting to the memory of the people who actually suffered at the hands of the Nazis. It's a metaphor too far as far as I'm concerned. I know it's slipped into common usage and popular culture, but I still find it irksome.

[Jonathan Chance]

Originally posted by electric!sheep
And feminazis want specifically more pay for women, special accomodations, replacement of --> signs with 3 (I suggest 3<----, but nevermind that), always condemn men for everything from bad breath to cancer, and look butch. There are some of them out there, much like with neo-Nazis, but the term is as abused as "fascist."

OK, I've got no dog in this fight at all, okay.

So someone just tell me what the hell that 'sign' thing means, will you? I don't get that at all.

[The Wrong Girl]

Maybe because the arrow is kinda phallic? I don't really know what purpose replacing it with a "3" serves.

If I'm way off base with this, I guess I just have a dirty mind before I have my coffee in the morning. :)

But seriously, I'm kind of curious, too. I've read Ms. since I was a pre-teen (my mom subscribed), and I think of myself as a feminist and I've NEVER heard of this arrow sign crap.

[JRDelirious]

Originally posted by Idlewild
As for calling groups of people you don't like "nazis" of one sort or another, even to describe their position at what you perceive to be the extreme of the spectrum, I've always found this genuinely bewildering and insulting to the memory of the people who actually suffered at the hands of the Nazis. It's a metaphor too far as far as I'm concerned. I know it's slipped into common usage and popular culture, but I still find it irksome.

I'd blame Seinfeld (ref. the "Soup Nazi") for spreading this bad habit to the general population, but it's obvious he (and Rush) must have got it from some other source themselves.

And that does go to the OP -- in some circles of discourse (now expanded even more after its absurd application to a lunch counter), "-nazi", used as a suffix, has been degenerated from a descriptor of a specific genocidal fascist race-cult to a general tag meaning "extreme, rigid, unyielding, inhumane, hateful beyond reason".

This is the usage our now Rehab Patient apparently meant, in creating that less-than-clever composite: a crude caricature of radical "ideological feminism"(*). Indeed, as the man himself points out, you'd hardly run across a real one of those in your lifetime. BUT... to his target-audience man-in-the-street, who would not know a Womens Studies department if one fell on him, who remembers reading about Andrea Dworkin and it sounded like "weirdo writer says all heterosexual sex is always rape", it resonates and creates a fear that there are many of them all over. And honestly Rush did not make that intense an effort to disclaim on-the-air who he meant by "feminazi", back when he was establishing the term...

(*since he'd likely distinguish it from "rights feminism")

[Coldfire]

Originally posted by Mr. Evil Breakfast
The Nazis are just about as far away from feminists as one can get, being quite close to the end of the "conservative" and right end of the political spectrum.Ye Gads. I take it History wasn't your forte at Dumbass High?

[GaWd]

Originally posted by errata
As far as my personal experience and readings on feminism are concerned, the characterization is bogus. I do recall some people with serious personality disorders (like Valerie Solanas),

No shit! Valerie Solanas has to be one of the most nutty women on the planet. My brother had an "episode" with her some years ago...and what an episode it was! :)

Sam

[Angel of the Lord]

I'd never use this term, 'cause I think that it's offensive and stupid, but I do have an internal mental definition for it.

When I hear the term "FemiNazi," I think of college student who has just discovered feminism and is taking it to the nth degree. You know, to the point where a guy opens a door for her and she gets loudly offended. Or the ones that get exceedingly hot-and-bothered that I use "he" when referring to a generic person in an essay (a mild comment about it is fine; a twenty minute rant on how sexist the English language is. . .well. . .).

I invariably think of a college student because, in my experience, that age group is when you find beliefs that have the ideally annoying combination of being very radical, very unbending, and very intolerant. However, it is my understanding that other people--I wouldn't know about Rush Limbaugh, as I don't watch his show, so this may not be how HE means it--use it to describe any feminist who isn't quiet about her beliefs.

[davidm]

Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
OK, I've got no dog in this fight at all, okay.

So someone just tell me what the hell that 'sign' thing means, will you? I don't get that at all. I also have no dog in this fight, but that whole sign bit had me totally confused also. After puzzling over it for a while it suddenly hit me. He's talking about replacing arrow symbols which are vaugely phallic with "3" which can sort of resemble a pair of breasts.
The meaning of "3<---" then becomes obvious.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

It is quite disturbing to note that a radio talk show host would use a stretch of a metaphor in an ad hominum attack. I think we all owe Mr. Evil Breakfast our sincerest thanks for pointing out Rush's offense in this area. I propose that all future ad hominum attacks by non-elected pundits be accompanied by 3 independant and verifiable sources. The very foundation of modern political discourse is at stake.

While we are at it, let's deconstruct other political ad hominums. I'll go first.

Ivory Tower. Completely fallacious metaphor used to express the opinion that liberals are out of touch with reality. Not only have I never met anyone who actually lives in an ivory tower, but liberals would be against the harvesting of elephants or rhinos to build such a tower.

[Biggirl]

Originally posted by davidm
I also have no dog in this fight, but that whole sign bit had me totally confused also. After puzzling over it for a while it suddenly hit me. He's talking about replacing arrow symbols which are vaugely phallic with "3" which can sort of resemble a pair of breasts.
The meaning of "3<---" then becomes obvious.


Ah. Ahhh!

But I think he meant it to be ass and not tits.



From here. (http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Rush_Limbaugh_Abortion.htm)


Women obsessed with abortion & intolerance are “feminazis”
Given the National Organization for Women’s membership and proclivities, it’s no wonder that people now view the NOW gang as being obsessed with only two issues: abortion rights and lesbian rights.
I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. The term describes any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion.

A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed. Their unspoken reasoning is quite simple. Abortion is the single greatest avenue for militant women to exercise their quest for power and advance their belief that men aren’t necessary. Nothing matter but me, says the feminazi; the is an unviable tissue mass. Feminazis have adopted abortion as a kind of sacrament for their religion/politics of alienation and bitterness.

Source: The Way Things Ought To Be, p.192-93 Jul 2, 1992


So which 12 women in NOW is he refering to?

Maybe the drugs blurred his vision and those 12 FemiNazis looked like a whole lot more.

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally posted by Zoe
Don't you support equal opportunity for women?
Don't you support equal pay for equal work?
Then you're a feminist.

I support equal opportunity and pay for women, but I am not a feminist. I'm just a logical, thinking human being.

Please don't attach labels to me.

[Mithril]

Originally posted by pervert
[
1) The first paragraph clearly states that he never considered there to be more than 12 feminazis, so it is not surprising that you have never met one. Also it specifically says that he does not consider the term to apply to equal pay for equal work.


I have listened to Rush a maximum of 4 times in my life, yet at least two of those times, he ranted about Feminazis. If there are only 12 of them in the country, why does he feel the need to go on so about them? It seems that any other special interest group made up of only a dozen people would get totally ignored.

FWIW, my impression from the few times I've listened is that Rush does a lot of backtracking on issues. His definition as written on his website is probably another case of his reluctance to stick by what he says.

[NurseCarmen]

Sheesh. It's such an easy concept to grasp, yet you feign ignorance. Please explain the concept "water" to me.

[moriah]

The few overly zealous and humorless feminists gave rise to this joke:

Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?


A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!

[Daisy Cutter]

Yes, it is an easy concept to understand, and the OP knows exactly what it means, which is why this stupid OP was moved from GD to the pit, where such garbage belongs.

FEMINAZI = hardcore feminists with totalitarian views (therefore the nazi staple)

And many FEMINAZIS are ugly females, that look more like men.

Perhaps they need to get some more real penises inserted into them a bit more often, and perhaps they will lighten up a bit.

[Zoe]

Lord Ashtar, as a logical, thinking human being (your labels, not mine), please consider the following:

According to Webster's, a feminist is one who supports the theory of political, social and economic equality of the sexes. Webster's is generally considered a recognized authority on the way that words are used to label concepts in English in our society.

If you do not support the theory of political, social and economic equality of the sexes (which is a little more specific than what I said earlier), then I can understand your objection to being called a feminist. If you do support them, then by definition -- literally, you are a feminist.

I am not the one who chose the label for you and I make no judgments about you.

Are you familiar with syllogisms?

[sqweels]

Good grief, Daisy Cutter, I usually don't go around saying "that's sexist" but what you said was appallingly sexist.

And I'm a typical Man Show-watching dude.

[Zoe]

Angel: I invariably think of a college student because, in my experience, that age group is when you find beliefs that have the ideally annoying combination of being very radical, very unbending, and very intolerant.

Funny. I usually think of people about Rush Limbaugh's age.

[Mr. Evil Breakfast]

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
Yes, it is an easy concept to understand, and the OP knows exactly what it means, which is why this stupid OP was moved from GD to the pit, where such garbage belongs.

FEMINAZI = hardcore feminists with totalitarian views (therefore the nazi staple)

And many FEMINAZIS are ugly females, that look more like men.

Perhaps they need to get some more real penises inserted into them a bit more often, and perhaps they will lighten up a bit.

Wow, I'm astonished that you were able to read my mind and find that I knew exactly what Rush meant.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :dubious: :dubious: :dubious: :dubious:

Your attitudes towards women in general went out of fashion over 20 years ago, dsespite Rush and his ilk's desperate attempts to bring them back.

Don't forget your club when you go back to your cave.

[CrazyCatLady]

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
And many FEMINAZIS are ugly females, that look more like men.

Perhaps they need to get some more real penises inserted into them a bit more often, and perhaps they will lighten up a bit.

Aw, and I was hoping that just once, someone, somewhere might get through a conversation about feminism without a dumbass comment like that being made.

Way to fight the notion that men are disgusting, sex-obsessed pigs, buddy.

[CrazyCatLady]

That is not, of course, to say that men are disgusting, sex-obsessed pigs, nor that most women think of them as such. However, suggestions that a woman who is unhappy with the way women in general are treated just needs some deep dickin' to solve her problems sure as hell won't win you any points with those women who do think men are sex-obsessed pigs.

Hell, it won't win you any points with most other women, either.

[cowgirl]

Ahem.

Contrary to the impression you may have got from the dictionary, there are feminists who do not define themselves by "equal pay for equal work," or "equal opportunities." Contrary to the charming quotes from above, there are feminists who are not enamoured with abortion and some who are anti-abortion in all circumstances. Furthermore, and although this has not yet been brought up, there are feminists who like men, feminists who do not need to get laid more, feminists who wear make-up, feminists who don't mind if you hold the door open for them, feminists who think Ms magazine is a load of crap, feminists who you would be quite mistaken to call "liberal" - whether because they are conservative, socialist, radical, Marxist, etc. And so on, ad nauseum.

Yes it is extremely aggravating that people who will never agree with each other all use the same label. Kind of like other groups of people we talk about, like disabled people, or West Virginians, or Muslims.

Get it? If you want to know how a feminist thinks - ask a feminist. If you want to know what "feminists" want, you will forever be frustrated, just as we are when we try to determine what "muslims" or "christians" want. Generalizations are no more appropriate here than in any other context. There are things they have in common but they cannot, CANNOT be simplified to "They want equality for men and women." Please stop saying that. If you are truly interested, go do some reading - there's miles of it. But don't think that you can say conclusively what feminists think.

[Daisy Cutter]

Oh, please. . . . :o

Don't try to paint me as the bad guy here or anything. :eek:

I'm all for equal rights. I'm talking about the extreme, frothing at the mouth ones.

:D

[Angel of the Lord]

Originally posted by Zoe
Funny. I usually think of people about Rush Limbaugh's age.

I don't have a lot of interaction with people around his age. . .I guess I'm just hoping that some of my friends'll grow out of it by then.

[Cervaise]

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
Perhaps they need to get some more real penises inserted into them a bit more often, and perhaps they will lighten up a bit. Jesus fucking Christ. Do you have any idea how obnoxiously offensive this is?

[rjung]

Originally posted by CrazyCatLady
Way to fight the notion that men are disgusting, sex-obsessed pigs, buddy.
Conservative men are disgusting, sex-obsessed pigs, please. Us liberal types are all sensitive new-age-kinda guys, remember? :)

Originally posted by Cervaise
Jesus fucking Christ. Do you have any idea how obnoxiously offensive this is?
You must not have met Daisy Cutter before -- neanderthal, clueless comments are his specialty.

[RexDart]

Here's the definition from the glossary of Rush's terms at the end of The Way Things Ought to Be:


Feminazi: Widely misunderstood by most to simply mean "feminist." Not so, boobala. A Feminazi is a feminist to whom the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur. There are fewer than twenty-five known Femizazis in the United States.


So there it says 25.

At the time, IIRC, his ire was mostly focused at Patty Ireland and Gloria "all sex is rape" Steinem. Since those two and other feminist leaders of the early 90's have sort of fallen out of the public eye, I don't really hear him refer to specific feminazis anymore. But I only catch his show a few hours a week, so it's possible I'm missing it.

As for my own take on hardcore feminism, hey they're just advocates fighting for privilege in an adversarial society. Men's rights groups are doing the same thing. Men and women come into direct conflict quite a bit, so I see nothing wrong with treating gender at least in part as an adversarial conflict and fighting vigorously for one's side.

The only thing I can't stand about feminists is that the Women's Studies programs have caused that idiot Foucault to be considered a legitimate philosopher. I'll take 10 feminists over one postmodernist any day of the week.

[Gyrate]

I'm still waiting for more input from Conservative posters on the use of "liberal" and "bleeding heart" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201309&perpage=50&pagenumber=1), which are even more commonly used in ad hominem arguments than "feminazi". Anyone who has used either term recently is invited to answer the OP in the linked thread.

[Rune]

Everybody knows what a femiNazi is, even I with my miserable English, have somehow been able to grasp the concept – and I haven’t even been subjected to a loving sermon at the tongue of the tender Limbaugh.
Ever.

Regardless of how feminism is defined in the dictionary, it is the opinion of many that it has gone from a movement just seeking equality between the sexes to a special interest group fighting for perks for one gender only. If feminism was truly gender neutral (as many feminism avows) I suppose it would be called genderism or humanism or something (recon sexism would be a no-starter). How many of the self-anointed feminist in here would also call themselves masculinist? The reason I normally wouldn’t call myself a feminist even though I am very much in favour of equal pay and rights and all that, is my impression that it nowadays comes with a whole wagon of unvoiced baggage. It’s all the stuff written with small letters on the bottom of the page I can’t subscribe to.

“Way to fight the notion that men are disgusting, sex-obsessed pigs, buddy.” Way to fight the notion that women are dumb bimbos lusting for a strong hand and a hard cock to set them right. That is not, of course, to say that women are dumb, or need a cock to control them, nor that most men think of them as such.

“However, suggestions that a woman who is unhappy with the way women in general are treated just needs some deep dickin' to solve her problems sure as hell won't win you any points with those women who do think men are sex-obsessed pigs.” Why would anyone try to win points with such silly women? Screw them stupid bitches. :)

- Rune

[Miller]

It seems to me that the "theory of political, social and economic equality of the sexes" is by and large accepted in most quarters of American society. As such, the definition of a feminist as someone who supports such an agenda is non-operative. If the majority believes in an ideal, then there is no need for a label to specify people who hold that philosophy. I'm sure everyone in this thread agrees that slavery was a terrible thing, but I doubt any of us self-identify as Abolishionists. It's assumed that being anti-slavery is the default position, and there's no need for a special term to identfy such people.

I think what we're seeing here is the inevitable effect of the feminist's victory. As more and more people adopt the traditional feminist viewpoint as their default worldview, the term "feminist" itself is left open to being hijacked by extremists and fringe groups. Joan Average was a feminist when she wanted the same job opportunities men had. Once she got them (more or less) she was too busy pursuing them to make it to the meetings like she used to, leaving the crackpots obsessesed with gender bias in the English language or the phallic symbolism of neck-ties in charge.

At least, that's this dude's take on it.

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally posted by Zoe
Lord Ashtar, as a logical, thinking human being (your labels, not mine), please consider the following:

According to Webster's, a feminist is one who supports the theory of political, social and economic equality of the sexes. Webster's is generally considered a recognized authority on the way that words are used to label concepts in English in our society.

If you do not support the theory of political, social and economic equality of the sexes (which is a little more specific than what I said earlier), then I can understand your objection to being called a feminist. If you do support them, then by definition -- literally, you are a feminist.

I am not the one who chose the label for you and I make no judgments about you.

Are you familiar with syllogisms?

So now you're going to expand your previously narrow definition so that it includes me?

Common usage of the word has changed the definition to mean the extremists fringe groups, as Miller put it. I don't identify with either of those groups, so I do not consider myself a feminist.

[Mr. Evil Breakfast]

Originally posted by RexDart
At the time, IIRC, his ire was mostly focused at Patty Ireland and Gloria "all sex is rape" Steinem. Since those two and other feminist leaders of the early 90's

Let's see what you got wrong:

1) Gloria Steinem has been a leader in the feminist movement since the late 1960's, which means she's been involved for nigh on 40 years, not just the 1990's.

2) Where in the fuck do you get your assertion that Gloria Steinem thinks that all sex is rape? She was a Playboy Bunny for fucks sake! And if your cite for your assertion involves El Blimpo in any way, it doesn't count.

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by Mr. Evil Breakfast
2) Where in the fuck do you get your assertion that Gloria Steinem thinks that all sex is rape? She was a Playboy Bunny for fucks sake!

He's got Gloria Steinem confused with Andrea Dworkin, who is often misquoted as the author of a misquoted statement of Cynthia MacKinnon's. Or something.

[catsix]

Catharine MacKinnon.

And there are such things as 'feminazis'. Anecdotal (because mentioning the name of the board would likely start war) evidence here:

I posted on a 'feminist' web forum for a while. I was told that because I like orgasms, BDSM, and am not forever destroyed by having been raped that I must be a man, a liar, a misogynist, and worse. I encountered people who said it was OK for a woman to lie about being raped if it gets her what she wants. In that case, it was a college girl who didn't want to watch a movie in one of her classes, so she was going to lie to her professor and tell him that she was raped to make him change the film. I saw people who called themselves 'feminists' advocate the 'breeding out' of men by simply not giving birth to more of them because a population that is 20% male and 80% female can sustain itself. They said things like 'orgasms are a man's way of oppressing a woman by trying to force her to express her sexuality in a way that he wants.' They posted long essays on how much they hated their fathers and how much better off children would be if there were no fathers. Some of them posted that if a man made eye contact with them while walking down the sidewalk, they would loudly shout 'No!' at him, and that if a man complimented them it was because he wanted them to 'owe' him something or feel entitled to have sex with them.

That's feminazism, not feminism. That's not about equality.

If it sounds outrageous to you, ask anyone else from this forum who read it.

[Biggirl]

Originally posted by NurseCarmen
Sheesh. It's such an easy concept to grasp, yet you feign ignorance. Please explain the concept "water" to me.

I don't know about the OP, but I'm having a big problem grasping Rush's concept. I'm picking on you NurseCarmen because I've always found you to be clear, straightforward and concise in your posts and if anyone can explain the concept to me, it would be you.


Is Rush really, really just referencing about 12 women when he uses the neologism "feminazi"? Which 12? Betty Freidan? Gloria Steinem? Andrea Dworkin? Anne Coulter?

I believe that we should fight for a woman's right to choose abortion to the bitter end. According to Rush does that make me a FemiNazi?

It seems to me that Rush is trying to equate the whole feminist movement with the crazy fringe. Are all the woman in NOW FemiNazis or just the crazies who think all heterosexual sex equals rape. Is Hillary Clinton a FemiNazi just like Valerie Solanas?


There seems to be a consensus that FemiNazi means extremist feminist. The problem is that no one seem to know what constitutes an extreme feminism.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Originally posted by catsix
Catharine MacKinnon. Purely in the interest of accuracy, nobody ever actually said "sex is rape".

Here's what snopes (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinno.htm) had to say.

I'd also like to re-express my amusement that much of this thread is about the accuracy of an ad hominum. If Mr. Evil Breakfast were to be accused of being a "bleeding heart liberal", do you think he would produce a note from his cardiologist?

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by Mr. Evil Breakfast
You know the phrase that your drugaddicted leader Rush Limbaugh uses all the time.

I see it this way, and do tell me if I'm mistaken or somehwo taking it out of context.

Rush is obviosly combining feminists and nazis, which means that he gets at least one of his favorite things in there.

Now feminists as I have always understood them, basically want to be on the same level as men when it comes to equal pay for the same amount of work, etc.

Feminists are also seen as being "liberal" and on the left side of the political spectrum.

Nazis on the other hand, wanted and tried quite hard, to wipe out an entire race of people, namely the Jews and thought that the Arayan (blonde hair and blue eyes) were chosen and destined to be The Supreme Race.
Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem. Many have taken as their ideal the Amazons, women who allegedly killed male babies in order to maintain the purity of their race.

The Nazis are just about as far away from feminists as one can get, being quite close to the end of the "conservative" and right end of the political spectrum.

So, how can these two fit togther in anything resembling a logical and rational way?

And spare me the crap about how Rush is just being ironic or Rush is just having fun, it's funny.

Rush has never been ironic or funny.

Ever.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Hit the button too soon. Here's again.
Originally posted by Mr. Evil Breakfast
You know the phrase that your drugaddicted leader Rush Limbaugh uses all the time.
Have you hear the latest Rush Limbaugh broadcast?
Neither has he.

Now feminists as I have always understood them, basically want to be on the same level as men when it comes to equal pay for the same amount of work, etc.
No, that is what some feminists claim to believe in. Actually, when a situation is in their favor, such as the higher college enrollment levels and longer lifespans for women, they do not advocate equality.

Feminists are also seen as being "liberal" and on the left side of the political spectrum.
If that is a common truth, you should have no problem supplying numerous examples of feminists expressing liberal attitudes toward men.
Examples, then?

OTOH, if you check the votes when a feminist-supported bill goes before Congress -- such as ones on Women, Infants and Children support, child support, crackdowns on domestic violence, and improving women's health care, rape, sexual harassment -- you will often find great number of conservatives supporting the bills.

Nazis on the other hand, wanted and tried quite hard, to wipe out an entire race of people, namely the Jews and thought that the Arayan (blonde hair and blue eyes) were chosen and destined to be The Supreme Race.

Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem. Many have taken as their ideal the Amazons, women who allegedly killed male babies in order to maintain the purity of their race.


The Nazis are just about as far away from feminists as one can get, being quite close to the end of the "conservative" and right end of the political spectrum.
Let's see, the Nazis wanted to do away with the current order of their day and institute a Third Reich, or empire, that as yet did not exist. So in what sense are you saying they were conservative?

Also, conservatives traditionally support established religions. Hitler wished he could quash the Catholic Church and institute a religion amenable to Nazism -- a sort of Darwinian nature worship. So in what sense are you saying Hitler was conservative?

Please clarify these points, Mr. Evil Breakfast. Otherwise, it might look as though your line of thinking is that conservatives are evil, and Nazis are evil, therefore conservatives are like Nazis. I hesitate to even bring this up, because most people would feel insulted to have such a simple-minded and uninformed belief attributed to them.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by errata
As far as my personal experience and readings on feminism are concerned, the characterization is bogus. I do recall some people with serious personality disorders (like Valerie Solanas), who latched on to feminism in a bad way, but I don't think that's what Rush and his ilk are really referring to.
Valerie Solanas is often cited as a lone nut. She was a nut, to be sure, but hardly alone. Her main work, "The S.C.U.M. Manifesto," was repeated reprinted, reproduced and distributed by feminist groups on both sides of the Atlantic. It was used in feminist study groups and was eventually picked up by Robin Morgan, the editor of Ms. Magazine. Morgan included "The S.C.U.M. Manifesto" in her feminist anthology, "Sisterhood is Powerful," a staple of women's studies courses used on many campuses -- even those where hate speech was supposedly allowed.

Errata's effort to dismiss Solanas as a lone nut is either uninformed or dishonest, so the other comments from this source should be taken in the same light.

For those who might not know, "S.C.U.M." stood for "The Society for Cutting Up Men." Solanas not only harbored violent attitudes toward men, she built her philosophy around it, preached it, advocated it to others, and ultimately engaged in that violence. Even if she had never acted out her violent beliefs, it tells us a lot about major feminist figures like Morgan that they were blithely willing to promote such anti-male hatred. The fact that they were willing to embrace and study something on "The Society for Cutting up Men" tells us something not very flattering about the level of their intelligence and the nature of their morals.

[Miller]

Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious
For those who might not know, "S.C.U.M." stood for "The Society for Cutting Up Men." Solanas not only harbored violent attitudes toward men, she built her philosophy around it, preached it, advocated it to others, and ultimately engaged in that violence. Even if she had never acted out her violent beliefs, it tells us a lot about major feminist figures like Morgan that they were blithely willing to promote such anti-male hatred. The fact that they were willing to embrace and study something on "The Society for Cutting up Men" tells us something not very flattering about the level of their intelligence and the nature of their morals.

The fact that they studied Solanas' work does not necessesarily mean they endorsed Solanas' work. If Valerie Solanas (whom, I confess, I've never heard of before this thread) had a major impact on feminism, either for good or ill, than she ought to be studied as part of any comprehensive course on feminism.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by Zoe
Have any of you ever met anyone to whom abortion is the most important function in human activity? I can't imagine such a person!
Question: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Answer: That's not funny.
You wouldn't understand such a comment. Satire and commentary require a sense of humor.

And while the point is overstated, it is done so with a grain of truth. When was the last time you heard a self-professed feminist warning about the psychological damage that can follow abortion, or warning about the adverse health effects? So to such feminists, abortion truly is a higher sacrament than the mother's life.

Webster's says that a feminist is someone who believes in equal opportunity and equal pay for equal work for women.
Is that the same Webster's that for centuries used "man" as the common discriptor and accepted such words as chairman, policeman, fireman and councilman as generic terms? The pendulum has swung the other way, and the self-serving definition that feminists supply for themselves do no accurately reflect their activities. Feminists never advocate equality when it means that they would have to give up something. Feminists do not advocate equality in child custody. Feminists do not advocate for a man's right to defend himself against charges of sexism or sexual harassment. Under the slogan that "women do not lie about such things," they have advocated that a woman's word be enough to have a man punished, demoted, fired or jailed. Feminism's advocacy of the so-called "rape shield laws" are transparently an effort to block men from mount a legal defense against rape charges. And you will note that when a rape charge is made, the man is identified and the female accuser is not. Equality? No there.

I suspect that Rush Limbaugh considers that any woman who is assertive and vocal about equal opportunity and pay is a feminazi. -- though he would never admit that.
One of the hallmarks of the anti-male manbasher is the belief that men have no legitimate concerns.

But I think that the word feminist itself has come to have all sorts of negative connotations it doesn't deserve.
Keep in mind folks, that when Zoe met a blatant, anti-male bigot joining the board, she welcomed the bigot and said not a word against her hate speech.

Feminism eventually got the reputation that it earned. It took a combination of outright haters and people like Zoe who were perfectly comfortable siddling up to that hatred.

[astro]

Nazi's wear polished leather jackboots made in Germany.

Feminists wear sensible Birkenstocks made in Germany

FemiNazi's wear leather boots with sensible heels made in Germany



Nazi's relax in beer gardens singing folk songs

Feminists relax in coffee houses singing folk songs

FemiNazi's relax in their houses drinking beer and watching re-runs of Xena Warrior Princess



Nazi's used the terrifying "buzz bomb" in waging war

Feminists think war is a by product of an violent, oppressive patriarchal culture

FemiNazi's like a good buzz

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by Idlewild
As for calling groups of people you don't like "nazis" of one sort or another, even to describe their position at what you perceive to be the extreme of the spectrum, I've always found this genuinely bewildering and insulting ...
So then you turned in your NOW membership card when it was common for them to refer to "male chauvinist pigs"? And you objected to them labeling everything male as "patriarchy" and labeling that evil?

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by CrazyCatLady
Way to fight the notion that men are disgusting, sex-obsessed pigs, buddy.
The only person who can control CrazyCatLady's prejudices is CrazyCatLady. It's symptomatic of bigots that they find an example that reinforces their prejudices and thus feel the prejudice is accurate.

I see on preview that your following post seems to back away from that.

[Junior Spaceman]

Let's look at what Catherine MacKinnon actually did say:Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I'm not saying that sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point."
my italicsPerhaps it just means that the vast majority of women are truly masochistic? Or maybe it means that characterising vanilla sex as 'violent' is a load of crap?

If you read Dworkin's book Intercourse, you'll find an incredibly bitter piece of hate literature against men, but not only against men - against women who are "collaborators" (ie enjoy heterosexual sex).

As someone who enjoys reading extreme literature of all angles, I definitely appreciate the fact these books, such as Solanas', exist, but it's not that much of a stretch to call such dogmatic opinions of how people should think and act (and what people's sexuality should be) fascistic, in the broader sense of the word.

[RexDart]

Originally posted by Mr. Evil Breakfast
Let's see what you got wrong:

1) Gloria Steinem has been a leader in the feminist movement since the late 1960's, which means she's been involved for nigh on 40 years, not just the 1990's.


My point was that they were prominent in the early 90's when Rush was starting up his show, I didn't assert that she was only well-known during that period. That she was a feminist leader for 30 years before that is completely irrelevant to the point, which is that she was the face of feminism at that time when Rush made the remark, and he referred specifically to her and Patty Ireland when he talked about feminism/feminazis.

As for the "sex is rape" thing, it seems I misattributed that, so alright.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

The "all sex is rape" concept has a number of feminist sources who did not put it precisely in those words but said things that amount to much the same thing. For example, our old friend and Ms. Magazine editor Robin Morgan:
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."
- From Robin Morgan, "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape" in "Going to Far," 1974.
So yes indeed, Morgan was saying it's rape unless the woman initiates it. Guys, every time you have initiated sex, you have committed rape -- according to her.

And no, Andrea Dworkin is not some misunderstoon waif. She said things such as:
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating.
Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love.
Rape is the means by which a woman is initiated into her womanhood as it is defined by men.
...
Rape, then, is the logical consequence of a system of definitions of what is normative. Rape is no excess, no aberration, no accident, no mistake--it embodies sexuality as the culture defines it."
Andrea Dworkin
"The Rape Atrocity and the Boy Next Door"
Our Blood
Then there are those feminists who likened heterosexual sex to European colonialism -- the evil despoiler invading the pristine lands, as it were. These women advocated lesbianism as the way to accomplish "body de-colonization." With this group you get the likes of Sheila Jeffrys, who says: "When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression."

In a similar vein, you have the very influential Susan Brownmiller, who states that rape "is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- (Against Our Will p. 6)
Have you got that, folks? She attributes this to all men. That means me. That means every man reading this thread. That means all your fathers and brothers and nephews and sons.

So yes, there are many feminists who have attempted to portray heterosexual sex as innately and inevitably destructive and oppressive. About the only thing worse than this outright gender hatred is the effort to deny it's existence underpinning the beliefs of some of feminism's most influential leaders.

[Annie]

Silly me. I always thought feminism was the quaint idea of civil rights for women, so I could apply for a job and not be told, "we don't hire women for that." But I now see it's all about penis sex.

Never has rhetoric swayed me so, Andy. I'm going out today to explore the world of dykery and gun ownership, and whatever it takes to protect me from those nasty phalluses. 'Cause, that's what feminism's all about. I see that now. Thanks for the inspiration.

[catsix]

So Andy quotes some very prominent and well known feminists espousing views that are blatantly anti-male, and your answer to that is to get snarky with Andy because you think Andy mischaracterized feminism?

Maybe you ought to raise your beef with Andrea Dworkin and Robin Morgan.

[Zoe]

I don't think that Andrea Dworkin and Robin Morgan even fit Webster's definition of feminist -- which speaks of equality of the sexes, not just women as I think I originally stated.

What a waste.

I do understand why their work is explored in feminist studies though -- just as the Communist Manifesto is in economics or social sciency and Mein Kamph is in history classes. University life is about exploring opposing ideas, not about indoctrination. (At least, if it's a good school.)

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by Annie
Silly me. I always thought feminism was the quaint idea of civil rights for women, so I could apply for a job and not be told, "we don't hire women for that." But I now see it's all about penis sex.

Never has rhetoric swayed me so, Andy. I'm going out today to explore the world of dykery and gun ownership, and whatever it takes to protect me from those nasty phalluses. 'Cause, that's what feminism's all about. I see that now. Thanks for the inspiration.
Annie, typically you cite what feminism claims to be rather than what it really is.

Do you think feminism is about the equal right to get a job? Then why does feminism advocate affirmative action to discriminate against men? Or perhaps you're fine with anti-male discrimination?

Do you think feminism advocates civil rights? Well, there are so many areas in which feminism opposes the rights of men that I doubt I could list them all, but for starters:

Opposes men's rights to due process by insisting that men ought to be fired solely on a woman's claim that he harassed her.
Opposes fathers' rights to visitation and custody.
Opposes men's rights to defend themselves against rape accusations via the establishment of so-called "rape shield laws" that rule out evidence contradicting the accusation.
Opposes free speech by advocating various speech codes that apply to men but not to women.
Opposes equality under the law by advocating programs that would exclude men from their benefits.
Opposes men's equal rights to higher education via affirmative action, quotas, women-only scholarships, etc., with men now becoming the minority on campus.
Opposes the idea that women's lives and men's lives are of equal worth.
Opposes equality under the law by advocating laws that protect women but not men or give women a far higher level of protection than men.


As for keeping phalluses away from you, Annie, don't worry too much about it. I'm sure you are perfectly safe in that regard, hon.

[KAndre]

No, I think Annie getting snarky with Andy because of quotes like this:
Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem. Many have taken as their ideal the Amazons, women who allegedly killed male babies in order to maintain the purity of their race.
A little over the top, no?

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by KAndre
No, I think Annie getting snarky with Andy because of quotes like this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem. Many have taken as their ideal the Amazons, women who allegedly killed male babies in order to maintain the purity of their race.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A little over the top, no?
Yes, they are more than a little over the top.

For your information, this is the established fact. I'm not making up anything here. Feminist fiction has long been rife with themes of female-only paradise or female-run utopias, and feminist philosophy is full of dremy scenarios of how good the world would be if either men disappeared or women ran everything. If you are blaming me for bringing it up, well, denial is a very hard thing to break.

As for the Amazon mascot, I know what you're going to say: it's just a symbol of strong, independent women. But given the objections that feminists have lodged against "rapacious" team mascots like pirates, I wonder how they would react if any group of men adopted a mascot symbolic of killing female babies. Bottom line is that the idea of Amazons killing their male babies was not enoug to put feminists off -- because only violence against women is wrong, I guess.

Again, you would do better to cite examples of feminists who oppose man-bashing rather than just bash me for citing the plague of those who advocate it.

Then again, such feminists are pretty scarce, so you have to resort to attacking me for bringing it up.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by Zoe
I don't think that Andrea Dworkin and Robin Morgan even fit Webster's definition of feminist -- which speaks of equality of the sexes, not just women as I think I originally stated.

Zoe, you keep citing the abstract definition of feminism rather than what it advocates in real life. It's a pretty weak defense, because we all know that if you ask people what feminism is about these days, a large number will think of negative things like anti-male extremism and looniness.

I do understand why their work is explored in feminist studies though -- just as the Communist Manifesto is in economics or social sciency and Mein Kamph is in history classes. University life is about exploring opposing ideas, not about indoctrination. (At least, if it's a good school.)
If a professer had students read long sections of "Mein Kampf" and presented no opposing view, sane people would object. However, Women's Studies courses present the anti-male view without rebuttal from the non-feminist view.

Zoe, I'm sure you are fine with this because of your history of welcoming man-bashing and gender bigotry to the board and your refusal to make even the slightess protest against it.

As for colleges exploring opposing ideas, it is today a myth. Faculties self-identify themselves overwhelmingly as liberal and Democrats, and those who don't usually are the ones even farther to the left. There is no such thing as diversity when the leftists are in charge.

[Annie]

Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious
Again, you would do better to cite examples of feminists who oppose man-bashing rather than just bash me for citing the plague of those who advocate it.

Then again, such feminists are pretty scarce, so you have to resort to attacking me for bringing it up.

Hi, I'm Annie. I'm a feminist who opposes man bashing. I believe you met Zoe earlier. She was the one who was saying feminism's dictionary definition is equality of the sexes. There's bunches of us around-people who think women are equal to men, and likewise believe men are equal to women. We are people who think our genders are part of our nature, not the sum total of it. We'd like to not have our civil rights affected by what our genitals look like. We like to have sex with willing participants of our own choosing, and don't think people who choose someone of their own gender to have sex with should be dicriminated against for that choice. After that, it's a pretty wide spectrum of belief and political opinion. Feminists are the women and men in your life.

Although I'm not thrilled with the sex-specific nature of the word 'feminism'. I prefer 'gender equitist', but that just gets me funny looks at dinner parties:confused:

[Annie]

Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious

Again, you would do better to cite examples of feminists who oppose man-bashing rather than just bash me for citing the plague of those who advocate it.

Then again, such feminists are pretty scarce, so you have to resort to attacking me for bringing it up.

Hi, I'm Annie. I'm a feminist who opposes man bashing. I believe you met Zoe earlier. She was the one who was saying feminism's dictionary definition is equality of the sexes. There's bunches of us around-people who think women are equal to men, and likewise believe men are equal to women. We are people who think our genders are part of our nature, not the sum total of it. We'd like to not have our civil rights affected by what our genitals look like. We like to have sex with willing participants of our own choosing, and don't think people who choose someone of their own gender to have sex with should be discriminated against for that choice. After that, it's a pretty wide spectrum of belief and political opinion. Feminists are the women and men in your life. I can't speak to the lunatic fringe of feminism, because they don't speak for me,but I suggest you do not inflate their importance.


Although I'm not thrilled with the sex-specific nature of the word 'feminism'. I prefer 'gender equitist', but that just gets me funny looks at dinner parties:confused:

[KAndre]

Andy, I feel bad for you if you really believe that
Again, you would do better to cite examples of feminists who oppose man-bashing rather than just bash me for citing the plague of those who advocate it.

Then again, such feminists are pretty scarce, so you have to resort to attacking me for bringing it up.
If you really feel I'm attacking you, I want to say that's not my intention. But I honestly feel that you are pushing the fringe element of feminism front and center. To me it's like quoting nothing but Malcolm X, The Black Panthers, the Weathermen or J. Edgar and saying that's what the civil rights movement was about. Indulging in general statements like this are not any different than saying Republican are all evil, heartless, godless, money-grubbing racists or Democrates are all evil, brainless, godless, fiscally irresponsible traitors. I don't believe in man-bashing. My feminist friends don't believe in man-bashing. I consider myself a feminist and a liberal. The demonization of those two terms over the last decade is really sad. All I can try and work toward restoring what I consider to be the real meanings. This article this article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/12/20/opinion/main141757.shtml) demonstrates what I really believe most people think of feminism/the women's movement. Are there nutjobs in the women's movement? Why, yes, I do believe there are! Are there nutjobs in the men's movement. Heavens, again I do believe there are? Let's see...how about Angry Harry (http://www.angryharry.com/esWomen-WeakandPathetic.htm) who appears to believe like you that feminists are opposed to a variety of men's rights but just don't state it as eloquently as you. However, when they explain how sexism is a good thing or that women don't really need all that education to be good mothers, I was under the assumption that you didn't agree with them. Because they are fringe-dwellers. But a fair number of what I would call middle of the road men's right's site link to them and don't say, "Ooh, here are some nutjobs!" Angry Harry says, among other equally delightful things:

You only have to look at the situation in Afghanistan to see what happens when there is no definable, undisputable 'heir to the throne'. Different warloads rise up, all claiming their own legitimacy, and the country is torn apart by warring factions struggling for power.
And the women are completely disempowered in the process!

Buy why did the male rather than the female always have precedence?

The answer is that the female is weak and pathetic in comparison to the male - and this was especially so in more primitive times and places where muscles were almost as important as brains!

but this is my favority from Henry:

Well, it is obvious, isn't it, that feminism increases pollution and hence, possibly, global warming?

In fact, very little could be more obvious!

The more that women go out to work, and the more that families break down, and the greater is the gender divide, the more traveling, heating, energy consumption, traffic congestion and pollution that there is going to be.

This is an important subject. It affects the whole planet.

And yet, if you take a look at all the books by the clever politically-correct professors and review the Gender Studies Courses, I'll bet that you won't find one mention of the negative effects of feminism on the eco-system.

There is this huge monstrous effect of feminism, and these arseholes are either too stupid to even notice the connection or too deceitful and manipulative to even mention it!

This is who these people are.

They are either stupid, or they are manipulative liars.

Mostly, they are stupid.

There is lot's of stuff associated with men's rights out there that I think a reasonable person would take with a grain of salt. I think the women's movement deserves the same consideration.

[Miller]

Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious
Zoe, you keep citing the abstract definition of feminism rather than what it advocates in real life. It's a pretty weak defense, because we all know that if you ask people what feminism is about these days, a large number will think of negative things like anti-male extremism and looniness.

Feminism is a philosophical concept, and as such, only has abstract definitions. It means precisely what the majority of people say it means. And in my experience, most people believe feminism to mean "gender equality." Sure, you've found lots of absurd and offensive quotes from feminists, but you have failed to show that these attitudes are prevalent among feminists. In my life, I have never met a woman who did not identify as a feminist, and I have never met a woman who espoused any of the view-points you claim are representative of feminism as a whole.

Incidentally, you keep throwing out these accusations about how Zoe reacts to man-bashers on these boards. To what, precisely, are you refering?

[Annie]

I can't get the quote function to work, so pardon the c&p:

KAndre said: "If you really feel I'm attacking you, I want to say that's not my intention. But I honestly feel that you are pushing the fringe element of feminism front and center. To me it's like quoting nothing but Malcolm X, The Black Panthers, the Weathermen or J. Edgar and saying that's what the civil rights movement was about. Indulging in general statements like this are not any different than saying Republican are all evil, heartless, godless, money-grubbing racists or Democrates are all evil, brainless, godless, fiscally irresponsible traitors. I don't believe in man-bashing. My feminist friends don't believe in man-bashing. I consider myself a feminist and a liberal. The demonization of those two terms over the last decade is really sad. All I can try and work toward restoring what I consider to be the real meanings."

Yup. Thanks for saying it better than I.

[Gyrate]

Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious
Annie, typically you cite what feminism claims to be rather than what it really is. And to round off the above comments, it's worth pointing out that "feminism" doesn't "claim to be" anything. It's an abstract concept; it has no voice of its own. People who identify themselves as feminists say various things, some of which are radical, inflammatory and offensive to quite a lot of people of both genders, and some of which say things which are, on the face of things, quite reasonable. Which ones are which depends entirely on where you stand.

I used to march in ERA marches in the '70's, and as far as I can recall no woman ever tried to castrate me or resented my being there. (Of course, this may have been because I was nine at the time.)

[catsix]

Annie said:
Although I'm not thrilled with the sex-specific nature of the word 'feminism'. I prefer 'gender equitist', but that just gets me funny looks at dinner parties

I can tell you from experience that those over at Ms. Magazine don't consider people who advocate treating the genders equally to be a feminist.

I expressed that view in that arena, and I was branded an imposter, a closet male, and a misogynist. I was also told very certainly I didn't have the right to call myself a feminist for merely believing that men and women should be treated equally under the law.

You may want feminism to be about equality, but lately, it isn't.

[RexDart]

Originally posted by Miller
Feminism is a philosophical concept, and as such, only has abstract definitions. It means precisely what the majority of people say it means. And in my experience, most people believe feminism to mean "gender equality." Sure, you've found lots of absurd and offensive quotes from feminists, but you have failed to show that these attitudes are prevalent among feminists. In my life, I have never met a woman who did not identify as a feminist, and I have never met a woman who espoused any of the view-points you claim are representative of feminism as a whole.


I think that if you asked the "woman on the street" what she thought feminism was, you'd probably get the simple notion of equity.

But in the colleges, you'll find that the notion of feminism carries alot more baggage, and there is alot of silly man-bashing going on there. My friend Jay took a "Women and the Law" course as a 3L, and was told explicitly by the professor that he and the other male student would not be called on, and were encouraged not to voice their opinions on the subject, because that would give them a feeling of what it's like to be "marginalized". :rolleyes: IIRC, another poster here on SDMB had a similiar experience as a male doing some women's studies at the graduate level, and created a website documenting his difficulties. When I meet a woman who says she isn't a feminist, this is what she thinks feminism is from having been exposed to it in college, and wants to distance herself from what she thinks is a radical and hostile philosophy.

What popular culture thinks of feminism and what academia thinks of it are widely divergent concepts. Even among the academic model of feminism, there's your post-modern feminists, your libertarian feminists, your socialist feminists, feminists who deny the entire notion of gender, and feminists who are radically misandrous in any number of ways. The concept seems to range from positive, to benign, to malevolent depending on the particular flavor. Thus it's tough to really make any assumptions about someone's beliefs when they only tell you they're a "feminist."

[Annie]

Then I'll stamp my little feet and pout until it is!

[Annie]

Er, answering catsix.

[Zoe]

catsix: I can tell you from experience that those over at Ms. Magazine don't consider people who advocate treating the genders equally to be a feminist.[/quote]

Could you be specific about which member of the editorial staff has provided you with such a negative experience and impression? What was said specifically? Gee, even Gloria got married. :)

I don't even know any man-haters personally. I'm aware that some exist, but the people in my life are a mixture of men and women who respect and support each other.

One of the feminists that I've been closest to was my first husband. You can hardly call him a man-hater. We have remained the best of friends.

My husband now also believes in gender equality as do his sons. I've never had a cross word with my son-in-law of six years. My grandson thinks I'm cool. I still have friendships with former students including one male who was in my class over 25 years ago.

I try to greet anyone I see who has a low post count and usually make it a point not to be negative in my first words to a new user.

I am a member and supporter of peaceful organizations such as World Vision and Amnesty International.

I think that if any reasonable person looks back over the exchanges in this thread, she or he won't have to be told which person spews hatred.

[Malacandra]

Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious
Yes, they are more than a little over the top.

For your information, this is the established fact. I'm not making up anything here. Feminist fiction has long been rife with themes of female-only paradise or female-run utopias, and feminist philosophy is full of dreamy scenarios of how good the world would be if either men disappeared or women ran everything. If you are blaming me for bringing it up, well, denial is a very hard thing to break.



I remember reading a friend's copy of Spare Rib some years back. It included a charming little short story in which a mother was soothing her daughter to sleep with an account of the "bad creatures" that there used to be and all the evils they did and how it was found necessary to "disappear" the bad creatures and there was no need to worry because there weren't any of them alive any more. High on the list of the BCs' faults was their possession of external genitals and their habit of sometimes even touching them publicly. :rolleyes:

Of course, the story may not be typical of Spare Rib's editorial policy and the mag itself may not have been representative of feminist attitudes. And they may even have taken sugar with their porridge.

[Annie-Xmas]

On a related note, you can read all about the "lesbian mafia" at lesbianstudies.com. WARNING: It is the lesbian equivalent of "God Hates Fags."

[margin]

Sorry, I just have to:




Opposes men's rights to due process by insisting that men ought to be fired solely on a woman's claim that he harassed her.

Opposes fathers' rights to visitation and custody.

Opposes men's rights to defend themselves against rape accusations via the establishment of so-called "rape shield laws" that rule out evidence contradicting the accusation.

Opposes free speech by advocating various speech codes that apply to men but not to women.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating programs that would exclude men from their benefits.

Opposes men's equal rights to higher education via affirmative action, quotas, women-only scholarships, etc., with men now becoming the minority on campus.

Opposes the idea that women's lives and men's lives are of equal worth.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating laws that protect women but not men or give women a far higher level of protection than men.

Cite?

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by Annie
Hi, I'm Annie. I'm a feminist who opposes man bashing.
If so, then it's highly suspicious that you go around attacking other people who oppose man bashing.

I've posted a number of anti-male quotations from leading feminists -- people whose works are still being taught in college. You did not condemn any of those anti-male attitudes. You still haven't. Instead -- typically -- you attacked the person who brought them up.

You can't oppose man-bashing unless you oppose man-bashing.

[margin]

Andy, you quoted three radical feminists, out of context, and twenty years later. Brownmiller, especially, deserves better than your treatment of her. The first work that discussed rape from a female perspective, Against Our Will tackled the common perceptions of rape victims as sluts or whores, that rape is 'asked for' and that it's a rare crime. Her language was passionate, and yet you pluck one imcomplete sentence out of a book about rape, and you don't get impassioned over the injustices to women that she detailed, you bitch about the perceived injustice to men contained in one sentence out of approximately four hundred pages.

Shall I quote from Warren Farrell? Any of the female-bashers out there? Warren Farrel, paragon of the Mens' Rights movement, did a devastating interview in penthouse, in which he talked about the 'benefits' of incest. After all, it's perfectly acceptable to quote selectively. Maybe I'll quote the portion where he talks about fathers 'genitally caressing' their daughters.

Oh, and where's that cite?

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by KAndre
Andy, I feel bad for you if you really believe that

If you really feel I'm attacking you, I want to say that's not my intention. But I honestly feel that you are pushing the fringe element of feminism front and center.
Fringe element? I've cited Betty Friedan, who launched modern feminism; I've cited leading author, activist and Ms. Magazine editor Robin Morgan; Susan Brownmiller who had a major influence in fueling rape hysteria, Marilyn French, a top-selling author, and others whose work continues to be taught in college. They are about as "mainstream" as you can get.

This is like saying I cited a fringed element of socialism by citing Lenin and Marx.

The views cited here might be whacko, but they are not fringe. What we have is a strong denial of the magnitude of anti-male attitudes in so-called "mainstream" feminists. You are attempting to perpetuate that denial.


To me it's like quoting nothing but Malcolm X, The Black Panthers, the Weathermen or J. Edgar and saying that's what the civil rights movement was about.
I am quoting some of the leaders of the feminist movement. If their own words make them look like extremists, then it just possibly might be because they're extremists.

Also, whenever someone objects to the anti-male attitudes in feminism, we always have to clear two obstacles:
One, the personal attacks that are launched against people who stand against bigotry.
Two, the "stereotype" ploy, a shopworn tactic you use here. You say that we shouldn't lump all feminists in to the same batch -- even though you are suspiciously silent when feminists are lumping all men together, as Brownmiller does. Let me be clear that I am citing and condemning those feminists who are anti-male. If it happens that an overwhelming number of feminist leaders hold anti-male views, well, that's something the feminists themselves should be looking into. When we discuss anti-Semitism, we do not have to go through this bullshit tactic you are using. We do not have to wrangle about not all gentiles being anti-Semitic, just the extremists. We know and accept that there are anti-Semitic gentiles and those who are not. And thus we are clear to condemn those who are anti-Semitic.

By running interference for the man-bashing bigots, you are demonstrating you support for them. Or, if your sole motive is that you don't want to be "stereotyped," then why is it so difficult for you to understand that other peope don't want that either?
I don't believe in man-bashing. My feminist friends don't believe in man-bashing.
Robin Morgan, she of the Nazi comparisons, says she's not a man-basher. In fact, there is not a feminist in the whole wide world who says she's a man-basher.

Yet the man-bashing is rife and integral.

All I know is that when someone actually does object to man-bashing, feminists like you attack them, run interference for the man-bashers, and try to sidetrack the discussion.

In fact, you do everything in the world except make any serious objection to man-bashing.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by margin
Andy, you quoted three radical feminists, out of context, and twenty years later.
Again with the "fringe" dodge. I haven't cited obscure feminist who cranked out 100-run screeds on a mimeograph. I'm citing "mainstream" feminists like Friedan, Morgan, Brownmiller, etc., who are still being taught in college. If they are "radical," as you say, then why are we still teaching them?

And the old "out of context" dodge is standard when you can no longer deny their anti-male sentiments.

And as far as "twenty years ago," does it mean it's no longer anti-male hatred after twenty years? By your way of thinking, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are no longer anti-Semitic because they're more than a century old.

I wasn't aware that anti-male hatred came stamped with a "use by" date.

Brownmiller, especially, deserves better than your treatment of her.
My "treatment" of Brownmiller was to quote precisely what she said.

And what she said was pretty abhorrent. If you had any decency, you would be condemning it instead of supporting it.

Her language was passionate,
Nice euphemism. Men get fired for "passionate" language.
Her "passionate" language portrayed all men as guilty of complicity in rape. She crossed the line into outright gender hatred, and "passionate" language is no excuse. You would be frothing mad if anyone directed language like this at you, so why do you lack a conscience when it is directed at us?

and yet you pluck one imcomplete sentence out of a book about rape, and you don't get impassioned over the injustices to women that she detailed,
It was a complete sentence. And the goal of any demagogue is to get people "passionate" about a subject so that they no longer think clearly. Margin, the person here who has done no thinking is you. You don't give a damn about people whose lives are destroyed by false accusations. Apparently all those people are acceptable "collateral damage" in your war.

Shall I quote from Warren Farrell? Any of the female-bashers out there?
No, what you should do is actually condemn anti-male hatred instead of running interference for it. (And if you have anything from Warren Farrell that is actually anti-female, feel free to post it.)

As for your other questions, the board is painfully slow right now and my answers require a search, so I will post them later when traffic is lighter.

[margin]

Cite, SAL?

So, if we criticize men as a group, we're male bashing. But criticizing feminists as a group---and as a group that meets your standard----is not female-bashing.

To me it's like quoting nothing but Malcolm X, The Black Panthers, the Weathermen or J. Edgar and saying that's what the civil rights movement was about.

This is a very good point that SAL seems determined to avoid. It's also exactly what he's doing here, despite all the rhetoric about male bashing.

What do you bet if SAL comes up with a cite it comes from a father's rights group? Either way, pony up.

Just to make things very clear:

1. Cite to prove all the things you claim in my quote.
2. Prove how quoting selectively from twenty-year-old books and articles shows that you are not stereotyping.

[margin]

My "treatment" of Brownmiller was to quote precisely what she said.

And what she said was pretty abhorrent. If you had any decency, you would be condemning it instead of supporting it. [quote]

Your standard of decency, SAL, included calling me a liar when I pointed out that I'd been fired for complaining about threats of rape in another thread. Then you claimed that I must not have gotten fired because of that but because of a whiny attitude. Furthermore, citing the age of those comments by Morgan, whatever, specifically goes to the fact that the feminist movement in its present incarnation is only forty years old. Movements typically move from radicalism to moderation.

[quote], the person here who has done no thinking is you. You don't give a damn about people whose lives are destroyed by false accusations

And you know they're false how? The same way you knew I was lying about being fired?

Cite, please.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by margin
Cite, SAL?

So, if we criticize men as a group, we're male bashing. But criticizing feminists as a group---and as a group that meets your standard----is not female-bashing.
Yes, that is correct. When you make a blanket slander against someone because of their sex, it is the same as making a blanket slander of them because of their race or ethnicity. Feminists, however, are a political group and as open to criticism as any political group. "Feminist" does not mean "woman" because not all feminists are women and certainly not all women are feminists.

I'm sure you'd criticize a group like Daughters of the Confederacy. Criticizing them as a group is not female-bashing, now is it?

1. Cite to prove all the things you claim in my quote.
Whenever some pestiferous little pig-nipple decides to get into a cite war, they usually end up looking like an ass. If you want me to demand cites for everything you say, we can go that route, too.
2. Prove how quoting selectively from twenty-year-old books and articles shows that you are not stereotyping.
When it's exactly what they said, when it's exactly what they meant, and when they haven't retracted the man-bashing, it is not stereotyping. It is something they brought on themselves.

One symptom of the man-basher is that she never admits man-bashing goes on. Margin -- good name, because that's where you are -- the cat is out of the bag about anti-male views. It's not like it's news, and the more you continue to deny the anti-male views in feminism, the less people respect feminism. Now if you turned around and denounced them, you might be able to rehabilitate your movement's anti-male image.

[margin]

Uh, SAL, great post. Except you didn't provide a cite.

Cite, please? Blah, blah, blah, blah for the rest. You're such a classic female-basher it's not even funny. Every time someone asks you a question, you just turn around and make these rediculous statements that don't address the topic at hand.

the person here who has done no thinking is you. You don't give a damn about people whose lives are destroyed by false accusations


And you know they're false how? The same way you knew I was lying about being fired?


Opposes men's rights to due process by insisting that men ought to be fired solely on a woman's claim that he harassed her.

Opposes fathers' rights to visitation and custody.

Opposes men's rights to defend themselves against rape accusations via the establishment of so-called "rape shield laws" that rule out evidence contradicting the accusation.

Opposes free speech by advocating various speech codes that apply to men but not to women.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating programs that would exclude men from their benefits.

Opposes men's equal rights to higher education via affirmative action, quotas, women-only scholarships, etc., with men now becoming the minority on campus.

Opposes the idea that women's lives and men's lives are of equal worth.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating laws that protect women but not men or give women a far higher level of protection than men.

So, again. Cite? It's interesting how you keep avoiding the issue. Cite?

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by margin
Sorry, I just have to:
Cite?
(disclaimer at bottom*)

Feminism:

Opposes men's rights to due process by insisting that men ought to be fired solely on a woman's claim that he harassed her. This was part of the campaign whose slogan was "women do not lie about these things." California Rep. Dellums even tried to pass a law requiring companies to fire men solely on a woman's accusation of sexual harassment. (Historically, feminists dropped the "women do not lie about these things" about the time some of their patron politicians were accused of harassment.)

Opposes men's rights to defend themselves against rape accusations via the establishment of so-called "rape shield laws" that rule out evidence contradicting the accusation. The classic example is the rape trial of sportscaster Marv Albert . A woman accused him of raping her and biting her back. Prosecutors made it sound like he was a sex maniac who left her back in shreds. He was put on trial, and the "rape shield law" was used to block his defense from using some very important information. For one, the woman had a history of sexually enjoying biting. Second, she had a history of retalitating against former lovers, and Marvin was one. He had told her he was marrying a different woman.
This information, which the jury was not allowed to here, strongly suggests the woman set him up. She obtained some minor bite marks (none of which broke the skin -- it was more along the lines of hickeys) then claimed rape to punish him for dumping her. She even threw in a story about him wearing women's underwear.
Given her previous history, a reasonable jury would have doubts about her accusation. Because of the "rape shield law," evidence absolutely vital to the defense was rule out. The result was that a man who in all likelihood was innocent was convicted.

Opposes free speech by advocating various speech codes that apply to men but not to women. Read any speech code and note how it is enforced. Also, the so-called "hostile working environment" laws.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating programs that would exclude men from their benefits. Note any man who has been refused service at a domestic violence center because they don't take men.

Opposes men's equal rights to higher education via affirmative action, quotas, women-only scholarships, etc., with men now becoming the minority on campus. (Do you need a cite for the existence of affirmative action?)

Opposes the idea that women's lives and men's lives are of equal worth. This is seen in slogans such as "violence against women is always wrong," with the unspoken corrolary that violence against men is just fine. Also, although women live about seven years longer than men, feminist organizations demand we channel more and more of our resources into women's health -- including quality of life issues.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating laws that protect women but not men or give women a far higher level of protection than men. For example, a woman can call a man a "prick" or an "asshole" and not violate hostile-work-environment laws or speech codes, where a man could be punished for call her a similar obscenity. Finally, there is the anti-domestic violence act that Congress past, which provides women with protections it does not afford men. Also, the law often uses a highly relative standard called the "reasonable woman" and "reasonable man" standards, which basically come down to the idea that a reasonable woman has grounds for finding a lot more things offensive (and hence actionable) than a reasonable man. A man commenting about a woman's weight is subject to sexual-harassment and hostie-work-environment laws, no matter how innocently it was intended, whereas a woman could denigrate a man on the same grounds and face no sanctions. Feminists have promoted the standard that "if you feel harassed, you are," which, of course, they don't extend to men.

Opposes fathers' rights to visitation and custody. In particular, NOW has not only opposed fathers' custody but has attempted to portray it as an act of abuse when men seek custody.

NOW's 1996 National Conference Resolutions (http://www.now.org/organization/conference/1996/resoluti.html)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW ACTION ALERT ON "FATHERS' RIGHTS"
WHEREAS organizations advocating "fathers' rights," whose members consist of non-custodial parents, their attorneys and their allies, are a growing force in our country; and

WHEREAS the objectives of these groups are to increase restrictions and limits on custodial parents' rights and to decrease child support obligations of non-custodial parents by using the abuse of power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers; and

WHEREAS these groups are fulfilling their objectives by forming political alliances with conservative Republican legislators and others and by working for the adoption of legislation such as presumption of joint custody, penalties for "false reporting" of domestic and child abuse and mediation instead of court hearings; and

WHEREAS the success of these groups will be harmful to all women but especially harmful to battered and abused women and children; and

WHEREAS the efforts of well-financed "fathers' rights" groups are expanding from a few states into many more, sharing research and tactics state by state; and

WHEREAS many judges and attorneys are still biased against women and fathers are awarded custody 70% of the time when they seek it per the Association of Child Enforcement Support (ACES);

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the National Organization for Women (NOW) begin a national alert to inform members about these "fathers' rights" groups and their objectives through articles in the National Now Times (NNT); and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as a part of this alert, NOW establish a clearinghouse for related information by sharing with NOW state and local Chapters the available means to challenge such groups, including the current research on custody and support, sample legislation, expert witnesses, and work done by NOW and other groups in states where "fathers' rights" groups have been active; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NOW encourage state and local Chapters to conduct and coordinate divorce/custody court watch projects to facilitate removal of biased judges; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that NOW report to the 1997 National Conference on the status and result of this national alert whereupon its continuation or expansion will be considered.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, the disclaimer. When some answers a lengthy post with nothing more than a demand for a cite, it's usually regarded as trollish behavior or stupidity. I won't guess which are at work with you. But all the topics mentioned here are known to anyone who has paid cursory attention, so demanding cites for matters of common knowledge displays an undue fondness for grade-school Usenet wars. Grow up, Margin. Especially egregious is you demanding a cite for NOW's anti-father initiatives because we have already discussed this on a different thread. If that doesn't border on trolling, I don't know what does.

In sum, this poster is not responsible for readers who have their heads either in the sand or up their arses. When troubleshooting your "cite" reflex, please first check that your head in upright and in the proper position.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by margin
Uh, SAL, great post. Except you didn't provide a cite.

Cite, please? Blah, blah, blah, blah for the rest. You're such a classic female-basher it's not even funny.
Okay, Margin this is getting to the "never argue with an idiot, for people might not tell which is which" stage.

You are using a tired tactic to derail discussion: the claim that objecting to feminist extremism is the same as bashing women.

Cite?

Show us anything I've said that "bashed women." I haven't, and I never would. I am objecting to bigotry, namely anti-male bigotry. You are embracing bigotry by defending the bigots. Criticizing feminism is no more bashing woman than criticizing Marxism is bashing Europeans.

What I have done is noted the anti-male statements of several leading feminists. And that upsets you, because you would rather not have it looked at.

Well, live with it, Margin. Feminists earned their anti-male reputations themselves. And it is not a secret anymore. A great many people associate feminism with anti-male attitudes. If you want to reverse that course, then start condemning anti-male attitudes instead of running interference for them. The more you deny it, the more you prove yourself a bigot.


And you know they're false how?
I assume you mean Brownmiller's man-bashing. Well, let's look at it again. Susan Brownmiller states that rape "is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- (Against Our Will p. 6)

How do I know that's false?! Good God, Margin, you're actually suggesting that type of hateful gender-bashing is true?

The same way you knew I was lying about being fired?
All I have to go on when judging you is your behavior here. In that time, I've noted that you have been dishonest, didactic, dogmatic, and in denial. You have been petulent, and you employ the nagging-type of argument of a toddler. Given all this, I sincerely doubt your versions of events are true. Moreover, I can honestly see why it would be in the best interest of any organization to include you out.


So, again. Cite? It's interesting how you keep avoiding the issue. Cite? [/B]
Please raise the level of your discourse a notch, if not for my sake then for the sake of the board.

[Zoe]

Andy, SDMB has been up and running for a long time. If those are not fringe beliefs, can you cite examples from SDMB discussions were many women have advocated the stances you have listed? They certainly sound horribly unfair to me and would to the women that I know. But they should be abundant if that is what feminists actually believe.

Perhaps the most debatable stance listed would be the Rape Shield Laws and surely you and I can agree that it would depend on how it is applied. It seems to have been justly used in the biting case and, judging from the Kobe Bryant hearing, any of the alleged victim's activities that might have caused the bruising and contusions used as evidence seem fair game too.

I really think that someone has done a number on your head about feminists. In fact, I would think that they would tend to be more fair-minded about custody procedures. (I cannot speak for NOW or its member or their thinking on these issues.)

BTW, I think that passage of the ERA would have made it easier for men to protect their custody rights.

Just a quick after-thought: Ever watch any of those stupid court shows? Do you know which judge is the most biased against men? Judge Joe Brown. He thinks that men always ought to be the ones taking care of the females. It is condescending toward females and unfair to the men.

[RexDart]

Originally posted by Zoe

Just a quick after-thought: Ever watch any of those stupid court shows? Do you know which judge is the most biased against men? Judge Joe Brown. He thinks that men always ought to be the ones taking care of the females. It is condescending toward females and unfair to the men.

<hijack>
Joe Brown is also an absolute looney. Know what he was doing before he got the show? He was presiding over a reopening of the James Earl Ray case, a case that was pretty much settled for 20 years until Brown granted some looney motion of Ray's, about the time Dexter King was looking foolish spouting crazy FBI conspiracy theories. Brown, while still in charge of the case, told author Gerald Posner that he believed Ray was the fall guy for a vast conspiracy.

Brown is a nutjob in his personal life too, telling Posner "in hushed tones" a bizarre story about several of his semiautomatic weapons going missing from his house with no sign of break-in, and concluding that powerful forces were trying to "set me up." Also, Brown was quoted as saying "Very few people on this planet have an IQ like me, I dumb things down alot so people can understand."

The guy's a complete wacko.
</hijack>

[margin]

You have been petulent, and you employ the nagging-type of argument of a toddler. Given all this, I sincerely doubt your versions of events are true.

Nagging? Classic. What next? Shrew? Is there any sexist cliche that you've missed? Oh, yeah, you haven't called feminists hairy-legged.

And being called a liar by somebody like you? Kind of funny.

Of course, who better to judge events of my life than a raving woman-hater. Still no cite, I see, just more paranoid bitching. You know, guys like you who believe in feminist conspiracies are the reason feminists have such a bad opinion of men. You're nuts.

And all your blather does not conceal the fact that you cannot provide a cite. You insult. You rave. You rant. You sound like every bully who got sent to the corner. The truly pathetic thing is that you probably went through a bad divorce and now you're bitter against every woman out there. That's the very definition of hatred.

All women and all feminists are not alike, but why should I bother with you? You can't back up any of your ravings.

Cite, please? It's not going to go away. I'm just going to ignore your raving, because you basically say the same damned thing over and over again: "FEMINISTS ARE EVIL BITCHES WHO HATE MEN." Yawn.

So pony up that cite, SAL.

[margin]

And seeing as how they're all the same, I'll supply SAL's next post:

Feminists hate men and want to take their balls away, and you, margin, are a harpy who never gives up. Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, practice witchcraft, kill their children and become lesbians.

There. Saved you the trouble.

And where's that cite again? Try a laxitive; it might help.

[Malacandra]

*picks up his scorecard and puts another tick under "Ad Hominem" and another under "Straw Man".*

margin, I'm content to sit on the sidelines and draw my own conclusions as to who's the hate-filled bully here, but in case you need a handy ad hom. for use on me, I'll just tell you I've never been divorced, but I had real trouble getting laid all through my teens. Any use to you?

Btw, don't attributed quotes and instances count as cites? :confused:

[margin]

You're funny.

Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem. Many have taken as their ideal the Amazons, women who allegedly killed male babies in order to maintain the purity of their race.

Heh. Which makes my paraphrasing the Pat Robertson quote so funny. He's missing the bit about witchcraft, though. Going to have to deduct points from the stereotype-o-rama that SAL's got going. Otherwise, he was getting all of them, and the Stereotype Olympics judges were leaning toward giving him a perfect ten.

All I have to go on when judging you is your behavior here. In that time, I've noted that you have been dishonest, didactic, dogmatic, and in denial. You have been petulent, and you employ the nagging-type of argument of a toddler. Given all this, I sincerely doubt your versions of events are true. Moreover, I can honestly see why it would be in the best interest of any organization to include you out.


I'm sure he's a peach on the subject of rape trials, too.

Opposes fathers' rights to due process by insisting that men ought to be fired solely on a woman's claim that he harassed her.

Opposes fathers' rights to visitation and custody.

Opposes men's rights to defend themselves against rape accusations via the establishment of so-called "rape shield laws" that rule out evidence contradicting the accusation.

Opposes free speech by advocating various speech codes that apply to men but not to women.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating programs that would exclude men from their benefits.

Opposes men's equal rights to higher education via affirmative action, quotas, women-only scholarships, etc., with men now becoming the minority on campus.

Opposes the idea that women's lives and men's lives are of equal worth.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating laws that protect women but not men or give women a far higher level of protection than men.


And the goal of any demagogue is to get people "passionate" about a subject so that they no longer think clearly. Margin, the person here who has done no thinking is you. You don't give a damn about people whose lives are destroyed by false accusations. Apparently all those people are acceptable "collateral damage" in your war.

Yep. That's why I mentioned the Final Solution, because---Oh, wait, no I didn't.

I thought SAL was bad. You're amusing. I needed a chuckle today, so thanks.

[Malacandra]

Who, me? Glad to oblige. What was funny?

[margin]

Heh. It'd take too long. But you're just a hoot. I'm sending this to my friends--male and female both----to have a look at this thread.

[Malacandra]

Oh, okay. So to add to the strawmen and the ad hominems, you're now adding, what, proof by ridicule? I'm a hoot because you say I am, without specifying what I've done that's so funny, but it's self-evident and you'd explain what you meant if you had time?

And to add to this I get to worry about being laughed at by all your friends of both sexes. Hmm. This counts as logic in Marginville, KY, does it? More like a horse's head in the bed, I'd have said.

Take pity on my poor wits. How does quoting what SAL has to say about the excesses of extremist feminism equate to refuting him?

Here's a bucketful more ??????s. It'll save time later.

Urendi Maleldil

[margin]

Malacandra, Andy's posts contained plenty of straw women and ad hominem attacks. You appear to be condemning only me.

Someone else said it far better than I did. Is it fair to use extremists---and from thirty years ago, no less----to tar a whole movement? As they said, labelling the Civil Rights Movement as containing nothing but people on the order of Eldredge Cleaver, Leroy Jones, and so on would be unfair and inaccurate. Andy would have you believe that feminists conspire to eradicate mens' rights, and that they have made great headway in this struggle. The quotes he's come up with are thirty years out of date. The rest has been his interpretation of what he says that they said. For some reason, I doubt he's being exactly accurate.

Finally, the word 'feminazi' itself would appear to invoke Godwin's Law, as it's being used outside of a relevant historical context, and in fact is being used in conjunction with frankly hysterical attacks against straw women.

I've asked repeatedly for a cite. He hasn't provided one to prove that what he says feminists want are in fact common to the movement. Instead, he avoids the questions, lobs insults----the word 'nagging' harkens back to a Fifties sitcom----and doesn't provide one.

[Malacandra]

Better. However, the whole point of the thread was to establish what the term "feminazi" meant, so we can't very well drag in Godwin just because someone answers the question. Further, if the views of these people whom you call "extremists from thirty years ago" are still influential today - to the extent of being widely read in women's studies college courses and considered central to the history of feminism - then it's relevant to call attention to them; more so than if they were widely acknowledged as wackos and utterly discredited.

SAL has said that his quarrel is with feminists who man-bash, and yet you say:
So, if we criticize men as a group, we're male bashing. But criticizing feminists as a group---and as a group that meets your standard----is not female-bashing.
- extending the focus of what he says not only to all feminists but to all females. As he says,alleging that men who criticize any feminists criticize all women is a tired tactic for silencing the opposition.

Oh, and in Brownmiller's quote, which I've just checked elsewhere in a book, Andy's inaccurate on one point: she italicized the word "all" in "{rape} is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear". I don't understand why you are even attempting to excuse her.

[Shodan]

Conservative men are disgusting, sex-obsessed pigs, please.

I deeply resent this remark.


I am not a pig.

Regards,
Shodan

[Biggirl]

I asked all the way on page one to define what Rush meant by "feminazi" and all I got was "Isn't it absolutely clear?" After a few pages of SALly's mouth-frothing the message I got was indeed loud and clear. It is an attempt to hijack the meaning of feminism and to brand all feminist with the extreme fringe.

So I decided to look up some real, verifiable cites and not just the voices in SAL's head (am I the only one who thinks they sound like Carrie's mother? They're all gonna laugh at you! They're all gonna laugh at you!)

The mother of all radical feminist organizations NOW (http://www.now.org/organization/info.html) has this penis removing mission goalAbout NOW
The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States. NOW has 500,000 contributing members and 550 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Since its founding in 1966, NOW's goal has been to take action to bring about equality for all women. NOW works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society; secure abortion, birth control and reproductive rights for all women; end all forms of violence against women; eradicate racism, sexism and homophobia; and promote equality and justice in our society.
Oooooohhh. Scary! Men, get your steel cups to the ready.

The National Women's Political Caucus (http://www.nwpc.org/about.html) has the stated goal to rid men of much of their power. See here:Mission
The purpose of the National Women's Political Caucus is to increase women's participation in the political process and to identify, recruit, train and support pro-choice women for election and appointment to public office. While in pursuit of this goal, NWPC will strive to win equality for all women: to ensure reproductive freedom; to achieve quality dependent care; and to eradicate sexism, racism, ageism, ableism, violence, poverty, and discrimination on the basis of religion or sexual orientation.

Membership in the National Women's Political Caucus is open to any individual
who supports the purposes and goals of the organization, without regard to ethnicity, sex, nationality, age, disability, economic status, or sexual orientation. Those damned bipartisan extreminsts!

Let's not forget The Feminist Majority (http://www.feminist.org/welcome/index.html) who state in their very name what their plan is:Feminism n. the policy, practice or advocacy of political, economic, and social equality for women.
The Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF), which was founded in 1987, is a cutting edge organization dedicated to women's equality, reproductive health, and non-violence. In all spheres, FMF utilizes research and action to empower women economically, socially, and politically. Our organization believes that feminists - both women and men, girls and boys - are the majority, but this majority must be empowered. See? They are out for your 'nads SAL. And do you know they sponser one of those vile, man-crunching feminist campus organizations! Called Campus Feminists (http://www.feministcampus.org/fmla/about/). Here's their nefarious plan:Campus Program Background
The Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) started the Campus Program to inform young feminists about the very real threats to abortion access, women’s rights, affirmative action, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender rights posed by right wing extremists. FMF works with students on college campuses to affect change at the grassroots, national, and global levels. The Campus Program is built upon FMF’s philosophy that the most effective activism is informed activism, or study to action. Our program provides progressive students with opportunities to learn about timely feminist issues, develop their leadership and organizing skills, and connect with the larger pro-choice and feminist movements.

Let us not forget the eeevilll, abortion-ramming organization Planned Parenthood (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about/thisispp/mission.html#01Mission). Clearly their mission is to jump on unsuspecting women and shove speculums up their nether regions.

A Reason for Being
Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual's right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life, strong family relationships, and population stability.


Wanna know who calls these organizations "Radical Feminists Organizations"? I mean, besides the lying, junkie Rush Limbaugh? DadsNow (http://www.dadsnow.org/vawa/vawa2.htm) does. So does The National Coalition of Free Men (http://ncfm-dc.org/issues.html).


Uh yeah. Contrast and compare to see who the real extremists are.

[margin]

quote]Take pity on my poor wits. How does quoting what SAL has to say about the excesses of extremist feminism equate to refuting him?[/quote]

He's not saying just extremist feminists. He's pretty much including all of them in there.

Feminism:

Opposes men's rights to due process...

There's no qualifer there that would support your claim that SAL differentiates between types of feminists. it merely says 'feminists'. It's also followed by a long list of things he subsequently claims are 'common knowledge.'

And here's his dislaimer.

[quote]Now, the disclaimer. When some answers a [b]lengthy post with nothing more than a demand for a cite, it's usually regarded as trollish behavior or stupidity.I won't guess which are at work with you. But all the topics mentioned here are known to anyone who has paid cursory attention, so demanding cites for matters of common knowledge displays an undue fondness for grade-school Usenet wars. Grow up, Margin. Especially egregious is you demanding a cite for NOW's anti-father initiatives because we have already discussed this on a different thread. If that doesn't border on trolling, I don't know what does.

In sum, this poster is not responsible for readers who have their heads either in the sand or up their arses. When troubleshooting your "cite" reflex, please first check that your head in upright and in the proper position

He says common knowledge twice there. He refuses to provide a cite. This was his long list of things that feminism hopes to accomplish. Not some feminists, but feminism. If he meant to be specific, he should say so and specify which groups he's talking about.

quote]SAL has said that his quarrel is with feminists who man-bash

The problem remains that his definition of man-bashing appears to be just about anything. Disagree with him, and you're endorsing male-bashing. Ask for a cite to prove his point, and you're 'nagging' in addition to whatever else he wants to work in there. No, I'm not accepting anecdote as anything but anecdote. Andy seems to think it's more. Bricker was kind enough to show me the importance of cites, and I'm not being sarcastic at all. Andy appears to be confusing his opinion as fact when he states in those bullet comments what feminism's goals are. Feminism, mind you, not just the college version.

I'm attempting to excuse Brownmiller, as you say, because she was drawing a comparison between lynching, and racial politics, and sexual politics. SAL read the book and called it man-bashing. The fact that it was a devastating study of rape does not appear to have registered on him at all. That's rather disturbing. There is a way to balance concern for men with concern for women. That does not appear to be SAL's concern at all.

So, if we criticize men as a group, we're male bashing. But criticizing feminists as a group---and as a group that meets your standard----is not female-bashing.

extending the focus of what he says not only to all feminists but to all females. As he says,alleging that men who criticize any feminists criticize all women is a tired tactic for silencing the opposition.

Point taken. But you would do well to criticize him when in fact, he is not specific. How do I say this? I find it difficult to believe after his statements about 'common knowledge' that it's just feminists that get him all wound up. Is it really possible to turn that amount of hate off and on?


If there's male bashing, you would think there would be female bashing. What, exactly, would that be? Would it be accusations that feminists want to strip men of their rights and lives? Contrary to what SAL says, I've simply never run across anyone who ever advocated this. Would such feminists be likelier to confide in someone like SAL, or myself, do you think? I'm sure with their hatred of all things male, they'd confide in some guy rather than another woman.

I wouldn't know what influence womens' studies courses have. I've never been to one. My feminism was formed by years of being told that there was lots of stuff I couldn't do because I was a girl, or being harassed at work---something that Andy insists I lied about, and that you have not addressed-----and feeling alone and powerless. I did not read about feminism in a book and then re-interpret past events in my life so that I became a victim of men. I've had some bad experiences. So has everyone else. But feminism, ironically enough, made me think better of men, and somewhat worse of women. Feminism is a real simple concept, and if the 'feminazi' appelation is valid, then there should be a similar one for men who see vicious harridans in women who disagree with them. In order to be valid, the so-called feminazis really should approximate Nazis. Feminists don't advocate killing men. They're not in favor of forming concentration camps. 'Nazi' has a very specific meaning for those of us whose parents actually fought them, as did my father and uncles.

( I've had run-ins with the victim mentality myself, and as a blue-collar woman, I found it rather frightening. My first thought upon being victimized was rage, followed immediately after by de-victimization. I most definitely did not want to be a victim. I don't want the label, and sympathy that does nothing doesn't do me any good----but it perpetuates the necessity for the sympathy. That said, people who rail about feminism never address the vast array of opinions that exist within it. Quite frankly, I've met people like SAL in real life. I'm not exaggerating in the slightest when I say that they are the reason I'm a feminist. )

If you really want a definition of the term 'feminazi' I think it's one of those loaded pejoratives the say more about the speaker than it does about the subject. My father was in fact a WWII vet. I don't fling that word about lightly. Also, I came to feminism the way a drowning person comes to a boat. It sure as hell wasn't men like SAL who helped me out; it was feminists who, by the way, include lots of men. Had I met only guys like SAL, frankly, I would in fact probably have turned into the worst kind of feminist, but even so, the formation of death camps was not a possibility. Any word which contains the word 'Nazi' had better be in reference to something as appalling as that.

[Shodan]

No offense, Biggirl, but one of the determining characteristics of the femi-n*zi was that she considers abortion to be the most important issue.

All of the organizations you cited mentioned abortion as a key issue for their agenda, and two of them mentioned it first. So maybe they don't all consider it to be the most important issue out there, but it seems to be the one specific issue they mention first. So Rush Limbaugh seems to be onto something here.

I can dig up the cite if you like, but I can remember a previous thread in which a feminist Doper (of whose name I am not sure enough to identify) said very specifically that she did not consider anyone who was not pro-abortion to be a feminist. I expect the organizations you mentioned to agree with that.

My own definition of "femin*zi" is easy to obtain. Go to the Ms. messageboards, and read any ten posts at random.

That's my definition.

Regards,
Shodan

[catsix]

margin said:
Contrary to what SAL says, I've simply never run across anyone who ever advocated this.

I have. I ran into lots of them. Including a certain web Ms.tress under the employ of Ms. Magazine. Those who opposed the view that men should account for no more than 20% of the population were silenced, our views completey unwelcome by those given the authority by Ms. Magazine to be the official voice of Ms. Magazine at their website.

Feminists don't advocate killing men.

No, but those I encountered during the time I did post at a feminist website I encountered at least one person who was much interested and inspired by a book she read in which men were reduced, through breeding, to only 20% of the population on a "What if we just refused to have male babies?" kind of thing. I am trying to find the name of that book or the author.

In the interest of not starting a board war, I am probably not allowed to advise you to go there and read the opinions of those feminists for yourself.

Any word which contains the word 'Nazi' had better be in reference to something as appalling as that.

Is advocating the 'breeding out' of men from the population by refusing to have any male babies considered as apalling as killing those men who currently are alive to achieve the same goal?

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by Zoe
Andy, SDMB has been up and running for a long time. If those are not fringe beliefs, can you cite examples from SDMB discussions were many women have advocated the stances you have listed? They certainly sound horribly unfair to me and would to the women that I know. But they should be abundant if that is what feminists actually believe.
Sure I can. From the following linked thread, a feminist makes a blanket statement labeling fathers (and whites) as oppressors: (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3670186#post3670186)
Father's Rights Groups claim to be victims of male bashing and unequal treatment and "disadvantaged" Whites will cry out reverse racism. Until the oppressor stops playing at victim and aknowledges its role as a bully to the marginalized group and moves proactively in a massive way (and I mean more than just the token dad at the monthly PTA meeting or the token White person on the NCAAP board) then the movements will continue to remain in this stagnate state.

And from the
same person: (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3673178#post3673178)
And again -- I never said fathers were oppressors. I said men are oppressors and that is a fact that you nor any man can run from SAL and the sooner you realize it and do something about it -- the sooner things will begin change, but I won't hold my breath.
"I said men are oppressors." A flat, blanket stereotype.

You should know this, Zoe, because you were on that thread. I asked you then if you would condemn that type of stereotype. You refused to do so. Instead, your reaction to the poster was:
Lina, welcome to SDMB. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3676383#post3676383)
So, we are still waiting for you to condemn her remarks.

I will ask you again, since you claim to oppose man-bashing: Do you condemn the statement ""I said men are oppressors."?

I really think that someone has done a number on your head about feminists. In fact, I would think that they would tend to be more fair-minded about custody procedures. (I cannot speak for NOW or its member or their thinking on these issues.)
Cite, please? Where are the feminist groups that support equal rights for fathers?

[url]BTW, I think that passage of the ERA would have made it easier for men to protect their custody rights.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by margin
Nagging? Classic. What next? Shrew? Is there any sexist cliche that you've missed? Oh, yeah, you haven't called feminists hairy-legged.

And being called a liar by somebody like you? Kind of funny.

Of course, who better to judge events of my life than a raving woman-hater. Still no cite, I see, just more paranoid bitching. You know, guys like you who believe in feminist conspiracies are the reason feminists have such a bad opinion of men. You're nuts.

And all your blather does not conceal the fact that you cannot provide a cite. You insult. You rave. You rant. You sound like every bully who got sent to the corner. The truly pathetic thing is that you probably went through a bad divorce and now you're bitter against every woman out there. That's the very definition of hatred.

All women and all feminists are not alike, but why should I bother with you? You can't back up any of your ravings.

Cite, please? It's not going to go away. I'm just going to ignore your raving, because you basically say the same damned thing over and over again: "FEMINISTS ARE EVIL BITCHES WHO HATE MEN." Yawn.

So pony up that cite, SAL.
What, precisely do you need a cite for? Perhaps a link for Prozac?

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Andy, you're losing my respect.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by margin
Someone else said it far better than I did. Is it fair to use extremists---and from thirty years ago, no less----to tar a whole movement?
No one could use such statements to "tar" the movement if feminists had never said them. At least this is the first hint that you understand there is something wrong with their way of thinking, if you sense something wrong about their man-bashing. And if you admit that, then we have no need to differ. I merely want you to acknowledge and condemn anti-male hatred.

Also, these beliefs come from some of the founders and major voices of feminism: Friedan, Steinem, Robin Morgan, Brownmiller, et al., whose ideas are still taught at the university level, available in bookstores, and distributed on the net. You can judge democracy by words that are three-hundred years old. Or do the works of Jefferson and Madison no long have merit because they are old?

The quotes he's come up with are thirty years out of date.
So important feminists voices are "out of date" and thus invalid? Sounds like a backlash against feminism.
If these people are "out of date," why defend them so stridently?

In another post on this thread you said:
He's not saying just extremist feminists. He's pretty much including all of them in there.
And then you quote me saying that feminists did such-and-such.

This is just a dodge to disrupt discussion. I have never made a statement that all feminists do such-and-such. Such statements are reckless and generally unsupportable. I did say that feminists did certain things, and indeed the people who did them were feminists. If I said "whites discriminated against blacks," would you say the statement is invalid because not all whites discriminated against blacks? If we said that labor unions supported the Democratic candidate, would you then claim that no unions supported the Democrat because you could cite one union that did not?

I doubt I'm getting through to you on this.

He says common knowledge twice there. He refuses to provide a cite.
I will provide you with a cite on anything you want, if you would settle down, be specific, and stop hollering "cite" as a disruption tactic.

The problem remains that his definition of man-bashing appears to be just about anything. Disagree with him, and you're endorsing male-bashing.

"Just about anything?" Actually, I have given you some very specif and explicit examples of man-bashing, such as Robin Morgan's statement: "I feel that "man-hating" is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

This is the sort of cut-and-dried anti-male hatred that anyone with a conscience could condemn. Instead you defend her -- which indicates that you are, at the very least, find nothing objectionable in this hate.

More from Morgan:
"Sexism is NOT the fault of women -- kill your fathers, not your mothers."
"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."
"Don't accept rides from strange men--and remember that all men are strange as hell."

I'm attempting to excuse Brownmiller, as you say, because she was drawing a comparison between lynching, and racial politics, and sexual politics.
Brownmiller's attempt to compare rape to lynching displays the ugliness and extremism behind her views. Lynching was often done by communities, with the explicit support or involvement of civic leaders and police, for the express purpose of oppressing a minority. Rape is largely done by twisted individual criminals. Brownmiller and her ilk try to portray all men as taking part in rape, like a lynch mob. When a rapist strikes, he does not have the mayor and sheriff standing there cheering him on. Instead, they would stop, prosecute -- or maybe execute -- the criminal. Brownmiller says that rape "is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear." She makes all men guilty.

A fellow once told me that during a widely publicized rape trial (I think it was William Kennedy Smith) a woman in his workplace said that they might as well convict him, because some time in their lives all men had committed rape or a similar offense, so they might as well convict him on one charge as on another. That is the legacy of the all-men-are-guilty philosophy.


There is a way to balance concern for men with concern for women.
Brownmiller and the demagogues of the rape "epidemic" never balanced the concerns of men. Instead, they dehumanized men into a faceless conspiracy much as anti-Semites dehumanizing Jews. They then fought to reduce the rights of men to defend themselves against the charge. The result, decades after the rape hysteria they fomented, is that we are seeing more and more innocent men freed from prison after decades of incarceration after DNA proves them innocent.

As for her lynching comparison, the response was to strengthen the law against this crime and enforce it. At no point did the anti-lynching activists ever try to reduce a defendant's constitutional right to mount a defense. That is a major difference. Brownmillerian feminists advocated conviction based on accusation. Does the name "Gary Dotson" mean anything to you?

If there's male bashing, you would think there would be female bashing. What, exactly, would that be? Would it be accusations that feminists want to strip men of their rights and lives? Contrary to what SAL says, I've simply never run across anyone who ever advocated this.
First, criticizing exteme feminists is not the same as bashing women.
Second, there are extreme feminists who do want to strip men of their rights -- rights to child custody, rights to a fair trial, rights to be free of workplace discrimination. When shown evidence of them, your reaction is "I've simply never run across anyone who ever advocated this." Well, your experience is not the sum and total of existence.

I wouldn't know what influence womens' studies courses have. I've never been to one. .... I did not read about feminism in a book and then re-interpret past events in my life so that I became a victim of men.
At least you admit that you are uninformed.

Feminists don't advocate killing men.
Ever hear of the S.C.U.M. Manifesto? Robin Morgan did, and included it in a college anthology.

Quite frankly, I've met people like SAL in real life. I'm not exaggerating in the slightest when I say that they are the reason I'm a feminist. )
You're the reason the rest of us are not.

It sure as hell wasn't men like SAL who helped me out; it was feminists who, by the way, include lots of men.
You know, if you had come up with a really horrid life story of male abuse and assault, I might have cut you some slack. Instead, you're enraged because you just didn't get your way all the time. What's worse is that you admit men helped you, but you still embrace the purveyors of anti-male hatred.
I think it was Mark Twain who said that if you rescue a wounded dog, shelter it, feed it, and nurse it to health, it won't turn around and bite you. This is the main difference between animals and humans.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by Biggirl
I asked all the way on page one to define what Rush meant by "feminazi" and all I got was "Isn't it absolutely clear?" After a few pages of SALly's mouth-frothing the message I got was indeed loud and clear. It is an attempt to hijack the meaning of feminism and to brand all feminist with the extreme fringe.

So I decided to look up some real, verifiable cites and not just the voices in SAL's head (am I the only one who thinks they sound like Carrie's mother? They're all gonna laugh at you! They're all gonna laugh at you!)

The mother of all radical feminist organizations NOW (http://www.now.org/organization/info.html) has this penis removing mission goalOooooohhh. Scary! Men, get your steel cups to the ready.

The National Women's Political Caucus (http://www.nwpc.org/about.html) has the stated goal to rid men of much of their power. See here: Those damned bipartisan extreminsts!

Let's not forget The Feminist Majority (http://www.feminist.org/welcome/index.html) who state in their very name what their plan is: See? They are out for your 'nads SAL. And do you know they sponser one of those vile, man-crunching feminist campus organizations! Called Campus Feminists (http://www.feministcampus.org/fmla/about/). Here's their nefarious plan:

Let us not forget the eeevilll, abortion-ramming organization Planned Parenthood (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about/thisispp/mission.html#01Mission). Clearly their mission is to jump on unsuspecting women and shove speculums up their nether regions.



Wanna know who calls these organizations "Radical Feminists Organizations"? I mean, besides the lying, junkie Rush Limbaugh? DadsNow (http://www.dadsnow.org/vawa/vawa2.htm) does. So does The National Coalition of Free Men (http://ncfm-dc.org/issues.html).


Uh yeah. Contrast and compare to see who the real extremists are.
Have you ever read the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. It's a marvelous-sounding document. In there, it says Soviet citizens have a right to free speech and representation and all manner of other freedoms.

And of course, these self-serving statements did not have any bearing on reality.

We are not going by what feminists say they do. We are going by what they actually do. The entire world has watched them go at it for decades. Today, most people would rather not call themselves feminists. That is because of the reputation feminists earned with their actions rather than their advertisements.

[margin]

Catsix, you had bad experience with one woman, whom you do not name, and about whom we have only your word. Provide documentation, please.

Andy, you're just being disingenuous. I've repeatedly quoted your bullet statements that all begin "Feminism." Provides cites for that or it's only your opinion. And it's a paranoid, hateful opinion at that.

We are not going by what feminists say they do. We are going by what they actually do. The entire world has watched them go at it for decades. Today, most people would rather not call themselves feminists. That is because of the reputation feminists earned with their actions rather than their advertisements.

Oh, comparing feminists to the Soviet Union! And then this little phrase. You've offered no proof for anything you say, just excessivley heated rantings.

Let's see, for proof of what feminism is about, who should we listen to? The guy who keeps repeating the same thing---you know, about how feminists want to kill off the male population, stuff like that, and never backs it up because it exists only in his fevered little imagination----or people who actually have experience with and have read a wide vareity of feminists?

So, once again, SAL. CITE for all those bullet comments. Unless you come up with a cite by someone reputable, all you're ranting about is your own paranoid fantasies. Feminists want to kill off men? Uh, yeah, sweetie. (Now I'm waiting eagerly for SAL to quoting that remark without the question mark, and then adding: "She said so! She finally admitted it! as per his style.)

So once again, SAL. I gotta say, you're the best example I've ever seen of the sort of guy my more well-off friends doesn't belive exist any more. Your ranting and hatred guarantees the contination of feminism.

That's got to be a bitter pill.

[margin]

Shodan, the reason abortion is a top priority is because all of womens' rights depend on the ability to control her fertility. And that includes the ability to terminate a pregnancy, when she wants to, and without interference. That right has been under attack for thirty years.

As far as the feminists at Ms. I've had my run-ins myself, but then again, what do you think any woman would think if they came to the Straight Dope and found our boy Andy here?

[Biggirl]

Originally posted by Shodan
No offense, Biggirl, but one of the determining characteristics of the femi-n*zi was that she considers abortion to be the most important issue.

All of the organizations you cited mentioned abortion as a key issue for their agenda, and two of them mentioned it first. So maybe they don't all consider it to be the most important issue out there, but it seems to be the one specific issue they mention first. So Rush Limbaugh seems to be onto something here.

Ah, finally, a definition of sorts. A feminazi is one who considers abortion the most important issue facing women today. Yeup, I'm a Nazi-- a Femi one. I'm one of the twelve. Because even the lying junkie who invented the word has backpedalled from his initial claim to say he was only talking about twelve of us.




Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious
Have you ever read the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. It's a marvelous-sounding document. In there, it says Soviet citizens have a right to free speech and representation and all manner of other freedoms.

And of course, these self-serving statements did not have any bearing on reality.

We are not going by what feminists say they do. We are going by what they actually do. The entire world has watched them go at it for decades. Today, most people would rather not call themselves feminists. That is because of the reputation feminists earned with their actions rather than their advertisements.

Yes, I do tend to believe what people do. Like lobby for reproduction rights, educate on domestic violence and offer good affordable medical care. That's what the feminist organizations I posted about do.

And I see what you are doing. Offering up hyperbole and no facts, ranting on in silly paranoia about how feminist are out to kill you and 80% of men and mostly just yeowling and licking the stump where your penis used to be after the raving loony Soviet Union-type feminist chopped it off with their emasculating calls for equal rights.

Actions do speak louder than words.

[Malacandra]

Sorry if this looks like another drive-by, but I'm having a hard time Doping just at the moment. At the office I have to at least try to look busy, and at home I'm lucky if Freeserve give me a connection before 10pm UK, and by then SDMB is in Hamster Hell...

Anyway, can I just say that the feminist attitude to abortion rights sounds a lot more inglorious if it is rephrased as:

"Feminists must promote abortion rights, because the inability to get an abortion when she wanted one might interfere with a woman's ability to get whatever else she wanted."

If this is a true statement of the position - and if it's not, please explain what I've got wrong - I find it kind of scary to see all the complex moral issues swept aside by a single end-justifies-the-means political axiom.

Biggirl, I'll see your "castration complex" and raise you a "frantic, unreasoning terror that all men want to rape you, beat you, chain you and condemn you to a life of perpetual subjugation and abuse". :) And I don't think SAL was beefing about calls for equal rights...

[margin]

Birth control is central to womens' lives, Macalandra, because without it, she's subject to unplanned pregnancies, which bring with them not only children, for which she's responsible, but nine months' worth of phsycial changes. If she can't choose when and how often that happens, her other rights are harder to exercise. Your fears about complex moral issues being swept away implies that you feel such women do this lightly.

" frantic, unreasoning terror that all men want to rape you, beat you, chain you and condemn you to a life of perpetual subjugation and abuse".

You might not want to say that to a woman who's just escaped an abusive relationship. You might not want to say that to a woman who's just been mugged, raped, or attacked. You might not want to say that a woman who's lower class, because the chances are she might just face things that you're not aware of. You might not want to say that to a woman who's been raped, or to her friends, who know she's been raped. Somehow, I just can't imagine such women confiding in someone who defends SAL or dismisses their concerns, thereby making their lives invisible to you.

All of these awful experiences would be easier to deal with were it not for the supposedly nice, normal people one has to deal with later. That doesn't even include the assholes who claim that such things are more feared than experienced.

It's easy to bitch when people react to stuff you'll never face.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by Biggirl
Ah, finally, a definition of sorts. A feminazi is one who considers abortion the most important issue facing women today. Yeup, I'm a Nazi-- a Femi one. I'm one of the twelve. Because even the lying junkie who invented the word has backpedalled from his initial claim to say he was only talking about twelve of us.
Which kind of goes to show that Rush was onto something when he stated that the feminists he characterizes as "femi-nazis" consider abortion to be the most important element in their thinking.

Both you and margin seem to be agreeing that support for abortion is the sine qua non of feminism as you define it.

In other words, Rush was right.

Regards,
Shodan

[Malacandra]

margin, the point I was making to Biggirl was that caricaturization cuts both ways. Arguing that men who are opposed to the worst excesses of feminism are fuelled by terror and paranoia is no more logical than arguing that feminists themselves are driven by the kind of fears I allude to. Possibly less, as feminists, even not the extremists who advocate refusing to bear male infants, are very vociferous in arguing that both rape and domestic violence are practically universal and tacitly supported by all men. Not so much fuelled by fear and paranoia as doing all they can to fan the flames, I'd say.

Now I have the utmost sympathy for anyone who personally has confronted those same horrors in real and actual form, and I also admire what you said earlier in this thread about refusing to let yourself succumb to the trend of victimhood, but if you were just attempting to shame me into silence, that's unethical and it ain't gonna work. I'll tender sympathy and offer help at the appropriate time and place; the rest of the time, I still maintain I have the right to a point of view.

Also, if you're going to sniffily argue that SAL's views are down to a divorce he's bitter about, you shouldn't expect too much kid-glove treatment yourself. His personal experiences invalidate his views, but your personal experiences are themselves the validation of your own? Kinda paradoxical. But... I haven't argued, and am not arguing, that your personal brand of feminism is founded on man-hatred stemming from bad experiences with men, or a man. I am arguing... well, I thought that was clear enough.

As to abortion, I don't want to spend too much time going over ground that's already been well-trodden on these boards. I only remarked that if you strip it down to "We must all have the right to abortions when we want, or else we might not get what else we want" it doesn't sound so pretty. And by that same logic it looks like you could justify any other measures, on any other subject, simply on the grounds that you might otherwise be deprived of some right or other.

The trouble is, I guess, that with any emotive issue, reasoned argument doesn't get much of a look-in against rhetoric and slogans. It sounds fine and noble to cry "Every child a wanted child; every mother a loving mother", even if the means proposed to that end don't imply any guarantee that they'll actually achieve it. But "If I don't want it, here and now, I want the right to kill it" wouldn't sound so good.

[margin]

I'm not trying to shame you into silence, but I would like to know how much experience you've actually had with real life feminists, as opposed to the extremists, and if in fact you've read those writers from cover to cover. I have. They simply do not make up the majority of feminsts, and SAL has repeatedly spoken of feminists as desiring the eradication of men, period. If you're holding those views to be common, then you and I are destined to disagree,

Arguing that men who are opposed to the worst excesses of feminism are fuelled by terror and paranoia is no more logical than arguing that feminists themselves are driven by the kind of fears I allude to. Possibly less, as feminists, even not the extremists who advocate refusing to bear male infants, are very vociferous in arguing that both rape and domestic violence are practically universal and tacitly supported by all men. Not so much fuelled by fear and paranoia as doing all they can to fan the flames, I'd say.

The fact is that rape and domestic violence are rediculously common, and when feminists bring up the subject, there's tremendous resentment that they're doing so. These forms of violence exist in just about every culture. I do know that when I've brought up the subject with some men, the response I've gotten has been skeptical and hostile. Sort of like Andy's. You may be an educated man, but I don't live at that level, and I've had educated friends tell me that hearing me relate my experiences has been a shocking revelation for them. But other people simply do not want to hear it. I'd characterize Andy as being one of them. His hostility when I related how I'd been fired---and I filed suit with the ERA, which did no good at all----is exactly the attitude that one finds, and which keeps women from reporting such incidents, or worse. I'm sure Andy's convinced that what I said happened, did not happen. As a matter of fact, he said that my attitude must have been the cause of my firing. No one was punished for that incident except for me. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Does that mean he's right? Or does it mean that the bad guys got away with it?

As far as men supporting rape and wife-beating, I draw my own conclusions from behavior. I'm lucky enough to have many male friends, and they're all nice guys. By nice, I mean, decent to women, and not in that flowers-and-candy kind of way. They're genuine buddies. But I've had discussions of domestic violence with other men, and a very weird discussion takes place.

First, violence against women is discussed. Second, someone will ask why the phrase, 'violence against women'---a passive construction---is used. Then men bring up that women abuse men, too. More and more numbers get bandied about, till someone mentions that they read a big study which claimed the numbers are fifty/fifty. I always wind up bringing up that the author of the study--Richard Gelles--- has complained that the results of his study are being selectively quoted in ways that conceal or twist his findings. Also, that more violence against men---and damage---is done by other men so why is it that supposed mens' rights advocates only want to blame and discuss women who do it? And what to make of the size differential, and how come women suffer far more serious injuries? And how come these guys never actually do anything but interupt discussions of violence against women? Why aren't they out there actually helping those men who need it? Why aren't they forming shelters, raising awareness, getting money appropriated and studies funded? They say they're concerned, right? So where's the actual evidence that they are? If they were actually doing anything, I wouldn't be skeptical.



As far as my losing my job, I want to make something clear, too. I have an attitude because of that incident. I have an attitude when people like Andy make the ludicrous accusations that he does. Unless he backs them up, frankly, he's got no credibility whatsoever. But the attitude was based on actual experiences and on more conversations than I can count with men like Andy.

Also, if you're going to sniffily argue that SAL's views are down to a divorce he's bitter about, you shouldn't expect too much kid-glove treatment yourself.

Sarcasm is your friend, Malacandra.

His personal experiences invalidate his views, but your personal experiences are themselves the validation of your own? Kinda paradoxical.

Oh, not really. His personal experiences lead him to make accusations that feminists---he didn't qualify that to 'only the extreme ones when he did that bullet list-----want to kill off the male half of the speices. Mine lead me to believe [i]that men who make such outrageous accusations [/quote] have more issues than National Geographic. You seem to be very sensitive to your friend's ire. You might want to take a closer look at mine. I'm only being partially sarcastic. If you really do think that Andy's and my opinions are equally hostile and offensive, I would point out that you are minimizing Andy's rage, and maximizing my irritation. And I won't apologize for being irritated, either.

We must all have the right to abortions when we want, or else we might not get what else we want"

Sorry, but I need to see which quote this is from.



I'm saying it again, too. Feminists---and the Army, really, not exactly a feminist environment---made me believe that I was not a victim, and that nobody was entitled to it. Andy has said explicitly that he doesn't believe me, and I doubt like hell he believes many women, either. Unfair? He reaped what he sowed. Men like Andy have not done a damned thing for women like me, and I owe him absolutely fucking nothing.

[catsix]

margin said:
Catsix, you had bad experience with one woman, whom you do not name, and about whom we have only your word. Provide documentation, please.

Many. And I'm forbidden by the rules of the SDMB to name their names or even specifically mention where you can go to read it for yourself. If I wouldn't be banned from this board for giving you those names and locations I would give them to you.

You might not want to say that to a woman who's just escaped an abusive relationship. You might not want to say that to a woman who's just been mugged, raped, or attacked. You might not want to say that a woman who's lower class, because the chances are she might just face things that you're not aware of. You might not want to say that to a woman who's been raped, or to her friends, who know she's been raped. Somehow, I just can't imagine such women confiding in someone who defends SAL or dismisses their concerns, thereby making their lives invisible to you.

And what about the men who get abused, mugged, beaten, attacked, raped and murdered? What about 'lower class' men? You, margin, are the kind of person that is the reason I will never claim to be a feminist. Because feminism is a culture of fear and hatred of all things male.

If feminism were all about equality, the leading feminist 'scholars' wouldn't be using terms like 'testosterone poisoning' and threatening the hell out of people like Erin Pizzey (who fights against all domestic violence) and Christina Hoff Somers whose research has proven that girls are out-classing boys every day in language and reading skills and are rapidly vanishing any gap that existed in maths and sciences.


I'm not trying to shame you into silence, but I would like to know how much experience you've actually had with real life feminists, as opposed to the extremists, and if in fact you've read those writers from cover to cover. I have. They simply do not make up the majority of feminsts

Far more experience than I would ever care to have again. I attended meetings of the Campus Women's Organization at my university for 3 years. I read feminist works because I had professors who were feminists and used their classes as avenues to shove down our throats their own political ideologies about how nasty and awful men are, and that men are oppressors.

As for Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin and Robin Morgan not being a 'majority', you're right, they're not. It's not possible for a majority of any group to be the leaders of it, but they certainly are extremely well known, widely studied, and regarded as 'leading feminist scholars'.

I'm saying it again, too. Feminists---and the Army, really, not exactly a feminist environment---made me believe that I was not a victim,

Funny, then, that a philosophy entirely based upon the female part of the population being the oppressed victims of the 'patriarchy' made you feel like you were not a victim, isn't it?

Men like Andy have not done a damned thing for women like me, and I owe him absolutely fucking nothing.

What the fuck makes you think they owe it to you to 'do a damned thing' for you?

They don't. Nobody owes you a goddamn thing because of your vagina. Nobody is obligated to do a 'damned thing' for you or any 'woman like you'. Get used to it. It's the way the world works. You aren't owed anything. You have to earn it. Women like you contribute to the attitude that feminists are whiny bitches who want everything handed to them. And you know what I found? Men 'like Andy' don't bitch about women who are willing to earn their own way in life.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Here are some cites, as demanded, on feminist utopian fiction.

Feminist utopian fiction is a sub-genre that ranges from serious polemic to wishful fantasy. In depicting societies of the future or other worlds, feminist utopian fiction often involves science-fiction elements, though other stories are placed in the distant past, in the not-too-distant future, or fictional contemporary societies. Because of its wide range of setting and themes, feminist utopian fiction crosses over several genres -- novels with literary aspirations, science fiction, historical romance, and more.

Some of the frequent themes of feminist utopian fiction are societies in which men have either died out, have never existed, or live separately from woman, who are the narrative focus. The all-female societies in some cases propagate through cloning, parthenogenesis or other means. In Ursula K. LeGuin's "The Left Hand of Darkness," characters are sexually neutral and can change freely into males or females and back again. In other stories, men and women co-exist equally or women rule. In historical fiction, the utopian society might worship the Goddess -- at least until patriarchal religion ruins everything.

A related sub-genre is the feminist dystopia, which often imagines a horrible future society displaying the oppression of a ruthless patriarchal rule, the most famous example of this being "The Handmaid's Tale."

There is also a male-centered version in which men encounter a society of women and re-assert themselves. This theme has been made into a number of humorously bad movies such as "Queen of Outer Space" and "Cat Women of the Moon," and some critics suggest that the animus lies in men returning from World War II and finding that women had taken over many traditionally male jobs and roles.

But it is feminist utopian fiction that has been the more prolific sub-genre and as such it has received a good deal of scholarly and historical interest.

Defenders of feminist utopian fiction might call it empowering or minimize the hostility in it as mere wishful fantasy: men disappear and women get to run things. Yet we can't deny the animosity in those works whose theme is how much the world would improve if men did not exist, or those that portray all men as too violent to live in a civil society. "Empowerment" here descends into female chauvinism.

The web has many sites that discuss feminist utopian fiction -- many that can be found by searching for that term.

On the site Feminist Fantasy, Science Fiction and Utopia, (http://www.feministsf.org/femsf/index.html) for example, you can find bibliographies, research, criticism, checklists of authors, and a page dedicated to "Theme & Character Lists: Women-Only Worlds," which includes some fiction that uses a women-only theme in a non-feminist manner.
Note the prevalence of the theme of reproduction without men:
Gom, Leona. “The Y Chromosome.” The characters go out of their way to describe their reproductive method -- "ovafusion" -- as neither cloning nor parthenogenesis. Doctors are able to use this method to fuse two eggs together in a woman. Pregnancy and childbirth are normal and the child inherits both parents' genetic material.
As it happens, there is a completely functional all-women world -- but a few men are hiding out. Since they are not incorporated into the main society in any fashion, this still qualifies as a woman-only world.
Griffith, Nicola. “Ammonite.” Women may psychically fertilize one another; pregnancy and childbirth are normal, and the child inherits both parents' genetic material.
Hall, Sandi. “Wingwomen of Hera” (Spinsters / Aunt Lute: 1987) - the women of Hera are a parthenogenetic race ...


Here are excerpts from Feminist Literary Utopias: A Review of the Tradition in English at http://home.fuse.net/dabogens/utopia.html



( Some of the best-known works of this period (19th century) are Mary Griffin's "Three Hundred Years Hence," which focuses on peace and prosperity, and Mary E. Bradley Lane's "Mizora: A Prophecy," a woman-only utopia based on science and education in which men have become extinct while women have found the secret to eternal life. ...(deletions)
The masterpiece of this era (1890 to 1920) is Charlotte Perkins Gilman's "Herland," originally serialized in Gilman's magazine The Forerunner during 1915 and first published separately in 1979 to strong readership. "Herland" is a women-only world where everyone lives peacefully under the guidance of an intellectual aristocracy. ... Suzy McKee Charnas sets up the world that is to be left behind in "Walk to the End of the World," and then she shows the new women's society in "Motherlines." The "motherlines" of the title refer to the descendents from the original members of the band. Reproduction is by parthenogenesis
... Donna J. Young's "Retreat, As It Was!" tells the tale of a world before men. In some of its descendants an x chromosome is damaged, resulting in offspring with malformed sexual organs and a more aggressive nature. ... In "Solution Three," by Naomi Mitchison, homosexual love and the cloning of individuals with desirable characteristics are originally used to preserve a peaceful balance in the population until more immediate problems of survival are solved. Towards the novels end, heterosexual love is rediscovered, and the resulting children further the society's recovery through the superior characteristics of these new members. (Andy's note: In this last one, it appears that feminism again meets eugenics.)
...
In both of these books (Elizabeth Marshall Thomas's "Reindeer Moon" and Cecelia Holland's "Pillar of the Sky"), society begins to deteriorate when men and women begin to live in nuclear families rather than in supportive single-sex dwellings.

Feminist utopian fiction has been the subject of research and has been taught in courses at the college level. Here is one teacher’s recommended list: (http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/utopia.html)

(The following discussion of feminist utopian fiction took place on WMST-L in late July/early August 2000. It began with a request for suggested Texts … )

Subject: contemporary feminist utopias
Hi

I am looking for contemporary feminist utopias to teach in a 1st year Humanities course. I am aware of Gilman's _Herland_, Piercy's _Woman on the Edge of Time_, and Starhawk's _The Fifth Sacred Thing._ Could anyone suggest some other texts that might be appropriate?

Thanks in advance

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:19:34 -0400
From: Martha Charlene Ball <wsimcb @ PANTHER.GSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: contemporary feminist utopias

When I have taught feminist utopias, I used the ones you mentioned, plus the following:

Joanna Russ, *The Female Man*
Octavia Butler, *Parable of the Sower* and *Parable of the Talents*
Katherine Burdekin (Murray Constantine), *Swastika Night* (a dystopia that is also a powerful satire on Nazi Germany, written in the 30s)
Ursula K. LeGuin, *The Left Hand of Darkness*; I would also recommend *The Dispossessed* and *Always Coming Home*, both also by LeGuin.
Monique Wittig, *Les Guerillieres*

Others that I would consider using if I taught the course again:
Sally Miller Gearhart, *The Wanderground* (It's out of print, so I would use photocopies of a chapter or two)
Diana Rivers, *Journey to Zelindar*, *The Hadra*, or others of The Hadra series.
Joan Slonczewski, *A Door Into Ocean*
Suzette Hadin Elgin, *Native Tongue*
Dorothy Bryant, *The Kin of Ata Are Waiting for You* (may be out of print)

And there are lots of others.
Charlene


Special note to Margin. Feminist utopian fiction crosses over several genres: science fiction, fantasy, cyberpunk feminism, satire, feminist propaganda, historical romance, and so on. And it is done in tones ranging from serious to farcical. As such, it spans a wide cross-section of readers, from comic-book level to college. In fact, it is taught in some courses. It is not a secret, nor is it something I made up.
You could find this out if you would just get off your lazy ass and do a google search. You might discover that things exist even if you are ignorant of them. While your ignorance is broad, at least it is very deep. So I will be damned if I'm going to spend hours finding, coding and writing up links simply because you have your head so far up your ass you think your farts sound like the ocean. Everything I have written on this thread could be similarly backed up, though posting it for you is a classic case of pearls before swine. I will be glad to further demonstrate your ignorance on any individual topic you wish to be proved wrong about. But listen to this: doing nothing but screaming "cite," and continuing to scream it after sources are provided is the epitome of trollish behavior. If you continue, we can take it up with the moderators.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Zoe seems to have ducked out of the thread.

So let's return to Margin's comments:

Andy, you're just being disingenuous. I've repeatedly quoted your bullet statements that all begin "Feminism." Provides cites for that or it's only your opinion. And it's a paranoid, hateful opinion at that.
Then you will note that those posts do not begin with "All feminists ..."
As the people I have quoted are all feminists, you are beating another strawwomyn.

Let's see, for proof of what feminism is about, who should we listen to? The guy who keeps repeating the same thing---you know, about how feminists want to kill off the male population, stuff like that, and never backs it up because it exists only in his fevered little imagination
That is an outright lie.

His (Andy's) personal experiences lead him to make accusations that feminists---he didn't qualify that to 'only the extreme ones when he did that bullet list-----want to kill off the male half of the speices.
Another outright lie. You have yourself pasted and reprinted that bulletted list, and it contains nothing like that. You have made this lie several times.

Feminists want to kill off men? Uh, yeah, sweetie.

See below.

So, once again, SAL. CITE for all those bullet comments.
This is my first warning before I report you as a troll. I have repeatedly asked you which items you would like a cite for. I am not about to let you scream "cite" in blanket fashion. I will not provide you with a cite, for example, for the existence of affirmative action. Its existence is common knowledge. Demanding a cite for common knowledge, making posts of nothing more than "cite?" for an entire post, ignoring offered citations and continuing to scream "cite," and refusing to specify what parts you wish citations for are all trollish behavior. So are outright lies purporting to be quotes of what another poster has said. You are guilty of all of these in just this thread, and you will cease such behavior or we will take it to the moderators to see if you have committed any bannable offenses.

Also, I would like you to respond to the specific quote I have posted from Robin Morgan: "I feel that "man-hating" is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

I ask you again: Do you condemn this statement?
If you have nothing to say against it, we can assume you do not disagree with Morgan.

I'm not trying to shame you into silence, but I would like to know how much experience you've actually had with real life feminists, as opposed to the extremists,
The extremists are real feminists.
Or perhaps you declaring that those who don't think like you are not feminists. In which case you are behaving like the aforementioned "feminazis."
And if you actually don't agree with Morgan, why don't you directly condemn her words? You have certainly spent enough time and energy defending her.

The fact is that rape and domestic violence are rediculously common, and when feminists bring up the subject, there's tremendous resentment that they're doing so. These forms of violence exist in just about every culture.
Child abuse and neglect also exist in just about every culture. I'm guessing you would take offense if a political movement began portraying them as:
A) A crime only women committed, and
B) A crime that all women are guilty of in some form or another, and
C) Wildly more prevelant than any other research shows them to be.
-- because that is exactly the way feminists manipulate emotional reactions with exaggerated scare-stories about rape and domestic violence. Child abuse is a real problem, just like rape. But if someone used child abuse as a political hammer to bash your entire group, I imagine you'd object. Why is it that you can't understand, then, that men also object to being demonized?

Sort of like Andy's. You may be an educated man, but I don't live at that level ...
I am an educated man. I also am the son of a single mother who held a blue-collar job, and I joined the Army and worked blue-collar jobs so that I could get that education. In other words, I didn't have the easy life bestowed on me for being male. However, when I enterred my chosen field, I did find many feminists trying to block my way via affirmative action.

His hostility when I related how I'd been fired---and I filed suit with the ERA, which did no good at all----is exactly the attitude that one finds ...
I think I now understand how you define "hostility." I said I didn't believe your account, that I suspected it was incomplete. You apparently are the type to say you are a victim of "hostility" if people don't instantly believe you.

But your account is only one side of the story, and there are plenty of red flags that cast doubt on it. For instance, how in the heck do you file suit with the ERA? The law didn't even pass.

Consider: We have seen you embrace anti-male feminists; we have seen you attack people for disagreeing with you; we have seen you create fanciful slurs and character assassination against those who disagree with you; and we have seen an outpouring of ill-informed and poorly constructed vitriol from you. Why should we think you are telling the complete truth about this alleged firing? There is ample room to doubt you, and you have supplied the room yourself.

I'm sure Andy's convinced that what I said happened, did not happen. As a matter of fact, he said that my attitude must have been the cause of my firing. No one was punished for that incident except for me. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Does that mean he's right? Or does it mean that the bad guys got away with it?

Judging from your character as displayed here, I suspect the fault is not in the stars, Maratio, but in yourself.

As far as my losing my job, I want to make something clear, too. I have an attitude because of that incident.
It is unfortunate that you have allowed this alleged incident to drive you into the same anti-male camp as Robin Morgan and Susan Brownmiller. But once you have crossed the line into abject hatred, Malvolio, you lose the audience's sympathy. And there is nothing in your life that makes it right for you to hate men because they are men.

If you really do think that Andy's and my opinions are equally hostile and offensive, I would point out that you are minimizing Andy's rage, and maximizing my irritation. And I won't apologize for being irritated, either.
(And on a previous episode of "Margin:")
Of course, who better to judge events of my life than a raving woman-hater. Still no cite, I see, just more paranoid bitching. You know, guys like you who believe in feminist conspiracies are the reason feminists have such a bad opinion of men. You're nuts. ... Cite, please? It's not going to go away. I'm just going to ignore your raving, because you basically say the same damned thing over and over again: "FEMINISTS ARE EVIL BITCHES WHO HATE MEN." Yawn.

We'll leave it to the readers to interpret who is displaying rage here.

Men like Andy have not done a damned thing for women like me, and I owe him absolutely fucking nothing.
Actually, Marge N., you owe me and everyone else the right to be free of job discrimination. And since you're not likely to proffer it willingly, we will have to insist. You also owe it to me to see me as a human being rather than as the rapist-oppressor stereotype that feminists have used against all men -- stereotypes that you yourself defend.

I'd like to close with Robin Morgan's quote on man-hating and ask you once again to condemn it. Please note that we men did not dream up this anti-male hatred displayed by such feminists.
"I feel that "man-hating" is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." Robin Morgan

Also, that more violence against men---and damage---is done by other men so why is it that supposed mens' rights advocates only want to blame and discuss women who do it?
Cite please?
I would hazard a guess that it has to do with feminists attempting to demonize men on the issue. Whenever I read about a feminist-sponsored march or other event against domestic violence, I have noted that they mention only female victims, and only females who are victims of men. Prove me wrong and show me a feminist organization that lists male victims like Phil Hartman in its listings of domestic violence victims.

(originally posted by Biggirl)
Yes, I do tend to believe what people do. Like lobby for reproduction rights, educate on domestic violence and offer good affordable medical care. That's what the feminist organizations I posted about do.
Actually, they don't. None of those organizations support reproductive rights for fathers, do they? Nor do they educate people about domestic violence. Rather, they use domestic violence for propaganda purposes. Not so? You can refute that simply by showing that any of those organizations educate the public about domestic violence committed by women. This is a broad area, so you can show us if they educate the public about the following topics:

violence committed by women against men
violence committed by women against women
violence committed by women against children.

My bet -- and feel free to prove me wrong -- is that these groups discuss only violence by men against women. Hence they are not truly educating the public about domestic violence: they are politicizing a distorted picture of the issue. This distortion comes down to the basic message that women are innocent and men are evil. You can prove me wrong on this by showing me where those groups educated the public on violent acts committed by women.

As for providing good, affordable medical care, please prove me wrong by showing me where any of those groups lobby for equal medical care for men. Or are they demanding more of our resources go to women's health issues even though women live longer than men?

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by catsix
If feminism were all about equality, the leading feminist 'scholars' wouldn't be using terms like 'testosterone poisoning' and threatening the hell out of people like Erin Pizzey (who fights against all domestic violence)
Quite true. I remember reading about Pizzey. In her research, she found that a number of women who claimed to be victims of domestic violence were themselves violent people. And because she broke this little secret she has been threatened with violence by other feminists -- y'know, the ones who are so opposed to violence and all. Perhaps someone can provide a cite to that, as I am quoting from memory.

I believe that feminists mounted a campaign to suppress her workds and keep it off library shelves. It apparently has been quite successful. However, you can read it online. (http://www.bennett.com/ptv/index.shtml)

Men 'like Andy' don't bitch about women who are willing to earn their own way in life.
Precisely, especially because my own mother was a single, working mother.

What I do object to are feminists who feel they have a grievance against the entire male populace, or that men somehow "owe" women because of our original sin of being born male. Also, I more than object to feminists who get their feelings hurt in some situation and decide they are entitled to restitution from and revenge against all men. I react to being hated pretty much as any other person would.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by Malacandra
Also, if you're going to sniffily argue that SAL's views are down to a divorce he's bitter about ...
I just wanted to add a clarification that this is something Margin made up, not anything I said. Just fer the record.

[Malacandra]

margin, you said that feminists make abortion rights a key plank of their policy because abortion is a necessary part of a woman's ability to control her fertility, which is itself necessary in order for women to gain their other rights. Therefore the right to abortion is asserted simply by virtue of the reason why you want it, and any other rights and wrongs are mere side issues (though you assure me, comfortingly, that they would not be taken lightly). Therefore "If I don't want it here and now, I want the right to kill it" is an accurate statement of the position, although it is not a direct quote (and I didn't claim it was one). I only remark that it doesn't sound so pretty to phrase it that way, and wouldn't make much of a marching song.

As to SAL, I don't know him from a hole in the ground and I don't, off-hand, remember any time I've addressed him directly, though I may have.

But I'll do so now: When margin claimed that most violence is male-on-male, she was right. Just not domestic violence, and I don't think she claimed it was. Most violence is extra-mural, between men aged 20 +-5 years - and, of course, women are comparatively seldom the victims of violence outside the home, though anyone would be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

I seem to remember that Pizzey found that more than 60% of the women turning up in her refuge were as violent as the men they were leaving. Taken with the violent women who weren't going to be turning up, because of not having a violent male partner to run away from... And yes, I've heard the death-threat stories too, although here in Websense Hell I ain't going to be able to search for them, I shouldn't think.

Oh, and margin - Sarcasm is my friend? :D :D :D :D :D :rolleyes:

You ask (paraphrased): "If domestic violence against men is such an issue, why aren't men doing more about it?". Well, that is the question. Possibly because there isn't a men's movement comparable to feminism that aims at supporting men qua men, advancing the rights of men, raising the profile of downtrodden men, or even (dare I say it) exaggerating the extent of the downtreading. Possibly because of the very successful representation of domestic violence as an evil solely perpetrated by men upon women - certainly whenever I see anything in the media about it, the "picture posed by models" invariably features a filthy-tempered brute of a man lashing out at a cringing, inoffensive woman. *shrug* It's a complex question. What's your explanation?

[Biggirl]

Originally posted by Malacandra
margin, the point I was making to Biggirl was that caricaturization cuts both ways. Arguing that men who are opposed to the worst excesses of feminism are fuelled by terror and paranoia is no more logical than arguing that feminists themselves are driven by the kind of fears I allude to. Possibly less, as feminists, even not the extremists who advocate refusing to bear male infants, are very vociferous in arguing that both rape and domestic violence are practically universal and tacitly supported by all men. Not so much fuelled by fear and paranoia as doing all they can to fan the flames, I'd say.



I was not characterizing men who are opposed to the worst aspects of feminism in any way at all. I was making fun of SAL specifically.

Also, I take exception to the way he and good ole Rush take the extreme fringe of the feminist movement and use it to describe all feminists. Something that Rush is apparently lying his way away from as I noted earlier. (Note his characterization of NOW as a bunch of Feminazis and his new definition of a Feminazi as just 12 or so extremists). A tact his dittoheads do not seem to be following (note Shodan's explanation of a Feminazi as a feminist who think reproduction rights are one of, if not the most, important issue facing feminists today.

This is the reason why most women who believe in reproduction rights and equal rights do not self-identify as feminist-- not because the extremist feminists have taken over the movement (see the links I've provided to actual feminist organizations) but because the right has redefined feminism to mean: Those crazy bitches who hate men and want to kill them all.

[Shodan]

Also, I take exception to the way he and good ole Rush take the extreme fringe of the feminist movement and use it to describe all feminists. Something that Rush is apparently lying his way away from as I noted earlier. (Note his characterization of NOW as a bunch of Feminazis and his new definition of a Feminazi as just 12 or so extremists). A tact his dittoheads do not seem to be following (note Shodan's explanation of a Feminazi as a feminist who think reproduction rights are one of, if not the most, important issue facing feminists today.
It sounds like you are trying to have it both ways.

First you condemn Rush for characterizing all feminists based on what the fringe elements say. Then you argue that the position that abortion is the most important issue around is a mainstream feminist position.

The definition of Femi-nazi as "a feminist who thinks abortion is the most important issue" is not mine, it is Rush's. Your cites seem to show that he was entirely correct in characterizing it as the position of NOW and the other organizations you cite.

Heck, read your own quote and see what you mention first as the determinants of feminism:
This is the reason why most women who believe in reproduction rights and equal rights do not self-identify as feminist-- not because the extremist feminists have taken over the movement (see the links I've provided to actual feminist organizations) but because the right has redefined feminism to mean: Those crazy bitches who hate men and want to kill them all. And I believe you are probably incorrect about why women are reluctant nowadays to identify as feminist.

There an element of "crazy bitches who hate men and want to kill them" in the modern feminist movement, and they have a disproportionate voice in many feminist organizations and feminist rhetoric. And the failure of mainstream feminists to renounce that element alienates many women who do not see any reason to proactively hate or preemptively judge the men in their lives as evil oppressors. When you add to that the increasing tendency to make support for abortion the be-all and end-all of political discussion (as pointed out by Rush Limbaugh), you begin alienating the substantial numbers of women who are not so reflexively pro-abortion.

Then, as the US moves further to the right (as witnessed by the elections of the post-Clinton era), and NOW and other feminist organizations move further to the left, you alienate still more women. And the persistent man-bashing and dishonest use of statistics and issues mentioned by SAL alienates even men of good will, who have no desire to keep women down, but also no desire to be kept down themselves. Even the most sensitive, caring, feminist male on earth gets tired of being blamed every time some East Coast extremist doesn't get what she wants.

Which accounts for the common formulation "I am in favor of equal rights, but I am not a feminist" we have heard from catsix and others. People have come to understand that "feminism" doesn't mean what it used to - and this is not because of characterization by the Right. It is based on what comes out of Ms. Magazine and NOW - those who have set themselves up as the Voice of Modern Feminism.

Feminism used to be support for equal rights for women. Now it means support for almost every crackpot notion the limousine liberals in NYC and LA can come up with. And the stridency with which any hint of disagreement is attacked leads Rush to label them as "feminazis".

The label wouldn't stick if it didn't have a certain resonance.

If you want to say Rush is lying because he said there were only a dozen feminazis, and you are arguing "No, we all are", fine. But I don't think it helps your argument.

Regards,
Shodan

[margin]

Catsix:

And what about the men who get abused, mugged, beaten, attacked, raped and murdered? What about 'lower class' men? You, margin, are the kind of person that is the reason I will never claim to be a feminist. Because feminism is a culture of fear and hatred of all things male.


If feminism were all about equality, the leading feminist 'scholars' wouldn't be using terms like 'testosterone poisoning' and threatening the hell out of people like Erin Pizzey (who fights against all domestic violence) and Christina Hoff Somers whose research has proven that girls are out-classing boys every day in language and reading skills and are rapidly vanishing any gap that existed in maths and sciences.

Please provide a cite for Robin Morgan's being threatened. And Chirstina Hoff-Summers----sweetie, you just lost whatever credibility you had with regard to feminists. She's widely regarded as anti-feminist who doesn't let facts get in the way of feminist-bashing. What next? Kate Roiphe? CAmille Paglia? Phyllis Schlafly? Elaine Donnelly?

Uh, yeah. Got a cite for the hatred and fear? Because thus far all I've seen in this thread is paranoid ranting. If I ever thought that feminism was unnecessary, this thread indictes otherwise.

Some of the frequent themes of feminist utopian fiction are societies in which men have either died out, have never existed, or live separately from woman, who are the narrative focus.


Uh, yeah, and I'm supposed to care because...why?


Me: His (Andy's) personal experiences lead him to make accusations that feminists---he didn't qualify that to 'only the extreme ones when he did that bullet list-----want to kill off the male half of the speices.


Bolding mine. And here's the actual quote. "Do you think feminism advocates civil rights? Well, there are so many areas in which feminism opposes the rights of men that I doubt I could list them all, but for starters:"

Gee, I don't see a qualifier before 'feminism' so it becomes a general statement of feminist purpose. Try again, sweetie.


Another outright lie. You have yourself pasted and reprinted that bulletted list, and it contains nothing like that. You have made this lie several times.
This is my first warning before I report you as a troll. I have repeatedly asked you which items you would like a cite for. I am not about to let you scream "cite" in blanket fashion. I will not provide you with a cite, for example, for the existence of affirmative action. Its existence is common knowledge. Demanding a cite for common knowledge, making posts of nothing more than "cite?" for an entire post, ignoring offered citations and continuing to scream "cite," and refusing to specify what parts you wish citations for are all trollish behavior. So are outright lies purporting to be quotes of what another poster has said.


Do you think feminism advocates civil rights? Well, there are so many areas in which feminism opposes the rights of men that I doubt I could list them all, but for starters:



Opposes men's rights to due process by insisting that men ought to be fired solely on a woman's claim that he harassed her.

Opposes fathers' rights to visitation and custody.

Opposes men's rights to defend themselves against rape accusations via the establishment of so-called "rape shield laws" that rule out evidence contradicting the accusation.

Opposes free speech by advocating various speech codes that apply to men but not to women.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating programs that would exclude men from their benefits.

Opposes men's equal rights to higher education via affirmative action, quotas, women-only scholarships, etc., with men now becoming the minority on campus.

Opposes the idea that women's lives and men's lives are of equal worth.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating laws that protect women but not men or give women a far higher level of protection than men.

Feminism used to be support for equal rights for women. Now it means support for almost every crackpot notion the limousine liberals in NYC and LA can come up with. And the stridency with which any hint of disagreement is attacked leads Rush to label them as "feminazis".

The label wouldn't stick if it didn't have a certain resonance.

Any bigoted label that reduces people to charactitures is going to have resonance with people who want to perpetuate stereotypes. Frankly, I get to refer back to this thread from now on any time somebody tries to tell me there's no need for feminism.

I t is unfortunate that you have allowed this alleged incident to drive you into the same anti-male camp as Robin Morgan and Susan Brownmiller. But once you have crossed the line into abject hatred, Malvolio, you lose the audience's sympathy. And there is nothing in your life that makes it right for you to hate men because they are men.

God, Andy, sometimes you're just laugh-out-loud funny. You think I hate you because you're a man?

Who said you were a man? If you were a man, you'd be honest. Not this dancing around shit, which is what you've done since this topic opened.

Give me a cite for where I quoted you above, or go away.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by margin

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If feminism were all about equality, the leading feminist 'scholars' wouldn't be using terms like 'testosterone poisoning' and threatening the hell out of people like Erin Pizzey (who fights against all domestic violence) and Christina Hoff Somers whose research has proven that girls are out-classing boys every day in language and reading skills and are rapidly vanishing any gap that existed in maths and sciences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please provide a cite for Robin Morgan's being threatened.
I don't see her name listed in your cut and paste.
Originally posted by margin

And Chirstina Hoff-Summers----sweetie, you just lost whatever credibility you had with regard to feminists. She's widely regarded as anti-feminist who doesn't let facts get in the way of feminist-bashing.
Please provide cites showing that she is "widely regarded" as you characterize her, and showing that she is knowingly ignoring facts.

Sweetie.

Originally posted by margin

If you were a man, you'd be honest.
Women are dishonest? Wow.
Originally posted by margin

Give me a cite for where I quoted you above, or go away. Indeed.

Regards,
Shodan

[margin]

Uh, Shodan, I've been asking Andy for a cite for two pages. Until he provides me with what I've asked, demanding one of me while ignoring his refusal indicates a certain.....let's see. One standard for Andy, another for me? Hm, what could that be?

Also, I meant Erin Pizzey instead of Robin Morgan. Obviously there's some deep dark significance to that, though.

If Andy claims he's hated because he's a man, he needs to start standing up and acting like one. I've met lots of boys who whine and bitch, but the men I've met have been notable for their honesty and other adult charactaristics. All Andy's done has been rant and bitch and make accusations. Funnily enough, though, his defenders aren't bothered by that at all.

[catsix]

margin said:
Please provide a cite for Robin Morgan's being threatened.

Right after you provide me a cite in which I said Robin Morgan was threatened.

And Chirstina Hoff-Summers----sweetie, you just lost whatever credibility you had with regard to feminists. She's widely regarded as anti-feminist who doesn't let facts get in the way of feminist-bashing.

Then please show us a credible refutation of Hoff-Sommers's research. I know what she's 'regarded as' by the feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon. What I have yet to see is them disprove any of her research. Hating Hoff-Sommers because she doesn't toe the Dworkinite feminist line does not make Hoff-Sommers incorect.

Because thus far all I've seen in this thread is paranoid ranting.

You mean the stuff about how men like Andy are out to get you and how men like him cost you your job?

Having talked to feminists who are afraid to go outdoors after dark because there are men out there who might rape and kill them, who will actually shout 'No!' at any man who makes eye contact with them on a sidewalk, or like Catharine MacKinnon handing them some kind of business card with a 'You don't have the right to look at me.' message on it?

Gee, I don't see a qualifier before 'feminism' so it becomes a general statement of feminist purpose.

And what about the statement that "Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" from Brownmiller?

How about Germain Greer: "I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I'm concerned, men are the product of a damanged gene."?

Of course, you will blindly ignore this as you have every other cite of prominent feiminist leaders of the feminist movement saying things that are full of hatred and fear of men. You are nothing if not consistent.

Who said you were a man? If you were a man, you'd be honest. Not this dancing around shit, which is what you've done since this topic opened.

So are you telling us that it's because you're a woman that you dance around the cites, covering your ears and howling 'I haven't seen any proof?'

Is it because one has to be male to be honest?

[margin]

" Is it because one has to be male to be honest?"

There's a difference between being male and being a man.

I'll provide a cite when Andy does, sweetie. Nice of you to hold two different people to two different standards, though. And I have to say, it's just incredibly amusing to watch you get all literal-minded over the Robin Morgan thing.

What I have yet to see is them disprove any of her research. Hating Hoff-Sommers because she doesn't toe the Dworkinite feminist line does not make Hoff-Sommers

Heh. Those jackbooted feminists strike again! And oh my goodness, here we have unnamed feminists who are afraid to go out of doors! Why, someone who uses Christina Hoff-Summers and defends Andy just must be fair! Especially when they say stuff like this:

You mean the stuff about how men like Andy are out to get you and how men like him cost you your job?

Gee, I'm sure incredibly sexist guys just love working with feminists who call them on their bullshit. I'm just sure of it. Along with their little female cheerleaders.

[cowgirl]

Abortion as the most important issue:

Food is very important to me. I need it, every day. If I don't have it, I will die. It is absolutely vital to my life. Crucial.

BUT, if you can imagine, it is not the most important issue to me. It is important, yes, but it would be a gross mischaracterization of that opinion to say that it is the most important issue to me.

Abortion is kind of the same thing. If you say "Abortion is the most important issue for feminists/feminazis (whatever) it is a similar mischaracterization: it is important, yes, but not something that most feminists obsess over night and day, not something that defines their life or their political views. It is very, very important to feminists like me. No question. I am vehemently, passionately pro-choice. I can't imagine anyone more pro-choce than me (although many are no doubt equal).

But how often does this come up in my life?

Answer: Pretty much exclusively on the Straight Dope. If you knew me IRL you would probably have no idea about the extent of my pro-choice views. I have never been to a demonstration on the subject. I have never participated in debates (again, excluding the SDMB). I have never lobbied the government. I have never joined any groups. If you asked any one of my friends/relations/enemies/adversaries/colleagues - any one at all - what the most important thing in my life was, not a single one would say "Abortion rights." Zero. And I know a whole lot of feminists, and you couldn't say that abortion is the most important thing to any of them. So please stop saying that !

Furthermore:

All this crap about using prominent feiminist leaders of the feminist movement to condemn "feminism" is bad rhetoric. You could make any argument about any topic in this manner. (Americans are bigots. Just look at the KKK ! They're fundies too - check this quote from Pat Robertson! And violent - oh my, look at the murder rate ! --> this strategy is laughable in other contexts. And yet acceptible here. Hm.)

No one has to prove that Germaine Greer is wrong. No one has to prove that she's an idiot. No one needs to provide any cites to counter that BS. What you need to do, if you want to describe "feminism" or "feminists," is prove that there is unity among them and that they all share the opinion that you do.

Imagine this, if you can: an ordinary woman who describes herself as feminist, and who disagrees with Germaine Greer when she says men are caused by a damaged gene.

What does that mean? Well, it means that "feminists" don't think that men were caused by a damaged gene, for starters, ("some feminists" does not equal "feminists" - you have to be quite clear about these things) and to suggest that just because I identify myself with the same label as her means I endorse everything she says, is shoddy reasoning. Very shoddy.

Do you agree with everyone either completely or not at all? Are there no shades of grey in your world?

[Malacandra]

Here's your Erin Pizzey cite, morgan. Enjoy. (http://www.menweb.org/pizzey.htm)

"There are as many violent women as men, but there's a lot of money in hating men, particularly in the United States -- millions of dollars. It isn't a politically good idea to threaten the huge budgets for women's refuges by saying that some of the women who go into them aren't total victims."
-- Erin Pizzey

[Krisfer the Cat]

All I gotta say about this thread is I REALLY, REALLY want to go screw the daylights outta my hubby! Yeah, bring on that nasty, violent penetrative sex!:D

[Beagle]

My wife watches football more than I do. That's a great way to turn the tables on men, by the way. If your wife starts telling you about the injuries on the team your favorite team is going to play next week, the power balance has shifted in a very subtle but important way.

If, OTOH, you switch to Trading Spaces in the middle of the playoffs. Well, watch your back. Trixie is movin in.

Yes, it's all about football.

Here, crush up this oxycontin. That should clear things up.

[catsix]

I'll provide a cite when Andy does, sweetie. Nice of you to hold two different people to two different standards, though. And I have to say, it's just incredibly amusing to watch you get all literal-minded over the Robin Morgan thing.

First off, I'm not your 'sweetie'. Second, Andy has already provided actual quotes from leaders in the feminist movement and prominent feminist authors to back up his opinion of feminism. Third, you're the one who fucked up, and you didn't admit to it until it was pointed out to you that you had put words in my mouth. I responded to what you said because, get this, I'm not a fucking mind reader.

Heh. Those jackbooted feminists strike again! And oh my goodness, here we have unnamed feminists who are afraid to go out of doors! Why, someone who uses Christina Hoff-Summers and defends Andy just must be fair! Especially when they say stuff like this:

I'd recommend that you go talk to them yourself if it weren't a matter of inter-message-board-war starting. Course, you're a big girl, go do a websearch for feminist message boards and I'm sure you'll find lots of 'feminists' discussing how afraid they are to go outside alone.

Gee, I'm sure incredibly sexist guys just love working with feminists who call them on their bullshit. I'm just sure of it. Along with their little female cheerleaders.

Andy seems like the kind of person who treats people the same whether they have a dick or not, which is of course totally contrary to your 'I've got a vagina, so you big bad men owe me something' chip upon your shoulder.

I really doubt Andy would have a problem with it if called on bullshit he actually committed rather than just having you rant and wail at him because he's male and therefore automatically a guilty son of a bitch who owes you something.

"As a sex, we are vastly superior to men, but it is taboo to show it." -Kate Saudners, Feminist Author, The Sunday Times, July 16, 1995.

Definitions... MAN: An obsolete life form, an ordinary creature who needs to be watched, a contradictory baby-man; MISANDRY: A refusal to suppress the evidence of one's experience with men, A woman's defense against fear and pain, An affirmation of the cathartic effects of justifiable anger; STRANGERS: Unknowns who, if male, are not to be trusted. Knowns are not to be trusted either; TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... Until now it has been thought that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning."

Kramarae and Treichler, A Feminist Dictionary 1985

In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent

Catharine MacKinnon, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, pg 129

How many prominent feminists who lead the feminist movement have to be quoted? These are the people that the Campus Women's Organization, that NOW, that Ms. Magazine readers and editors and writers follow, whose words they quote, whose books they read, and whose ideals they hold.

And it's a long tired argument to say 'you can't criticize feminism because not all of them are like that.' Not all KKK members burn crosses, either, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the KKK movement as a whole.

Feminism is screwed, and its self professed leaders got it there.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by catsix

How many prominent feminists who lead the feminist movement have to be quoted?


If you could come up with one, that would be a good beginning.

I mean, MacKinnon? Please. Her name always gets trotted out in debates like this, but I have yet to meet any feminist of any stripe who actually thinks very well of her. She certainly doesn't "lead the feminist movement". MacKinnon owes her high profile to the fact that she tends to say weird and controversial things, and anti-feminists love to quote her (often out of context) because of it.

I'm sure she must have her fans, but I have never met one. The closest I've heard to support for her among feminists is "yeah, she's pretty wacky, but not really as bad as the right-wingers would have you believe" or "some of her ideas are interesting, but she really goes too far". If the opposing side didn't give her so much attention, I think MacKinnon and her work would be almost completely unknown. Several of the other names mentioned are women I haven't even heard of, so I suspect they're also far more important to anti-feminists than feminists. Many of the women quoted here certainly are not


the people that the Campus Women's Organization, that NOW, that Ms. Magazine readers and editors and writers follow, whose words they quote, whose books they read, and whose ideals they hold.

If they were, I would know about it.

[margin]

Macalandra, so? She says that 'there are as many violent women in the US as there are men,' but who cares? She doesn't live or work here. I'll check out the link later, though. I have to go count up all the names Andy is using that being with "M". Poor dear, he's obviously hoping to keep track of the voices in his head by giving them names. If he doesn't use my name, he's shit out of luck.

catsix, sweetie, until Andy provides a cite for his shit, and until you get a clue about the fact that he's not providing a cite, why, yes, indeed, you are a sweetie.

First off, I'm not your 'sweetie'. Second, Andy has already provided actual quotes from leaders in the feminist movement and prominent feminist authors to back up his opinion of feminism. Third, you're the one who fucked up, and you didn't admit to it until it was pointed out to you that you had put words in my mouth. I responded to what you said because, get this, I'm not a fucking mind reader.

Snerk. See Cowgirl's post above.

[Shodan]

catsix, sweetie, until Andy provides a cite for his shit, and until you get a clue about the fact that he's not providing a cite, why, yes, indeed, you are a sweetie.
Actually, SAL and others have provided dozens of cites, ranging from quotes from prominent feminists to utopian fiction. You have not.

So let's see the evidence for your position.

Unless, as SAL seems to have noticed much earlier in this thread, you don't really intend to debate in good faith.

Andy is backing his shit up. You are not.

Regards,
Shodan

[margin]

Andy's backing his shit up? Really? Please explain to me what ficiton has to do with proving his claims in the bulleted list. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

Uh, prominant feminists? Uh, yeah. Gee, Shodan, it almost seems like you're reading just one side. Love it the way you ignore Andy's nazi imagery, too. "Final Solution"?

Yeah, on second thought, whatever to you, too. I used to think that feminism was too radical. After watching Andy's antics on this thread---and those of his equally blind supporters---I can only conclude that I was far too moderate. Congratulations!

[Shodan]

I didn't think so.

Yeah, on second thought, whatever to you, too. I used to think that feminism was too radical. After watching Andy's antics on this thread---and those of his equally blind supporters---I can only conclude that I was far too moderate. Congratulations!
Unfortunately, the kind of nonsense you have been spewing is a big part of what moderate people object to in modern feminism - dishonesty, inability to defend a position rationally, ad hominem attacks on the hated male, etc.

And, since you expect to be doing even more of this as you move away from moderation, the "feminazi" term becomes more and more appropriate.

So I guess we have answered the question of the thread title at last.

Regards,
Shodan

[margin]

Shodan, you've all too adequately demonstrated that nothing, absolutely nothing would make you see what Andy's spewing for what it is.

I love guys who persist in ignoring the ranting of hateful men but are exquisately sensitive to any reaction of women to the crap that trolls like Andy spew. Then comes out the cries of 'male-bashing!' and 'man-hater.'

If Andy were ranting about the Blood Libel---although he came close with that Final Solution remark----or Nat Turner, if people would see him for what he is.

[CanvasShoes]

Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
OK, I've got no dog in this fight at all, okay.

So someone just tell me what the hell that 'sign' thing means, will you? I don't get that at all.

Me three! I don't recall having heard of anything about signs.

Are they talking about the symbols for male and female???? Or some other kind of sign.

As far as "what is a feminazi" I don't have any cites, but I've had several people in debates (on other boards) accuse women of being one because they:

Wanted the right to choose who do date (this from a few self proclaimed "nice guys" who insisted that most if not all young women PURPOSELY dated "bad boys" in order to put down and hurt nerdy nice guys).
Insisted that they knew their own minds and didnt' need to be "little womaned".
Believed in the right to choose.
Had an opinion on anything outside of the kitchen or bedroom....

Etc.

So, whoever was chastizing the OP for not providing a cite. Heck, if he/she has heard it used as such by various other people, whether or not he/she was trying to be a smart aleck or whatever, why CAN'T the OP ask "the way I've heard it used IRL" and the like without having to provide a cite"???

How do you provide a cite for your assholish ex-coworker who used to point and say "FEMINAZI"!! as an example of how you've heard the word used?

At any rate, they way I've heard it used in conversation it seems as if it's been relegated to the status of let's use this word to mean whenever we think women aren't "staying in their place".

[margin]

The thing is, we branched off into whether or not you're right---Andy claims that he's using 'nazi' version only to mean extreme feminists, but he came up with thirty-year-old quotes, and a list of bullet statements that he claims are the objectives of feminism. He's repeatedly refused to provide a cite for those statements. Now he's claiiming that feminist Utopian fiction wants men dead, and---in a thread in Cafe Society---that I didn't know that this type of fiction existed.

Andy claims that feminism is devoted to certain objectives. He won't provide a cite for where he got those, probably because he got them from one of those scary websites. If he can't prove that feminists actually desire this stuff, he's stereotyping and sexist. And his little buddies are incapable of seeing that. So there you go.

FWIW, the guys I've seen in real life who were as vehement in their mysogyny as Andy were the guys who had the least experience with women. And let's be honest. There's no way I believe that Andy limits his bile to just feminists.

[CanvasShoes]

Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious
(disclaimer at bottom*)

Feminism:

Opposes men's rights to due process by insisting that men ought to be fired solely on a woman's claim that he harassed her. This was part of the campaign whose slogan was "women do not lie about these things." California Rep. Dellums even tried to pass a law requiring companies to fire men solely on a woman's accusation of sexual harassment. (Historically, feminists dropped the "women do not lie about these things" about the time some of their patron politicians were accused of harassment.)
Where does it do this? I believe that THIS is the reason people keep asking you for cites.

You're saying the above happens, but not providing any cites for it.

I think you're a perfect example of why the OP asked the question (however he may have MEANT it to be inflammatory) what is feminazism.

You're describing extreme acts and attitudes. There are 6 billion people in the world. Roughly half of whom are female. Likely millions are some shade of feminist.

Most are of the "gender equality" type. You however, are using the extremist examples to paint an IDEA (which is all feminism is) with one broad brush.

Do you truly think that those women who treat men badly did not ALSO do that well before feminism was ever introduced to modern society, or thought of?

Hell no. If a woman, or women are determined to be nasty, vengeful little troublemakers. then that IS what they will be (same with men, if they want to cause trouble, they will). Those types of people aren't being that way because feminism somehow magically made them that way.....

That they label themselves "feminists" doesn't mean that the concept is a wrong one. It means that those who have decided to behave in an evil way simply decided to use that as their vehicle.

Opposes free speech by advocating various speech codes that apply to men but not to women. Read any speech code and note how it is enforced. Also, the so-called "hostile working environment" laws.
What in tarnation are you talking about here??? Speech codes? Again, THIS is what people are talking about. Please provide a cite and example for what you mean. You simply stating that these so-called "speech codes" exist (no matter HOW many times you keep providing the above and thinking it's a "cite") is NOT a cite.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating programs that would exclude men from their benefits. Note any man who has been refused service at a domestic violence center because they don't take men.
Such as? No, I haven't noted any man who has been refused service at a domestic violence center. Has it happened? Possibly, but UNTIL YOU PROVIDE an ACTUAL CITE, how are we supposed to know?

Opposes men's equal rights to higher education via affirmative action, quotas, women-only scholarships, etc., with men now becoming the minority on campus. (Do you need a cite for the existence of affirmative action?)
No, but we need a cite showing that the presence of affirmative action somehow has vastly reduced the number of men on college campuses. If you truly believe that, I want some of what YOU'RE smokin!!!

Opposes the idea that women's lives and men's lives are of equal worth. This is seen in slogans such as "violence against women is always wrong," with the unspoken corrolary that violence against men is just fine. Also, although women live about seven years longer than men, feminist organizations demand we channel more and more of our resources into women's health -- including quality of life issues.
?????????? The slogan (which I haven't seen) "violence against women is always wrong" is translated by you to conversely mean "violence against men on the other hand is okay"???

Sweetie? You've got issues.

You're from UK right? I don't know anything about your medical establishment, but here, women's health issues have historically gotten little attention in the "it's all in your pretty little head" way of dealing with things. The push to channel resources into women's health issues has been to bring it UP TO what men have, NOT to surpass and leave men in the dust.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating laws that protect women but not men or give women a far higher level of protection than men. For example, a woman can call a man a "prick" or an "asshole" and not violate hostile-work-environment laws or speech codes, where a man could be punished for call her a similar obscenity.
? And this would be practiced where? I've been in the corporate world for a LOOONG time. And been to many long boring and mandatory "Sexual Harrassment" training sessions.

NO sexual harrassment is okay, ever according the the dozens of the darn things I've been to. Again, cite?

Providing an accusation, but not backing it up with actual references is NOT "providing a cite".

Finally, there is the anti-domestic violence act that Congress past, which provides women with protections it does not afford men. Also, the law often uses a highly relative standard called the "reasonable woman" and "reasonable man" standards, which basically come down to the idea that a reasonable woman has grounds for finding a lot more things offensive (and hence actionable) than a reasonable man. A man commenting about a woman's weight is subject to sexual-harassment and hostie-work-environment laws, no matter how innocently it was intended, whereas a woman could denigrate a man on the same grounds and face no sanctions. Feminists have promoted the standard that "if you feel harassed, you are," which, of course, they don't extend to men.
????? I haven't seen this act, so unless you provide the actual act, no one can know if that is, in fact the intent of it. In other words. CITE?

Opposes fathers' rights to visitation and custody. In particular, NOW has not only opposed fathers' custody but has attempted to portray it as an act of abuse when men seek custody.


NOW's 1996 National Conference Resolutions (http://www.now.org/organization/conference/1996/resoluti.html)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW ACTION ALERT ON "FATHERS' RIGHTS"
.................................[/quote]
Okay NOW I see how you're getting confused (though not why you refuse to provide cites as requested).

You're equating feminism with NOW and actual feminazis (remember them? The subject of the OP???).

Someone's wonderful analogy of (sorry paraphrased and likely butchered):...........

"The Black Panthers, etc are NOT equivalent to the civil rights movement"

.....Is a very apt one.

NOW does not speak for all feminists or women. NOW leaders do NOT even speak for all NOW members.

Now, the disclaimer. When some answers a lengthy post with nothing more than a demand for a cite, it's usually regarded as trollish behavior or stupidity. I won't guess which are at work with you. But all the topics mentioned here are known to anyone who has paid cursory attention, so demanding cites for matters of common knowledge displays an undue fondness for grade-school Usenet wars. Grow up, Margin. Especially egregious is you demanding a cite for NOW's anti-father initiatives because we have already discussed this on a different thread. If that doesn't border on trolling, I don't know what does.
I think she/he requested cites because what you've provided so far, while perhaps well written, or whatever, it still, does NOT consistute an actual reference of any kind supporting your assertion that feminists = man hater/basher etc.

In sum, this poster is not responsible for readers who have their heads either in the sand or up their arses. When troubleshooting your "cite" reflex, please first check that your head in upright and in the proper position. [/B]
Well then, my requests for specific cites to what are merely your OPINIONS should fit your demand for what constitues a reasonable cry of "cite" then.

[catsix]

I see that the feminists in this thread are going to be just like the feminists on a certain other messageboard and ignore the cites and information staring them in the face, the cites that Andy and I and others have provided showing that the feminists whose names are bandied about on the news and in women's studies classes every day (where the hell do you people think I heard the names Andrea Dworkin, Robin Morgan, Gloria Steinem, Germain Greer, Susan Brownmiller, etc for the first time anyway? From the god damn tv news and my feminist college professors who spouted the tripe that came from those anti-male bigots as if it were fucking gospel) Feminists don't seem to want to participate in fair debate regarding the positions that the political movement of feminism actually holds because they know that if their leaders were looked at objectively, they'd come off as misandrist hate-mongers. And so instead we have this typical dishonesty, trying to patronize the opponent (by demeaning them with child names like 'sweetie'), repeatedly ignoring the facts presented to them, and bleating that constant wail 'but feminism isn't monolithic, so you can't criticize it. The last time I got that argument, at that other board, I responded by saying that if feminism's not monolithic, that means I can be for 100% equal treatment under the law and be a feminist. Instead I was told I had no right to define what feminism was, called a misogynist, and eventually banned because I was supposedly a man in disguise.

I never knew that feminists regarded equal treatment under the law as misogyny until then. I also never completely lacked respect for feminists before that.

The only difference between this message board and that other one is that over here, the tactic can't move beyond the fingers in the ears 'I can't hear you but I can scream 'Cite' all day long.' bullshit into actually banning people who provide references for the misandrist bullshit the feminist movement is.

And considering some of the things that Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton had to say, I'm not even sure I can say that it ever used to be about 'equality'.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by catsix
Feminists don't seem to want to participate in fair debate regarding the positions that the political movement of feminism actually holds because they know that if their leaders were looked at objectively, they'd come off as misandrist hate-mongers.

catsix, I am going to try to explain something to you here. I don't think you'll understand it, but I'm going to try. I sometimes amuse myself by wasting my time in such a way.

The reason why you run into problems when you attempt to debate the statements of feminist "leaders" with feminists is that feminism does not have leaders in the sense that you seem to think it does. There is no president or pope of feminism. Feminists do not hold elections and declare the winner the Grand High Queen of the Amazons. There is no individual or group of individuals who all, or even most, feminists swear allegiance to. The people you are calling feminist "leaders" are really merely famous feminists. Some of them are famous for being, to put it bluntly, nuts.

But you have decided that these women are leading the feminists of the world and you want the feminists of the world to answer for it. No wonder you haven't been happy with the quality of debate you've had with feminists. As an American, I wouldn't respond well to being called upon to answer for the actions of the current American president (who I did not vote for), and I certainly wouldn't be happy if I were expected to answer for the actions of any nutty but famous American that an anti-American person cared to name. "Bennifer" is not my fault.

If you were to simply say "Famous feminist X said this. What do other feminists think about that?" you might actually get somewhere, but "Famous feminist X said this, and she's your leader, so you all have a lot of explaining to do for the horrible thing she said!" is not going to lead to a reasonable discussion.

[CanvasShoes]

I will provide you with a cite on anything you want, if you would settle down, be specific, and stop hollering "cite" as a disruption tactic.
Well, I did just that, placed quotes of specific things you'd posted in this thread and asked for cites on them. So far you haven't addressed them.

At any rate, all your arguments are STILL against specific people who've made foolish statements. Even if there are several of them, that still, in no way, equates to "feminism" supporting those attitudes against men.

Feminism is a concept, an idea, NOT those that have made statements in the name of feminism.

[CanvasShoes]

I have. I ran into lots of them. Including a certain web Ms.tress under the employ of Ms. Magazine. Those who opposed the view that men should account for no more than 20% of the population were silenced, our views completey unwelcome by those given the authority by Ms. Magazine to be the official voice of Ms. Magazine at their website.
Warning: Huge HIJACK

GAH!! Are you serious? Sheesh, there aren't enough good and available men out there as it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CanvasShoes]

Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious
Here are some cites, as demanded, on feminist utopian fiction.


Works of fiction are not "cites". Your opinion, or your recanting of what some poor "not guilty" rapist went through is not a "cite".

A cite is either a reference from an actual study, case history, history book, law case and so on AND/OR LINKs to such references.

Again, you seem to be confusing the act of some feminazis or feminISTS, with the concept of feminism.

Your fear and paranoia is completely ungrounded in reality. Were feminists, even those (gasp) holy terrors in the so-called powerful organizations like NOW, were SO able to effect all of these changes, the 20% male population would likely be here and now.

The fact that some of the women arguing the "cause" here in this thread are saying (to keep it simple) "Feminism isn't bad" is NOT the same thing as them advocating what the fringe extremists have said.

In other words, one can be a feminist and still NOT agree with MacKinnon, or whoever was determined to have sortof made the "sex = rape" type comments.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. You're trying to make them one and the same, and they just aren't.

The basic and original (and still believed and worked for) concept of "feminism" was "equal pay for equal work, respect and decent and fair treatment".

Because, again, feminism is a CONCEPT, not a person or persons. To keep trying to wed the two is the same as trying to make like O.J Simpson represents black people.

No, he represents CRIMINALS. Just as these radical man haters represent craziness, NOT feminism.

[Gyrate]

Newsflash: Entire thread dedicated to the demonstration of the One True Scotsman fallacy. Film at 11.

P.S. I would have said that O.J. Simpson represents O.J. Simpson. Period.

[catsix]

Lamia said:
But you have decided that these women are leading the feminists of the world and you want the feminists of the world to answer for it. No wonder you haven't been happy with the quality of debate you've had with feminists.

I didn't decide this. I was told this by my raging feminist poetry, literature and anthropology professors and had it confirmed by those lovely people who are under the employ of Ms. Magazine.

CanvasShoes said:
At any rate, all your arguments are STILL against specific people who've made foolish statements. Even if there are several of them, that still, in no way, equates to "feminism" supporting those attitudes against men.

So what does it mean when large numbers of feminists attend these peoples seminars and repeat their words like gospel at rallies all over the place? The domestic violence lie about Super Bowl Sunday is repeated over and over again, along with the notion that all men are oppressors and maybe abusers every fucking year at the University of Pittsburgh Campus Women's Orgainization 'Take Back The Night' rally.

They march through the damn streets shouting a bunch of 'facts' that have been proven false and praising Dworkin, MacKinnon, et al.

In other words, one can be a feminist and still NOT agree with MacKinnon, or whoever was determined to have sortof made the "sex = rape" type comments.

Do you have any idea how far you'd get with that if you tried to tell the people over at Ms. that you're a feminist but you don't agree with MacKinnon that all women are oppressed by the patriarchy?

I can tell you from experience that you'd not be welcome there. Nor in any other feminist organization or meeting place I've ever been to.

The basic and original (and still believed and worked for) concept of "feminism" was "equal pay for equal work, respect and decent and fair treatment".

Really? I said that's what I believed in at the feminist message board, at the CWO, in my classes with feminist professors, and I was at best told I was no friend of feminism and at worst called a misogynist who either was a man or deeply wanted to be one.

There was a time when I tried to work with feminists. Then I found out how intolerant and hateful the 'idea' of feminism is. Now I'd much rather work with human-rightsists.

[margin]

Do you have any idea how far you'd get with that if you tried to tell the people over at Ms. that you're a feminist but you don't agree with MacKinnon that all women are oppressed by the patriarchy

Post a link.

[margin]

You don't need to provide that link, by the way. I did my own poking around. An anti-feminist troll named Catsix was banned from the Ms. Boards in June. Strangely enough, she often posted in conjunction with another markedly non-feminist named Shodan.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Links available upon request.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by catsix
I didn't decide this. I was told this by my raging feminist poetry, literature and anthropology professors and had it confirmed by those lovely people who are under the employ of Ms. Magazine.


All of these women told you specifically that MacKinnon, et al, are the leaders of feminism and that all the feminists of the world follow them? Uh huh. Right. Does it hurt your head to lie this much?

And by the way, "people who post on the Ms. message board" are no more in "under the employ of Ms. Magazine" than I am in the employ of the Chicago Reader. Someone who took the posts of members of this message board to be representative of the views of employees of the Chicago Reader or Chicagoans in general would be a damn fool.

[Malacandra]

Oh, margin? I cannot but notice that since you asked for a cite on the Pizzey story - you know, the one about how she received death threats against her and her children from feminists for daring to state that in her experience women had as much propensity for domestic violence as men did - and since I provided you with one, you've gone awfully quiet on the subject.

There's not a lot of point in demanding cites if you're not going to read them, now is there?

Also, margin, concerning Catsix's banning from the Ms boards - I don't think you're telling us anything that Catsix didn't. And can you confirm or deny her claim that she was banned for her controversial stance that not all men are evil rapist oppressors?

[Shodan]

[quote]There's not a lot of point in demanding cites if you're not going to read them, now is there?
]/quote] And, now that you have received one of the cites you clamored for, please provide cites for your claims.

Since we don't want a double standard.

Or else, by continuing to ignore requests by others for cites while using it as a major tactic of your own, show that you never intended to debate in good faith.

Regards,
Shodan

[Lamia]

Originally posted by Malacandra

Also, margin, concerning Catsix's banning from the Ms boards - I don't think you're telling us anything that Catsix didn't. And can you confirm or deny her claim that she was banned for her controversial stance that not all men are evil rapist oppressors?

She was banned for being a troll and violating their member agreement. She was lucky she wasn't banned here for her part in fueling an inter-board war, and it looks to me like she's doing her best to encourage another one now (while skating along the edge of the letter of the law by not posting direct links). I'm surprised she's so proud of her bad behavior.

I don't think it's fair to bash posters on another message board when they aren't here to defend themselves, and I would hate to see another inter-board war started by someone going over there and telling them "Hey, look what's being said about you on the SDMB!" I don't doubt that a war would result from this, because as best as I can tell from a brief visit to the Ms. forums today, catsix has mischaracterized and outright lied about them. That's the sort of thing that tends to make people angry.

While I was over there I easily turned up a lengthy recent thread in which the subject of feminist "leaders" was discussed. All quickly agreed that there is not really any such thing, although certain feminist organizations do of course have their own leaders. MacKinnon was mentioned by name as a famous feminist who isn't actually a leader. The discussion then moved on to questioning certain aspects of the feminist "party line", with posters explaining why they disagreed with certain common feminist views. Everyone seemed pretty reasonable, and no one was banned for daring to express a contrary opinion.

[catsix]

margin said:
Post a link.

Do you understand the concept of trying to avoid things that start inter-board wars? I already told you there's a very good reason I wasn't being more specific, and it's because I don't want to be responsible for a 'board war'.

Links available upon request.

I've already told you exactly what I said there, so what purpose would posting links have other than stirring up a hornet's nest of problems? It's really not a good idea, and when a problem starts because you had to go digging despite the fact that I stated over and over again a very good reason for not providing those specifics, I don't want it blamed on me. I tried to avoid a mess by not posting links.

Lamia said:
And by the way, "people who post on the Ms. message board" are no more in "under the employ of Ms. Magazine" than I am in the employ of the Chicago Reader.

No, but the moderators are. And they spoke quite freely on behalf of their employer.

Lamia said:
She was banned for being a troll and violating their member agreement. She was lucky she wasn't banned here for her part in fueling an inter-board war, and it looks to me like she's doing her best to encourage another one now (while skating along the edge of the letter of the law by not posting direct links). I'm surprised she's so proud of her bad behavior.

When did you become a moderator here? And when did you become a mind reader?

You have no place in speaking about whether I was 'lucky' not to be banned here, nor in what I'm proud of.

I don't think it's fair to bash posters on another message board when they aren't here to defend themselves, and I would hate to see another inter-board war started by someone going over there and telling them "Hey, look what's being said about you on the SDMB!" I don't doubt that a war would result from this, because as best as I can tell from a brief visit to the Ms. forums today, catsix has mischaracterized and outright lied about them. That's the sort of thing that tends to make people angry.

Yeah, and that's why I was as unspecific as possible despite the fact that margin continued to beg me for more details and links and mentioned the name of the place as an example, margin went digging and decided to offer the same links I didn't want to put up because I don't want a fucking war.

Nice effort to run me out of this thread by throwing about the 'troll' word and attempting to get the attention of the moderators of this board. I made the mistake of thinking I could go over there and post my actual real thoughts on gender equality, and my experiences in a field where most of my colleagues are men and how I've been treated. I was not the poster who linked back to this board, and had no interest then or now in a war.

That is the last I have to say on that topic.

[CanvasShoes]

Originally posted by catsix
I see that the feminists in this thread are going to be just like the feminists on a certain other messageboard and ignore the cites and information staring them in the face, the cites that Andy and I and others have provided showing that the feminists whose names are bandied about on the news and in women's studies classes every day (where the hell do you people think I heard the names Andrea Dworkin, Robin Morgan, Gloria Steinem, Germain Greer, Susan Brownmiller, etc for the first time anyway? From the god damn tv news and my feminist college professors who spouted the tripe that came from those anti-male bigots as if it were fucking gospel) Feminists don't seem to want to participate in fair debate regarding the positions that the political movement of feminism actually holds because they know that if their leaders were looked at objectively, they'd come off as misandrist hate-mongers. And so instead we have this typical dishonesty, trying to patronize the opponent (by demeaning them with child names like 'sweetie'), repeatedly ignoring the facts presented to them, and bleating that constant wail 'but feminism isn't monolithic, so you can't criticize it. The last time I got that argument, at that other board, I responded by saying that if feminism's not monolithic, that means I can be for 100% equal treatment under the law and be a feminist. Instead I was told I had no right to define what feminism was, called a misogynist, and eventually banned because I was supposedly a man in disguise. [quote]
If the word "feminist" means what the concept says it means then just about every woman in the free world is a feminist.

That is, that we believe we should be treated equally. Period.

I am defining myself as a feminist, NOT because I believe the psychotic man-bashing rantings of the few so-called "leaders" of some woman's organizations, but because that is what the definition of the concept of feminism IS. (sorry, lovely grammar, not, also, I have a brand new puppy careening around my computer room chewing, getting his neck looped around the mouse cable and dragging it off of the keyboard tray, and generally driving my adult dog nuts :D).

I think that this is what margin is trying to say too.

FTR, I take great offense at so-called feminists who try to use being a woman to "get one over on" men. Having worked in male dominated fields most of my adult working life (so far), it angers me when they try to be "equal" but too "pansy" to do the actual work, and then cry "chauvinist" when they get fired or whatever.

I also don't appreciate them (certain troll bitches from hell) using the fact that they are a woman to mean that they're some helpless hothouse rose that must be cared for for life, because they let some guy put a ring on their finger.

In my NOT so humble opinion? Guys, men, whatever, are good for one thing. Love, and companionship.

NOT "taking care of you," NOT giving you children because your biological clock is ticking, not stepping in where daddy left off.

And CERTAINLY not as a repository for the hatred brought about because of YOUR dissapointments in life.

I, not Robin whoever, and Andrea Blah Blah Blah, am the typical feminist. The outspoken psycho ones? They seem to be the majority because they are so outspoken, they're published, they're publicIZED.

[quote]I never knew that feminists regarded equal treatment under the law as misogyny until then. I also never completely lacked respect for feminists before that.
"Feminists" don't. Certain psycho people who CALL themselves feminists might, but please stop painting us all with the same brush.

The only difference between this message board and that other one is that over here, the tactic can't move beyond the fingers in the ears 'I can't hear you but I can scream 'Cite' all day long.' bullshit into actually banning people who provide references for the misandrist bullshit the feminist movement is. Again, there are millions of women who are feminists. Whether or not they actually CALL themselves that, or believe that they are. According to the original definition of the word, if a woman believes that she should get equal pay for equal work and equal treatment under the law, then she is, by defnition, a feminist.

And considering some of the things that Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton had to say, I'm not even sure I can say that it ever used to be about 'equality'.

Well then, maybe we should quit slandering "feminists" and label these man-hating, amazon wannabes with a NEW title. Because what you're saying about THAT type of "feminist" I for one, agree with.

My gripe, and my requests for cites was that I wanted proof that showed that the acts of a few "leaders" spoke for the whole "movement".

[CanvasShoes]

Originally posted by Gyrate
[b]P.S. I would have said that O.J. Simpson represents O.J. Simpson. Period.
:D True, good point!!

[CanvasShoes]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CanvasShoes said:
At any rate, all your arguments are STILL against specific people who've made foolish statements. Even if there are several of them, that still, in no way, equates to "feminism" supporting those attitudes against men.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what does it mean when large numbers of feminists attend these peoples seminars and repeat their words like gospel at rallies all over the place? The domestic violence lie about Super Bowl Sunday is repeated over and over again, along with the notion that all men are oppressors and maybe abusers every fucking year at the University of Pittsburgh Campus Women's Orgainization 'Take Back The Night' rally.
Who are you talking about? Do you actually ATTEND these "rallies all over the place"?? Or have you just only heard about them and are repeating it?

And even supposing that there were lots of rallies. Do PLEASE post a cite showing that you know that all the people attending these rallies then go about "repeating the lies over and over again". What? do you follow and record each woman who has attended a rally?

They march through the damn streets shouting a bunch of 'facts' that have been proven false and praising Dworkin, MacKinnon, et al.
Huh...Well, you obviously haven't ever been on any kind of march or rally.

I used to yell "KILL THE EAGLES (Bears, Mustangs, insert high school mascot of your choice here) along with hundreds of my classmates at high school rallies.. Sort of get caught up in the heat of the moment, you do.

I can't see how a group of college women (as someone once pointed out in this thread, frequently a very intolerant, unbendable, set in their ways age group), yelling "down with violence" says anything about them hating men etc.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, one can be a feminist and still NOT agree with MacKinnon, or whoever was determined to have sortof made the "sex = rape" type comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any idea how far you'd get with that if you tried to tell the people over at Ms. that you're a feminist but you don't agree with MacKinnon that all women are oppressed by the patriarchy?
Ah, I see, and the staff at Ms. Magazine is the be all and end all and the ultimate spokesman (snort) for what women and feminists want?

So what? That's like saying that Jenny Craig stands for what the fitness profession would like to have Americans follow for fitness.

I can tell you from experience that you'd not be welcome there. Nor in any other feminist organization or meeting place I've ever been to.
Again, so what? I believe that I have a right to receive the same pay as a man, for doing the same work and that I shouldn't be penalized for getting credit because I don't have a husband, etc. THAT according to the definition, makes me a feminist. It doesn't make me a man-hating lesbian, amazon wannabe though.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basic and original (and still believed and worked for) concept of "feminism" was "equal pay for equal work, respect and decent and fair treatment".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? I said that's what I believed in at the feminist message board, at the CWO, in my classes with feminist professors, and I was at best told I was no friend of feminism and at worst called a misogynist who either was a man or deeply wanted to be one.
Hint. We're not ON the "CWO Feminist Board", relax, you're with real people.

There was a time when I tried to work with feminists. Then I found out how intolerant and hateful the 'idea' of feminism is. Now I'd much rather work with human-rightsists.
There's a "human rightists" movement? Ya learn something new every day.

[catsix]

CanvasShoes said:
Well then, maybe we should quit slandering "feminists" and label these man-hating, amazon wannabes with a NEW title. Because what you're saying about THAT type of "feminist" I for one, agree with.

I think those extremist loud mouths have corrupted the meaning of the words feminism and feminist to the point that I don't want association with them.

I am a believer in equal treatment under the law for all human beings, and I do not want to be associated with the what I have seen in my college courses and other dealings with self-titled 'feminists.'

It's unfortunate that it has happened that a few nutjobs and their fans have been all I've seen with the label 'feminist' on it, but that's what I experienced and why I don't want to be associated with that any more than I would want pride in my heritage (Russian Polish Hungarian and Greek) to be associated with those who believe pride in being of European descent means hating those who aren't.

But you don't see me going around and saying I have white-pride, either, because a very loud group of assholes ruined that too.

[CanvasShoes]

Perhaps it's that I'm "old" then. I don't ever really THINK of myself as a feminist (except in debates like this, when I realize I'm certainly not Maribell Mayweather, or whatever her name was).

I generally just think of myself as a PERSON. I've worked in one of the most male dominated fields a person probably can. The north slope oil field in Prudhoe Bay Alaska.

Other than a BIT of typically "gross" male behaviour, which a simple "Oh GROSS guys, KNOCK It off" takes care of almost immediately, I can't remember any real discimination or sexual harrassment. I think that the new harrassment suits can be a bit frivolous "he leered at me". Oh PUH Lease.

That said, I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the days when women could be turned away from jobs simply because they were women, or days when the boss could decide that he wanted a blow job, and if she didn't provide one, she could go to the unemployment line, and he'd find another secretary, and so on.

Maybe you're too young too remember those days. I remember when my mom first got divorced. No credit card companies would give her credit. No matter how long she'd been at her job, or how much she made. And they were blunt about it, "you're not married, you have no man to sign for you".

And there was no law against their doing so. So, a few "old dogs" from those days who WERE mistreated pretty horribly are still around stirring things up.

Getting hateful back isn't going to solve things.

[catsix]

I perhaps just had different experiences. My mother had her own credit rating and credit cards before she married my father, and she's got far more education than he does. I worked on an all male contruction crew while going through engineering school, and have really never understood how 'Did you get a haircut? It looks nice.' is harassment.

I also never understood the female college student who said that she would lie about being raped so that she didn't have to watch a particular film in one of her classes.

No, I'm not going to say who that was. It's just an example of something I witnessed, and anyone here is free to believe or disbelieve it.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by catsix

Nice effort to run me out of this thread by throwing about the 'troll' word and attempting to get the attention of the moderators of this board.

When I want to get the attention of the moderators of this board, I click on the link that says "Report this post to a moderator". This has never failed to produce a timely and appropriate response from the SDMB staff. I recommend that anyone who believes they have spotted a rule-breaking post do the same thing.

[CanvasShoes]

Originally posted by catsix
I perhaps just had different experiences. My mother had her own credit rating and credit cards before she married my father, and she's got far more education than he does. I worked on an all male contruction crew while going through engineering school, and have really never understood how 'Did you get a haircut? It looks nice.' is harassment.

I also never understood the female college student who said that she would lie about being raped so that she didn't have to watch a particular film in one of her classes.

No, I'm not going to say who that was. It's just an example of something I witnessed, and anyone here is free to believe or disbelieve it.
It sounds as if we're basically on the same page of music, other than that you seem to think that it's"feminists" do the "lying about being raped/accusing someone of sexual harassment over stupid things" deal.

I believe that as far back as well BEFORE Susan B. Anthony, that if a woman was going to do something evil to a man, she could do it quite well without benefit of the so-called "feminist movement" (I mean, after all, that's when they WERE "helpless delicate flowers", if a woman was jilted or rejected by a suitor, all she had to do was tell daddy and the town minister that he tried to kiss her or something and it was all over but the throwing of rice for that poor boy, or worse) and that evils toward men, and man-bashing activities are hardly the sole provence of "feminists".

I'm not sure that those old timer women thought of themselves as feminists, but I'll bet that they had the same attitudes that are so stupid and evil as those bandied about by the women you named. The only difference is that they had to keep them under wraps and be a lot sneakier about it.

[margin]

Or else, by continuing to ignore requests by others for cites while using it as a major tactic of your own, show that you never intended to debate in good faith.


Until Andy coughs up a cite, you can bite me. Why, exactly, should I do something that he refuses to do? Oh, and you were quite the presence at Ms. this summer, too, Shodan. Funny how it appears you and Catsix joined the same day.


Malacamdra, sweetie, you've persistantly ignored Andy's refusal to provide a cite. Funny how you, Catsix and Shodan all have such different standards for Andy and feminists. Hm.

Oh, margin? I cannot but notice that since you asked for a cite on the Pizzey story - you know, the one about how she received death threats against her and her children from feminists for daring to state that in her experience women had as much propensity for domestic violence as men did - and since I provided you with one, you've gone awfully quiet on the subject

Devote as much attention to Andy's methods, and I'll start listening. You're not exactly what I'd call an impartial judge.

[margin]

Yeah, great article Malacandra. Problem is, it's from some fringe mens' rights site. Uh, yeah.

[Malacandra]

Okay, margin. And therefore you argue that either:

a) Pizzey never said that about receiving death threats, or

b) Pizzey said it, all right, but she's the kind of woman who gets quoted on "some fringe mens' rights site", so we'll call her a liar.

Pick one. Otherwise your previous post makes no sense.

I'm not sitting as a "judge" exactly, either. Paint me as someone who's arguing with you, if you like. Whining about a double standard and leaving me to prove that I am not applying one is a straight-down-the-middle tu quoque fallacy. To show that you are talking nonsense, I do not first have to prove that everything Andy et al have said is right. But why worry about adding another fallacy or two to your list of ad hominems, "No True Scotsman"s and straw men?

I'll laugh at your attempt to call me a "sweetie", and let other people judge whether or not resorting to it proves you actually have nothing to say.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by margin
Until Andy coughs up a cite, you can bite me. Why, exactly, should I do something that he refuses to do?
He's done it. You won't.

Originally posted by margin
Oh, and you were quite the presence at Ms. this summer, too, Shodan. Funny how it appears you and Catsix joined the same day. Yup, she and I joined at much the same time. And got banned at much the same time, because most of the posters there cannot handle and will not tolerate disagreement of any sort. They are roughly the equivalent of St*rmfront with PMS - dishonest, hypocritical, abusive, willfully ignorant, and "irrepressively drab and awful". In a word, feminazis.

You should join. You would be right at home.

Regards,
Shodan

[margin]

Uh, Malacandra, YOU were the one who bitched at me about straw men and ad hominem attacks while blithely ignoring Andy's useage of those very same techniques. Your sole source appears to be the site that you used. So who cares? You appear to be claiming that Pizzey's alleged experience is the result of her brave threatening of feminist orthodoxy. But her wild claims---that women are more violent than men----invalidate her argument from the get-go. And they're not helping whatever argument you think you're making, either.

[margin]

He's done it. You won't.

Are you on drugs? He's offered references to fiction as cites. Uh, no. I'm actually embarrassed for you that you try and make this claim.

Y up, she and I joined at much the same time. And got banned at much the same time, because most of the posters there cannot handle and will not tolerate disagreement of any sort. They are roughly the equivalent of St*rmfront with PMS - dishonest, hypocritical, abusive, willfully ignorant, and "irrepressively drab and awful". In a word, feminazis.

Of course, who better to judge feminists than the troll who joined under false pretenses, and is now whining about getting booted out?

[Shodan]

Originally posted by margin
Are you on drugs? He's offered references to fiction as cites. Uh, no. I'm actually embarrassed for you that you try and make this claim.
Andy's first post in this thread made the following claim:
Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem. In support of which, he linked to lists of feminist "utopias" which were female only, thus demonstrating that one wish-fulfillment fantasy in feminism is females only.

He further posted as follows:
Valerie Solanas is often cited as a lone nut. She was a nut, to be sure, but hardly alone. Her main work, "The S.C.U.M. Manifesto," was repeated reprinted, reproduced and distributed by feminist groups on both sides of the Atlantic. It was used in feminist study groups and was eventually picked up by Robin Morgan, the editor of Ms. Magazine. Note how he states his point, and backs it up with references to actions by Robin Morgan, editor of a magazine that claims to speak for feminism.

He also states a point and then backs it up in a subsequent post:
The "all sex is rape" concept has a number of feminist sources who did not put it precisely in those words but said things that amount to much the same thing. For example, our old friend and Ms. Magazine editor Robin Morgan:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."
- From Robin Morgan, "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape" in "Going to Far," 1974.
...
"Rape, then, is the logical consequence of a system of definitions of what is normative. Rape is no excess, no aberration, no accident, no mistake--it embodies sexuality as the culture defines it."
Andrea Dworkin
"The Rape Atrocity and the Boy Next Door"
Our Blood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You admitted yourself that he was providing cites for his statements:
Originally posted by margin -
Andy, you quoted three radical feminists...

You accuse him of painting all feminists with the same brush, after he specifically states:
Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licous -
Let me be clear that I am citing and condemning those feminists who are anti-male.
You asked for cites regarding what he claimed about men's rights and father's rights. He linked to this page, (http://www.now.org/organization/conference/1996/resoluti.html) and to this. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3670186#post3670186)

You asked for a cite about Pizey. He provided this. (http://www.bennett.com/ptv/index.shtml)

Number of cites provided by margin, on the other hand - zero.

Originally posted by margin
Of course, who better to judge feminists than the troll who joined under false pretenses, and is now whining about getting booted out? Whining? Wrong again. I was banned at my own request. I asked to be removed because arguing with those bitches was like debating a parrot. You never hear anything original, and you always wind up with bird shit all over the floor.

A final word of warning - at some message boards, it is SOP to refer to anyone who disagrees with feminists as a "troll", but here on the SDMB it is a violation of board rules.

You will apologize at once, and withdraw the accusation.

Shodan

[Malacandra]

margin, broadly speaking the point I was making is this:

The "feminazi" subset of feminists asserts, inter alia, that domestic violence is a purely male-on-female crime. Men are violent; women are innocent victims. Not only is this untrue but it is exceedingly ironic that Erin Pizzey, a pioneer in the battered women's refuge movement and a noted authoress on the subject of domestic violence, should have received death threats for claiming that women also had a strong propensity for violence. 62 of the first hundred women turning up at the doors of her Chiswick shelter were, she says, quite as violent as the men they were seeking shelter from.

I have provided a cite that purports to quote Pizzey herself on the issue of the threats against her, which I understood you to be contesting. That the site on which the quote appears should be a "men's interests" site is not especially surprising. Given the extent to which Pizzey has been "marginalized" over the years for her controversial views, you would hardly expect to find her quoted with approval on a feminist site. Nevertheless, as I said, either the site itself quotes Pizzey incorrectly, or it quotes her correctly but she is lying, or it quotes her correctly on a true statement. There aren't any other possibilities.

You find Pizzey unbelievable because of her "wild" claims concerning female violence. I suggest that this owes less to research than to preconceptions. She may very possibly have had far more experience in the field than you.

I'll see Pizzey's "alleged" experience and raise you your own "alleged" experiences, and see how you like your "alleging", then.

You object to the cite concerning Pizzey being my only one, but what else have I been claiming that I owe you a cite for?

[Shodan]

Originally posted by margin
Are you on drugs? He's offered references to fiction as cites. Uh, no. I'm actually embarrassed for you that you try and make this claim.
Andy's first post in this thread made the following claim:
Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem. In support of which, he linked to lists of feminist "utopias" which were female only, thus demonstrating that one wish-fulfillment fantasy in feminism is females only.

He further posted as follows:
Valerie Solanas is often cited as a lone nut. She was a nut, to be sure, but hardly alone. Her main work, "The S.C.U.M. Manifesto," was repeated reprinted, reproduced and distributed by feminist groups on both sides of the Atlantic. It was used in feminist study groups and was eventually picked up by Robin Morgan, the editor of Ms. Magazine. Note how he states his point, and backs it up with references to actions by Robin Morgan, editor of a magazine that claims to speak for feminism.

He also states a point and then backs it up in a subsequent post:
The "all sex is rape" concept has a number of feminist sources who did not put it precisely in those words but said things that amount to much the same thing. For example, our old friend and Ms. Magazine editor Robin Morgan:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."
- From Robin Morgan, "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape" in "Going to Far," 1974.
...
"Rape, then, is the logical consequence of a system of definitions of what is normative. Rape is no excess, no aberration, no accident, no mistake--it embodies sexuality as the culture defines it."
Andrea Dworkin
"The Rape Atrocity and the Boy Next Door"
Our Blood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You admitted yourself that he was providing cites for his statements:
Originally posted by margin -
Andy, you quoted three radical feminists...

You accuse him of painting all feminists with the same brush, after he specifically states:
Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licous -
Let me be clear that I am citing and condemning those feminists who are anti-male.
You asked for cites regarding what he claimed about men's rights and father's rights. He linked to this page, (http://www.now.org/organization/conference/1996/resoluti.html) and to this. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3670186#post3670186)

You asked for a cite about Pizey. He provided this. (http://www.bennett.com/ptv/index.shtml)

Number of cites provided by margin, on the other hand - zero.

Originally posted by margin
Of course, who better to judge feminists than the troll who joined under false pretenses, and is now whining about getting booted out? Whining? Wrong again. I was banned at my own request. I asked to be removed because arguing with those bitches was like debating a parrot. You never hear anything original, and you always wind up with bird shit all over the floor.

A final word of warning - at some message boards, it is SOP to refer to anyone who disagrees with feminists as a "troll", but here on the SDMB it is a violation of board rules.

You will apologize at once, and withdraw the accusation.

Shodan

[margin]

Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem.

Not feminist fiction sweetie, but feminism.

And Malacandra, are you actually disputing the fact that the majority of domestic violence victims are women? Are you actually claiming that it's an equal opportunity offense? Sure, it is. I mean, just look around. Gangs of women roam the streets at night, attacking men. Men cower within doors, afraid of gangs of feminists who wait to harass them on the bus and commit the majority of violent acts. Yup, men are cringing in fear of women, because of course those women have such a physical advantage over men. Sorority sisters commit gang rapes on men on college campuses. Groups of women reguarly rob banks, gas stations, and intimidate people on the streets. Every day, three men die at the hands of women, their restraining orders clutched in their hands. Women kill each other every day in bar-room brawls, road-rage attacks, and murder suicides. Why, women commit 88 % of crime.

Yeah, whatever, Malacandra.

[The Wrong Girl]

Originally posted by catsix
Then I found out how intolerant and hateful the 'idea' of feminism is. Now I'd much rather work with human-rightsists.

Are you talking about "human-rightsists" like Erin Pizzey here? Really? The woman who said:

Men are gentle, honest and straightforward. Women are convoluted, deceptive and dangerous.

This genuinely puzzles me. After googling her, I see no way that anyone could posit that she's looking out for everyone. It would be a lot different if she was simply pointing out that men are victims of domestic violence as well, but she calls women things like "terrorists of the family."

I mean, I understand that some posters here disagree with some of the more radical feminists, but I just can't see why Erin Pizzey is held up as some sort of great alternative. She seems as batty as the women she's fighting.

[cowgirl]

Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem.

So what kind of cite are you looking for? Feminists who do not hope for a female-only society, who don't want men to die violent and horrible deaths?

Guess what. "I don't want men to die violent and horrible deaths" is not a topic that feminists find particularly compelling to write about. Believe it or not, feminists talk about things other than men and how much they are hated.

You want cites for feminist writing which does not incite hatred towards men? Okay, off the top of my head I will list the feminists I know:

Cherrie Moraga
Gloria Anzaldua
Chandra Mohanty
Saskia Sassen
Isabella Bakker
Patricia Perkins
Esther Boserup
Vanadana Shiva
Michelle Landsberg
bell hooks

Okay, what more do you want? Snippets of text where they talk about things other than "Death to Men?" Pick up a book and find it for yourself. You can't honestly expect a cite proving that they do not hate men.

I can tell you from experience that you'd not be welcome there. Nor in any other feminist organization or meeting place I've ever been to.
She'd be quite welcome at many feminist organizations I've been to. What does that mean for your argument? Either (a) that the feminist organizations I've been to are somehow not true feminist organizations, or that my experience with them is not as valid as the experiences you've had with feminist organizations, or (b) it's faulty reasoning, and any experiences with feminist organizations are not generalizable to "feminism" as a whole. Pick one.

[Malacandra]

"Whatever"^100, margin. There we were discussing domestic violence, and you go off into some diatribe about street gangs and lord knows what in your heavily-laboured piece of satire. You have trouble sticking to the point, or something?

And even you cannot be so ignorant as to be unaware that most extra-mural violence is committed by men on men.

Sweetie.

[catsix]

CanvasShoes said;
It sounds as if we're basically on the same page of music, other than that you seem to think that it's"feminists" do the "lying about being raped/accusing someone of sexual harassment over stupid things" deal.

She was one of those self-titled feminist members of the CWO.

If that's the kind of person who's claiming to be a feminist and generally not getting called on her horrid behavior (lying about rape makes it harder for those who really were raped to be believed), then something's fucked up.

margin said:
Funny how you, Catsix and Shodan all have such different standards for Andy and feminists.

Andy Has provided cites. You have not. When he said a feminist held an opinion, he provided a relevant quotation. You have conveniently ignored them because they are damaging to your position.

Does this mean that if you ever do provide a cite (however unlikely that may be) Andy will get to follow the same standard as you and simply ignore them?

Not feminist fiction sweetie, but feminism.

Do you know what the word 'utopia' means?

u·to·pi·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (y-tp-)
n.

1.
1. often Utopia An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects.
2. A work of fiction describing a utopia.
2. An impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform.

So these feminist authors who are writing Sci-Fi/Fantasy books about a feminist utopia with no men in it are writing about An ideally perfect place. Of course right now it's fiction, but the very fact that they call it feminist utopian society indicates something about how they view a perfect society, doesn't it?

The Wrong Girl said:
It would be a lot different if she was simply pointing out that men are victims of domestic violence as well, but she calls women things like "terrorists of the family."

Considering the things I have seen done in custody battles, I'm willing to believe there's more than a grain of truth to that. I have seen accusations of abuse, sexual abuse, drug use, and myriads of other things thrown at fathers in order to deny custody, and what sickens me most is that I've seen it in my own family. I watched the father of my cousin's children, who never raised a hand to anyone in his life, hauled away in handcuffs because my cousin called the cops and reported him as an abuser so she'd be absolutely sure she'd get sole custody.

As there are men who beat their wives, there are women who pull shit like that. Those women who are like my cousin, they are certainly terrorizing the fathers of their children.

She'd be quite welcome at many feminist organizations I've been to. What does that mean for your argument? Either (a) that the feminist organizations I've been to are somehow not true feminist organizations, or that my experience with them is not as valid as the experiences you've had with feminist organizations, or (b) it's faulty reasoning, and any experiences with feminist organizations are not generalizable to "feminism" as a whole. Pick one.

How many ducks have to quack before you reasonably conclude that all ducks quack? How about every duck you have ever encountered? I've yet to encounter a feminist organization that wasn't anti-male, and have seen quite a few of them. Recently, as part of a personal and ongoing personal interest project, I called yet another local domestic violence center to ask where a man who is abused by his girlfriend can go for help, because a friend of mine is being abused. It wasn't a 'women's shelter'. It was a domestic violence support group.

I was told 'Men do not get abused. They are the abusers.' and then hung up on.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by catsix

So these feminist authors who are writing Sci-Fi/Fantasy books about a feminist utopia with no men in it are writing about An ideally perfect place. Of course right now it's fiction, but the very fact that they call it feminist utopian society indicates something about how they view a perfect society, doesn't it?


In the Cafe Society thread on this subject (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=219005), Andy was unable to come up with a single title that actually fits his description of "feminist utopian fiction" as being about how the perfect society must have no men. Although he refused to admit to it, even when asked directly by more than one poster, it appears that he has never read or seen any such book himself.

Personally, I was a little offended (not as a woman, or as a feminist, but as a science-fiction fan) to see some fine novels so grossly misrepresented, but grossly misrepresentating anything that's been tainted with feminism appears to be SOP for some people. I suppose if they couldn't make up all kinds of crazy things about feminism, it would be more difficult to bash it.

[catsix]

Yes, but in this thread he posted at least one link to the feminist utopian fanatasy/sci-fi website on which these books are advertised and discussed.

Here's one definition of a 'feminist utopian novel':

Sally Miller Gearhart
"A feminist utopian novel is one which a. contrasts the present with an envisioned idealized society (separated from the present by time or space), b. offers a comprehensive critique of present values/conditions, c. sees male institutions as a major cause of present social ills, and d. presents women not only as at least the equals of men but also as the sole arbiters of their reproductive functions." (bolding mine)

Of course if you want the titles of books, how about Sherri Tepper The Gate to Women's Country or Naomi Mitchison's Solution Three or Katharine Burdekin's The End of This Day's Business
or Joan Slonczewski's A Door Into Ocean or Donna Allerga A Toast of Babatine.

You could also take a look at this list (http://www.feministsf.org/femsf/reviews/index.html) for 'feminist utopia' Sci-Fi/Fantasy books:

[Lamia]

Originally posted by catsix
Yes, but in this thread he posted at least one link to the feminist utopian fanatasy/sci-fi website on which these books are advertised and discussed.


By "these books" do you mean "feminist science fiction books" or "feminist science fiction books about how great it would be if we killed all the men"? No one is questioning the existence of feminist science fiction. I'm not even questioning that there may be some books out there that really do say the world would be a better place if there were no men. But I've never seen such a book myself, and no one has been able to specifically name one that actually fits that description. You can't just throw out a list of feminist science fiction books and pretend they all advocate such a thing. They don't. I've read quite a few of the books listed, and none of them are as you or Andy have described them. For instance:


Of course if you want the titles of books, how about Sherri Tepper The Gate to Women's Country

The Gate to Women's Country is an excellent novel. I have read it many times. I have a copy here beside me at the computer as I write this. I am, in other words, very familiar with this book, and it does not in any way advocate the extermination of men or "see male institutions as a major cause of present social ills". Nor is it in fact a utopian novel -- although the "women's country" seems fairly pleasant (and is portrayed as clearly superior to neighboring societies), it is deeply flawed, as the heroine discovers. The book closes with a scene of her leaning against her father "as he wept. Wept for them all."

The Gate to Women's Country deals in large part with a woman-run society whose ruling class is attempting to wipe out the "male aggression" that they see as the leading cause of violence, but their chosen technique (which is not, by the way, wholesale elimination of all men) leads to much suffering on the part of both male and female citizens. The Gate to Women's Country also presents many kind, non-violent male characters, as well as one important abusive female character, and does not shy away from pointing out the role women can play in encouraging violent behavior in men.

Tepper very, very clearly believes that a real utopia would be a society in which men and women could live together as true equals, not a society with women in charge. Her book could even be taken as a criticism of the idea of a woman-dominated "feminist utopia". Heck, the Washington Post review quoted inside the cover says "by carrying several feminist dreams to the point of nightmare, she [Tepper] provokes a new look at the old issues". There is no way anyone could read The Gate to Women's Country and come away thinking that it advocates the elimination of all men, blames men alone for social ills, or argues that the world would be a better place without men. And yet you have just suggested that it does. How perplexing.

[CanvasShoes]

Originally posted by Malacandra
"Whatever"^100, margin. There we were discussing domestic violence, and you go off into some diatribe about street gangs and lord knows what in your heavily-laboured piece of satire. You have trouble sticking to the point, or something?

And even you cannot be so ignorant as to be unaware that most extra-mural violence is committed by men on men.

Sweetie.
Extra Mural? That's the term my elementary school teachers used to use for after school sports. I've not heard it used the way you are using it.

The justice department says that 300,000 men are victims of domestic violence, compared to 1.2 million women.

[CanvasShoes]

So these feminist authors who are writing Sci-Fi/Fantasy books about a feminist utopia with no men in it are writing about An ideally perfect place. Of course right now it's fiction, but the very fact that they call it feminist utopian society indicates something about how they view a perfect society, doesn't it?
Whatever point he was trying to prove by providing fiction. He didn't do his homework.

"The Handmaid's Tale" is NOT a feminist Utopian fiction. It's about a society in which MEN are in complete control of every aspect of a woman's life. Including if and when they breed.

A society based on extreme religious themes.

I don't see how works of fiction, whatever their main point, have any bearing on whether the majority of feminists adhere to fringe and nutsy ideas or not.

Again, NOW may have a number of these nutcases, this still is not the same as saying that these women speak for NOW, women OR feminists.

However frustrated margin may or may not be, I believe that that's the main point she and the rest of us are trying to make.

Again, the original definition and meaning of feminism is (basically and simplified) "equal treatment".

So, almost any woman in the free world today practices feminism.

So for andy to say:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...is both incorrect and rather inflammatory.

[catsix]

CanvasShoes said:
"The Handmaid's Tale" is NOT a feminist Utopian fiction. It's about a society in which MEN are in complete control of every aspect of a woman's life. Including if and when they breed.

Which is an example of feminist dystopia. Typically the feminist Sci-Fi/Fantasy stuff is either utopian (the all female egalitarian society in which men are not present or barely tolreated) or dystopian (extreme abuse of women by men in positions of power used to illustrate how awful it is for men to have power.)

Both of them point to the idea that a society in which women are 'in charge' is better.

Again, NOW may have a number of these nutcases, this still is not the same as saying that these women speak for NOW, women OR feminists.

Yes, well I'm very tired of and frustrated by a common tactic that I have seen among those feminists I have tried to have discussions with regarding different feminist perspectives, especially when there's disagreement. And that tactic has been 'But you can't possibly criticize anything about 'feminism' because every feminist is different.' and then to turn around and say 'But no, you can't believe in mere equality and still be a feminist. You have to believe women are oppressed by the patriarchy.' It comes off as a case of 'eating your cake and having it too.'

Again, the original definition and meaning of feminism is (basically and simplified) "equal treatment".

So, almost any woman in the free world today practices feminism.

But that is not the connotation of the word now. What 'feminist' meant fifty years ago, or seventy-five years ago does not change the fact that now, the word has been co-opted and turned into an immediate association with those 'famous feminists' such as Gloria Steinem, Susan Brownmiller, Kim Gandy, Robin Morgan, Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, and Germain Greer.

Lamia said:
The Gate to Women's Country deals in large part with a woman-run society whose ruling class is attempting to wipe out the "male aggression" that they see as the leading cause of violence, but their chosen technique (which is not, by the way, wholesale elimination of all men) leads to much suffering on the part of both male and female citizens.

A familiar theme, to call the cause of violence 'male aggression' and for the 'more peaceful' women leaders to implement a solution. Notice that the only thing the book finds flawed is the actual technique by which the 'male aggression' is eliminated. It doesn't actually go so far as to say that 'male aggression' is highly exaggerated or that a society of all women wouldn't be free from violence.

The Gate to Women's Country also presents many kind, non-violent male characters, as well as one important abusive female character, and does not shy away from pointing out the role women can play in encouraging violent behavior in men.

So there's nothing wrong with men as long as they're really just a little bit more like women, right? And of course women inspire and encourage violent behavior in men, isn't that the nature of the patriarchy? Men getting all violent over the women that are their property?

There is no way anyone could read The Gate to Women's Country and come away thinking that it advocates the elimination of all men, blames men alone for social ills, or argues that the world would be a better place without men. And yet you have just suggested that it does. How perplexing.

Because it carries on with that same theme that it's 'male aggression' that is the root cause of violence in society. It's still clinging to that asinine idea of 'testosterone poisoning.'

Obviously I saw things a little differently than you.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by catsix

A familiar theme, to call the cause of violence 'male aggression' and for the 'more peaceful' women leaders to implement a solution.


That's not the theme, that's the basic premise. A group of female leaders want to rid their society of male aggression. The theme is that any attempt to control people's lives in such a way, no matter how well-intentioned, leads to a loss of personal freedom and tragic consequences. Women's Country is better than some of the alternatives, but by the end of the novel it should be clear that the society is no utopia and that neither Tepper nor her heroine thinks that it is. Far from it.


Notice that the only thing the book finds flawed is the actual technique by which the 'male aggression' is eliminated. It doesn't actually go so far as to say that 'male aggression' is highly exaggerated or that a society of all women wouldn't be free from violence.


You are so completely wrong that I don't even know where I could begin explaining your many mistakes. I'd have to rewrite the entire book.


So there's nothing wrong with men as long as they're really just a little bit more like women, right?


If by "more like women" you mean "not irrationally violent" then yes, but Tepper doesn't appear to consider non-violence and non-aggression uniquely feminine traits. If you think she does, that says more about you than it does about her.


And of course women inspire and encourage violent behavior in men, isn't that the nature of the patriarchy? Men getting all violent over the women that are their property?


Women's Country isn't a patriarchy. Duh. Yet several of the major female characters, including some who should know better, end up playing a part in encouraging male violence because they like macho, aggressive men. They think they're sexy. Tepper is plainly attempting to show that if men are genetically predisposed towards violence in a way that women are not, it can only be because women have helped to make men this way through sexual selection.


Because it carries on with that same theme that it's 'male aggression' that is the root cause of violence in society. It's still clinging to that asinine idea of 'testosterone poisoning.'


That is what certain women in the book believe. This is an advanced literary concept that I suspect is beyond your ability to grasp, as so many other things in life must be, but sometimes authors write about characters who believe things that the author herself does not believe in or advocate.


Obviously I saw things a little differently than you.

Yes, it's very funny. I, a feminist, read the book and saw a touching call for true equality and harmony between the sexes. You, the self-anointed humanist voice of reason, read it and saw a hateful call for the extermination of the male race. Very peculiar indeed. By your own account of feminism, I should want the book to be about how great the world would be if women were in charge, and be sickened by the notion that men should be allowed an equal role in society. And yet this is not the case. I enjoyed the book I saw and consider the book you saw to be a gross and offensive misinterpretation of the original work. I wonder what could possibly account for this?

Perhaps it's because you are wrong about feminism, and you are wrong about the book. You obviously never really read it. By "read" I don't mean "looked at the words in order"; you probably did do that. But when people say they "read" something, there's usually supposed to be some comprehension involved. And doing that would require you to momentarily set aside your bizarre prejudices about feminism and pay attention to what a real, live feminist was trying to express in her work.

And you'll never do that, will you? No, because that would require some thought, maybe a little mental effort, and you have persistently refused to engage in any activity more intellectually taxing than knee-jerk bigotry and self-absorbed whining. You've got an ugly little picture in your heard about how feminists "really" are, and nothing else matters to you. No amount of evidence or testimony to the contrary could ever change your mind, because your problem is more than mere ignorance. I've done my best to explain things to you as though you were someone who might genuinely be trying to use her powers of understanding, but I knew all along that I was wasting my time and this diversion has now ceased to amuse me.

[CanvasShoes]

Which is an example of feminist dystopia. Typically the feminist Sci-Fi/Fantasy stuff is either utopian (the all female egalitarian society in which men are not present or barely tolreated) or dystopian (extreme abuse of women by men in positions of power used to illustrate how awful it is for men to have power.)

Both of them point to the idea that a society in which women are 'in charge' is better.
You obviously haven't read the book. The idea is not "how awful it is for men to be in charge". Nor was the story trying to illustrate that society would be better off with women in charge. It illustrates how awful it is for the type of society that is an 1984 "Big Brother" type society to be in charge.

Both men and women were "villians" in the story, and both men and women were heroes in the story. Both men and women participated in "May Day" the underground resistance dedicated to returning America to what it had been before the "Gideon" regime.

The awful part of the book was not that men were "in charge" (after all, men still run the world and have most of the power) but the MANNER in which those particular men were in charge.

A pseudo religious society, which barely hid the same old corruption and garbage of the old. It's too bad that the movie didn't cover all of that.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, NOW may have a number of these nutcases, this still is not the same as saying that these women speak for NOW, women OR feminists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, well I'm very tired of and frustrated by a common tactic that I have seen among those feminists I have tried to have discussions with regarding different feminist perspectives, especially when there's disagreement. And that tactic has been 'But you can't possibly criticize anything about 'feminism' because every feminist is different.' and then to turn around and say 'But no, you can't believe in mere equality and still be a feminist. You have to believe women are oppressed by the patriarchy.' It comes off as a case of 'eating your cake and having it too.'
Then SAY that, disagree with THAT faction of feminists. Don't take the tack of what andy quoted. You're absolutely right. And I disagree (most STRENOUSLY!!!, I happen to think men are EXTREMELY valuable, particularly certain parts :D).

However, the fact that I disagree with the small portion, does not make me not a feminist, no matter HOW much the psycho fringe may scream and denounce me, and others like me (again, several MILLION of us are feminists, even if several tens of thousands are the male baby-killing, lesbian, amazon wannabes,
the MAJORITY, just plain old women, are "normal" feminists).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, the original definition and meaning of feminism is (basically and simplified) "equal treatment".

So, almost any woman in the free world today practices feminism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that is not the connotation of the word now. What 'feminist' meant fifty years ago, or seventy-five years ago does not change the fact that now, the word has been co-opted and turned into an immediate association with those 'famous feminists' such as Gloria Steinem, Susan Brownmiller, Kim Gandy, Robin Morgan, Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, and Germain Greer.
No. Again, that may not be the connotation of SOME feminists, but it is STILL the original meaning, and again, any woman who believes in equality is, BY DEFINITION, a feminists.

In short. We may not speak up, we may not be as obvious (and certainly not as rude, psycho, and ridiculous) but we ARE in the majority.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lamia said:
The Gate to Women's Country deals in large part with a woman-run society whose ruling class is attempting to wipe out the "male aggression" that they see as the leading cause of violence, but their chosen technique (which is not, by the way, wholesale elimination of all men) leads to much suffering on the part of both male and female citizens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A familiar theme, to call the cause of violence 'male aggression' and for the 'more peaceful' women leaders to implement a solution. Notice that the only thing the book finds flawed is the actual technique by which the 'male aggression' is eliminated. It doesn't actually go so far as to say that 'male aggression' is highly exaggerated or that a society of all women wouldn't be free from violence.
Have you read this book? If not, you have no way of knowing how aggressive male aggression IS within the fictional confines of that particular society.

Not to mention that you totally misread lamia's description of the book. She doesn't say that the "peaceful" women are trying to eliminate aggressive men. She says the RULING class, who may or may NOT be "peaceful". She also describes that the rest of society suffers from this, male AND female.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gate to Women's Country also presents many kind, non-violent male characters, as well as one important abusive female character, and does not shy away from pointing out the role women can play in encouraging violent behavior in men.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there's nothing wrong with men as long as they're really just a little bit more like women, right? And of course women inspire and encourage violent behavior in men, isn't that the nature of the patriarchy? Men getting all violent over the women that are their property?[quote]
You're making assumptions about a work of FICTION which you haven't read colored by your OWN anger and frustration against
a certain unpleasant and somewhat psychotic group of OUR society (not of the society that is actually in the book).

Also, I find it interesting that you take lamia's words "....kind, non-violent male characters...." to mean (and in a negative way), in YOUR words ".....nothing wrong with men as long as they act more like women...."??? contradicting some of your previous posts and words regarding whether men are more violent and aggressive than women. I believe, after reading her description of the book that she meant the those men that WERE violent and aggressive within that society and fictional setting.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no way anyone could read The Gate to Women's Country and come away thinking that it advocates the elimination of all men, blames men alone for social ills, or argues that the world would be a better place without men. And yet you have just suggested that it does. How perplexing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Because it carries on with that same theme that it's 'male aggression' that is the root cause of violence in society. It's still clinging to that asinine idea of 'testosterone poisoning.'
It's really ignorant of you to assume that based on a short description and having not read the book.

I don't know if the book does in fact do that or not. IMHO, lamia did a good job of describing a story that does NOT do what you're accusing here.

But in reality, I don't know, and neither do you, having not read the book.

Obviously I saw things a little differently than you.
Yes, you saw them through rather prejudiced colored glasses.

Really, what you are doing is the same thing as assigning the actions, attitudes and negative acts of groups like the Black Panthers to the entire community of African-Americans.

[Malacandra]

Originally posted by CanvasShoes
Extra Mural? That's the term my elementary school teachers used to use for after school sports. I've not heard it used the way you are using it.


After-school sports that weren't part of the curriculum, I'm guessing, and so both literally and figuratively "outside the walls" of the school. That's what "extra-mural" means; extra is Latin for "outside", not "additional". What I meant in this context was "violence other than domestic violence".

Busy today, can't stop to chat, sorry.

[margin]

catsix:

Andy Has provided cites. You have not. When he said a feminist held an opinion, he provided a relevant quotation. You have conveniently ignored them because they are damaging to your position.

Does this mean that if you ever do provide a cite (however unlikely that may be) Andy will get to follow the same standard as you and simply ignore them?

Uh, no. But then again, this is the same reasoning that got you banned from the Ms. board, isn't it? Andy has not provided a cite. He switched from bitching about feminism to bitching about feminist fiction, and hasn't been seen since. As a perfect example of his---and your and Malancandra's---methods-----he then started a topic about 'feminist fiction' and claimed that it was because I didn't know such a thing existed. As Lamia proves all too aptly above, you haven't read the titles you bash.

Andy still hasn't provided me with a cite, although you seem to think that cite means 'Any old thing said by any old person that serves my purposes.' He knows that if he uses some nutjob mens' rights sight as his source that will get rejected. There is no cite for his claims. So he vanished. Claiming that works of fiction---which he hasn't evidently read or understood---proves his claims about feminism is like saying that fairy tales depict the history of Germany.

And Malacandra, you've persistantly ignored Andy to bitch at me for demanding-----equality. Either demand the same set of behaviors, or go back to your sandbox. 'Straw men' indeed.

[Malacandra]

margin, if you're unacquainted with the concept of logical fallacies - and I suspect you may be from your odd use of the term "straw man" - then here (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html) would be a good place to start. There they will explain to why it is that you can't rebut your own poor debating technique by claiming that Andy's is even worse and requiring me to disprove it before you will entertain any criticism of your own.

I'm not sure what you're lumping me in with Andy for exactly - he made a lot of assertions that called for cites, and he provided many, which you're free to pull apart as you see fit; that is a valid debating technique; whereas I think I only made one claim that required a cite: the death threats against Erin Pizzey, which I have backed up. And as I said, whether or not you like the site the quote is from, you have to argue that either they misquoted Pizzey, or that she lied, or else admit that she is telling the truth. You don't appear to have done any of these so far.

Fairytales might not depict the history of Nazi Germany, but a look at popular fiction and movie themes in the Third Reich might give us a valuable insight into the mindset of Nazis, wouldn't you say?

"Sweetie". "Sandbox". Goodness gracious me. Do you seriously imagine that you're strengthening your position by patronising me? :rolleyes:

[The Wrong Girl]

[i]Originally posted by Malacandra
Fairytales might not depict the history of Nazi Germany, but a look at popular fiction and movie themes in the Third Reich might give us a valuable insight into the mindset of Nazis, wouldn't you say?[/B]

Godwin, party of one. :D

[Malacandra]

Hey, I didn't drag the N-word into this thread, I just picked up the ball and ran with it. :cool:

*looks back up the thread*

*laughs at himself*

Goodness me, but I did. I looked at margin's reference to "Germany", mentally edited in the word "Nazi", and responded to it. Must be because of the word "feminazi" in the thread title. Post in haste, repent at leisure. :smack: :smack: :smack:

I think the comparison holds up anyway: Literary themes in a culture or political movement give an insight into the mindset of the culture in which they're popular, even if they don't seriously describe the aims and objectives of such, still less the likelihood that they will be realized.

*pays Mr Godwin five bucks to go away.*

[cowgirl]

How many ducks have to quack before you reasonably conclude that all ducks quack? How about every duck you have ever encountered? I've yet to encounter a feminist organization that wasn't anti-male, and have seen quite a few of them.

So my experiences (with feminist organizations that are not anti-male) are not as valid as yours. Got it. I guess I was imagining it.

Mal: thanks for the site. I learned about something called the Spotlight fallacy, where


Xs with quality Q receive a great deal of attention or coverage in the media.
Therefore all Xs have quality Q.

is a bad argument. Replace Xs with "Feminists" and Q with "Man-haters" and see what you get.

And from the linked page I also learned about the fallacy of "Anecdotal Evidence", where One of the simplest fallacies is to rely on anecdotal evidence. It's quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such anecdotes don't actually prove anything to anyone.

Meaning that anyone's experiences with feminism don't actually prove anything about it.

And don't forget "Argumentum ad ignorantiam" Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. In other words, because it hasn't been proven that feminism is not all about man-hating, then it must be. You have offered no suggestions on what cite we can offer to prove that feminism is not all about man-hating, except to say that the ones we have provided are not adequate.

And see also "Shifting the burden of proof": The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

I must confess I am unclear on what is being asserted. The nearest I can tell is that some people are asserting that feminists are all man-haters, or that feminism requires hating men, or something. Please clarify.

After you have done that, please tell us what kind of cites you want from us. Speak slowly and use small words to make sure that I understand.

Try finishing this sentence: "You can prove that feminism is not all about man-hating by showing us a cite where ..."

And if you can't finish that sentence, then why are we bothering?

[Malacandra]

Hi cowgirl,

Yes, it's an excellent site, isn't it? I find myself checking both others' arguments and my own a lot more closely since reading up on it. And you pick up correctly on some of the forms of fallacy being perpetrated in the debate. There are a few others too. We could hand out bingo cards. :)

I don't think anyone with an ounce of sense would claim that all feminism was founded on man-hating. Even my own knowledge of the subject is only anecdotal. What gets taught behind the closed doors of, say, a Women's Studies classroom, isn't something I'm likely to know about at first or even second hand. I hear what gets attributed to women whom I understand to be revered authorities, and some of what I hear disturbs me; I am naturally curious to know how seriously such people are taken, and especially to what extent they get taken seriously by legislators.

margin speaks disparagingly of "nutjob men's rights" sites in much the same way as a Southerner might speak of "damnYankees", and I have to agree that a lot of what I see there would be a waste of paper if it was published. Still, that isn't to say that everything on every site devoted to men's rights is automatically worthless, which I understand to be margin's angle on this. If I am wrong, she need only say so and the air will be cleared.

I haven't been demanding cites at all, so I can't very well tell you what kind I want, even in small words. And I haven't been arguing that feminism is all about man-hating, either, so I'm at a loss to complete your sentence. Sorry not to be more helpful.

--Mal

[margin]

It's real simple, Mal, so I'll say it again. Andy asserted that 'feminism desires...and produced a long list of bullet comments. He called me various names and accused of various things, amongst them being utterly ignorant of the existance of feminist utopian fiction. You have persistantly ignored all of that while demanding a standard of me that you have not applied to Andy. And you've repeatedly ignored references to your double standard.

I asked Andy for a cite that proved his claims about feminism. He hasn't provided it, and you've ignored it. Until he provides proof for his claims that feminism is all about man-hating---and he's repeatedly left qualifiers out of his claims, which you've just as repeatedly ignored----I have nothing to refute. There's just nothing there. He's claimed that he doesn't have to provide cites because what he says is 'common knowledge.'

[cowgirl]

Thanks for your understanding, Mal. I wasn't directing that at you specifically, I'm just trying to sort out what the debate is.

It seems it currently stands here:

Margin says that Andy has made assertions about what Feminism desires. I would tend to agree. (Her assertion is supported by Andy's own posts to this thread.)

Thus, according to the site provided by Mal, it is now up to Andy (or his supporters) to prove his assertions. Their attempts to do so, thus far, seem to me to be guilty of some of the fallacies listed on the site.

Neither margin, Lamia, myself, nor any other feminists who have not yet given up on this thread, have anything to prove, since they are the ones making the assertion and have not yet supported it in any meaningful way.

In other words, we cannot provide cites until it is clear (a) what kind of cites are necessary and (b) what they will prove.

[Malacandra]

margin, I'm not operating a double standard. You're attempting to pull an ad hominem tu quoque, for a definition of which see the link a few posts above: arguing that before you have to respond to my calling you on strawmen and ad hominem arguments, I first have to refute your assertion that someone else is guilty of the same.

Claiming that SAL condemns all feminists flies in the face of this very clear quote:


Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious
You say that we shouldn't lump all feminists in to the same batch -- even though you are suspiciously silent when feminists are lumping all men together, as Brownmiller does. Let me be clear that I am citing and condemning those feminists who are anti-male. If it happens that an overwhelming number of feminist leaders hold anti-male views, well, that's something the feminists themselves should be looking into. When we discuss anti-Semitism, we do not have to go through this bullshit tactic you are using. We do not have to wrangle about not all gentiles being anti-Semitic, just the extremists.

As to being "ignorant of feminist utopian fiction", I may not have picked up on that. I did, however, understand you to be denying that there was any such thing. Of course that doesn't imply ignorance.

Clear enough for you?

[Malacandra]

cowgirl, I'm in agreement with you, and to hell with the damage to my misogynist credentials. I got into this thread originally with a self-admitted anecdote about a piece of feminist fiction about the extinction of men, rebuked margin for some singularly bad logic, and it kinda went on from there.

Some of the quotes from people like Brownmiller, Dworkin and so on are widely-known enough hardly to need citing. For some aspects of the goals of feminism, Andy cited texts such as the S.C.U.M. Manifesto and NOW policy statements. On the whole, though, the questions you raise are the ones I too want answered.

catsix's experiences on the Ms message board sound credible to me and vaguely reminiscent of the kind of thing I heard now and then when I used to post on www.handbag.com . I haven't been there for a while. There was a discussion about a year or so ago over a science news item: "men facing extinction". I was surprised to learn how controversial my own standpoint was, which majored on the enormous economic contributions men made to society and sat ill both with those who reassuringly remarked that "we will always want men around to have relationships with" and those who said "men have always oppressed and abused women and everything else they have done pales into insignificance". Though they allowed men at Handbag - I wasn't masquerading as female! - I figured I didn't need this.

Of course anecdotes aren't evidence. Sometimes, I'm inclined to wonder what is. Must dash now.

[catsix]

To be quite honest with you, cowgirl, your experiences with feminists are no more or less valid than mine are.

You, however, seem to think that my experience with feminism in an organized context being a negative thing means I shouldn't form a negative opinion of feminism. I'll tell you right now that you're highly unlikely to get me to describe myself as a feminist by saying that you had a lovely time with organized feminism.

Those feminists and feminist groups I have encountered in my life have left a lasting impression upon me, and it's not a positive one. It would, at this point, take quite a lot to change that impression, such things as showing me a feminist group who doesn't dismiss all men's rights groups as 'nutjobs', who recognize that there is a pro-woman bias in family courts, and who do not repeat 'statistics' that have been debunked many times in an effort to affect legal and social change (the Super Bowl violence myth, the '75 cents on a dollar' myth). I'd also like to see an organized group of feminists who do not subscribe to the notion that a 'patriarchy' exists in present-day United States, and that those women who don't believe they are oppressed are deluded tools of the patriarchy. I'd like to see a feminist group admit that domestic violence is not just a 'men beating women' issue, and I'd like to see domestic violence support groups that don't laugh at me and hang up on me when I'm trying to find help for my friend who is being beaten and terrorized by his girlfriend.

Unforutnately, telling me that they exist because you know feminists who are like that won't be good enough. There are some things that I will have to be able to see with my own eyes, experience in person to change my mind. Much like I would need to see with my own two eyes that anti-abortion protesters are not, on average, like the ones who called me a baby killer the day after I was raped because I was seeking medical treatment.

If your experience is valid to your opinion of what feminism is, then so is mine. You cannot reject it out of hand with 'You're wrong about feminism because that's not what it means to me.'

[cowgirl]

Hm. This angry debate seems to have turned into a thoughtful discussion ! Hooray !

I am sorry that you have had negative experiences with feminism. I really am, but I make no apologies for the feminists you have encountered, as they have as much right to their opinion as you or I.

What my own goal is, is to try to reclaim the label "feminism" from those who have hijacked it. (It cannot be overemphasized that, like Lamia said previously, some feminists get all the press because they say things that are controversial and possibly hateful.) I am a feminist and I don't think that says anything bad about me - why should Dworkin and MacKinnon get all the input into what a feminist is? I personally have come very close to heaving a shoe at Germaine Greer's image when it came upon my television.

No one is disagreeing that some feminists are hateful. Just as some men, some Americans, some Christians, some Muslims, some sci-fi fans, etc, are hateful.

catsix, I feel particularly bad about your experiences and I hope that you find some feminists who do not put you off so much. Please be assured that I consider your experiences every bit as valid as mine, which is why it makes me sad that yours were so negative. I can offer my own insight into the subject:

You are the ultimate judge about what to believe. If somebody is telling you something that sounds like bollocks, no one has the right to prevent you calling it bollocks. BUT, and this is the hard part, once you have done that you can't just dismiss everything out of hand. I also avoid Ms Magazine kind of stuff because it's so incredibly aggrivating, some people in that demographic are just as you describe.

But please keep in mind that just because it's bollocks doesn't mean it's worthless. If you disagree, don't just shut it out. Explain why (no, not to the Ms boards, just to yourself) or at least think critically about it. Begin with the premise that the people who say things you think are outrageous are not saying it because they are evil or stupid or mean. They have reasons to think the way they do. Please try to meet them on that level.

Example: how many of us know what MacKinnon meant when she said sex = rape? If you read where she originally said it, you may be able to still disagree, but understand why she said it, and thus get new insights into heterosexual sex. I think that's all she wants from us. A big part of what radical people do is say things that challenge us to think critically, they don't expect us to swallow it whole.

One theory that I subscribe to is that the best way to learn something is to engage with it, interrogate your assumptions, and don't be afraid of disagreeing. I don't fully agree with any feminist organization (or even any feminist writer) but I agree with many things that many say, and I have learned quite a lot from the places that I disagree.

I'd really like to recommend some feminist organizations like you described, but I don't think I can, because you seem to have your mind made up already about what Your kind of feminism is, and if something isn't that, then it's not worth your time. Why not explore why feminist groups (not NOW, not Ms Magazine etc) dismiss men's rights groups as hateful? Why not read about why there isn't an "organized" group of feminists who believe the way you do? Why not find out why they all seem to think America is run by a patriarchy?

One answer is that once you "organize" with someone you are obliged to agree with them 100% (as evidenced by this thread, among others, where all "feminists" are painted with the same brush).

Another important point, as I mentioned above, is that feminism is about women. It's natural that when men are mentioned, it's often negative. (Although not always by any means. Authors such as bell hooks have often said that Gender is not a Women's issue: it has to do with the way gender is constructed. Patriarchy oppresses men too, by obliging them to fulfil unrealistic views of masculinity, just as women are obliged to fulfil unrealistic views of femininity. My own view is that oppression is something that everyone should struggle against, even those who benefit from it. No one wants a society where men beat up their partners (sorry for this reluctantly continued, painful example), neither men nor women, so can't we work together at it?)

I read a lot of books by feminists who have expressed just the frustrations that you have. I know you don't like to hear about the "patriarchy" that governs the U.S., which is fine, but open your mind to it and read some bell hooks (http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/Contact/viewtopic.php?t=103&sid=0ffae6242ec436cf1f55cef565b5946c). Start with either Feminism is for Everybody, which is kind of academic-y but very relevant to this thread, explaining not Feminism necessarily but why it is for everybody; or Killing Rage, which is about the interaction of race and gender, how everyone experiences oppression differently, and how white men/white women/black men/black women all have much to gain by fighting oppression. Again, instead of getting frustrated and putting the book down, think about what exactly it is that you disagree with her about.

Another hint: try thinking about an issue that interests you and look at feminist takes on it. I am not very familiar with most of the feminists mentioned in this thread, but it seems they are talking mostly about issues relating directly to men vs women. Feminist critiques of subject-specific things are very interesting, and once you've got an actual topic to sink your teeth into then you don't really need to start man-bashing. I got into feminism through third-world studies, which critiques what they call Western feminism from a third-world perspective. Chandra Mohanty is a good one in this field:

from here (http://www.cla.umn.edu/cafs/waysofreading/mohanty.html):
"Thus, it is not color or sex which constructs the ground for these struggles. Rather it is the way we think about race, class and gender -- the political links we choose to make among and between struggles."

Saskia Sassen is an urban planner by trade and studies globalization of labour and immigration.

From here (http://www.bostonreview.net/BR22.5/sassen.html)

What if "culture" cannot be made to pivot as exclusively on the oppression of women? Having worked with a number of disadvantaged, poor immigrant groups here in the United States ... I find that the oppression of the men and boys is in some cases so severe (on their jobs, in school) that cultural concerns are focused on the engagement with or escape from the dominant culture.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree completely with your claim that mainstream American feminism is highly disagreeable. But what I'm trying to tell you now is that a huge number of feminists agree with us on that point.

[catsix]

Then those feminists are doing a piss poor job of speaking up, cowgirl. I have long run into problems where it seemed that any time I presented a view of equality that didn't include the premise that women in the U.S. today are oppressed by the patriarchy, I got some kind of backlash. For example, I was assigned by my law and politics professor to write a fifty page paper on feminist legal influence in the U.S., Canada and Europe. I wrote it from a rather objective viewpoint, neither saying that patriarchy existed or didn't, and comparing the legal systems in a couple of European countries (France and Spain) with those in the U.S. and Canada regarding sexual harassment and pornography. My professor wrote comments throughout my paper that I had not characterized these countries as having a definite patriarchy, and that my grade had been reduced for that. The opinion that there is a present patriarchal rule in these 'western' states is just that, an opinion, and yet I was penalized for having not begun the research or the paper under the premise that the existence and rule of the patriarchy is an undisputed fact. This wasn't a women's studies course, or a feminist organization, it was a course out of the political science department titled "Law and Politics" and the course description called it a study into the effect of political lobby on legislative processes in western states. So why was I penalized for taking a neutral viewpoint on the existence of patriarchy instead of automatically accepting that as fact?

Well, when I asked the professor about it, because I had felt I wrote the paper in a very objective manner and sufficiently covered the topic assigned to me, I was told that one of the ways the patriarchy seeks to oppress all women is in refusing to acknowledge that it exists. This professor actually told me that those who don't admit that there is a patriarchal rule, especially in the U.S., were the ones prepetuating it to the detriment of women. Now, I suppose the professor's attitude would have been fine if that were a feminist philosophy class and I were writing a paper regarding how feminists who have had major impact on the passing of laws were applying their philosophy. I would have had to start with the premise that the patriarchy did exist in order to explain what it was these feminists (Dworkin and MacKinnon were two of them, and I read a significant amount of their work to write the paper) had actually accomplished according to their philosophy. But it wasn't a class about feminists with a patriarchal oppression philosophy. It was supposed to be an objective look at how political lobby groups affect legislative change.

That seemed like the proper arena to discuss that 'these feminists over here believe this, and thus seek to make these changes' while 'these people over here believe this, and thus do not think these changes are necessary' type objective analysis. Instead my neutral standpoint was characterized as blatantly anti-feminist and borderline misogynist by a professor who told me that since my premise didn't include the existence of the patriarchy, I was naturally either a tool of it, or perpetrator of it.

And that's what passed in an objective class. Critical analysis not allowed. So my opinion that there is enough of a movement in feminism to quash any objective criticism of any feminists to be quite siginificant grew. At that point, it wasn't the CWO or NOW or Ms. Magazine in their own space telling me I couldn't analyze the motives of feminists who sought to change laws from a neutral point of view (i.e. not automatically accepting the premise of patriarchy), it was in a course regarding the effect of political lobby on law. Seemed to me like that was somewhere such analysis should be happening, and where the differing sides should all be considered.

Professor ended up not giving me the original D grade when I mentioned writing a letter to the editor of the studen run newspaper regarding the issue. I got a C+ as my reward for not taking my issue with the professor's bias any further.

[cowgirl]

That sucks, catsix. That woman didn't have any more claim to "objectivity" than you did.

If I may play the feminist devil's advocate for a moment:

It seems like she thought that your failure to identify "the patriarchy" meant that you have been duped by it. This line of reasoning is in the same camp as "neutrality = complicity" - as in, if you don't directly challenge something that is bad, then you are complicit in it. Of course, it's also in the same camp as "Well, you couldn't possibly understand how much fun Nascar racing/basket weaving/winter camping is, as you haven't tried it !"

This is a whole big field of study. The late lamented Edward Said argued in Orientalism that true "neutrality" in writing is impossible, that you can't remove the writer, with all his/her history and points of view, from the writing.

But agreed, unless this is an explicit subject of debate, it should not be the basis for marks ! There is no agreed-upon consensus on how/whether to view "the patriarchy" and anyone who tells you you're anti-feminist because you've taken the "wrong" stance is being divisive and exclusive. For me feminism is about inclusion and critical examination of all reasonable points of view.

Let me reiterate my point: No one, not me, nor Dworkin, nor my beloved bell hooks, nor your law professor, holds the standard of what Feminism is ! You can think feminists that you meet are full of shit, and still be a feminist, if you want ! Feminism will only be better off for it !

... just MHO ...

[margin]

arguing that before you have to respond to my calling you on strawmen and ad hominem arguments, I first have to refute your assertion that someone else is guilty of the same.

Uh, no.

You have to apply the same standard to all sides of a debate, Mal. You're not doing that. Plain and simple. Andy's repeatedly left out qualifications for his bilious statements about feminism. That's all there is to it.

Your own quote of Andy:

Let me be clear that I am citing and condemning those feminists who are anti-male. If it happens that an overwhelming number of feminist leaders hold anti-male views, well, that's something the feminists themselves should be looking into.

Andy has repeatedly justified his hatred of feminism by claiming that it's anti-male. What he hasn't provided is sources.

As to being "ignorant of feminist utopian fiction", I may not have picked up on that. I did, however, understand you to be denying that there was any such thing. Of course that doesn't imply ignorance

Your 'not picking up on it' was extraordinarily conveniant----for Andy.

Miller, as I indicated before, I was faced with a particularly annoying poster who kept screaming "cite?" I had made a reference to feminist utopian fiction, which this person had not heard of it, so she took it upon herself to suggest that I had just invented the entire sub-genre out of my own head! I produced a length cite for the cite-monger, and felt I might as well post it in Cafe Society in case anyone wanted to discuss. If you don't, please feel free to ignore the post.

Uh, yeah. Answer this. Where, exactly, did I deny such a thing existe? Relevance, definitely. But denying its existance? He's lying, flat out,and you never called him on it.

[margin]

Indeed. There was a feminist *cough*Margin* who had never heard of feminist utopian fiction and then accused me of lying about the existence of it. Now look how many people have already expressed their familiarity with it. (Of course, this same feminist is demanding that I supply a cite for the existence of affirmative action, so I suspect she is being deliberately obtuse -- if she can hold her hands over her eyes, then nothing else exists.)

Gee, I accused him of lying about it? Where were you, Mal? Where is THIS cite?

[margin]

As I've said, my original aim was to prove to a feminist deep in denial that this sub-genre actually exists.

No, your intent was to deflect attention from your lack of a cite to prove your claims about feminism in general. I'm still waiting for that cite, Andy. Oh, and now that we're on the subject, do provide me with a cite for where I claimed this sub-genre does not exist.

This is the stuff you're ignoring, Mal.

[catsix]

cowgirl said:
It seems like she thought that your failure to identify "the patriarchy" meant that you have been duped by it.

I did identify the patriarchy so far as that the feminists who had been the ones instrumental in the legal changes (MacKinnon and Dworkin) regarding pornography and sexual harassment viewed it. I stated, with cites, their stance on the patriarchy. The only thing I didn't do was claim those views as my own.

I presented both views. That, apparently, was my mistake.

For me feminism is about inclusion and critical examination of all reasonable points of view.

I am glad to see this, and do not mind at all discussing or debating with you for that reason.

Let me reiterate my point: No one, not me, nor Dworkin, nor my beloved bell hooks, nor your law professor, holds the standard of what Feminism is ! You can think feminists that you meet are full of shit, and still be a feminist, if you want ! Feminism will only be better off for it !

The major problem I had with that professor wasn't that the professor was feminist and obviously believed that the patriarchy is an oppressive ruling class of men at this point in time. It was that in a supposedly objective class I was penalized for not agreeing with that opinion. It was that the professor let that philosophical belief become a grading criterion, and that there was a definite attempt to silence objective discussion of it. It was that implication that if I didn't go public with the fact that agreement with the professor's political ideology was a requirement for an A in the course, I'd be rewarded for my silence with a 'respectable' C grade, and the reading-between-the-lines of 'This course might not go very well for you if you start publicly criticizing my grading criteria.'

If it was a mere disagreement, I would have been fine with it. Had I been able to discuss the grade I got and been given some fair reason why my paper was not good, I could live with that. What I could not stomach then, and will never stomach, was the attitude that the professor was in a position of authority, and that authority was being used to say 'Agree with me or I will silence you.'

Perhaps I should have taken the high road and said more then about the bias of the professor, but I chickenshitted to avoid an F on my transcript.

[CanvasShoes]

Claiming that SAL condemns all feminists flies in the face of this very clear quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious
You say that we shouldn't lump all feminists in to the same batch -- even though you are suspiciously silent when feminists are lumping all men together, as Brownmiller does. Let me be clear that I am citing and condemning those feminists who are anti-male. If it happens that an overwhelming number of feminist leaders hold anti-male views, well, that's something the feminists themselves should be looking into. When we discuss anti-Semitism, we do not have to go through this bullshit tactic you are using. We do not have to wrangle about not all gentiles being anti-Semitic, just the extremists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He doesn't with that posting, but he certainly DOES do so with his "feminists desire a society in which men are not a part" (paraphrased) post.

And I believe that it was THAT quote and a few others like it for which margin is requesting proof (cites). To her credit, andy has NOT come in and explained THAT, and other posts like that one, nor apologized for them or recanted them.

Come on (nice smile, requesting sweetly :)), give margin a break, let her get her "SDMB" legs.

[CanvasShoes]

Some of the quotes from people like Brownmiller, Dworkin and so on are widely-known enough hardly to need citing. For some aspects of the goals of feminism, Andy cited texts such as the S.C.U.M. Manifesto and NOW policy statements. On the whole, though, the questions you raise are the ones I too want answered.
The problem with that is, that quoting/citing those things are NOT proof of what margin was asking him to provide cites for.

She was asking him to provide a cite for the fact that, as he quoted "feminists desire a society in which men are absent (paraphrased)".

His quoting known feminist weirdos, and NOW policies does NOT prove that feminists desire this. Only that certain members of the movement do.

And that has been her point/request for cites (as I understand her to be saying, because I've been wanting him to prove the same thing).

Again, this isn't that hard, maybe margin isn't clarifying her request in the exact way you and andy would want it worded, but really, what he's doing is akin to saying "Well, the Black Panther's (and other radical fringe groups of the same ilk) Policy states this, therefore black people want domination over whites etc".

He has not yet provided a single cite that shows that FEMINISTS believe a certain way. Merely a few that show what SOME feminists believe.

[CanvasShoes]

If your experience is valid to your opinion of what feminism is, then so is mine. You cannot reject it out of hand with 'You're wrong about feminism because that's not what it means to me.'
I don't know what she's going to say, but what I'M going to say to that is "you're wrong about feminism because that's what it says in the dictionary".

And that is:

fem·i·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fm-nzm)
n.
1.) Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2.) The movement organized around this belief.

You asked for proof that feminists other than the ones who are so markedly in the spotlight exist.

Look around you. Almost every woman you meet, whether she defines herself as such or not, IS by definition (the dictionary and commonly accepted definition) a FEMINIST. You get waited on in a restaurant? The waitresses are feminists. You can betcher butt that they expect to get the same treatment and pay as their male counterparts.

You work somewhere? I bet all of your female counterparts expect the same.

You check out books in a library? The female librarians expect to get the same pay and treatment as the male librarians. And so on.

You asked where the "nice" feminists who could restore your "trust" were (paraphrased). They're all around you.

That a particular group has taken and twisted it's meaning doesn't change the quieter beliefs of the other millions of us.

You're confusing LOUDNESS, PUBCLICITY, and NOTORIETY for majority. You're seeing that those that are on display as claiming that they speak for all of us are either published, or perhaps a leader in some part of the movement or another.

Doesn't mean a thing, other than that THOSE particular women are a bit "teched". :D

[CanvasShoes]

Originally posted by catsix
Then those feminists are doing a piss poor job of speaking up, cowgirl.[quote]
Several of us are "speaking up" NOW catsix.

[quote] I have long run into problems where it seemed that any time I presented a view of equality that didn't include the premise that women in the U.S. today are oppressed by the patriarchy, I got some kind of backlash. For example, I was assigned by my law and politics professor to write a fifty page paper on feminist legal influence...............So why was I penalized for taking a neutral viewpoint on the existence of patriarchy instead of automatically accepting that as fact?
Well, when I asked the professor about it, because I had felt I wrote the paper in a very objective manner and sufficiently covered the topic assigned to me, I was told that one of the ways the patriarchy seeks to oppress all women is in refusing to acknowledge that it exists. This professor actually told me that those who don't admit that there is a patriarchal rule, especially in the U.S., were the ones prepetuating it to the detriment of women. Now, I suppose the professor's attitude would have been fine if that were a feminist philosophy class and I were writing a paper regarding how feminists who have had major impact on the passing of laws were applying their philosophy. I would have had to start with the premise that the patriarchy did exist in order to explain what it was these feminists (Dworkin and MacKinnon were two of them, and I read a significant amount of their work to write the paper) had actually accomplished according to their philosophy. But it wasn't a class about feminists with a patriarchal oppression philosophy. It was supposed to be an objective look at how political lobby groups affect legislative change.
She sounds like an extroaordinarily sucky professor, to be pushing her personal beliefs in a class.

But why add her example to the "See? feminists hate all men" attitude? Why not simply chock it up to "yup another nutso"???


And that's what passed in an objective class. Critical analysis not allowed. So my opinion that there is enough of a movement in feminism to quash any objective criticism of any feminists to be quite siginificant grew.
Well, again, you are hearing SEVERAL viewpoints here in this forum that are telling you "no, this is NOT what all feminists believe".

At that point, it wasn't the CWO or NOW or Ms. Magazine in their own space telling me I couldn't analyze the motives of feminists who sought to change laws from a neutral point of view (i.e. not automatically accepting the premise of patriarchy), it was in a course regarding the effect of political lobby on law. Seemed to me like that was somewhere such analysis should be happening, and where the differing sides should all be considered.

Professor ended up not giving me the original D grade when I mentioned writing a letter to the editor of the studen run newspaper regarding the issue. I got a C+ as my reward for not taking my issue with the professor's bias any further.

Sucky professor. Again, STILL not "proof" or a cite about how "feminists" are thus and so.

You've got several of us on here telling you "well, We're feminists, WE don't believe that way". Why not add us to your beliefs and start balancing out the bitterness?

[catsix]

CanvasShoes said:
I don't know what she's going to say, but what I'M going to say to that is "you're wrong about feminism because that's what it says in the dictionary".

And that is:

fem·i·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fm-nzm)
n.
1.) Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2.) The movement organized around this belief.

The largest feminist activist group in the United States certainly doesn't fit that definition. There is a difference between the literal denotation of a word, and its working connotation.

Look around you. Almost every woman you meet, whether she defines herself as such or not, IS by definition (the dictionary and commonly accepted definition) a FEMINIST.

I expect equality, and I am no feminist. Please do not slap that label on me and in doing so associate me with the negativity that comes out of large, mainstream feminist lobby groups like NOW.

You get waited on in a restaurant? The waitresses are feminists. You can betcher butt that they expect to get the same treatment and pay as their male counterparts.

You work somewhere? I bet all of your female counterparts expect the same.

What gave you the right to tell people whether they're a feminist or not? If they reject that label because of the things carried out in the name of feminism, who the fuck are you to tell them they're wrong because the 'dictonary says something else'?

You asked where the "nice" feminists who could restore your "trust" were (paraphrased). They're all around you.

I see lots of people. Not so many who are feminists. Of those that are, the overwhleming majority have been adding to my negative opinion.

That a particular group has taken and twisted it's meaning doesn't change the quieter beliefs of the other millions of us.

Do you have a cite for the fact that there are 'quiter millions' of you? I know it sounds snarky, but can you prove they exist? I can definitely prove NOW exists, and what its political aims are, and see how many members it's got. Am I just supposed to take your word for it that there are 'quieter millions'? If they exist, why the hell aren't they speaking up?

You're confusing LOUDNESS, PUBCLICITY, and NOTORIETY for majority. You're seeing that those that are on display as claiming that they speak for all of us are either published, or perhaps a leader in some part of the movement or another.

When their membership rolls are the largest, their books are the most-selling, and their material is taught in the most courses, you're damn right I'm claiming they are 'leading feminists'.

But why add her example to the "See? feminists hate all men" attitude? Why not simply chock it up to "yup another nutso"???

Because that professor tried to silence me for disagreement. Inside and outside of class.

Well, again, you are hearing SEVERAL viewpoints here in this forum that are telling you "no, this is NOT what all feminists believe".

And they have yet to show me a feminist organization, at all, that doesn't discriminate against men.

You've got several of us on here telling you "well, We're feminists, WE don't believe that way". Why not add us to your beliefs and start balancing out the bitterness?

Well, for one this is a tiny number compared to the numbers of feminists who did believe that hating men or discriminating against them wasn't a problem, and for another, I'm not entirely convinced that some of the people in this thread don't actually harbor anti-male viewpoints.

[CanvasShoes]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CanvasShoes said:
I don't know what she's going to say, but what I'M going to say to that is "you're wrong about feminism because that's what it says in the dictionary".

And that is:

fem·i·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fm-nzm)
n.
1.) Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2.) The movement organized around this belief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The largest feminist activist group in the United States certainly doesn't fit that definition. There is a difference between the literal denotation of a word, and its working connotation.
You're wrong. You cannot possibly know what all of the several million feminists in the US think, or if they do, or do not "fit that definition".

I am speaking purely of women that meet the DICTIONARY definition of the term. You seem to keep missing the point that it does NOT matter that a group, or groups have taken the term and twisted it. The ORIGINAL definition still fits most modern women in this country.

Technically, the largest active group of feminists are NOT those in NOW, or Ms. Mag (I didn't even know that Mag was still around). But in your every day "woman on the street.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look around you. Almost every woman you meet, whether she defines herself as such or not, IS by definition (the dictionary and commonly accepted definition) a FEMINIST.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I expect equality, and I am no feminist. Please do not slap that label on me and in doing so associate me with the negativity that comes out of large, mainstream feminist lobby groups like NOW. [quote]
I didn't slap any label on you. Please see ABOVE where I cut and pasted from Dictionary.com. If that is what you believe, you are. TECHNICALLY a feminist. Or would you prefer to go back to the days of "don't worry your pretty little head about it"? Or, "why are you out here? Where is your husband, how come he doesn't take care of you" (a question I was actually ASKED, while on the job in a male dominated field).


Again, since you do not know every member of the so-called "large mainstream (??? says who?) feminist lobby groups", you do not know that the outspoken and publicized weirdos do in fact speak for them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You get waited on in a restaurant? The waitresses are feminists. You can betcher butt that they expect to get the same treatment and pay as their male counterparts.

You work somewhere? I bet all of your female counterparts expect the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]What gave you the right to tell people whether they're a feminist or not? If they reject that label because of the things carried out in the name of feminism, who the fuck are you to tell them they're wrong because the 'dictonary says something else'?
I'm not calling anyone anything. Again, I'm speaking TECHNICALLY. Unless these women would happily agree to take less pay, and have fewer/lesser rights than their male counterparts, TECHNICALLY by DEFINITION they ARE feminists.

Just because some fringe crazies have said that their agenda is different does NOT make "normal" feminists any less of a feminist.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You asked where the "nice" feminists who could restore your "trust" were (paraphrased). They're all around you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see lots of people. Not so many who are feminists. Of those that are, the overwhleming majority have been adding to my negative opinion.
Oh, reeeeaaaally? (perplexed, not sarcastic). So, let's say you personally know, enough to speak with and know of their lives and lifestyles, about a hundred women. Of those women, do you know any that would agree to be treated by a different standard than their male counterparts?

No? Okay then. By the accepted and technical definition of the word, those women ARE feminists. That they don't fit the CRAZIES' definition does NOT make them less so.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That a particular group has taken and twisted it's meaning doesn't change the quieter beliefs of the other millions of us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have a cite for the fact that there are 'quiter millions' of you? I know it sounds snarky, but can you prove they exist? I can definitely prove NOW exists, and what its political aims are, and see how many members it's got. Am I just supposed to take your word for it that there are 'quieter millions'? If they exist, why the hell aren't they speaking up?
Sure, all you have to do is look at the US Census information. The women that are working in the same jobs as men and getting the same pay and the same treatment.

There are millions of women in this country. Do you know of, or have you seen ANY on the census information who would willingly accept being paid less for the same job, or who would accept getting lesser treatment under the law?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're confusing LOUDNESS, PUBCLICITY, and NOTORIETY for majority. You're seeing that those that are on display as claiming that they speak for all of us are either published, or perhaps a leader in some part of the movement or another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When their membership rolls are the largest, their books are the most-selling, and their material is taught in the most courses, you're damn right I'm claiming they are 'leading feminists'.
Again, do you know each and every one of the members of these groups, on a speaking basis to know that each and every one of them does in fact agree with their so-called leaders?

I'm an instructor at a college, in a fitness capacity. The fitness profession is a pretty darn big one, our "leaders" range from Bill Phillips to Jack LaLanne to Dr. Atkins to Dr. PHIL for crying out loud.

Does this mean that the opinion of those people speak for all of us who are fitness professionals?

Hell no. Anymore than the craziness of some of the "leaders" of NOW speak for every single member.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But why add her example to the "See? feminists hate all men" attitude? Why not simply chock it up to "yup another nutso"???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because that professor tried to silence me for disagreement. Inside and outside of class.
I'm sorry, I don't buy it. This WAS a class in an American University wasn't it? You're telling me that one assignment made you get a "D" unless you were willing to "sell out" which you said you "had" to do rather than flunk? Based on your description of the situation, she's a bitch and a bad instructor. Things she could be withOUT benefit of being a feminist.

You could have done things the "American" way, fought your rights all the way to the dean.

I also don't mean to be "snarky" but since I am also an instructor at a university, I know that it takes more than one assignment to cause you to flunk a class. If you had a problem with this teacher, you could have dropped her class, or simply "coasted" and gotten a decent grade simply by giving her what she wanted to hear.

If she was that rabid, you must have known her attitudes well before an assignment that was close to the end of the semester and liable to affect your final grade. If one assignment was enough to put your final grade into the D category, she must have had it in for you all semester. You would have had more luck to have fought her from the get go, or have dropped her class.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, again, you are hearing SEVERAL viewpoints here in this forum that are telling you "no, this is NOT what all feminists believe".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And they have yet to show me a feminist organization, at all, that doesn't discriminate against men.
This is what I'm trying to tell you, that most feminsts aren't IN some organization, they're just ordinary women, working and living, like the rest of the humans.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've got several of us on here telling you "well, We're feminists, WE don't believe that way". Why not add us to your beliefs and start balancing out the bitterness?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, for one this is a tiny number compared to the numbers of feminists who did believe that hating men or discriminating against them wasn't a problem, and for another, I'm not entirely convinced that some of the people in this thread don't actually harbor anti-male viewpoints.
Well sweetie (said in an honestly kind way, NOT a condescending one). If you want to believe that *I* don't harbor anti-male view, I suggest you wander over to IMHO, and see some of my posts about boyfriends and sex etc.

If I remember right, a few of my "fellow" feminst posters here have also posted some hot "pro male" things over there.

Honestly, it sounds to me as if you're fairly young, and have been burned by some rather mean and nasty man haters. TRUST me, those types have been around for centuries, feminism or no feminism.

Nasty and means types of both sexes exist. Big groups of mean and nasty men exist too. You just gotta ignore the mean and nasties.

[CanvasShoes]

LOL. A thought just occurred to me.

The lengthy debate we've been engaged in is pretty telling considering the title of this thread.

The women catsix and others are complaining (and rightfully so) about are "feminazis".

"Normal" feminists aren't.

:D

[Malacandra]

CanvasShoes, I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Now all we need is another thread in which to discuss "How influential are FemiNazis, really?".

So far as this thread goes, I'm done.

Except to say as to your request above: give margin a break, let her get her "SDMB" legs.

200+ posts is time enough not to be counted as a vulnerable newbie, methinks.

Catch ya later!

[margin]

200+ posts is time enough not to be counted as a vulnerable newbie, methinks.

Except most of those posts were in this thread, waiting for Andy to put up or shut up, and for you to notice Andy's straw women and ad hominem attacks. /sarcasm. Interesting that that line of Canvas Shoes is the only one you cite. Did you even read the rest, or did you just pick out the only one you could think of something to say about?

Canvas Shoes, you're more or less correct. Andy's big defense is that he means only extremist feminists, but he's repeatedly referred to 'feminists' without qualification. I guess that he, like catsix, must do an awful lot of travelling in order to have met all those feminists. Furthermore, he undermines his claims that he's referring only to extremists with quotes like this:

Errata's effort to dismiss Solanas as a lone nut is either uninformed or dishonest, so the other comments from this source should be taken in the same light.

And here it is again, because Mal seems so determined to ignore it:

Do you think feminism advocates civil rights? Well, there are so many areas in which feminism opposes the rights of men that I doubt I could list them all, but for starters:

Opposes men's rights to due process by insisting that men ought to be fired solely on a woman's claim that he harassed her.

Opposes fathers' rights to visitation and custody.

Opposes men's rights to defend themselves against rape accusations via the establishment of so-called "rape shield laws" that rule out evidence contradicting the accusation.

Opposes free speech by advocating various speech codes that apply to men but not to women.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating programs that would exclude men from their benefits.

Opposes men's equal rights to higher education via affirmative action, quotas, women-only scholarships, etc., with men now becoming the minority on campus.

Opposes the idea that women's lives and men's lives are of equal worth.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating laws that protect women but not men or give women a far higher level of protection than men. [

As for keeping phalluses away from you, Annie, don't worry too much about it. I'm sure you are perfectly safe in that regard, hon.

And of course, when Mal is talking to me about ad hominem insults, he ignores the ones that Andy has been lobbing at women who dare to disagree with His Perfectfullness.

Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem. Many have taken as their ideal the Amazons, women who allegedly killed male babies in order to maintain the purity of their race.


This was his very next post:

For your information, this is the established fact. I'm not making up anything here.( Except he is making this crap up out of whole cloth.) Feminist fiction has long been rife with themes of female-only paradise or female-run utopias, and feminist philosophy is full of dremy scenarios of how good the world would be if either men disappeared or women ran everything. If you are blaming me for bringing it up, well, denial is a very hard thing to break.

Feminist fiction has what to do with feminist aims? As it appears from his feminist fiction thread, he hasn't even read the books he bashes, and people who have read them have been easily refuting his claims about them. That's the thread, by the way, in which he claimed I denied that such a thing existed. He hasn't provided a quote for that, either, and it ought to be really, really simple. The problem is, there's no such quote, and he knows it. There's also a different standard in Cafe Society, and he knows he can't meet it with his huge leaps to a conclusion. So he vanished.


This is the closest he's come to a cite: more hysterical ranting and paranoia, from page two:

Opposes the idea that women's lives and men's lives are of equal worth
This is seen in slogans such as "violence against women is always wrong," with the unspoken corrolary that violence against men is just fine.[b] Also, although women live about seven years longer than men, feminist organizations demand we channel more and more of our resources into women's health -- including quality of life issues.

The part I bolded shows Andy actually putting words in unnamed peoples' mouths, and seeing meanings that require huge jumps to conclusions.

And, finally, Andy's attitude toward cites, because he's perfect.

Now, the disclaimer. When some answers a [b]lengthy post[b] (There's quality and then there's quantity, Andy. Length has nothing to do with your credibility.) with nothing more than a demand for a cite, it's usually regarded as trollish behavior or stupidity. I won't guess which are at work with you. But all the topics mentioned here are known to anyone who has paid [b]cursory attention, so demanding cites for matters of common knowledge displays an undue fondness for grade-school Usenet wars. Grow up, Margin. Especially egregious is you demanding a cite for NOW's anti-father initiatives because we have already discussed this on a different thread. If that doesn't border on trolling, I don't know what does.

In sum, this poster is not responsible for readers who have their heads either in the sand or up their arses. When troubleshooting your "cite" reflex, please first check that your head in upright and in the proper position.

Andy doesn't think he has to provide a cite. My, my, my. It's common knowledge, he says. If you don't see it, you've got your head up your ass. Is that like the way he knows better than me what happened at my job?

Andy can see across the Internet and Malacandra doesn't have a problem with that.

All I have to go on when judging you is your behavior here. In that time, I've noted that you have been dishonest, didactic, dogmatic, and in denial. You have been petulent, and you employ the nagging-type of argument of a toddler. Given all this, I sincerely doubt your versions of events are true. Moreover, I can honestly see why it would be in the best interest of any organization to include you out.


Yup, that Andy. In a way, he really is the perfect person to talk to----or, actually, be talked at by----about feminazism, so to speak, because he really believes in it, and if you ever find another guy who also believes in it, you can pretty much expect them to act and think about women the way Andy does. I don't believe for one minute that Andy shuts off his contempt for women when he moves beyond the borders of feminism. He jumps to too many conclusions with too little evidence except for his own paranoia, and that jumping to conclusion must be very popular with the ladies. After all, what's better than a guy who gets spitting mad over feminism, repeatedly compares it to Naziism, and then puts words into the mouths of those that defend it? He makes shit up when it suits him, such as his claim in the other thread that I didn't know what feminist fiction is. Either he's lying, in that he just makes shit up when he needs to, or he really believes this paranoid stuff, in which case, we're not really discussing feminism, we're just discussing what a pathological hatred of feminism reveals about a speaker.

[margin]

200+ posts is time enough not to be counted as a vulnerable newbie, methinks.

Except most of those posts were in this thread, waiting for Andy to put up or shut up, and for you to notice Andy's straw women and ad hominem attacks. /sarcasm. Interesting that that line of Canvas Shoes is the only one you cite. Did you even read the rest, or did you just pick out the only one you could think of something to say about?

Canvas Shoes, you're more or less correct. Andy's big defense is that he means only extremist feminists, but he's repeatedly referred to 'feminists' without qualification. I guess that he, like catsix, must do an awful lot of travelling in order to have met all those feminists. Furthermore, he undermines his claims that he's referring only to extremists with quotes like this:

Errata's effort to dismiss Solanas as a lone nut is either uninformed or dishonest, so the other comments from this source should be taken in the same light.

And here it is again, because Mal seems so determined to ignore it:

Do you think feminism advocates civil rights? Well, there are so many areas in which feminism opposes the rights of men that I doubt I could list them all, but for starters:

Opposes men's rights to due process by insisting that men ought to be fired solely on a woman's claim that he harassed her.

Opposes fathers' rights to visitation and custody.

Opposes men's rights to defend themselves against rape accusations via the establishment of so-called "rape shield laws" that rule out evidence contradicting the accusation.

Opposes free speech by advocating various speech codes that apply to men but not to women.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating programs that would exclude men from their benefits.

Opposes men's equal rights to higher education via affirmative action, quotas, women-only scholarships, etc., with men now becoming the minority on campus.

Opposes the idea that women's lives and men's lives are of equal worth.

Opposes equality under the law by advocating laws that protect women but not men or give women a far higher level of protection than men. [

As for keeping phalluses away from you, Annie, don't worry too much about it. I'm sure you are perfectly safe in that regard, hon.

And of course, when Mal is talking to me about ad hominem insults, he ignores the ones that Andy has been lobbing at women who dare to disagree with His Perfectfullness.

Feminism has a long and cherished tradition of hoping for a female-only society, thus advocating a Final Solution for the male problem. Many have taken as their ideal the Amazons, women who allegedly killed male babies in order to maintain the purity of their race.


This was his very next post:

For your information, this is the established fact. I'm not making up anything here.( Except he is making this crap up out of whole cloth.) Feminist fiction has long been rife with themes of female-only paradise or female-run utopias, and feminist philosophy is full of dremy scenarios of how good the world would be if either men disappeared or women ran everything. If you are blaming me for bringing it up, well, denial is a very hard thing to break.

Feminist fiction has what to do with feminist aims? As it appears from his feminist fiction thread, he hasn't even read the books he bashes, and people who have read them have been easily refuting his claims about them. That's the thread, by the way, in which he claimed I denied that such a thing existed. He hasn't provided a quote for that, either, and it ought to be really, really simple. The problem is, there's no such quote, and he knows it. There's also a different standard in Cafe Society, and he knows he can't meet it with his huge leaps to a conclusion. So he vanished.


This is the closest he's come to a cite: more hysterical ranting and paranoia, from page two:

Opposes the idea that women's lives and men's lives are of equal worth
This is seen in slogans such as "violence against women is always wrong," with the unspoken corrolary that violence against men is just fine.[b] Also, although women live about seven years longer than men, feminist organizations demand we channel more and more of our resources into women's health -- including quality of life issues.

The part I bolded shows Andy actually putting words in unnamed peoples' mouths, and seeing meanings that require huge jumps to conclusions.

And, finally, Andy's attitude toward cites, because he's perfect.

Now, the disclaimer. When some answers a [b]lengthy post[b] (There's quality and then there's quantity, Andy. Length has nothing to do with your credibility.) with nothing more than a demand for a cite, it's usually regarded as trollish behavior or stupidity. I won't guess which are at work with you. But all the topics mentioned here are known to anyone who has paid [b]cursory attention, so demanding cites for matters of common knowledge displays an undue fondness for grade-school Usenet wars. Grow up, Margin. Especially egregious is you demanding a cite for NOW's anti-father initiatives because we have already discussed this on a different thread. If that doesn't border on trolling, I don't know what does.

In sum, this poster is not responsible for readers who have their heads either in the sand or up their arses. When troubleshooting your "cite" reflex, please first check that your head in upright and in the proper position.

Andy doesn't think he has to provide a cite. My, my, my. It's common knowledge, he says. If you don't see it, you've got your head up your ass. Is that like the way he knows better than me what happened at my job?

Andy can see across the Internet and Malacandra doesn't have a problem with that.

All I have to go on when judging you is your behavior here. In that time, I've noted that you have been dishonest, didactic, dogmatic, and in denial. You have been petulent, and you employ the nagging-type of argument of a toddler. Given all this, I sincerely doubt your versions of events are true. Moreover, I can honestly see why it would be in the best interest of any organization to include you out.


Yup, that Andy. In a way, he really is the perfect person to talk to----or, actually, be talked at by----about feminazism, so to speak, because he really believes in it, and if you ever find another guy who also believes in it, you can pretty much expect them to act and think about women the way Andy does. I don't believe for one minute that Andy shuts off his contempt for women when he moves beyond the borders of feminism. He jumps to too many conclusions with too little evidence except for his own paranoia, and that jumping to conclusion must be very popular with the ladies. After all, what's better than a guy who gets spitting mad over feminism, repeatedly compares it to Naziism, and then puts words into the mouths of those that defend it? He makes shit up when it suits him, such as his claim in the other thread that I didn't know what feminist fiction is. Either he's lying, in that he just makes shit up when he needs to, or he really believes this paranoid stuff, in which case, we're not really discussing feminism, we're just discussing what a pathological hatred of feminism reveals about a speaker.

[margin]

Damned double post.

[catsix]

CanvasShoes said:
You're wrong. You cannot possibly know what all of the several million feminists in the US think, or if they do, or do not "fit that definition".

I know that NOW is the largest feminist organization in the U.S. I know that their platform, which their membership supports by paying dues and being part of that membership, does not meet the dictionary definition you posted. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Technically, the largest active group of feminists are NOT those in NOW, or Ms. Mag (I didn't even know that Mag was still around). But in your every day "woman on the street.

Why do you insist upon identifying people as feminists for them?

I didn't slap any label on you. Please see ABOVE where I cut and pasted from Dictionary.com. If that is what you believe, you are. TECHNICALLY a feminist. Or would you prefer to go back to the days of "don't worry your pretty little head about it"? Or, "why are you out here? Where is your husband, how come he doesn't take care of you" (a question I was actually ASKED, while on the job in a male dominated field).

I am not a feminist, no matter what you say. The working definition of feminist is too damned far removed from the dictionary definition for me to ever be associated with that word.

Amazing how you are starting to sound like one of those 'either you're a feminist or part of the problem' people.

Wait, no it isn't.

Again, since you do not know every member of the so-called "large mainstream (??? says who?) feminist lobby groups", you do not know that the outspoken and publicized weirdos do in fact speak for them.

Those groups elect leaders who put in place the statements of the organizational mission. They authorize their leadership to speak for them, and to press those ideologies. They support ideas that suck.

I'm not calling anyone anything. Again, I'm speaking TECHNICALLY. Unless these women would happily agree to take less pay, and have fewer/lesser rights than their male counterparts, TECHNICALLY by DEFINITION they ARE feminists.

No human being wants to have less rights and less pay than someone else for doing an equal job. That doesn't require a special word applied to them by you. It's covered fairly well under being human.

Oh, reeeeaaaally? (perplexed, not sarcastic). So, let's say you personally know, enough to speak with and know of their lives and lifestyles, about a hundred women. Of those women, do you know any that would agree to be treated by a different standard than their male counterparts?

You bet your ass I know women who not only would agree to it, they demand it. They demand special consideration for jobs, in family courts, when it comes to alimony, child support, taking time off from work to do things like go to their kid's school play or being able to take years out of their careers while not losing any seniority although they're not actively working on the same projects everyone else is. They flat out fucking insist on different standards from men. They want to be 'more equal'.

No? Okay then. By the accepted and technical definition of the word, those women ARE feminists. That they don't fit the CRAZIES' definition does NOT make them less so.

One, don't put words in my mouth or assume you know how I'll answer a question. Two, human beings generally want to be treated fairly. It has nothing to do with being a feminist and everything to do with being human.

There are millions of women in this country. Do you know of, or have you seen ANY on the census information who would willingly accept being paid less for the same job, or who would accept getting lesser treatment under the law?

What human would? Are the men who wouldn't want to be paid less than a woman for the same job feminists? Masculinists? Or are they just human beings like everyone else who wants a fair shake in the world?

Again, do you know each and every one of the members of these groups, on a speaking basis to know that each and every one of them does in fact agree with their so-called leaders?

Don't have to. They've authorized their leaders to speak on their behalf, and if they really disagreed, they'd quit paying the mouthpieces.

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. This WAS a class in an American University wasn't it? You're telling me that one assignment made you get a "D" unless you were willing to "sell out" which you said you "had" to do rather than flunk? Based on your description of the situation, she's a bitch and a bad instructor. Things she could be withOUT benefit of being a feminist.

There were exactly two grades for the semester in that class. One fifty page term paper, and one final exam. I was originally given a D on the paper, and told that I would find it costly if I were to question publicly the professor's grading criteria. As it was, failing that paper would've meant I could at best obtain 50% of the total grade for the course - which is still an F.


I also don't mean to be "snarky" but since I am also an instructor at a university, I know that it takes more than one assignment to cause you to flunk a class.

Well that really depends on how many assignments your final grade consists of, doesn't it?

If she was that rabid, you must have known her attitudes well before an assignment that was close to the end of the semester and liable to affect your final grade. If one assignment was enough to put your final grade into the D category, she must have had it in for you all semester. You would have had more luck to have fought her from the get go, or have dropped her class.

I knew the professor's views. I also believed that like other professors who had very strongly held beliefs I disagreed with that they wouldn't be a factor in grading an objective course.

This is what I'm trying to tell you, that most feminsts aren't IN some organization, they're just ordinary women, working and living, like the rest of the humans.

And so you label every woman a feminist in order to try to support your own point? What a bullshit tactic.

Well sweetie (said in an honestly kind way, NOT a condescending one). If you want to believe that *I* don't harbor anti-male view, I suggest you wander over to IMHO, and see some of my posts about boyfriends and sex etc.

I believe I already asked people not to call me 'sweetie'. And as for the rest of this comment, you might as well say 'Some of my best friends are black. I can't be racist.'

Honestly, it sounds to me as if you're fairly young, and have been burned by some rather mean and nasty man haters. TRUST me, those types have been around for centuries, feminism or no feminism.

Wow, now you're condescending because you think you know how old I am. You at one point had some of my respect in this thread. You're rapidly losing it. I have no reason to trust you or to discount my experiences in life because you matronizingly say 'TRUST ME'.

[CanvasShoes]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CanvasShoes said:
You're wrong. You cannot possibly know what all of the several million feminists in the US think, or if they do, or do not "fit that definition".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that NOW is the largest feminist organization in the U.S. I know that their platform, which their membership supports by paying dues and being part of that membership, does not meet the dictionary definition you posted. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Again, if all the members of NOW do indeed follow the beliefs that you've posted regarding man-hating etc. Then they are Feminazis. NOT FeminISTS.

Also, how many women belong to the NOW organization? 10,000? 100,000? I don't know, but we've repeatedly asked YOU for cites to prove your assertions that they speak for feminists.

No, you dont' say "all" feminists. But saying "feminists" is exactly the same as saying "Blacks" do thus and such (negative activity).

Talk about obtuse, you seem to be deliberately not understanding that I am saying that it DOES NOT MATTER that this group has decided upon their own definitions and agendas for feminism.

That does NOT change the orignal meaning, nor does it change the fact that most women who are feminists (and by the dictionary definition most grown working American women are) are in the majority, NOT organizations like NOW.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technically, the largest active group of feminists are NOT those in NOW, or Ms. Mag (I didn't even know that Mag was still around). But in your every day "woman on the street.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you insist upon identifying people as feminists for them?
I'm not. The dictionary does.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't slap any label on you. Please see ABOVE where I cut and pasted from Dictionary.com. If that is what you believe, you are. TECHNICALLY a feminist. Or would you prefer to go back to the days of "don't worry your pretty little head about it"? Or, "why are you out here? Where is your husband, how come he doesn't take care of you" (a question I was actually ASKED, while on the job in a male dominated field).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not a feminist, no matter what you say. The working definition of feminist is too damned far removed from the dictionary definition for me to ever be associated with that word.
I'm not calling you a feminist. I'm stating that a woman who fulfills the beliefs and actions of the dictionary meaning is one, by definition. Do you not understand the difference between ME saying it, and it being TECHNICALLY true?

Amazing how you are starting to sound like one of those 'either you're a feminist or part of the problem' people.
What? You CAN read right? I have repeatedly tried to explain this, as simply as possible. We have already established that some of the NOW type people have distorted the word. That they have done so doesn't change the meaning of the word. It only means that they've started a spinoff culture.

Again, similar to my analogy of the "Black Panthers" and black people.

Wait, no it isn't.
???

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, since you do not know every member of the so-called "large mainstream (??? says who?) feminist lobby groups", you do not know that the outspoken and publicized weirdos do in fact speak for them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those groups elect leaders who put in place the statements of the organizational mission. They authorize their leadership to speak for them, and to press those ideologies. They support ideas that suck.
Really? So, all of we Americans are staunch supporters in EVERYTHING that George Bush does and says?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not calling anyone anything. Again, I'm speaking TECHNICALLY. Unless these women would happily agree to take less pay, and have fewer/lesser rights than their male counterparts, TECHNICALLY by DEFINITION they ARE feminists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/quote]No human being wants to have less rights and less pay than someone else for doing an equal job. That doesn't require a special word applied to them by you. It's covered fairly well under being human.[/quote]
Sigh. I'm NOT the one who applied the word. I'm saying that there is a word, in place, in the dictionary that defines what feminism is.

If you (collective you, not YOU you, maybe that's why you got so mad before, sorry I should have clarified), fulfill the definition of a label you are, by definition (NOT because *I* said so) that "thing" whatever it might be.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, reeeeaaaally? (perplexed, not sarcastic). So, let's say you personally know, enough to speak with and know of their lives and lifestyles, about a hundred women. Of those women, do you know any that would agree to be treated by a different standard than their male counterparts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You bet your ass I know women who not only would agree to it, they demand it. They demand special consideration for jobs, in family courts, when it comes to alimony, child support, taking time off from work to do things like go to their kid's school play or being able to take years out of their careers while not losing any seniority although they're not actively working on the same projects everyone else is. They flat out fucking insist on different standards from men. They want to be 'more equal'.Then those are not feminists. Again, by dictionary and technical definition they do NOT fit that definition. They are many things, including selfish inconsiderate people, but by definition they are NOT "feminists"

Regardless, you misunderstood my question. Do you know any women who would go BACKWARDS. And be willing to not receive equal treatment and equal pay etc??

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No? Okay then. By the accepted and technical definition of the word, those women ARE feminists. That they don't fit the CRAZIES' definition does NOT make them less so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One, don't put words in my mouth or assume you know how I'll answer a question. Two, human beings generally want to be treated fairly. It has nothing to do with being a feminist and everything to do with being human.
I'm not "putting words in your mouth" hence the question marks after the word no, in other words "Would you say no"?? if so, here is the reply.

And again, you're not understanding that I'm not defending either position either way, regarding feminism OR feminazism. I'm trying to make clear to you that the word feminism refers to a specific set of practices and beliefs.

If a person took a word, (any word, say chef to use a, hopefully, neutral word), and decided that he/she was going to start a movement to change and bastardize that word for his/her own use and the use of that movement. It doesn't matter how strongly they voiced their opinions in books and on Jerry Springer, or Oprah, the ORIGINAL and TECHNICAL meaning of the word, would still be the actual meaning. And people fitting THAT definition would be the actual chefs. Not those who made mud pies or something.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are millions of women in this country. Do you know of, or have you seen ANY on the census information who would willingly accept being paid less for the same job, or who would accept getting lesser treatment under the law?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What human would? Are the men who wouldn't want to be paid less than a woman for the same job feminists? Masculinists? Or are they just human beings like everyone else who wants a fair shake in the world?
Asked and answered above.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, do you know each and every one of the members of these groups, on a speaking basis to know that each and every one of them does in fact agree with their so-called leaders?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't have to. They've authorized their leaders to speak on their behalf, and if they really disagreed, they'd quit paying the mouthpieces.
Again, soooooo...That means that every American believes wholeheartedly and without reservation in what G. Dubya has to say on our behalf?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, I don't buy it. This WAS a class in an American University wasn't it? You're telling me that one assignment made you get a "D" unless you were willing to "sell out" which you said you "had" to do rather than flunk? Based on your description of the situation, she's a bitch and a bad instructor. Things she could be withOUT benefit of being a feminist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were exactly two grades for the semester in that class. One fifty page term paper, and one final exam. I was originally given a D on the paper, and told that I would find it costly if I were to question publicly the professor's grading criteria. As it was, failing that paper would've meant I could at best obtain 50% of the total grade for the course - which is still an FBolding mine. This sounds highly suspicious and unethical, I've never heard of an instructor able to get away with this sort of thing! Have you since turned her in? That's absolutely heinous! I hope you have. That's positively communist! Telling a student they not only don't have a right to discuss the reasons for their grades, but that if they dare to, that they will pay??? UUGGGH, infuriated for you.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also don't mean to be "snarky" but since I am also an instructor at a university, I know that it takes more than one assignment to cause you to flunk a class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that really depends on how many assignments your final grade consists of, doesn't it?
This is astonishing. The teacher's entire grading criteria were based on two assignments? 50% each? I thought it was pretty much a standard thing to have a range of 4 or 5 criteria for grading. At our college the instructors are required to grade for:

Attendance
Participation
Assignments
Tests
Quizzes and Misc

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If she was that rabid, you must have known her attitudes well before an assignment that was close to the end of the semester and liable to affect your final grade. If one assignment was enough to put your final grade into the D category, she must have had it in for you all semester. You would have had more luck to have fought her from the get go, or have dropped her class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I knew the professor's views. I also believed that like other professors who had very strongly held beliefs I disagreed with that they wouldn't be a factor in grading an objective course.
My point is that you had a right to expect the instructor to keep his/her views OUT of the grading process and to grade for content, skill, ability etc PERIOD. This is a whole 'nother thread, but I'm aghast. Also based on your anger and frustration at your treatment at the hands of women like this, why on EARTH did you let her get away with it??

Surely this university would have backed you up?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what I'm trying to tell you, that most feminsts aren't IN some organization, they're just ordinary women, working and living, like the rest of the humans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so you label every woman a feminist in order to try to support your own point? What a bullshit tactic.
No. I'm saying that women that fulfill the definition of feminists ARE feminists. Good grief. Again, talk about obtuse.

If they do NOT act and believe according to the dictionary definition of feminist then they aren't. But I don't know of too many women today who would go back to what we put up with in the 70s and earlier, do you?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well sweetie (said in an honestly kind way, NOT a condescending one). If you want to believe that *I* don't harbor anti-male view, I suggest you wander over to IMHO, and see some of my posts about boyfriends and sex etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe I already asked people not to call me 'sweetie'. And as for the rest of this comment, you might as well say 'Some of my best friends are black. I can't be racist.'
I'm old. I've earned the right to call people sweetie and honey. :D Seriously, I am earnestly hurting for you and in what you've gone through.

Also, I answered your question of "some of the women in this post are posting anti male sentiments (paraphrased) period. I certainly wasn't saying this as an "some of my best friends are black" statement.

I put my money where my mouth is. A co-worker and friend of mine has spent the last almost 2 years going through a heinous divorce, in which this woman first accused him of abuse. And it just went downhill from there. Alaska laws regarding abuse are ridiculous, but not slanted toward females. The way it works here is that, no matter WHO you are, if the other person is the first one to get to court and file a restraining order, unless you can come up with the money to hire a good attorney, what they ask for in the restraining order, the stupid judges pretty much award.

I went to every court date with this poor guy, because he isn't very skilled in writing and such, I wrote out his concerns and complaints and counter documents. I got his judge replaced, and helped him every step of the way.

I took time off of work to do this. The woman, his ex-wife was purely in the wrong. She pulled every vindictive trick in the book to "make him pay". I don't believe she falls under the dictionary definition of a feminist though. She very much believes, or demonstrated that she believes, that the man should take care of the woman.

So no, I'm not just paying lip service to how I consider men.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, it sounds to me as if you're fairly young, and have been burned by some rather mean and nasty man haters. TRUST me, those types have been around for centuries, feminism or no feminism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, now you're condescending because you think you know how old I am. You at one point had some of my respect in this thread. You're rapidly losing it. I have no reason to trust you or to discount my experiences in life because you matronizingly say 'TRUST ME'.
No, I'm saying "it sounds to me....." in other words, based on your posts, and the things in them, such as you still being in college. If you are a fairly old person who has just recently been in college, my apologies. The reason that I say "you sound young" is NOT because that's supposed to mean "and therefore you can't handle it". It means, IN PART, "and perhaps part of your experiences are so concentrated in the college environment etc that they DO consist of more than their fair share of feminazis rather than normal feminISTS".

I don't see it too much in the university where I teach, but then Alaskans tend to be a bit different.

I am a matron, got two kids, one full grown, one teenaged boy. But seriously, I don't say "trust me" because of MY experiences, sorry for not clarifying, but I say "trust me" to mean "just look at history" and at all the manipulative bitches who, WELL before the definition of feminism was ever thought of, were horrible, man-hating, baby-killing, bossy, selfish, evil people.

Look, you're "shooting the messenger". I am NOT "for" FemiNAZISM. Which is what, with the NOW leaders and such, you are describing here, NOT feminism.

[catsix]

CanvasShoes said:
That does NOT change the orignal meaning, nor does it change the fact that most women who are feminists (and by the dictionary definition most grown working American women are) are in the majority, NOT organizations like NOW.

You do not get to decide for 'most grown working American women' as to whether they're a feminist or not. When will that message finally sink in with you? I don't give a flying fuck what the dictionary says. You don't get to slap a highly subjective label onto someone just because you think it fits. If someone thinks that label fits them, then they can damn well apply it themselves.

I'm not. The dictionary does.

The dictionary does no such thing. It provides a denotation of a highly subjective word describing a philosophy some people subscribe to and others do not. Those people will decide for themselves whether they fit both the denotation of the word and the connotation of the word.

It most certainly doesn't say 'the majority of grown up women in America', nor does it list names. You're contorting that to fit your beliefs about what philosophies people subscribe to. That's not your call to make.

I'm not calling you a feminist. I'm stating that a woman who fulfills the beliefs and actions of the dictionary meaning is one, by definition. Do you not understand the difference between ME saying it, and it being TECHNICALLY true?

It is not technically true because with something such as a political ideology or philosophy, the denotation of the word isn't the only thing that carries weight. It's not a binary issue with discrete sides where people are either in one category or the other, no matter how much you wish to strictly apply a couple of lines from Merriam-Webster or whoever the hell wrote the dictionary onto people's beleifs. The dictionary doesn't decide who's a feminist, no matter how much you wish it did.

We have already established that some of the NOW type people have distorted the word. That they have done so doesn't change the meaning of the word. It only means that they've started a spinoff culture.

That's your opinion. I don't think there's much at all I agree with you on. I do think the NOW type people changed the meaning of the word feminist. Regardless of what the dictionary says, if you go out and ask 100 random strangers what 'feminist' means, the vast majority of them are going to tell you it means the things they see it in daily life to mean. That's the way language works.

Really? So, all of we Americans are staunch supporters in EVERYTHING that George Bush does and says?

No. Which is entirely because it's extremely difficult for those who disagree with the leadership to just up and leave the US and renounce American citizenship, but it's very, very easy to leave a political organization one has voluntarily joined.

Comparing someone's citizenship to their membership in a lobby group is absurd.

Then those are not feminists. Again, by dictionary and technical definition they do NOT fit that definition. They are many things, including selfish inconsiderate people, but by definition they are NOT "feminists"

They fit the definition of feminist that applies in common usage.

Regardless, you misunderstood my question. Do you know any women who would go BACKWARDS. And be willing to not receive equal treatment and equal pay etc??

I didn't misunderstand you. I considered your question bullshit. Women want to be treated like humans, therefore they're feminist? You're really stretching now. Is everyone who wants to be treated like a human being a something-ist?

I'm not "putting words in your mouth" hence the question marks after the word no, in other words "Would you say no"?? if so, here is the reply.

You did it because you thought you'd painted me into a corner where you could look really smart. You failed.

And people fitting THAT definition would be the actual chefs. Not those who made mud pies or something.

How a word is used in the common language is far more important to its meaning than what's printed in the dictionary. If that weren't the case, the dictionary would never change.

This is astonishing. The teacher's entire grading criteria were based on two assignments? 50% each? I thought it was pretty much a standard thing to have a range of 4 or 5 criteria for grading. At our college the instructors are required to grade for:

Attendance
Participation
Assignments
Tests
Quizzes and Misc

I went to a university. Professors were expected to be able to think for themselves in terms of how to grade their courses. Most were fair, some were not, and some of them even based the entire semester grade on a single project.

Also based on your anger and frustration at your treatment at the hands of women like this, why on EARTH did you let her get away with it??

Surely this university would have backed you up?

I didn't believe they would. I believed I would have been painted as, at the very least, attacking feminists and at the very worst as a misogynist because I refused to agree to that particular view. I'd already seen it too many times before: disagree with a self-avowed femnist, get called a misogynist. I learned to never push a view that could possibly be construed as 'attacking a victim or oppressed group.' because someone will smear you for it.

No. I'm saying that women that fulfill the definition of feminists ARE feminists. Good grief. Again, talk about obtuse.

If they do NOT act and believe according to the dictionary definition of feminist then they aren't. But I don't know of too many women today who would go back to what we put up with in the 70s and earlier, do you?

I thought you weren't applying labels to people and telling them whether they were feminists or not. Now you say you are applying the feminist label to people if you think it fits them. If, in your opinion they fit the defintion of feminism that you accept. It's still not up to you.

I'm old. I've earned the right to call people sweetie and honey. Seriously, I am earnestly hurting for you and in what you've gone through.

I don't want your sympathy, I didn't ask for sympathy, and I don't want you calling me sweetie or honey. I brought up my Law and Politics class as an example, not so you'd 'feel' for me. This is a debating thread, and I'm not interested in sympathy here.

No, I'm saying "it sounds to me....." in other words, based on your posts, and the things in them, such as you still being in college. If you are a fairly old person who has just recently been in college, my apologies. The reason that I say "you sound young" is NOT because that's supposed to mean "and therefore you can't handle it". It means, IN PART, "and perhaps part of your experiences are so concentrated in the college environment etc that they DO consist of more than their fair share of feminazis rather than normal feminISTS".

I am not 'still in college', and never said that I was. I discussed an incident that happened when I was in college, and that occurred years ago. I post one example of a college course and it causes you to think my experiences are concentrated solely in college? You jump to a lot of conclusions. I could go with examples from jobs too, if you want. I'm trying to condense since my posts are kind of long.

Look, you're "shooting the messenger". I am NOT "for" FemiNAZISM. Which is what, with the NOW leaders and such, you are describing here, NOT feminism.

Well, I'm sorry, but I think feminazism took over feminism some time ago.

[CanvasShoes]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CanvasShoes said:
That does NOT change the orignal meaning, nor does it change the fact that most women who are feminists (and by the dictionary definition most grown working American women are) are in the majority, NOT organizations like NOW.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not get to decide for 'most grown working American women' as to whether they're a feminist or not. When will that message finally sink in with you? I don't give a flying fuck what the dictionary says. You don't get to slap a highly subjective label onto someone just because you think it fits. If someone thinks that label fits them, then they can damn well apply it themselves.
<---------Bangs head on desk.

I. Am NOT "slapping the label" on anyone. I'm saying that the defnition of feminism already exists. And that which is practiced by the NOW type people is NOT feminism.

When they replace the dictionary definition with one describing what is now happening, then you can say that the NOW people are feminists. They currently are NOT. Again, this is what this thread title was asking.

The NOW organization consists of femiNAZIS.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not. The dictionary does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dictionary does no such thing. It provides a denotation of a highly subjective word describing a philosophy some people subscribe to and others do not. Those people will decide for themselves whether they fit both the denotation of the word and the connotation of the word.

It most certainly doesn't say 'the majority of grown up women in America', nor does it list names. You're contorting that to fit your beliefs about what philosophies people subscribe to. That's not your call to make.
You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying.

*I* am not applying labels to anyone. I'm saying that the defnitions exist. If a person acts and believes according to the definition then they are, TECHNICALLY, that item.

Not "according to Shoes", but TECHNICALLY. No, it's NOT up to me, or anyone else to say. But, again, I'm speaking completely and purely from a definition and technical standpoint.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not calling you a feminist. I'm stating that a woman who fulfills the beliefs and actions of the dictionary meaning is one, by definition. Do you not understand the difference between ME saying it, and it being TECHNICALLY true?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not technically true because with something such as a political ideology or philosophy, the denotation of the word isn't the only thing that carries weight. It's not a binary issue with discrete sides where people are either in one category or the other, no matter how much you wish to strictly apply a couple of lines from Merriam-Webster or whoever the hell wrote the dictionary onto people's beleifs. The dictionary doesn't decide who's a feminist, no matter how much you wish it did.
You're getting it backwards. You're thinking that I'm saying that the dictionary somehow determines peoples beliefs and actions. No, I am NOT saying that. Of COURSE any particular person decides upon his or her own actions.

Once he or she does this, and those actions and beliefs fall under a specific defnition, that person is then defined as that "thing," in this case feminists.

If a person joins the military, he "swears in". He is then a patriot. By definition of what he swore too. No one made that decision for him, not me, not you, no one. BUT, once he took on that definition of himself by swearing in, and swearing to uphold those rights to the American people that IS what he became.

No one "made" him do it. He/she became that by definition of what he/she now practices and believes.

Otherwise, you're contradicting yourself. You've decided that the mere belonging to the NOW organization means that any woman fitting THAT description is automatically one of those man-hating amazon wannabes.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have already established that some of the NOW type people have distorted the word. That they have done so doesn't change the meaning of the word. It only means that they've started a spinoff culture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's your opinion. I don't think there's much at all I agree with you on. I do think the NOW type people changed the meaning of the word feminist. Regardless of what the dictionary says, if you go out and ask 100 random strangers what 'feminist' means, the vast majority of them are going to tell you it means the things they see it in daily life to mean. That's the way language works.[quote]
First, your opinion that the NOW people have changed the meaning of the word feminist, IS just that. Opinion. 1

Second, you're trying to "prove" your point by saying "go ask 100 people. This is the same thing I've been saying to you, and which you've been refuting as a reasonable way to determine the meaning of the word. You can't have it both ways.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? So, all of we Americans are staunch supporters in EVERYTHING that George Bush does and says?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]No. Which is entirely because it's extremely difficult for those who disagree with the leadership to just up and leave the US and renounce American citizenship, but it's very, very easy to leave a political organization one has voluntarily joined.
You don't have to LEAVE the country to disagree with what the pres says. Nor do you have to leave the country in order to work against him if you believe that he's SO dead wrong that he doesn't need to be IN the office in the first place.

There are organizations of all kinds and all different levels of political activity, from heavy and extremely "hot button" (like NOW) to mellow and not so frantic (like perhaps the PTA).

The people in these organizations do not necessarily have to believe in EVERY single thing the organization stands for in order to still be "good" people and be working to do the best that they can.

Again, though I AM a feminist, I do not belong to any organizations. So I don't know how many members they have. I submit that neither do you. I further submit that you have NO way of knowing what these members, as a whole, believe in or accept from their "spokeswomen". You don't know what kinds of political activities take place within these organizations, or how many of the NOW members roll their eyes and fight against their more outspoken and outrageous members like Dworkin.

So you, without a DEFINITE cite, showing who and how many members of now, absolutely support, the nutsier "amazon" ideas, cannot say "This is Today's Feminist, I declare that this is now the meaning of the word".

Comparing someone's citizenship to their membership in a lobby group is absurd.
Not at all, it's quite appropriate, for reasons I state above.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then those are not feminists. Again, by dictionary and technical definition they do NOT fit that definition. They are many things, including selfish inconsiderate people, but by definition they are NOT "feminists"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They fit the definition of feminist that applies in common usage.
Asked and answered above.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless, you misunderstood my question. Do you know any women who would go BACKWARDS. And be willing to not receive equal treatment and equal pay etc??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't misunderstand you. I considered your question bullshit. Women want to be treated like humans, therefore they're feminist? You're really stretching now. Is everyone who wants to be treated like a human being a something-ist?
Asked and answered already.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not "putting words in your mouth" hence the question marks after the word no, in other words "Would you say no"?? if so, here is the reply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You did it because you thought you'd painted me into a corner where you could look really smart. You failed.
No. That's not what I did at all. I did exactly as I describe above. Next time I will state the entire question if you're going to skew things in a hostile manner. I'm not "trying to look anything". I'm trying to come to an understanding with you. Hostility in this sort of situation doesn't help.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And people fitting THAT definition would be the actual chefs. Not those who made mud pies or something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How a word is used in the common language is far more important to its meaning than what's printed in the dictionary. If that weren't the case, the dictionary would never change.
With that reasoning, since NOW has been an ongoing organization for quite a while now, wouldn't the current dictionary have already changed its definition of the word?

You misunderstand me, I am NOT defending the NOW people, I think that, from what I see, that many of their ideas are jerkish and nutso. I'm saying that they are NOT feminists. Regardless of their wish to have made that word their own.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is astonishing. The teacher's entire grading criteria were based on two assignments? 50% each? I thought it was pretty much a standard thing to have a range of 4 or 5 criteria for grading. At our college the instructors are required to grade for:

Attendance
Participation
Assignments
Tests
Quizzes and Misc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I went to a university. Professors were expected to be able to think for themselves in terms of how to grade their courses. Most were fair, some were not, and some of them even based the entire semester grade on a single project.
Yes, I understand, I teach at one. The five items I gave were a guideline, the teachers don't have to choose all five, or even those five. I didn't explain that very well.

And I understand, depending on whether you have an engineering course with one main project or the like, yes then one grade for one project makes sense. However, your instructor's attitude didn't fall under that, she basically "forbade" you to "think for yourself". And in fact, forbade you to question the methods of her grading under threat of retaliation. That smacks seriously of a terminable offense.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also based on your anger and frustration at your treatment at the hands of women like this, why on EARTH did you let her get away with it??

Surely this university would have backed you up?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't believe they would. I believed I would have been painted as, at the very least, attacking feminists and at the very worst as a misogynist because I refused to agree to that particular view. I'd already seen it too many times before: disagree with a self-avowed femnist, get called a misogynist. I learned to never push a view that could possibly be construed as 'attacking a victim or oppressed group.' because someone will smear you for it.

Then you are allowing yourself to be oppressed in a way in which feminists originally started fighting against. Someone has to take a stand sometime.

And if you had stuck specifically to what the instructor had done wrong. That she forbade you to question your grade and her methods, and that she didn't grade you on your actual work, but your inability to agree with her opinion, then you would have been helping those that come after you and have to have her as an instructor.

I'm not a man, but I would have argued the same thing with her. GEEMINY christmas. What a witch.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I'm saying that women that fulfill the definition of feminists ARE feminists. Good grief. Again, talk about obtuse.
If they do NOT act and believe according to the dictionary definition of feminist then they aren't. But I don't know of too many women today who would go back to what we put up with in the 70s and earlier, do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought you weren't applying labels to people and telling them whether they were feminists or not. Now you say you are applying the feminist label to people if you think it fits them. If, in your opinion they fit the defintion of feminism that you accept. It's still not up to you.
Noooo. I'm saying that if they are acting and believing in the way that is already defined under a specific term, then by definition (NOT by what a person says) then they ARE that term.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm old. I've earned the right to call people sweetie and honey. Seriously, I am earnestly hurting for you and in what you've gone through.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want your sympathy, I didn't ask for sympathy, and I don't want you calling me sweetie or honey. I brought up my Law and Politics class as an example, not so you'd 'feel' for me. This is a debating thread, and I'm not interested in sympathy here.
Want what you want, I will express what I desire to express. I did not know that before you said this. I don't read minds.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I'm saying "it sounds to me....." in other words, based on your posts, and the things in them, such as you still being in college. If you are a fairly old person who has just recently been in college, my apologies. The reason that I say "you sound young" is NOT because that's supposed to mean "and therefore you can't handle it". It means, IN PART, "and perhaps part of your experiences are so concentrated in the college environment etc that they DO consist of more than their fair share of feminazis rather than normal feminISTS".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not 'still in college', and never said that I was. I discussed an incident that happened when I was in college, and that occurred years ago. I post one example of a college course and it causes you to think my experiences are concentrated solely in college? You jump to a lot of conclusions. I could go with examples from jobs too, if you want. I'm trying to condense since my posts are kind of long.
Argh. I said "SUCH AS". A simple "oh, no I'm not in college any longer" or the like would have sufficed. Do you think that your extreme hostility and porcupine like attitude might be part of why you face what you do from women?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, you're "shooting the messenger". I am NOT "for" FemiNAZISM. Which is what, with the NOW leaders and such, you are describing here, NOT feminism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I'm sorry, but I think feminazism took over feminism some time ago.
Again, Loudness, obviousness and being well publicized does NOT equal "taking over" or the majority.

Unless you and I polled all the women in the country, and/or the world, we'll never really know how many are merely feminists or in your argument merely people, and how many are feminazis.

My main argument was that the existance of these loudmouth nutsos and the fact that they are more visible and "in your face" than we normal women doesn't mean that they make up the majority, or speak for "feminists" just because we're not out there marching and being "nutso " in a backlash movement against them.

[catsix]

CanvasShoes said:
So I don't know how many members they have. I submit that neither do you.

Well, actually I do know how many members NOW has. They make that information publicly available. I guess this makes your 'submission' wrong.

The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States. NOW has 500,000 contributing members and 550 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

http://www.now.org/organization/info.html

I'm trying to come to an understanding with you. Hostility in this sort of situation doesn't help.

You're not going to go about it by telling me that the dictionary definition of feminism is more important than the working, general language use definition is and then repeatedly saying 'It doesn't matter whether women say they're feminists or not, they are if I say they are and if they say they are, they're probably feminazis.'

I don't give a flying fuck who you think is a feminist. The largest feminist organization in this country, and the vast majority of feminists I have seen at various rallies, seminars and events, are not the dictionary definition of the word, and they're not who you think feminists are. But they are what 500,000 feminists and the average person on the street thinks of as a feminist.

The way a word is actually used, every day, by the people who speak a language gives us the working meaning of that word. What the dictionary says the word's definition is doesn't hold the same weight as what a random person on the street will understand that word to mean.

For example, the American Heritage Dictionary, copyright 2000:

Les·bi·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lzb-n)
n.

1. A native or inhabitant of Lesbos.
2. The ancient Greek dialect of Lesbos.


adj.

Of or relating to Lesbos.

So there you have a definition of what a Lesbian is which is completely and totally irrelevant in modern day America because if you ask 100 people on the street, the overwhleming majority of them (hell, maybe all of them) use Lesbian to mean 'a homosexual female' and have never even heard of the land called Lesbos.

What matters in language is what the person you're communicating with understands your words to mean. And in this day and age right now, 'feminism' conjures up a shitload more meaning than what's in the dictionary.

Do you think that your extreme hostility and porcupine like attitude might be part of why you face what you do from women?

You mean because I disagree with feminism? Well shit, I never considered that feminists who have a pattern of being nasty to people who disagree with their political philosophy would be nasty to me for disagreeing with them.

Do you actually think I'm so stupid as to not have considered that feminists wouldn't be nice to me because I disagree with them?

Unless you and I polled all the women in the country, and/or the world, we'll never really know how many are merely feminists or in your argument merely people, and how many are feminazis.

Those who self-identify as feminists are such. Of those, I've met maybe two or three in my lifetime who didn't serve to reinforce every negative opinion I have of feminists. Your constant attempts to say 'I'll tell you who the feminists really are, and it's not the people who identify as feminists, it's only nice people.' have put you in the category of people who further the low opinion I have of feminists.

Anyone who attempts the 'You can't argue about feminism because it doesn't mean what NOW or Ms. or feminist organizations or 500,000 feminists, or feminist scholars or the people who teach feminist theory says it does, it means what I say.' are, in my opinion, merely attempting to sidestep any kind of debate about the actual feminist ideology. Side-stepping debate with that tactic seems pretty weasly, but it's not something I find surprising coming from a self-identified feminist. I've seen it before. It happens without fail, every time I've ever seen anyone attempt to debate any part of feminist ideology. It's a sidestep, it's recognized as one, and it's adding to the lack of respect I have for feminists and feminism in general.

The more you continually repeat 'You're just wrong because I said so.', the less interest I have in taking any of your posts in this thread seriously.

[CanvasShoes]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CanvasShoes said:
So I don't know how many members they have. I submit that neither do you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, actually I do know how many members NOW has. They make that information publicly available. I guess this makes your 'submission' wrong.
Great! Now we both know. You still do not know the minds of each and every one of these 550,000 women. And how much, if any, of them share the opinions belonging to the more visible members and nutso members and leaders.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm trying to come to an understanding with you. Hostility in this sort of situation doesn't help.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/quote]You're not going to go about it by telling me that the dictionary definition of feminism is more important than the working, general language use definition is and then repeatedly saying 'It doesn't matter whether women say they're feminists or not, they are if I say they are and if they say they are, they're probably feminazis.' [/quote]
First of all, I did NOT say "the dictionary definition is 'more important' than that that has been appropriated by certain NOW members and their ilk (please provide a cite that theirs and your version of feminism is the "general language use definition"). I said it's the technically correct term. Period.

Second. I've never said "they are if *I* say they are. *I'M* not saying they're anything. I'm saying that the CORRECT, TECHNICAL definition is that which is in the dictionary. If it were incorrect, as you pointed out in your last post, they would have updated it.

I don't give a flying fuck who you think is a feminist.
I'm laughing here now. You're still not getting it, and you're getting yourself all worked up over nothing. *I* don't think ANYONE is a feminist.

I'm saying that according to the dictionary, an accepted "CITE" the correct definition of feminist is what I posted (about 6 posts ago), REGARDLESS of what NOW claims the term to be.

The largest feminist organization in this country, and the vast majority of feminists I have seen at various rallies, seminars and events, are not the dictionary definition of the word, and they're not who you think feminists are. But they are what 500,000 feminists and the average person on the street thinks of as a feminist.
So what? The fact that they have appropriated this term, twisted it, demeaned it, hell offered it to satan for all that matters, does NOT magically mean that the term is invalid in its original and CURRENTLY defined by published sources, meaning.

The way a word is actually used, every day, by the people who speak a language gives us the working meaning of that word. What the dictionary says the word's definition is doesn't hold the same weight as what a random person on the street will understand that word to mean.
Unless you have a cite to back up the above statement, this is just an opinion on your part. And again, you YOURSELF in a previous post stated that when a term DOES change in the public perception that the dictionaries etc CHANGE to reflect this. This has not happened with this word.

For example, the American Heritage Dictionary, copyright 2000:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Les·bi·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lzb-n)
n.

1. A native or inhabitant of Lesbos.
2. The ancient Greek dialect of Lesbos.
adj.

Of or relating to Lesbos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there you have a definition of what a Lesbian is which is completely and totally irrelevant in modern day America because if you ask 100 people on the street, the overwhleming majority of them (hell, maybe all of them) use Lesbian to mean 'a homosexual female' and have never even heard of the land called Lesbos.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, trying to remember my College psych and Greek Mythology. I could be wrong, but if I remember right, within the stories ABOUT Lesbos, it was pretty clear that these were women who loved women. I can understand why the dictionary wouldn't want to put something quite that "R" rated so to speak, in a dictionary that's available to anyone from grade school kids on up.

What matters in language is what the person you're communicating with understands your words to mean. And in this day and age right now, 'feminism' conjures up a shitload more meaning than what's in the dictionary.
How many people do you have as friends, acquaintances and family? Counting those with whom you converse online, let's say about 200-300, just for a guesstimate. I don't know about you, but I work two jobs, and I also teach at a university. My "real" job (I teach for fun) takes me out into the world quite a bit, I don't just sit in an office.

My teaching job puts me into contact with about 50 college aged girls per semester.

I'm going to take a wild guess that your "people you know and talk to" count is similar to mine, give or take a few.

(I'm 44, I'm still guessing you at about 25-28).

Your experiences, based on your posts here, have mostly been with rabid feminists of the "feminazi" persuasion. Therefore, your opinion is that "feminist = NOW type feminazis.

That's fine, that's been your experience.

Where you're wrong is in believing that because that has been YOUR experience, and that YOU believe that feminsts equals Rabid NOW members, that means that it's a commonly accepted term for everyone.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think that your extreme hostility and porcupine like attitude might be part of why you face what you do from women?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean because I disagree with feminism?
Nope. That's not what I mean at all. Now, a few posts back, you got all up in arms and accused me (several times) of "putting words in your mouth". Please be considerate enough to not do the same to me.

I mean, the fact that you are getting angrier and angrier, simply over the definition of a simple term, and assuming that because I somehow defending these rabid NOW members by doing so. I'm not.

Well shit, I never considered that feminists who have a pattern of being nasty to people who disagree with their political philosophy would be nasty to me for disagreeing with them.
First, huh? Second, have I been nasty to you? I've remained matter of fact here. If you've misconstrued something I've said as "nasty" I apologize.

Do you actually think I'm so stupid as to not have considered that feminists wouldn't be nice to me because I disagree with them?
I don't think you're stupid at all. And please read my question again. In that question, I wasn't talking about feminists at all. We've been discussing this for what? 10 posts (each?), and I've remained matter of fact, though occasionally perplexed or exasperated, while you've gotten angrier and angrier and continued to assume that I'm somehow "on their side".

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you and I polled all the women in the country, and/or the world, we'll never really know how many are merely feminists or in your argument merely people, and how many are feminazis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who self-identify as feminists are such.You're doing, exactly what you've accused me several times of doing. That of putting words in someone's mouth. You know for a fact that everyone who has said "I'm a feminist" is a Feminazi follower?

I've identified myself as a feminist. I belong to no organizations and I sure as HELL don't want to see fewer men in the world.

Of those, I've met maybe two or three in my lifetime who didn't serve to reinforce every negative opinion I have of feminists. Your constant attempts to say 'I'll tell you who the feminists really are, and it's not the people who identify as feminists, it's only nice people.' have put you in the category of people who further the low opinion I have of feminists.
Sigggh. Nope, that is NOT what I've been "attempting" to say. Not once have I said "only the nice people are the "real" feminists, what I HAVE said is (paraphrased) "feminists aren't all feminazis"

I've been talking TECHNICALLY speaking all along. It's like you're standing there with your fingers in your ears going "LALALALAAAA I can't HEAR you".

Again, my main argument has been on the technical side of the meaning of the word. And the side of: just because the NOW types SAY that they are what feminists are, doesn't make it so.

Anyone who attempts the 'You can't argue about feminism because it doesn't mean what NOW or Ms. or feminist organizations or 500,000 feminists, or feminist scholars or the people who teach feminist theory says it does, it means what I say.' are, in my opinion, merely attempting to sidestep any kind of debate about the actual feminist ideology.
I didn't say you couldn't argue about it at all. Nor was my very simple "the NOW group doesn't fit the technical and dictionary definition meant in any way to side step the wrongs they've done.

The feminazi types IMHO, are dead wrong, and even if you thought they were right, (and I always butcher this saying) "I may think what you're saying is wrong, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". These types would be wrong, IMHO, in what they're doing no matter WHAT they called themselves. I believe that they're dead wrong in doing it in the name of "feminism" which was not at ALL meant to stand for what they're claiming it does. (I know, I was there back when).

I think that they, (the dworkins etc), are nuts. I think that a lot of problems of the pendulum swinging too far the other way has been brought on by her type. So your argument that I'm trying to say you're wrong about their actions and attitudes is silly. You're right on in that for a lot of "them" they're bloodthirsty man-hating little bitches.

I haven't said that "you can't argue because you don't know which is which" at all, nor was I attempting to distract you BY trying to define the difference between feminists and feminazis.

I'm saying, don't paint everyone with the same brush because of YOUR opinion of who the "real" feminists actually are.

Side-stepping debate with that tactic seems pretty weasly, but it's not something I find surprising coming from a self-identified feminist. I've seen it before. It happens without fail, every time I've ever seen anyone attempt to debate any part of feminist ideology. It's a sidestep, it's recognized as one, and it's adding to the lack of respect I have for feminists and feminism in general.
This is a cop-out. If you'd wanted to debate the wrongs they've done, you were MORE than free to do so. I wasn't stopping you in any way, shape, or form. In fact, if you'd have paid attention, you'd have seen where, in most of the replies to you, I AGREED with your assessments of the dworkin feminazi type evil deeds.

The more you continually repeat 'You're just wrong because I said so.', the less interest I have in taking any of your posts in this thread seriously.
Well this is what happens when you read what YOU want to into what someone else is saying. Too bad you feel that way, if you'd have stopped and listened for a nano-second, instead of being "on the fight" so much, you'd have seen that I agree with your opinion about the feminazi types.

[catsix]

Ignoring the repeated bleating of 'But you're wrong because I said so.'

This is a cop-out. If you'd wanted to debate the wrongs they've done, you were MORE than free to do so. I wasn't stopping you in any way, shape, or form. In fact, if you'd have paid attention, you'd have seen where, in most of the replies to you, I AGREED with your assessments of the dworkin feminazi type evil deeds.

Already have done that in the context that the largest feminist groups in existence and the most legislatively influential feminists (MacKinnon and Dworkin were insturmental in sexual harassment laws being passed) are flat out fucking wrong in their motive (all women are victims, those who don't think so are part of the patriarchy) and in their goals (legal system biased against men). The problem is that you fail to acknowledge how influential they are.

Well this is what happens when you read what YOU want to into what someone else is saying. Too bad you feel that way, if you'd have stopped and listened for a nano-second, instead of being "on the fight" so much, you'd have seen that I agree with your opinion about the feminazi types.

No, you don't. I have read everything you said. And it's been an attempt to say 'but those are just lunatic fringies who aren't really important.'

That's bullshit. If they weren't lunatic fringies, they wouldn't be the people whose theories are being taught as 'the way' in women's studies classes and who are credited with accomplishing legislative change in at least two countries.

They are not the lunatic fringe if they have that much influence.

[CanvasShoes]

Well rats, I'd already replied, but the hamsters ate it.

Ignoring the repeated bleating of 'But you're wrong because I said so.'I've not been saying "you're wrong because I think so". You’ve been hearing that because you’re mistakenly thinking that my “next” statement will refute your next argument. Which also isn't true.

I've merely been stating that there is a technically correct term for the word. Period. That in no way is a statement for or against what you believe the NOW organization and their ilk to be guilty of.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a cop-out. If you'd wanted to debate the wrongs they've done, you were MORE than free to do so. I wasn't stopping you in any way, shape, or form. In fact, if you'd have paid attention, you'd have seen where, in most of the replies to you, I AGREED with your assessments of the dworkin feminazi type evil deeds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already have done that in the context that the largest feminist groups in existence and the most legislatively influential feminists (MacKinnon and Dworkin were insturmental in sexual harassment laws being passed) are flat out fucking wrong in their motive (all women are victims, those who don't think so are part of the patriarchy) and in their goals (legal system biased against men). The problem is that you fail to acknowledge how influential they are.
No. I haven't "failed to acknowledge that". I simply had not yet addressed that. Neither, other than in vague references intended to support YOUR theory of the meaning of the word feminist, had you. If you had, you would have said something to the effect of "let's explore THIS aspect of it" and then gone on to argue your point regarding their influence, evil etc and your unhappiness with it.

Thing is, you would have gotten no arguments from me on those points. I agree she and her kind ARE evil, nuts and have a harmful agenda.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well this is what happens when you read what YOU want to into what someone else is saying. Too bad you feel that way, if you'd have stopped and listened for a nano-second, instead of being "on the fight" so much, you'd have seen that I agree with your opinion about the feminazi types.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you don't. I have read everything you said. And it's been an attempt to say 'but those are just lunatic fringies who aren't really important.'
See my above statement, because I have not at ALL been saying that they weren't really important. What I said was that they neither make up the majority, nor do they necessarily speak for all feminists or all members of NOW.

Once again, you’re “second guessing” and misinterpreting my arguments in an attempt to “head off at the pass” what you think I’m going to argue next. I’ve not been arguing “lunatic fringes aren’t important. I’ve been arguing that “lunatic fringes does NOT = the entire feminist movement”. Those two arguments are not the same thing.

That's bullshit. If they weren't lunatic fringies, they wouldn't be the people whose theories are being taught as 'the way' in women's studies classes and who are credited with accomplishing legislative change in at least two countries.
Well, now, lunatic Fringies, I’d have a problem with, we can’t have fashion victims just running around on the loose.

(Hoping one of these lame jokes will help you lighten up a LITTLE for crying out loud).

At any rate. If you are trying to say that NOW has a large population of instructors populating universities and infiltrating women’s studies classes in universities, you’ll have to provide a cite for that. One bitchy and incompetent instructor that you had doesn’t count.

Also, which legislative changes in which countries has NOW actually accomplished? And how are those changes detrimental to men and supporting andy’s theory that feminists want to rid the world of men?

My point was never that they, (the dworkins) didn’t have power. That’s a completely different point than the one I was making. My point was that despite their being well publicized, visible, loud, and out there, that does NOT mean that they make up a majority, or define the “feminist movement”.

THEY would like to think so, and they’ve apparently convinced YOU that they are “real” feminists. But there are those of us who disagree with THEM, along WITH you. Along with our disagreement with their agenda, we ALSO disagree with their bastardizing the term and the movement itself.

Just because you, personally have heard more from the “bad” side, than the “good” side doesn’t “prove” which side is larger or more defines the “true” meaning of feminism. Nor does how visible a particular side is define its true nature, or numbers.

Somehow, you’ve mistaken my explanation of the technical and official (as is publicized) meaning of the word as meaning that I then disagree with your right to disagree with the NOW group and their ilk. It does not mean that at all. Again, I VERY much disagree with their “kill men/pro-amazon wannabe” agenda.

They are not the lunatic fringe if they have that much influence.
“Lunatic fringe” does not mean powerless or without influence. Nor did I say that it did. After all, a “lunatic fringe” took down the towers in NYC.

Nor was I saying that they (the dworkin types) were powerless or without influence. What I said was that the “lunatic fringe” didn’t necessarily speak for the entire feminist movement, or the entire membership of NOW.

Similar to the way George and his group does not speak for all Americans. Granted, George isn’t exactly the “lunatic fringe” but his views aren’t terribly popular and are getting less popular by the second.

Does the fact that he and a group of politicos believe the way they do define what it is to be American? No. And by the same token (and this is the point I’ve been trying to make), neither does NOW speak for “feminists”. Not necessarily even within their own organization.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by CanvasShoes
Works of fiction are not "cites".
Margin was denying the existence of such fiction. Citing it's existence is indeed, a cite.

Your opinion, or your recanting of what some poor "not guilty" rapist went through is not a "cite".
I note your sarcasm in putting quotation marks around not guilty. As if it is unheard of that a man could actually be not guilty! So your post is in itself a pretty good cite of the attitudes spawned by Brownmiller and other fomenters of the all-men-are-rapist school of thought.

But if it is a cite you want, I can provide them. Indeed, all you would have to do is put down your copy of "Our Bodies, Ourselves" and pick up a newspaper. Or go to Google News and search for dna rape innocent. You can find matters such as these:
In October 2000, Earl Washington received a full pardon following DNA testing that exonerated him of a rape and murder charge (http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/factsinnocence.html) for which he had spent 17 years in prison in Virginia. Washington, who has mild mental retardation, came within one week of execution in 1985. In 1993, his death sentence was commuted to life. He was finally released from prison in February 2001.
Kirk Bloodsworth ... 42, has been living a dream that seemed hopelessly remote when he was sent to death row in 1984.

It was a dream still painfully distant nine years later, when genetic evidence cleared him of the rape and murder (http://www.sunspot.net/news/bal-te.md.bloodsworth24oct24,0,7272326.story?coll=bal-home-headlines) of a Baltimore County 9-year-old named Dawn Hamilton and freed him from prison.
I have covered so many cases involving wrongful arrests and convictions. (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/7034654.htm) I've spoken with men exonerated after spending decades in prison until DNA set them free.

I've spoken with Michael Crowe, a 14-year-old boy charged with killing his sister, who was released from jail after 10 months when DNA tied someone else to the murder. I wrote about the death of Frank Lee Smith, convicted of the rape and murder of a Fort Lauderdale girl. He died on Death Row 11 months before DNA exonerated him. He spent the last 15 years of his life in prison.
Honestly, these cases have become so common in the news in the past few years that demanding a cite for them is an admission of being ill-informed. Considering that innocent people have spent decades in prison, and some innocent people have died in prison, it seems awfully cold of you to put "not guilty" into sarcasm quotations.


A cite is either a reference from an actual study, case history, history book, law case and so on AND/OR LINKs to such references.
I think you would rather play semantic games and try to derail discussion than to actually address the anti-male attitudes rampant in some feminist circles. In other words, you are running interference for the anti-male crowd, so it seems safe to include you in their number.

Again, you seem to be confusing the act of some feminazis or feminISTS, with the concept of feminism.

Your fear and paranoia is completely ungrounded in reality.
Tell that to Earl Washington, Michael Crowe, and Kirk Bloodsworth.

Also, I and others have presented some of the most blatant anti-male attitudes straight from the mouth of supposedly mainstream feminists. To say actual quotations from feminists are not grounded in reality is simply debating in bad faith. It is a transparent act of denial, and denial is an attitude that has often been observed in bigoted thinking.

It is hardly a figment of the imagination to note that prominent feminists such as Robin Morgan are comfortable quoting "The S.C.U.M. Manifesto," or Robin Morgan's own statement: "I feel that "man-hating" is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." So I am going to ask you, CanvasShoes, whether you will condemn that statement from Morgan. I am asking you directly: Do you condemn that statement or not?

The fact that some of the women arguing the "cause" here in this thread are saying (to keep it simple) "Feminism isn't bad" is NOT the same thing as them advocating what the fringe extremists have said.

Once again we see the "fringe" dodge.

So, CanvasShoes, if feminists like Brownmiller, Morgan and even Friedan herself are fringe, you should have no problem in condemning them. You condemn fringe elements, don't you? If so, then let us see you condemn them.

You have put plenty of time into arguing that these extremely influential feminists are fringe. Why not spend a little of that time condemning them?

Or perhaps you don't and won't condemn them because you don't actually disagree with their anti-male attitudes.

In other words, one can be a feminist and still NOT agree with MacKinnon, or whoever was determined to have sortof made the "sex = rape" type comments.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. You're trying to make them one and the same, and they just aren't.

If you don't agree with them, then you would condemn them. If you don't agree with them, you should have no problem in other people pointing out the anti-male attitudes of them.

But you do seem to get quite upset when we note the fact of widespread anti-male attitudes in feminism and the clear lack of any self-identified feminist in condemning anti-male attitudes.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

I've been away from the board for a few days. That brief span away from Margin's posts has given me some insight into the collective sigh of relief her co-workers must have made when she was dismissed.
Originally posted by margin
The thing is, we branched off into whether or not you're right---Andy claims that he's using 'nazi' version only to mean extreme feminists, but he came up with thirty-year-old quotes, and a list of bullet statements that he claims are the objectives of feminism. He's repeatedly refused to provide a cite for those statements. Now he's claiiming that feminist Utopian fiction wants men dead, and---in a thread in Cafe Society---that I didn't know that this type of fiction existed.

Andy claims that feminism is devoted to certain objectives. He won't provide a cite for where he got those, probably because he got them from one of those scary websites. If he can't prove that feminists actually desire this stuff, he's stereotyping and sexist. And his little buddies are incapable of seeing that. So there you go.

FWIW, the guys I've seen in real life who were as vehement in their mysogyny as Andy were the guys who had the least experience with women. And let's be honest. There's no way I believe that Andy limits his bile to just feminists.
I have to say that this response is pretty typical whenever someone points out the anti-male hatred emerging from the ranks of feminism. And because feminists refuse to acknowledge it, because they refused to address the problem, they have to attack those who oppose anti-male attitudes. (And it is not just anti-male attitudes, as there is a great deal of hostility directed toward the majority of women, who don't go along with them. That's when you hear fine and fair-minded women called traitors, collaborators and tools of the patriarchy, etc.

Margin, do you think you can identify bile? I've quoted Robin Morgan in particular and asked you to condemn her praise of hating men. You haven't responded. I'll put the quote here again.
[b]"I feel that "man-hating" is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."[b]

Do you condemn that statement or not?

[Malacandra]

SAL, I was done with this thread, but I'll check back in long enough to say: Go easy on CanvasShoes (not that she needs me to stick up for her). She's made it abundantly clear that she finds man-hating feminists, whom she happily describes as "feminazis", despicable and contemptible.

Based on what she's already said about Dworkin, I'm prepared to trust her opinion on the rest of 'em.

[margin]

More shit, Andy. Where's that cite for where I denied there was such a thing as fiction? Who gives a shit what you say unless you can back it up.

I'm sorry, but the wrongfully-convicted cases have what to do with feminism? Oh, that's right. It's obviously not the failure of the legal system for not instituting mandatory DNA testing in rape cases. No, it's those damned feminists!

I'm still waiting for my cite about those bullet comments. And now you owe me for your claim about me denying there was such a thing as feminist fiction.

Put up or shut up.

[cowgirl]

I think what bothers a lot of us, including me and catsix, is as follows:

Feminism first came about when women rose up and said "Don't you dare tell me what it means to be a woman!" to employers, patriarchs, etc. Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I don't want a career, shouldn't get paid as much, etc etc.

But a lot of the feminists mentioned in this thread have caused other women to stand up and say the same thing to them ! "Hey, Dworkin! Hey, MacKinnon! Don't you dare tell me what it means to be a woman!"

The feminists that I respect (listed above) critique these women because they seem to think they are speaking for all women, when in fact, they speak for only a small number. Mohanty argued that you simply can't use "woman" as a category of analysis - you can't say "Women want this" or "Women need this" or even "Women have these interests." She suggested that it is more appropriate for women to unite on the basis not of their gender but of the issue that they are struggling against - equal pay, affordable day care, women's shelters etc.

catsix: you want a cite for a feminist organization, at all, that doesn't discriminate against men.

Why? Why do feminist people who don't discriminate against men not count? What counts as "discriminate?"

In the interests of intellectual honesty I will tell you why I haven't yet provided such a cite.

First of all, feminism is not only about organizations. Lots of feminists are academics, they don't all join "organizations" in the sense you mean. We have been known to brandish signs but a lot of us are in academia because the activism involved in joining organizations is distasteful to us, too, for many of the reasons that it is distasteful to you. Does this mean that we do not exist? That our opinions are not relevant?

Second, feminists like me, when we join organizations, join ones that (as you mentioned many pages ago) are "human rightsist" - concerned with all kinds of oppression, of which gender-based oppression is only one. I agree that groups whose sole purpose is to "fight sexist oppression" are tiresome, because I don't think you can separate gender-based oppression from oppression based on race, class, sexuality, nationalism etc. So there are lots of organizations that fight against all of these things. Colours of Resistance (http://colours.mahost.org/) is one.

There are also lots of feminist organizations that fight against single issues that are relevant to women in specific communities: INTERCEDE (advocacy for the rights of domestic workers) is one, also try Women and Environments International (http://www.weimag.com/), a journal.

On the definition of feminism: My own HO, which you can take or leave as you please, may shed some light on this. Feminism is a contested term. That means that everyone (the nasty feminists listed in this thread, the nice ones, the people who wrote the dictionary, all the people posting to this thread, etc) has a different idea about what it means and no one is "correct" about it. (I, for example, have problems with the dictionary definition of it. I would define it quite differently.)

But at the end of the day, what does it matter who is "right"? Once you insist that there is one correct definition and everyone who disagrees be damned, then you get situations like catsix's where she has met too many "You're either with us or against us" type of feminists, got really pissed off, and washed her hands of them. Who could blame her? I did the same thing too until I discovered all the (huge numbers, take my word for it) of people who call themselves feminists and encourage debate and dissent, and who realize that in these kinds of struggles the goal is not to be "right" or to be a "true" feminist, but to give every woman the option to live her life as she sees fit, and that this could mean very different things to different women.

As an example: wouldn't we all be learning so much more from this thread by discussing things like domestic violence and the alleged patriarchy, then by arguing over the definition of Feminism and who fits it and who doesn't?

Andy: why should we address the anti-male attitudes rampant in some feminist circles? I ignore those feminist circles because I disagree with them. I address the issues I disagree with in my own way (which is, currently, writing essays). Why should I spend my time and effort disagreeing with people in the context that you wish? Why can't I be the kind of feminist I want to be, and screw the rest?

And please stop talking about "mainstream feminists" as if they make the rules about what feminists are. See the rest of this post, as well as the one further up the page, for more. I know you disagree. But you can't expect me to behave in a way that's incompatible with my belief but compatible with yours. (And yes, I do condemn that statement by Morgan, since you asked. So does CanvasShoes, and probably Margin although she hasn't specifically addressed it. Can you drop it, now?)

[catsix]

cowgirl said:
She suggested that it is more appropriate for women to unite on the basis not of their gender but of the issue that they are struggling against - equal pay, affordable day care, women's shelters etc.

One, everybody whether male or female wants fair pay for the work they do. Two, what parent whether male or female doesn't want affordable quality day care? Three, pressing for 'women's shelters' to be funded or supported by the government creates a situation where men and women are not treated equally under the law, biased in favor of women. It also means that men who are victims of domestic violence have nowhere to go.

Lots of feminists are academics,

Yes, like Mary Daly, whose sexist opinion is that no male belongs in a women's studies class that has women in it because that man will make it impossible for the women to have 'their space' and talk freely. I'd love to see how she'd react if there were a men's studies class in which the professor didn't want any women because it would hamper the ability of the men to talk freely in 'their space.'

Or Ti-Grace Atkinson, faculty at Tufts University, who said:


Almania Barbour, a black militant women in Philadelphia, once pointed out to rne. "The women's movement is the first in history with a war on and no enemy," I winced. It was an obvious criticism. I fumbled about in my mind for an answer: surely the enemy must have been defined at some time. Otherwise, what had w been shooting at for the last couple of years? Into the air? Only two responses came to me, although in looking for those two I realized that it was a question carefully avoided. The first and by far the most frequent answer was "society." The second, infrequently and always furtively, was "men". If "society" is the enemy, what could that mean? If women are being oppressed, there's only one group left over to be doing the oppressing: men. Then why call them "society"? Could "society" mean the "institutions" that oppress women? But institutions must be maintained, and the same question arises: by whom? The answer to "who is the enemy?" is so obvious that the interesting issue quickly becomes "why has it been avoided?" The master might tolerate many reforms in slavery but none that would threaten his essential role as master. Women have known this, and since "men" and "society" are in effect synonymous, they have feared confronting him.

Who is the enemy? Men are, according to Ti-Grace Atkinson. Yet another example of a sexist professor.

Once you insist that there is one correct definition and everyone who disagrees be damned, then you get situations like catsix's where she has met too many "You're either with us or against us" type of feminists, got really pissed off, and washed her hands of them.

Which is why I now believe that it will not be possible to have a meaningful discussion of feminism with CanvasShoes. The extremely narrow view that 'This is what the dictionary says, and I agree with the dictionary, so it doesn't matter what millions of other people understand that word to mean.' is not conducive to a discussion. It's exactly the same attitude that turned me off of feminism years ago.

On the definition of feminism: My own HO, which you can take or leave as you please, may shed some light on this. Feminism is a contested term.

And meaningful discussion with those who cannot accept that 'feminism' means things to a large, large number of people other than the two or three sentences in a single dictionary seems downright impossible. A strict and narrow viewpoint is something that I've found in most every feminist I've ever met, whether it was over the meaning of the word feminism or the existence of the patriarchy, it's been 'But this is what X says, and I agree with X, so everyone who disagrees is wrong.' over and over again in almost every case.

Until I reach a point where hearing the exact same thing 'I disagree with you, so you're wrong.' gets tired enough that I walk away.

And please stop talking about "mainstream feminists" as if they make the rules about what feminists are.

What makes you any more right about the meaning of feminism than the members of NOW, or of Ti-Grace Atkinson, Mary Daly, Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Robin Morgan, Susan Brownmiller or Germain Greer? If they don't make the rules about it because there is 'no authority on what feminism is and isn't', what makes your opinion of what feminism is the authoritative and valid one? What makes CanvasShoes's version valid? Or the editor of a dictionary? Or some random woman in some random city?


If the rules of feminism and what feminists are get made by every feminist for herself, the Dworkins and Morgans have rules just as valid as the cowgirls and the margins and the CanvasShoeses.

[cowgirl]

catsix: I agree entirely with your last comment:

If the rules of feminism and what feminists are get made by every feminist for herself, the Dworkins and Morgans have rules just as valid as the cowgirls and the margins and the CanvasShoeses.

And remember where I said "So have a discussion about the issues, for heaven's sake, and stop talking about what feminists do !"

The important difference between my view and some of the others you mention is that I have never, nor will I ever, say to anyone that they are anti-feminist, that their views are anti-feminist, that they can't join my feminist club, etc. I say yes, their (what I agree are often) bizarre views are valid, but I'm not interested in talking about "what makes a feminist." If they talk about an issue, I can engage with them, and if they get irritating, I can leave. But it will be because of the issue, not because of some nebulous definition of "feminism." Once I start saying "My feminism doesn't include you, Ms Daly" then I am guilty of the exact crime we are condemning them for.

Which brings me to my next point: You said

One, everybody whether male or female wants fair pay for the work they do. Two, what parent whether male or female doesn't want affordable quality day care? Three, pressing for 'women's shelters' to be funded or supported by the government creates a situation where men and women are not treated equally under the law, biased in favor of women. It also means that men who are victims of domestic violence have nowhere to go.


and I absolutely agree that these are good points. Mohanty was basically saying "We can't have a meaningful discussion about these things when we keep calling them 'women's issues'" for exactly the reasons you state, among others. Of course men have an interest in these things. I would like to respond to each point individually, but hell, we're on page five, wouldn't want to stop the mudslinging for a reasonable discussion now ! :) But Mohanty is still a feminist.

Andy: will you retract this statement:

and the clear lack of any self-identified feminist in condemning anti-male attitudes.

I am a feminist. I condemn anti-male attitudes.

[CanvasShoes]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your opinion, or your recanting of what some poor "not guilty" rapist went through is not a "cite".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I note your sarcasm in putting quotation marks around not guilty. As if it is unheard of that a man could actually be not guilty! So your post is in itself a pretty good cite of the attitudes spawned by Brownmiller and other fomenters of the all-men-are-rapist school of thought.

That would be YOU putting thoughts and opinions on this as if I had said them. No, I put quotation marks around it as a common technical writing practice meaning: I PERSONALLY don't know the facts on this, so I'm not going to state it as fact until I do.

You're so ready to assume that a woman is "against" believing anything good about a man that you INFERRED that meaning from my sentence. Remember, we're typing here. We can't see each other's expressions or hear each other's voices. The arguments, questions and requests I've been making are all very matter of fact.

I don't really have much of a dog in this fight. I've spent almost my entire working career in male dominated fields, and with few exceptions (gotta love union) been treated fairly well. I also have had some really awesome relationships with men, so I'm certainly not "hatin" (quotes to denote slang, not sarcasm) on that level either.

You just have an emotional stake in this issue and so are way too ready to take offense where none is intended.


But if it is a cite you want, I can provide them. Indeed, all you would have to do is put down your copy of "Our Bodies, Ourselves" and pick up a newspaper. Or go to Google News and search for dna rape innocent. You can find matters such as these:
Our Bodies/Ourselves? I haven't read that for a very long time, maybe I'm confusing it with another book, but (help me out someone who has actually read it recently) isn't that about sexuality? And fantasizing? And how to NOT feel guilty about enjoying sex etc?

If so, your using it to "prove" your point that women think all men are rapists is inefficient. If it is, then shame on those that wrote it.

Honestly, these cases have become so common in the news in the past few years that demanding a cite for them is an admission of being ill-informed. Considering that innocent people have spent decades in prison, and some innocent people have died in prison, it seems awfully cold of you to put "not guilty" into sarcasm quotations.
Re the quotation marks around "not guilty" asked and answered above. As to your complaint about cites, you've been on this board long enough to know that saying "this is common knowledge" is NOT acceptable as a cite.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A cite is either a reference from an actual study, case history, history book, law case and so on AND/OR LINKs to such references.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you would rather play semantic games and try to derail discussion than to actually address the anti-male attitudes rampant in some feminist circles. In other words, you are running interference for the anti-male crowd, so it seems safe to include you in their number.
I'm perfectly willing to discuss whatever it is you wish to discuss, however, if you are to state something as fact, on THIS board at least, you must be able to back it up. Not everyone is as well versed in every subject.

YOU may consider this "common knowledge" but that doesn't make it a fact unless there is actual proof. This isn't "semantics". And as to wanting to discuss the wrongs done to YOU by this particular group. Go TO it. This IS the pit. Nothing any of us have said is designed to stop you from saying what it is that makes you mad about these groups.

Just, IF you post a statement as fact, you WILL be called on to back it up. This has nothing to do with anyone "wanting to derail" your rights to complain. This would be required of you no matter what you were arguing about.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, you seem to be confusing the act of some feminazis or feminISTS, with the concept of feminism.

Your fear and paranoia is completely ungrounded in reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell that to Earl Washington, Michael Crowe, and Kirk Bloodsworth.It was the NOW organization that falsely accused them? And then sat on the Jury, and then decided their sentence? I disagree that these men should have had this happen to them. But there are others in the prison system who have been wrongly accused and their crimes had nothing to do with rape. The system itself is imperfect.

Also, I and others have presented some of the most blatant anti-male attitudes straight from the mouth of supposedly mainstream feminists. To say actual quotations from feminists are not grounded in reality is simply debating in bad faith. It is a transparent act of denial, and denial is an attitude that has often been observed in bigoted thinking.
No, I'm NOT saying that quotations from nutsos like dworkin are ungrounded in reality. I'm saying that to take those people as gospel for what we ALL stand for isn't grounded in reality.

It is hardly a figment of the imagination to note that prominent feminists such as Robin Morgan are comfortable quoting "The S.C.U.M. Manifesto," or Robin Morgan's own statement: "I feel that "man-hating" is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." So I am going to ask you, CanvasShoes, whether you will condemn that statement from Morgan. I am asking you directly: Do you condemn that statement or not?
ABSOLUTELY, and if you'd READ any of my other posts, you would have seen that I did that some time ago. I think she and her type are nuts. And I HEARTILY disagree with the idea of lessening in any way the amount of men we have in society.

What, however, does that have to do with my assertion that no matter WHAT she considers to be "feminism" is NOT speaking for all feminists, and not even necessarily speaking for all NOW members???

You two DO understand the difference between me saying "they don't speak for all NOW members" and me saying "they don't NECESSARILY speak for all NOW members" don't you?

I'm not stating that they do or don't. I'm saying that they don't NECESSARILY speak for all of them. Unless you, or I, or Joe Schmoe somewhere in a research lab interviews and gets to know each and every one of the 550,000 members. NONE of us know how much they believe and follow the dworkin types.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that some of the women arguing the "cause" here in this thread are saying (to keep it simple) "Feminism isn't bad" is NOT the same thing as them advocating what the fringe extremists have said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again we see the "fringe" dodge.
No. What you're seeing is simply me trying to explain the different meanings in what I'm saying.

We're NOT advocating what those women have done. Period. You keep trying to equate our saying "all feminists aren't bad and this small group IS" with us agreeing with what they've done.

We don't. Period.

So, CanvasShoes, if feminists like Brownmiller, Morgan and even Friedan herself are fringe, you should have no problem in condemning them. You condemn fringe elements, don't you? If so, then let us see you condemn them.
You don't do reading comprehension very well do you? This is what I, and others in this thread have been saying all along. So again. No, I don't have a problem condemning the manhating elements of what you've quoted these women as saying.

You have put plenty of time into arguing that these extremely influential feminists are fringe. Why not spend a little of that time condemning them?Or perhaps you don't and won't condemn them because you don't actually disagree with their anti-male attitudes.

Again, READ my previous posts.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, one can be a feminist and still NOT agree with MacKinnon, or whoever was determined to have sortof made the "sex = rape" type comments.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. You're trying to make them one and the same, and they just aren't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't agree with them, then you would condemn them. If you don't agree with them, you should have no problem in other people pointing out the anti-male attitudes of them.
But you do seem to get quite upset when we note the fact of widespread anti-male attitudes in feminism and the clear lack of any self-identified feminist in condemning anti-male attitudes.
LOL, you're confusing me with someone else. Again, I have no "dog in this fight". MY main argument was purely one of you and others using the word incorrectly in a TECHNICAL way.

As to your frantic screams of "WELL then CONDEMN them if you don't agree....ad nauseum". Again, read my previous posts. I've put at least one statement disagreeing with their man-hating attitudes into each one of my posts.

You're so angry and bitter at what you percieve to have been done to you by this element, that you have a knee jerk reaction ot any sort of argument on this subject and instead of seeing that the person is NOT "on their side" you just push out in an all out offense without listening to a word.

A shame really. If you'd calm down a second you just might see you have people who are actually agreeing with you. You're just too busy trying to find something to jump on to see that.

[CanvasShoes]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cowgirl said:
She suggested that it is more appropriate for women to unite on the basis not of their gender but of the issue that they are struggling against - equal pay, affordable day care, women's shelters etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One, everybody whether male or female wants fair pay for the work they do.
You seem to be missing the part where this is not ALWAYS what happened. This is one of the premier reasons that "feminists" (not what you claim to be the "standard common knowledge" but the original) started fighting. So that they could GET and keep that right.

Two, what parent whether male or female doesn't want affordable quality day care? Three, pressing for 'women's shelters' to be funded or supported by the government creates a situation where men and women are not treated equally under the law, biased in favor of women. It also means that men who are victims of domestic violence have nowhere to go.
Women have traditionally had a much much lower standard of living after divorce, and since many women end up (rightly or wrongly) with custody, it's traditionally been a woman's issue. That said, it (the daycare assistance programs and so forth) have benefitted single MALE parents as well. At least in my state. The programs are applied to "custodial parents". PERIOD. No discrimination if that custodial parent happens to be a male.

As to why more funding goes to domestic violence assistance to females? According to the Justice Department 1.2 million women are victims of domestic violence a year compared to 300,000 men.

From my limited understanding of women's shelters, the reason they do not allow men there is NOT because "why would you need protection you're a man" but to protect the women already there.

Many of them have a policy of "no males" for protection of the women only. NOT to make a statement of "males dont' need protection".

Should there be male shelters for the males that get abused? Yes, IMHO that there should be.

Is the fact that there are not any a result of what the feminazis have done or accomplished in Congress by lobbying etc? If so, please provide a cite. Because I've never seen anything like this in the news, or in "commonly understood knowledge" etc.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of feminists are academics,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, like Mary Daly, whose sexist opinion is that no male belongs in a women's studies class that has women in it because that man will make it impossible for the women to have 'their space' and talk freely. I'd love to see how she'd react if there were a men's studies class in which the professor didn't want any women because it would hamper the ability of the men to talk freely in 'their space.'
Both attitudes would be wrong. You either have it closed (men's studies means men only and vice versa), or both are open. To be discriminatory either way is, IMHO, wrong.

[quote]Or Ti-Grace Atkinson, faculty at Tufts University, who said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is the enemy? Men are, according to Ti-Grace Atkinson. Yet another example of a sexist professor.
She's a man-hating bitchy, feminazi then. Look, you can name person after person who's "bad" in just about any belief, organization, or function, that STILL doesn't define an entire group.

That's called being prejudiced.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once you insist that there is one correct definition and everyone who disagrees be damned, then you get situations like catsix's where she has met too many "You're either with us or against us" type of feminists, got really pissed off, and washed her hands of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is why I now believe that it will not be possible to have a meaningful discussion of feminism with CanvasShoes. The extremely narrow view that 'This is what the dictionary says, and I agree with the dictionary, so it doesn't matter what millions of other people understand that word to mean.' is not conducive to a discussion. It's exactly the same attitude that turned me off of feminism years ago.
I didn't say "I agree with the dictionary". Again, all I was ever trying to get across was that there is a standard publicized definition in place.

There are many who FIT that definition. Those that DON'T fit that definition (the man-killing ones) are not, by definition, TECHNICALLY feminists.

This in NO way says that "CanvasShoes" agrees, doesn't agree, likes, doesn't like feminists or even that *I* particularly think that the definition is an apt one.

I'm NOT, by simply stating what the actual word and its meaning are, telling you what to believe or not believe by ANY means. You just keep on thinking that I'm somehow trying to tell you and other feminists what to believe. I'm not.

Again, all I was doing was stating what the correct term was. PERIOD.

If a person wants to follow those beliefs and actions of COURSE that's up to them.

If an organization decides to call itself Boy Scouts, and then proceeds to, NOT sell candy and make merit badges, but to steal cars and rob old ladies, It doesn't matter HOW many of them say they're boy scouts, or HOW outspoken and well-publicized and how heinous their words and acts, they're STILL not "boy scouts"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the definition of feminism: My own HO, which you can take or leave as you please, may shed some light on this. Feminism is a contested term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And meaningful discussion with those who cannot accept that 'feminism' means things to a large, large number of people other than the two or three sentences in a single dictionary seems downright impossible. A strict and narrow viewpoint is something that I've found in most every feminist I've ever met, whether it was over the meaning of the word feminism or the existence of the patriarchy, it's been 'But this is what X says, and I agree with X, so everyone who disagrees is wrong.' over and over again in almost every case.
That's not what we've been saying, we've been saying X generally and originally referred to Q, that some have changed X to mean something evil does NOT mean that we do not fit the definition of Q.
What makes you any more right about the meaning of feminism than the members of NOW, or of Ti-Grace Atkinson, Mary Daly, Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Robin Morgan, Susan Brownmiller or Germain Greer? If they don't make the rules about it because there is 'no authority on what feminism is and isn't', what makes your opinion of what feminism is the authoritative and valid one? What makes CanvasShoes's version valid? Or the editor of a dictionary? Or some random woman in some random city? [quote]
Again, you're not understanding that I was NOT saying that the dictionary definition was "valid" just technically correct. Not sure why you keep thinking I'm talking about my feelings on feminism and whether others have to fit that or not. I'm not.

I'm talking STRICTLY words, and their meanings. The technical meaning. Period.

What is it that you want to happen here then? If you so despise what you believe has not become the meaning of "feminist" then why not do something about it? Start an anti new "false" feminist feminist group. (ANFFFG???)

[quote]If the rules of feminism and what feminists are get made by every feminist for herself, the Dworkins and Morgans have rules just as valid as the cowgirls and the margins and the CanvasShoeses.
First, once again, I haven't not made any statements on the "validity" of rules at all. I've made one statement, (albeit in several different wordings), and that has been merely to impart the technical definition of the word, and that I dont' think NOW fits that definition.

I'm confused, I don't understand how you can gripe about the dworkins and morgans man-hating in so many posts and then turn around and say that their rules are valid. You've been complaining all along about how awful and unfair that they are.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by margin
Andy has repeatedly justified his hatred of feminism by claiming that it's anti-male. What he hasn't provided is sources.
It's always fun to trot out Robin Morgan's man-hating quote just to see how often margin will ignore it.
"I feel that "man-hating" is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

Now how does that not fit your definition of a cite, Margin?

Also, I've asked you repeatedly if you condemn the sentiments in Morgan's statement. You have yet to answer.

Uh, yeah. Answer this. Where, exactly, did I deny such a thing existe? Relevance, definitely. But denying its existance? He's lying, flat out,and you never called him on it.

After I noted the theme of women-only societies and Ms. Magazine adopting an Amazon mascot, you said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's see, for proof of what feminism is about, who should we listen to? The guy who keeps repeating the same thing---you know, about how feminists want to kill off the male population, stuff like that, and never backs it up because it exists only in his fevered little imagination ... Unless you come up with a cite by someone reputable, all you're ranting about is your own paranoid fantasies. Feminists want to kill off men? Uh, yeah, sweetie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Granted you were misrepresenting what I said so you could attack the strawwomyn, but you claimed that the works I referred to existed only in my "fevered little imagination." You also said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, not really. His personal experiences lead him to make accusations that feminists---he didn't qualify that to 'only the extreme ones when he did that bullet list-----want to kill off the male half of the speices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again, you misrepresent my comment on feminist utopian fiction in which the male half of the human race disappears. But here you pin it to my "personal experiences" rather than the actual existence of such works. I mean, it's right here in this thread. You really need cites for your own posts, now?

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by CanvasShoes
He doesn't with that posting, but he certainly DOES do so with his "feminists desire a society in which men are not a part" (paraphrased) post.
It is advisable for you to not put invented quotes into quotation marks.

And I believe that it was THAT quote and a few others like it for which margin is requesting proof (cites).
Actually, margin isn't interest in cites. I've provided them for many assertations and, you will note, I've asked her what other points she wishes citations for. She refuses to answer what she specifically wants cites for, she simply makes up something I never said and then says I didn't supply a cite. In other words, she wants to derail discussion because she has no legitimate points to make. It's fine by me, because I've backed up everything I've said, though I'm not about to back up things that are merely her invention of what I said.

Come on (nice smile, requesting sweetly :)), give margin a break, let her get her "SDMB" legs.
So bigotry now deserves a newbie break?

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by CanvasShoes
You're confusing LOUDNESS, PUBCLICITY, and NOTORIETY for majority. You're seeing that those that are on display as claiming that they speak for all of us are either published, or perhaps a leader in some part of the movement or another.

Doesn't mean a thing, other than that THOSE particular women are a bit "teched". :D
No, catsix is not confusing anything. Catsix is noting widespread attitudes. You can see those sorts of intolerant and anti-male sentiments from the most recognized feminist leaders to the obscure message boards. If the majority opposes man-bashing, then where are the signs of that? Why isn't there an equally loud and equally well-publicized voice for feminists who oppose man-bashing? How do these feminists sell so many books, teach so many courses, and influence so many laws, if no one supports them?

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by CanvasShoes
You're wrong. You cannot possibly know what all of the several million feminists in the US think, or if they do, or do not "fit that definition".
If feminists by millions of books containing anti-male, intolerant or alarmist polemics, we can pretty much know that millions of feminists are reading them.

But let's turn this around on you. Since this thread mentioned Rush Limbaugh (whom I've never listened to) in the first post, let's use your argument:

Have you listened to all of Limbaugh's broadcasts? No? Then you can't possibly know what he thinks. Have you talked to all of his listeners -- every single last one of them? No? Then you can't know how they think. You cannot know how millions of them think. You cannot make any statement about the beliefs of Limbaugh or his followers.

Now have you ever made such statements about Limbaugh? If so, you need to start applying your standards to yourself.

Again, do you know each and every one of the members of these groups, on a speaking basis to know that each and every one of them does in fact agree with their so-called leaders?
Let's keep this in mind in case she ever makes a generalized statement about Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Catholics, Baptists, Midwesterners or any group. Let's make sure CanvasShoes has personally interviewed every Democrat in existence before speaking about what Democrats believe.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But why add her example to the "See? feminists hate all men" attitude? Why not simply chock it up to "yup another nutso"???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We keep seeing another nutso, and another nutso, and another nutso. What we don't see are any established feminist organizations that actually oppose man-bashing.

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. This WAS a class in an American University wasn't it? You're telling me that one assignment made you get a "D" unless you were willing to "sell out" which you said you "had" to do rather than flunk? Based on your description of the situation, she's a bitch and a bad instructor. Things she could be withOUT benefit of being a feminist.

You could have done things the "American" way, fought your rights all the way to the dean.
That's simple for you to say if you have never had a professor like that. I have had similar experiences. Believe me, colleges can be very ideological. And if your grade -- and your future -- are on the line, and there is no support anywhere when you go up against the entrenched faculty, are you going to chose to throw your future away to make a point?

I also don't mean to be "snarky" but since I am also an instructor at a university, I know that it takes more than one assignment to cause you to flunk a class. If you had a problem with this teacher, you could have dropped her class, or simply "coasted" and gotten a decent grade simply by giving her what she wanted to hear.
Some instructors do grade that way. And out in the real world, where some people have to pay their own way through college, graduate and get jobs, we don't have the luxury of cherry-picking our classes and paying for another semester.

If she was that rabid, you must have known her attitudes well before an assignment that was close to the end of the semester and liable to affect your final grade.
Oh, sheesh. Now we're supposed to be mind readers and it's our fault if we aren't.

(deleting more blame-the-victim mentality.)

[margin]

Uh, Andy? Quoting Robin Morgan does NOT serve as a cite. Period. All it does is show that Robin Morgan has that opinion. Are you fucking stupid? It does not prove anything except you're paranoid and capable of extrapolating from one woman to a vast group of them.

So, once again: Put up or shut up. All those bullet comments demand cites, Andy.

And, really? It's so pathetic the way you keep dodging around those statements. I guess you think that making yourself look stupid is the way to argue, but repeatedly tapdancing around a really simple question only indicates how little you've got to base your argument on.

No, catsix is not confusing anything. Catsix is noting widespread attitudes

Well, if you say so. After all, your research has thus far proven itself to be impeccable.

Actually, margin isn't interest in cites. I've provided them for many assertations and, you will note, I've asked her what other points she wishes citations for. She refuses to answer what she specifically wants cites for, she simply makes up something I never said and then says I didn't supply a cite. In other words, she wants to derail discussion because she has no legitimate points to make. It's fine by me, because I've backed up everything I've said, though I'm not about to back up things that are merely her invention of what I said

Uh, dipshit? I've repeated myself at least five fucking times. You haven't provided a cite yet. It's really simple, and I'm not copying and pasting those bullet comments again.

Provide a cite for those bullet comments. I'm sure you think that you're a master debator, but you haven't been able to support anything you've said. You've repeatedly generalized from thirty-year-old books to the present day, and stereotyped feminists based on a few radicals. When pressed for proof, you suddenly claim that citing fiction you've obviously never read (as Lamia proved all to well in your fiction thread) is relevant to a discussion of reality.

It's always fun to trot out Robin Morgan's man-hating quote just to see how often margin will ignore it.
"I feel that "man-hating" is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

Now how does that not fit your definition of a cite, Margin?

Morgan is one person, you fool. You made a whole host of bullet statements about feminism. You haven't backed them up. Of course, if you really believe that one quote from one woman from thirty years ago really proves your point, you're seriously paranoid and lack any concept of logic or reasoning comprehension.

Granted you were misrepresenting what I said so you could attack the strawwomyn, but you claimed that the works I referred to existed only in my "fevered little imagination." You also said:

That does not, however, indicate that I denied the existance of what you call feminist utopian fiction. It does, however, show how desperate you are to avoid getting even close to proving your bullet statements. And as I mentioned earlier, Lamia has proven pretty conclusively that you've never read the books you're bashing, and that none of them match your definition of it.

You're just making yourself look bad, the way you avoid the issue. You really can't back up your statements, can you?

I guess instead of 'feminazi' what we need is a snappy word for a 'paranoid, feminist-bashing loser who makes shit up to stoke his fears.'






Oh, and you claimed that I denied the existance of feminist ficiton. That's a lie, which makes your claims that you're being lied about all the more amusing. I've quoted you. The way you twist to avoid answering direct questions would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by Malacandra
SAL, I was done with this thread, but I'll check back in long enough to say: Go easy on CanvasShoes (not that she needs me to stick up for her). She's made it abundantly clear that she finds man-hating feminists, whom she happily describes as "feminazis", despicable and contemptible.

Based on what she's already said about Dworkin, I'm prepared to trust her opinion on the rest of 'em.
Looks like a wolf in sheeps clothing to me.

She's determined to dismiss catsix's experiences and to engage in denial of man-bashing. So she says she doesn't agree with Dworkin? Fine. But that is not the same as actually taking a real-life opposition to Dworkin.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by margin
I'm sorry, but the wrongfully-convicted cases have what to do with feminism?
We've previousy discussed Brownmiller and her influential feminst work on rape. Brownmiller, as you will recall, said that rape was something that all men use to keep all women in fear. This was the start of the feminist campaign that all men were somehow guilty of or complicit in rape. These feminists fostered the mentality that all men were guilty. They created a climate of hysteria in which rape was said to be rampant, and that one out of three women would be sexually assualted in their lives (the exact figure kept changing to suit the rhetoric.) In this climate of fear and guilt, a lot of innocent men were sent to prison.

Brownmiller is perhaps the most notorious of the rape hysteria leaders. But Gloria Steinem herself was active in promoting the belief that there were "satanic cults" active in daycare centers, etc. Steinem got involved in the witchhunt at McMartin Preschool, promoting among other things the belief that there was a secret underground chamber in which children were raped.

Ms. Magazine ran a cover story showing a snake around an infant and the words "Satanic Cults? Believe It."

These feminists preached that all men were guilty, and that all women were in danger. Now put a man on trial facing that kind of mentality.

The fact that Steinem to this day has not apologized for her role in the McMartin Preschool withhunt is particularly shameful. The fact that Brownmiller seems unfazed by men being cleared ten or twenty years after conviction is shameful. They created that climate of hysteria, as palpable as any anti-Semitic blood libel, yet they show no remose. That's sad.

Oh, that's right. It's obviously not the failure of the legal system for not instituting mandatory DNA testing in rape cases. No, it's those damned feminists!
These men went on trial at a time when DNA evidence either did not exist, was still primitive, or wasn't available to them. What was available and widespread at the time was feminist hysteria over the "rape epidemic."

Today, rational thought has replaced Brownmillerian hysteria, and we see that many of these men are innocent.

The city of Salem, Massachusetts repented its witch trials a few years after they occurred. I've never seen a feminist actually repent the rape hysteria that lead to the jailing and sometimes the execution of innocent men. I guess the big differences is that Salem showed that it was capable of possessing a moral conscience after the hysteria wore off.

I'm still waiting for my cite about those bullet comments. And now you owe me for your claim about me denying there was such a thing as feminist fiction.

Put up or shut up.
Your own quotes on denial are already posted in two threads.
I've already gone through the bulletted list. Is there any particular point on that list you would like to refute or have me back up further? Merely yelling "cite" is not refutation.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Just popped in to say what a fucking tool Andy is. His propagation of deceptive and willful ignorance the Feminist Utopian Fiction thread is the worst I've seen since december's disappearance.

Robin Morgan's quote makes her sound like a psycho nutball; I'll operate on the belief she is a psycho nutball until someone shows me otherwise. But her pyschosis no more reflects most of the feminists I've met than Andy's psycho nutballness reflects most of the friendly males I've met.

Andy's analogy to reading Rush Limbaugh is intellectually bankrupt. Had I never read a single word written by the man, or watched a single of his shows, then sure, I'd be as unqualified to have an opinion on him as Andy is unqualified to have an opinion on feminist utopian fiction. However, I don't have to have read his entire oeuvre or watched every one of his shows to have an opinion: the one and a half books I've read by him and the handful of shows I've seen by him are enough to let me say with reasonable confidence that the man is a shyster. Similarly, I haven't read every feminist utopian fiction out there, but I've read a good half dozen or more of the better-known examples, and that's enough for me to know that Andy doesn't know what the hell he's talking about when he discusses common themes in the genre.

I've taken to ignoring him in that thread, because what i have ot say to him is pitworthy. Shut your fucking trap, you fool, when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

That's all.

Daniel

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by margin
Uh, Andy? Quoting Robin Morgan does NOT serve as a cite. Period. All it does is show that Robin Morgan has that opinion. Are you fucking stupid?
Really? Providing a cite from Morgan's work is not a cite?

What is your definition of a cite?

It does not prove anything except you're paranoid and capable of extrapolating from one woman to a vast group of them.
A paranoid will see enemies where there aren't any. Morgan, however, was very clear that she felt that man-hating was an honorable and justifiable act.

Morgan may be one woman, but she edited Ms. Magazine and became a widley read author, and edited at least one book that became a staple of colleges women's studies courses. She had a very big platform from which to spread the message that hating men is a good thing.

Now let's say that feminism is a vast group of women and many of them oppose man-hating. You should be able to find a lot of cites condemning Morgan's anti-male attitudes. If so, then please list them here. In other words, cite? If Morgan did not reflect the common view of feminism, where are the feminists who objected to her hatred of men? Please cite them.

Also, I've asked you several times to condemn Morgan's support for man-hating. You have not.

Uh, dipshit? I've repeated myself at least five fucking times. You haven't provided a cite yet. It's really simple, and I'm not copying and pasting those bullet comments again.
I wish you would, though. I love seeing them repeated. And I will repeat the citations I've given, so that we all can be more amused at your repeated screams of "cite!"

You realize that by repeating them, you aren't refuting them.

Margin, pick one item out of the bulletted list you want to discuss and I'll back it up. That is, if you're interested in honest discussion and not just derailing the discussion.

Provide a cite for those bullet comments. I'm sure you think that you're a master debator,
No, what I think is that you're just jerking off.

but you haven't been able to support anything you've said. You've repeatedly generalized from thirty-year-old books to the present day, and stereotyped feminists based on a few radicals.
If they were the "radicals," please quote us from the moderates -- the ones who opposed anti-male hatred.

Morgan is one person, you fool.
That's margin -- the Mobius strip of posters.
I guess instead of 'feminazi' what we need is a snappy word for a 'paranoid, feminist-bashing loser who makes shit up to stoke his fears.'
I suppose those innocent men sent to prison must have needed something like that to pass the time, eh?

[CanvasShoes]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CanvasShoes
He doesn't with that posting, but he certainly DOES do so with his "feminists desire a society in which men are not a part" (paraphrased) post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is advisable for you to not put invented quotes into quotation marks.What part of PARAPHRASED don't you understand?

Your actual quote is on page 4 a few times and perhaps on this page as well. At any rate, my quote is a shortened version of what you actually DID post.

[CanvasShoes]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Malacandra
SAL, I was done with this thread, but I'll check back in long enough to say: Go easy on CanvasShoes (not that she needs me to stick up for her). She's made it abundantly clear that she finds man-hating feminists, whom she happily describes as "feminazis", despicable and contemptible.

Based on what she's already said about Dworkin, I'm prepared to trust her opinion on the rest of 'em.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like a wolf in sheeps clothing to me.

She's determined to dismiss catsix's experiences and to engage in denial of man-bashing. So she says she doesn't agree with Dworkin? Fine. But that is not the same as actually taking a real-life opposition to Dworkin.
I'm not dismissing catsix's experiences at all, and stated such in most of my posts. And for the record, as an instructor I was appalled at his teacher's actions and attitudes, and thought her extremely incompetent, and SAID so.

Secondly. What consitutes a "real-life" opposition to the dworkins/feminazis of the movement? Do YOU take "real-life" opposition to them?

You obviously can't or won't read a person's post past or more in-depth than that which you can use as fuel to allow yourself more sulking and fit-throwing fodder.

From the very beginning post I madein this thread, I said that I opposed the attitudes of Mackinnon, and others like her. Not being a young, set in my ways college woman with feminazi leanings, I haven't read much from these women.

You asked earlier, if so many women (who may, or may not be feminists or feminazis) DON'T believe them, then why do their books sell? Well HELL, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the answer to that one.

I don't plan on murdering anyone, nor do most "normal" people, but "Helter Skelter" sold (and still sells) pretty well.

I'm not a communist, nor are many Americans, but Marx's manifesto is a pretty good seller still.

I tried to explain this before, but you apparently didn't read far enough to see it. A person doesn't have to agree with EVERYTHING another person says to still be interested in the basic subject.

For instance. I'm a fitness instructor. There are a lot of publicized and published "fitness professionals" out there, from Atkins to Dr. Phil.

Most of these fellow fitness instructors have pretty similar and good information. But some of their information IMHO, is not helpful or "good" information.

Still, I'll buy a book out of interest, or to see what they have to say. Doesn't mean I'm a diehard Atkins or Dr. Phil Convert.

Again, I'M not claiming to know the minds of these women at all. And that's PRECISELY my point. NO ONE does, and certainly not you. So, you can't just arbitrarily go around making huge sweeping generalizations.

Which brings me to your comment to me (paraphrased, hope you've figured out the meaning of that word by now), of "hope you don't generalize on democrats etc.

I hope I don't also. I try not to. But in the case that I DO make a blanket statement about a specific group, I won't be surprised at all to see someone, likely SEVERAL someone's call me on it.

Which is what is happening to you in this thread.

[margin]

Yawn. Andy avoids providing a cite yet again. What a surprise!