How did Feminism become synonymous with hating men in the pop culture mindset? [Archive]

AHunter3

10-27-2005, 02:33 PM

Radical feminism demanded an end to male oppression and was highly critical of a range of behaviors and traits that were quite common in men, as well as condemning instutional/structural male power and holding individual males responsible for their participation in them. Should it surprise you that lots of men felt "hated" when everyday women they ran into began giving voice to these opinions and crediting feminism with having awakened them to this?

Meanwhile, yeah, sure — assume any kind of serious and widespread oppression, then blow the whistle on it and kick off a movement to end it. The oppressed who are aware of their oppression and are brave and/or pissed off enough to want to do something about it, they come rallying to the cause. Are some of them going to harbor actual hatred, blind universal stereotyping category-wide hatred, for the folks who have kept them down and continue to keep them down? No shit, sherlock! And will some among the oppressed who already hated them anyhow be, perhaps, more disposed to give a listen to angry criticism of those folks' oppressive ways, and retain their hatred alongside of their new political convictions? Yep.

Moving onward: lots of radical feminists were "fed up to here" with male chauvinism, patriarchy, sexism, and lack of life-opportunities for women, but they did not hate men. Guess how many of them felt like making a major huge priority of distinguishing (over and over and over again) between criticizing what (many or most) men do, and hating men? Guess how many of them felt like they had to justify feminism on the "please may I" grounds that feminism was not only not "against men" but would actually benefit men too, eventually and/or as a side effect? <—— that latter phrase lifted almost verbatim, incidentally, from Robin Morgan's The Anatomy of Freedom.

Robin Morgan did not hate men. Marilyn French did not hate men. Phyllis Chesler did not hate men. Catherine MacKinnon did not hate men. Sheila Jeffried did not hate men. Sonia Johnson did not hate men. Elizabeth Janeway did not hate men. Gloria Steinem did not hate men. Andrea Dworkin did not hate men. Elizabeth Fisher did not hate men.

Or at least, if any of them did, they did not incorporate the hatred of men, or casting males as the enemy, into their feminist theory, and in fact explicitly said quite the opposite.

Susan StoHelit: SCUM Manifesto

Yeah, OK, Valerie Solanas. I'll spot you Mary Daly, too.

But aside from those two....

Shagnasty

10-27-2005, 05:57 PM

I think most of the problem is that today's younger women don't really see too many female-specific problems related to their own life that need a special movement to address. If I asked my executive wife or my female friends what female-specific issues need to be addressed in the U.S. in order to achieve equality, they would look at me like I have two-heads.

I have to give feminism of the past a lot of credit. They did fix a lot of problems that I would never want my daughter dealing with. However, a movement that insists on marching on after most of the core issues are addressed tends to have mainly Don Quiotes and radical lunatics as members.

Guinastasia

10-27-2005, 07:04 PM

Keep in mind, Solanas was batshit insane and tried to kill Andy Warhol.

AskNott

10-27-2005, 07:13 PM

Two words:SCUM manifesto (http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm)

A short excerpt:
Is this site parody, or is it insanity? There's no reason in it, that's for sure.

mswas

10-27-2005, 07:52 PM

Yeah, feminists can be really mean. I had an ex-girlfriend who was really mean to me because I was a man, she was about ten years older than me, and even said that I didn't have the preconceptions about women that men her age did.

My current wife has a lot of power in her life, and the thing that holds her power back the most is realizing that she has it. She oftentimes feels like someone pushes her down, but it's because she let them intimidate her, and didn't just tell them to go screw that causes this.

I've found in my dealings is that men tend to be aggressive by nature, it's not that they are trying to be intimidating but women tend to get intimidated. Not all women, but it's a tendency I have observed, when men just expect them to push back. However, what happens is women will take it personally and be mean aggressive back, instead of just intense aggressive. It's kind of like how a guy can plow his good buddy into the ground playing football and still drink beer with him later that night and be fine.

I think it's that mean aggressive tendency that came out a lot in the 70s that has characterized the idea. My step-mother told me once that the only reason we had men was for their sperm, and that one day technology would overcome that nuisance. She of course renegged, and said she told me "Some women believe...", when I related this to my father.

Erek

SusanStoHelit

10-27-2005, 08:46 PM

Is this site parody, or is it insanity? There's no reason in it, that's for sure.

Not a parody, AFAIK. We went over the SCUM manifesto in a Women's Studies class. It doesn't matter how crazy she was- her manifesto answers the OP's question very nicely.

Zoe

10-27-2005, 09:27 PM

Susan: Not a parody, AFAIK. We went over the SCUM manifesto in a Women's Studies class. It doesn't matter how crazy she was- her manifesto answers the OP's question very nicely.

Saying that the SCUM manifesto is the basis for the mischaracterization of feminists as "men hating" is as unreasonable as holding Louis Farrakhan responsible for those who claim that all African-Americans are militant.

I was an adult woman and a feminist during the 1960's and 1970's. I knew many feminists -- both male and female. Not one of them hated males. Men-haters were few and far between -- so rare that they drew a lot of attention when they surfaced. If someone wanted an excuse to object to gender equality, they would drag out something written by one of those very untypical women. But they had to pass up a lot of well-reasoned essays and conversations to find it.

betenoir

10-27-2005, 09:54 PM

Saying that the SCUM manifesto is the basis for the mischaracterization of feminists as "men hating" is as unreasonable as holding Louis Farrakhan responsible for those who claim that all African-Americans are militant.

I was going to say looking to the SCUM manifesto as an example of feminism is like looking to Fred Phelps for an example of Christianity. But, same thing.

There was a certain amout of anti-male rehetoric in feminism particualry backing the beginning (when rehetoric tends to be heated). The media latched on to it to a disproportionate degree because...well because it was more sensational and not as hard as dealing with the really issues feminism was bringing up.

Kind of like bra burning...a great image the media ran with regarding those wacky feminist, even though no bras were burned (well ok i think there were one or two but it was a joke).

betenoir

10-27-2005, 09:58 PM

Not a parody, AFAIK. We went over the SCUM manifesto in a Women's Studies class. It doesn't matter how crazy she was- her manifesto answers the OP's question very nicely.

One pychopath very nicely justifies the mischaracterization of a whole movement? I hope I'm misreading you.

betenoir

10-27-2005, 10:04 PM

However, a movement that insists on marching on after most of the core issues are addressed tends to have mainly Don Quiotes and radical lunatics as members.

:dubious: I thnk your post was very accurate. Right up to this point. Just because some sucessful women are...sucessful and no longer see a reason for arguing about female equality does not mean the core issues have been adressed. For a lot of women they haven't been.

Rysto

10-27-2005, 10:20 PM

One pychopath very nicely justifies the mischaracterization of a whole movement? I hope I'm misreading you.
The OP is asking how it happened, not whether it was right.

astro

10-27-2005, 10:37 PM

:dubious: I think your post was very accurate. Right up to this point. Just because some successful women are...successful and no longer see a reason for arguing about female equality does not mean the core issues have been addressed. For a lot of women they haven't been.

Out of curiosity what specific core issues are these?

Evil Captor

10-27-2005, 10:50 PM

Conservatives have generally hated feminism. It's no coincidence that conservatism commentator and drug addict Rush Limbaugh coined the term "feminazi." They used the outspoken rhetoric of the more radical feminists to convince everyone that feminism was about man hating and sex hating (remember Andrea Dworkin's famous declaration that "All heterosexual sex is rape"?). Basically, feminists like Dworkin and a few others pounded out all the weaponry any conservative could ever wish for to destroy the public perception of feminism. So they took it, and used it relentlessly, just like they relentlessly attacked the term "liberal." You see the results.

tomndebb

10-27-2005, 11:02 PM

One pychopath very nicely justifies the mischaracterization of a whole movement? I hope I'm misreading you.
As noted, this does not justify anything. However, it indicates a particular phenomenon that impressed itself on the public consciousness.

My sister started college with a roommate who had no problem politely walking through a door held by my sister or another woman in the dorm, but if a male student happened to hold a door open just because he got there first and she was close enough that he didn't let it slam in her face, he was liable to receive a five-minute harangue about his "oppressive" and "patronizing" habits. Was this twit a typical feminist? Absolutely not. She was, however, a very visible image of feminism to some large number of people in East Lansing in the early 1970s.

Shagnasty

10-27-2005, 11:13 PM

:dubious: I thnk your post was very accurate. Right up to this point. Just because some sucessful women are...sucessful and no longer see a reason for arguing about female equality does not mean the core issues have been adressed. For a lot of women they haven't been.

I am honestly curious about what these are too. The only thing that I could think of is some vague sticking points about abortion. I asked my wife and she couldn't really think of anything.

I am just reading this as a case of "equal opportunities but not always equal outcomes".

AHunter3

10-27-2005, 11:45 PM

Core issues still unaddressed?

I'm sitting here next to my girlfriend. She's 52 now. About 20 years ago, she was doing all the work of a financial manager while receiving a secretary's salary; she spoke to the higher-ups about getting the official job title and the commensurate pay and was flat-out told "If we're going to pay what the work is worth, that position is going to go to a man with a family to support, not to a woman"

We're not talking my Mom's generation.

My sister was happily welcomed into the world of engineering as a female in the 1980s. The doors for women had definitely been opened by the feminists of the previous decades. Then she had a daugher with birth defects and although her career wasn't intrinsically of less worth than that of her husband (also an engineer), someone had to drop out and do nearly full-time child care. Guess which one of them? The child died a few years later and it hasn't been easy for her to reenter the work-world with that gap in her work-record. Even if employers don't hold a bias against employing women on the grounds that they might quit to have kids or something.

Neither of those things is easily addressed by a simple law. (The first example might be in theory but in practice it would be hard to prove and therefore the behavior hard to eliminate through legislation alone).

Within the last 5-6 years, a mildly retarded girl in New Jersey was gang-raped by some High School aged fraternity boys. It was pretty ugly. One of the uglier parts was the assertion made by some in the community that she had willingly gone into the house to be with the boys and therefore had somehow forfeited any right to decline subsequent attentions.

I know parents of 14 year olds who, in 2005, continue to conceptualize sex as "boys misusing and taking advantage of girls, who are sluts if they let them do it". I know parents of 5 and 7 year olds who are seriously bent out of shape when the boy plays with his sister's dolls.

A great deal of what still needs attention consists of attitudes and perceptions. In some cases, policies and laws and official standards could help change things, but ultimately the big stuff is in peopel's heads.

I could list more stuff. I shouldn't need to. It's out there and you can probably make your own list if you think about it.

NicePete

10-28-2005, 12:01 AM

I think it's a common cultural phenomenon whereby the most radical, outspoken or iconoclastic members of a movement get the most media attention. She who screams the loudest gets the camera time. This explains folks like Jerry Fallwell, Louis Farrakhan, PETA, or Ann Coulter. They take their beliefs to an extreme and yell about them as loud as they can.

Of course, the media is always ravenous for an easy sexy story. So the extremist and the media are willing if odd bedpartners.

As to feminism, I've always felt that the vast majority of feminists (and women, and men for that matter) believe that women should be treated equally. But that doesn't make much of a story. So when the fringe elements scream for mens' heads on platters, that's what gets covered.

Rationality, prudence, moderation -- those things will never get you air time.

astro

10-28-2005, 12:09 AM

Core issues still unaddressed?

I'm sitting here next to my girlfriend. She's 52 now. About 20 years ago, she was doing all the work of a financial manager while receiving a secretary's salary; she spoke to the higher-ups about getting the official job title and the commensurate pay and was flat-out told "If we're going to pay what the work is worth, that position is going to go to a man with a family to support, not to a woman"

We're not talking my Mom's generation.

My sister was happily welcomed into the world of engineering as a female in the 1980s. The doors for women had definitely been opened by the feminists of the previous decades. Then she had a daughter with birth defects and although her career wasn't intrinsically of less worth than that of her husband (also an engineer), someone had to drop out and do nearly full-time child care. Guess which one of them? The child died a few years later and it hasn't been easy for her to reenter the work-world with that gap in her work-record. Even if employers don't hold a bias against employing women on the grounds that they might quit to have kids or something.

Neither of those things is easily addressed by a simple law. (The first example might be in theory but in practice it would be hard to prove and therefore the behavior hard to eliminate through legislation alone).

Within the last 5-6 years, a mildly retarded girl in New Jersey was gang-raped by some High School aged fraternity boys. It was pretty ugly. One of the uglier parts was the assertion made by some in the community that she had willingly gone into the house to be with the boys and therefore had somehow forfeited any right to decline subsequent attentions.

I know parents of 14 year olds who, in 2005, continue to conceptualize sex as "boys misusing and taking advantage of girls, who are sluts if they let them do it". I know parents of 5 and 7 year olds who are seriously bent out of shape when the boy plays with his sister's dolls.

A great deal of what still needs attention consists of attitudes and perceptions. In some cases, policies and laws and official standards could help change things, but ultimately the big stuff is in people's heads.

I could list more stuff. I shouldn't need to. It's out there and you can probably make your own list if you think about it.

With all due respect none of the items you listed are what I would consider to be currently in play as "core" social justice inequities. Your mother's experience is more or less against the law nowadays. The job gap issue in a fast moving, highly technical field like engineering would affect both men and women depending on who had the "gap". The "she was asking for it" assumptions in the rape case are specific to that case, and these "she was asking for it" opinions are often held by women more strongly than they are by men. The gender inappropriate toy issue response by the parents may be somewhat reactionary, and not be to your liking, but it is hardly (IMO) a core social justice issue for most people.

betenoir

10-28-2005, 05:39 AM

Goodness.

I wasn't expecting such a reaction...and I'm not really up for writing a manifesto.

But yes I do think there are issues unadressed. It's wonderful that we've arrived at a point where female and male professors and sciencentist are being paid the same. And it took quite a bit for women to even get to that point. But not everyone is at that point.

Not everyone is educated and sucessfull and for those who aren't...well menial crappy jobs for women still tend to pay less then menial crappy jobs for men. And they still have to take care of the children. And they still find themselves isolated (and in fear of not having a male income) and abused.

I think there are a few issues still worth addressing.

AHunter3

10-28-2005, 11:18 AM

astro: With all due respect none of the items you listed are what I would consider to be currently in play as "core" social justice inequities.... Your mother's experience is more or less against the law nowadays

a) As I said, it was my girlfriend, not my mom, and it was in the middle 1980s, not in the dark ages. It was against the law when it happened. It still happens.

b) A big part of my point was that these things are not easily addressed by legislation. "Social justice" is therefore perhaps the wrong nomenclature. For some of us, these things are all examples of ongoing social problems we would like to address, therefore unfinished business for feminism. (The assumption being that each example is a true example of a phenomenon, rather than being an incident explainable by specifics unique to that case)

The job gap issue in a fast moving, highly technical field like engineering would affect both men and women depending on who had the "gap"

Obviously. My point was that (with no law coercing folks, just lots of attitude and tradition and expectation) if someone's gonna drop out and stay at home for the needy kid, it still tends to be the female. Each female in each situation could decide otherwise, but as long as those societal expectations remain intact and still insufficiently thrown into question, she does so at the risk of other consequences. And, in parallel, perhaps the expectation of "no gaps" can be considered perniciously patriarchal —i.e., that, as long as the culture has women doing the "gaps" thing when the need is present, an expectation of "no gaps" can reasonably be met.....by men, who didn't have to drop out 'cuz their wives did.

The "she was asking for it" assumptions in the rape case are specific to that case

I've read of surveys of college freshmen that indicate that quite a few people (plenty young enough to not be old fogeys reflecting old & dying attitudes) come short of believing that a woman can flirt, make out, go to a guy's bedroom to have sex, and then change her mind, retaining the right to do so and to say "no" at that point. Yes, many such people are women themselves. That in no way detracts from it being a serious feminist issue. And serious it is. Until rape victims can win cases in court despite acknowledging on the witness stand that yes they were seeking sex and yes they did things to make this guy think they were gonna sleep with him but then he acted like a jerk and she changed her mind and then he forced sex on her anyway, it's a social problem. It remains a social problem in need of feminist attention even if you, on reading this, think there's no easy legal fix that wouldn't unduly threaten males with prison sentences for she-said / he-said murky events, etc — indeed, particularly then; it's the knotty complex murky gender problems that need the most serious feminist focus, the obvious and straightforward stuff has in large part been won.

Similar stuff about coercive gender polarization of children, like the dolls thing, and the perennial sexual double-standard like the parents-of-teenagers thing.

Or, to put the whole mess another way: you may not see a need for seeking further social change in the name of sexual equality, but some folks do, and we're not all just a bunch of nutjobs with no case to make.

(Well, I'm a nutjob, but I still have a case to make ;) )

SusanStoHelit

10-28-2005, 11:39 AM

One pychopath very nicely justifies the mischaracterization of a whole movement? I hope I'm misreading you.

tomndeb and Rystro already answered this, but I just thought I'd affirm that no, I didn't mean that the SCUM manifesto justifies anything, just that it was (as Evil Captor noted) a tool that could be used by people who stood to lose if feminism 'won.'

Reloy3

10-28-2005, 12:32 PM

My sister started college with a roommate who had no problem politely walking through a door held by my sister or another woman in the dorm, but if a male student happened to hold a door open just because he got there first and she was close enough that he didn't let it slam in her face, he was liable to receive a five-minute harangue about his "oppressive" and "patronizing" habits. Was this twit a typical feminist? Absolutely not. She was, however, a very visible image of feminism to some large number of people in East Lansing in the early 1970s.

Heck, this happened to me as recently as last year. I opened the door for a woman walking into the local courthouse, and you would have thought I was raping puppies. She grabbed the door out of my hands, screeched at me for "treating her like a weak child" and called me a pig. I support many of what I would consider to be feminist causes, but this woman's behavior will stick out in my mind as a "man-hating" attitude and does taint the whole movement. In almost all social causes, it is the extremes that get the notice and are remembered.

Ellis Dee

10-28-2005, 12:48 PM

What feminists want is the same rights, opportunities, and access to power that men have always had. Is that unreasonable? I don't think so. Is there an official stated reason why the ERA never passed?

I ask because reading statements similar to the one I quoted makes me a bit uneasy when I think about things like a wartime draft. If we ever found ourselves in another large-scale war, with a hundred thousand body bags of drafted infantry coming home, I would hate for fifty thousand of those bodybags to contain women.

Shagnasty

10-28-2005, 01:04 PM

AHunter3

10-28-2005, 01:39 PM

Is there an official stated reason why the ERA never passed?

I ask because reading statements similar to the one I quoted makes me a bit uneasy when I think about things like a wartime draft. If we ever found ourselves in another large-scale war, with a hundred thousand body bags of drafted infantry coming home, I would hate for fifty thousand of those bodybags to contain women.
Why?

Not, mind you, that I'm saying a woman's place is zipped up in a body bag, but what's your thinking here?

There's no "official reason" because its failure to pass was due to the myriad reasons that an insufficient number of state legislatures failed to pass it. Reasons given at the time included:

• redundant; that women already had equal rights as established in other legal clauses elsewhere.

• fear of unintended consequences: that it would require unisex bathrooms, legalize gay marriages, and cause a host of other legal problems not intended by those who drafted it.

• fear of intended consequences: that it would make the sexes equal before the law, which would be horrible and inappropriate, because as everyone knows men and women have as much in common as horse chestnuts and chestnut horses.

• fear that it would be used against women's interests more than for them: that maternal custody preference and alimony would disappear, the draft would go coed, insurance companies would charge women as much as men for auto and life insurance, and ladies' night at the bar disbanded, but men would still get better pay and laws favoring men would be ignored during the execution of the amendment as law.

• fear of feminist momentum: that if the ERA passed, the feminists would go on to the next big thing, and since feminism is clearly the work of Satan and the enemy of the Fambly it must be stopped at all costs.

betenoir

10-28-2005, 01:57 PM

tomndeb and Rystro already answered this, but I just thought I'd affirm that no, I didn't mean that the SCUM manifesto justifies anything, just that it was (as Evil Captor noted) a tool that could be used by people who stood to lose if feminism 'won.'

Fair enough. In that case I agree.

Der Trihs

10-28-2005, 09:07 PM

Some years ago I remember a Time magazine cover story, titled something like "Are men really pigs ?". I remember it contained quotes from feminists supporting the falsification of rape claims against men. They said things like ( going by memory ) "Sending an innocent man to prison is the highest act a woman can perform", and "Being raped in prison will be a learning experience". Even earlier, I remember another article about a woman who kidnapped children and terrorized them into making false accusations of molestation against their fathers of molestation; her defense : "Of course he's a molestor, he's a father."

I heard a feminist claim that since men value honesty, lying is a virtue.

I recall reading a book that was a collection of debates pro and con genetic engineering; the feminist position was that science is male, nature is female, therefore those with genetic defects should die.

When Gloria Allred was asked if women who lacked the proper strength for the job should be firefighters, she said that if people died that's the price we must pay for equality.

Really, I've heard lots of nasty things from self proclaimed feminists over the years; I'm not surprised that the word "feminist" is so unpopular.

Carnac the Magnificent!

10-28-2005, 10:30 PM

I would hate for fifty thousand of those bodybags to contain women.

Your objection is not 100,000 dead, but that half are women? Why would the loss of a female combatant upset you more than the loss of a male?

Czarcasm

10-29-2005, 12:19 AM

Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

BlackKnight

10-29-2005, 12:50 AM

How did Feminism become synonymous with hating men in the pop culture mindset?
Because of attitudes like this:
If we ever found ourselves in another large-scale war, with a hundred thousand body bags of drafted infantry coming home, I would hate for fifty thousand of those bodybags to contain women.

scotandrsn

10-29-2005, 04:31 AM

My sister started college with a roommate who had no problem politely walking through a door held by my sister or another woman in the dorm, but if a male student happened to hold a door open just because he got there first and she was close enough that he didn't let it slam in her face, he was liable to receive a five-minute harangue about his "oppressive" and "patronizing" habits. Was this twit a typical feminist? Absolutely not. She was, however, a very visible image of feminism to some large number of people in East Lansing in the early 1970s.

In the Boston area in the mid-80s, campus feminism had degenerated in to factionalist tribes. I consider myself a feminist, and I was distressed to actually hear my girlfriend declare that if you were not a black lesbian rape victim, you could not possible understand "true" feminism. Sad.

scotandrsn

10-29-2005, 04:51 AM

Is there an official stated reason why the ERA never passed?

Well, the officiial reason is that, by the deadline set ten years after Congress voted in favor of it in 1972, 35 states (not the required 38) had ratified it.

The holdouts were:

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Utah
Virginia

Find any group of three in that bunch that would likely have ratified it, and you at least have the people to post your question to.

Actually, because the "Madison Amendment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pay/stories/co051492.htm) " barring congress from getting a pay raise without an intervening election was ratified over 200 years after its submission to the states, some are hoping that the ERA can be revived. Read here (http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era.htm)

Eve

10-29-2005, 12:09 PM

I could have sworn I started a long thread on this same subject a month or so ago, but when I did a search on it, I came up blank.

Men must have deleted it!

astro

10-29-2005, 01:58 PM

I could have sworn I started a long thread on this same subject a month or so ago, but when I did a search on it, I came up blank.

Men must have deleted it!

There's your problem right there, too few letters per word for the search engine to parse.

Eve Say Men Bad - Man Not OK - You Go Now! Go Far!

tomndebb

10-29-2005, 02:08 PM

What is a "Feminist?" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=339489), Eve, 10-12-2005, 06:51 PM, Great Debates.

tomndebb

10-29-2005, 02:09 PM

(The guys on the staff got together and put it back for you.)

rfgdxm

10-29-2005, 03:26 PM

Tyrrell McAllister

10-29-2005, 03:32 PM

We have had Great Debates about this and nobody was ever able to explain what the ERA was supposed to DO. Proponents claim that they want it as part of the Constitution for symbolic reasons. That is fine until the court cases brought by on by both men and women start rolling on. Constructionist Supreme Court rulings wouldn't necessarily be beneficial to women at all especially today when normal state and local laws have largely addressed the issues that the ERA was somehow suppoosed to fix.

Here's a link to that thread:

Why was the Equal Rights Amendment so controversial? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=270530)

Proponents don't want the ERA for merely symbolic reasons. They simply realize that, though our current culture largely supports granting autonomy and equality to women, history shows that this could change. For example, if fundamentalist religious views continue to gain prominence, we could see a reversal of the hard-won social progress instigated by feminists over the last century. If the ERA had made it into the Constitution, it would be harder for such cultural backsliding to affect the law by removing safeguards that are now in place.

Carnac the Magnificent!

10-29-2005, 09:18 PM

(The guys on the staff got together and put it back for you.)

traitor

Voyager

10-30-2005, 01:57 AM

I was an adult woman and a feminist during the 1960's and 1970's. I knew many feminists -- both male and female. Not one of them hated males. Men-haters were few and far between -- so rare that they drew a lot of attention when they surfaced. If someone wanted an excuse to object to gender equality, they would drag out something written by one of those very untypical women. But they had to pass up a lot of well-reasoned essays and conversations to find it.

I lived in Cambridge at the same time - almost adult :) I knew some women who did not like men to open doors for them, but none who hated men. I think the answer to the OP is the same as why some right wingers call anyone to the left of Attila the Hun a radical if any extremist writes anything crazy.

Another example of how bad it was - in 1978 my wife discovered that she could not get a checking card at the supermarket without my signature, despite the fact that she worked and I was in grad school. Louisiana still had a Head and Master Law, saying that the man was head of the household. It did get repealed, but not without the protests of some legislators who said they got married under the law and it was unfair to change the rules. :mad:

Ellis Dee

10-30-2005, 01:28 AM

Your objection is not 100,000 dead, but that half are women?Yes, that is my exact thought process, and thank you for so eloquently stating it. I am completely for 100,000 men dying. In fact, there is nothing in the world that I would rather see than 100,000 men dead.Why would the loss of a female combatant upset you more than the loss of a male?Since my position is the conventional wisdom, I see no need to defend it. Why don't you make your case to show me the error of my ways?

Der Trihs

10-30-2005, 02:09 AM

Since my position is the conventional wisdom, I see no need to defend it. Why don't you make your case to show me the error of my ways?
Because your position amounts to the claim that male lives are worthless, and female lives are valuable, and that's not a nice thing to say ? It's also the kind of attitude that makes it hard to take seriously the claim that feminism has anything to do with equality.

Really, feminism has done more to smear itself than conservatives could ever do.

Siege

10-30-2005, 05:56 AM

I have a suggestion for those of you who think the issue of inequalities or differences in society's attitudes towards men and women are settled. Picture what the differences between what would happen if a man went into a bar and announced, "God I'm horny! I just want to get laid!" and what would happen if a woman said the same thing. ;) It's trite and a cliche coming from me, but we haven't reached true equality yet. I also, by the way, worked for an employer who would only have women cover the reception desk during the receptionist's lunch hour and hired a woman saying she'd be in charge of Quality Control and then refused to give her the position (she sued). This company also practiced racial discrimination. They're out of business now, but not for any of these reasons.

I'm an unabashed feminist who reads Ms. Magazine regularly, and I have an idea where the stereotype's coming from. There are feminists who apprarently believe that you're not a true feminist unless you hate men and are lesbian. Come to think of it, there's a Pit rant right now about a lecturer at a university who's in that school. There've been a few times when I've been tempted to write to Ms. and point out that one reason I became a feminist in the first place is because I like men and it looked to me like the guys got to do a lot more fun stuff than the girls did. An old love once told me I wasn't a feminist because I believe in women's equality, not superiority.

My feminism is a bit like my Christianity to me. I know that the most obnoxious, extreme stereotypes are the ones which make the news, and I'll stand up and say I'm not like that and I don't support it. On the other hand, while I may not like it, people like Ms. Dworkin and Mr. Falwell will continue to exist.

CJ

catsix

10-30-2005, 08:43 AM

AHunter3 said:
The child died a few years later and it hasn't been easy for her to reenter the work-world with that gap in her work-record. Even if employers don't hold a bias against employing women on the grounds that they might quit to have kids or something.

And they're just supposed to ignore the gap in her work history and the fact that she's been out of the loop and may not be up to date on all the things they're working with because women who quit working due to their kids get a special pass?

She's going to be treated just like any man who was off the playing field for an extended period of time, and it's going to be harder for her to get a position now. As it should be.

Within the last 5-6 years, a mildly retarded girl in New Jersey was gang-raped by some High School aged fraternity boys. It was pretty ugly. One of the uglier parts was the assertion made by some in the community that she had willingly gone into the house to be with the boys and therefore had somehow forfeited any right to decline subsequent attentions.

Cite?

Obviously. My point was that (with no law coercing folks, just lots of attitude and tradition and expectation) if someone's gonna drop out and stay at home for the needy kid, it still tends to be the female.

Maybe your sister and her husband should've decided differently. Society didn't force your sister to quit her job instead of her husband. That's a decision they made.

Siege said:
Picture what the differences between what would happen if a man went into a bar and announced, "God I'm horny! I just want to get laid!" and what would happen if a woman said the same thing.

Every woman in the place would be lined up to kick him in the balls for being an inconsiderate pig who objectifies women, whereas if I say that, I get applause.

There are feminists who apprarently believe that you're not a true feminist unless you hate men and are lesbian.

They may well be talking about Jeanie, prolific poster at the now defunct Ms. Message Boards, who fully admitted to treating men unfairly in the Women's Studies courses she taught.

I still see the occasional asshole, but I don't exactly think that in 2005 United States there is anything like what feminists call 'the patriarchy'.

Johanna

10-30-2005, 09:00 AM

Louisiana still had a Head and Master Law, saying that the man was head of the household."Now we got here in the state of Louisiana what's known as the Napoleonic code. You see, now according to that, what belongs to the wife belongs to the husband also, and vice versa..."
</Stanley Kowalski>

How did machismo become synonymous with misogyny in the popular mind?

As to the OP: Remember the growth pains of feminism didn't only lead to (what was perceived as) misandry. Feminists bashed each other too for not being sufficiently ideologically committed, it isn't one of our prouder moments, but we learn from our mistakes. It was a natural symptom of the beginning of change. As oppressed people, women had learned how to be oppressors. When we started getting a leg up, we behaved the way we had been taught: we turned that oppression onto others. Those of us who have done transformative work consciously try not to do that any more. We recognize that the problem is the hierarchical patriarchal system, not the men or women who have been in the system. The OP is talking about a hangover from the '70s and '80s. I don't see that happening in contemporary feminism. In my experience with feminist action in the present day, it's very male-positive and they are happy to bring men on board as allies. Many men too have changed and come around to being less chauvinist, more understanding.

Has anyone flogging these antifeminist stereotypes actually talked with and listened to a real live feminist? If you just repeat what Rush told you to say, you will not gain knowledge. If you want to understand feminism, try engaging us as real human beings.

P.S.
Flores. Flores para los muertos.

catsix

10-30-2005, 09:15 AM

Johanna said:
When we started getting a leg up, we behaved the way we had been taught: we turned that oppression onto others.

You say 'we', but weren't you living as a socially-identified man until quite recently? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but if you didn't start living as a woman in society until you had already established a career, then how can you speak to firsthand experience about getting a leg up or even imply that you know firsthand what it was like for someone like me who came up through a field mostly populated by men having been a girl the entire time?

We recognize that the problem is the hierarchical patriarchal system, not the men or women who have been in the system.

Not all of us agree that there is a patriarchy. I certainly didn't experience any of that 'patriarchal system' as I worked my way up through a field in which I was out numbered 10 to 1 by men. It's not as if those doors were closed to anyone who had a second X chromosome, it's that despite the encouragement by those in the university's administration, the women just flat out weren't interested in computer engineering as often as the men were.

In my experience with feminist action in the present day, it's very male-positive and they are happy to bring men on board as allies.

And in my experience, it's very anti-male and the only way that a man can gain acceptance from feminists is to become self-deprecating and slather himself with guilt and try to be more like a woman so that feminists will accept him.

Many men too have changed and come around to being less chauvinist, more understanding.

Really? I think most men don't need to change because they aren't chauvanists.

Has anyone flogging these antifeminist stereotypes actually talked with and listened to a real live feminist?

That's when I started hating feminism.

If you want to understand feminism, try engaging us as real human beings.

I did. I was severely disappointed by the attitudes of those who thought they spoke for me.

tomndebb

10-30-2005, 09:37 AM

And they're just supposed to ignore the gap in her work history and the fact that she's been out of the loop and may not be up to date on all the things they're working with because women who quit working due to their kids get a special pass?

She's going to be treated just like any man who was off the playing field for an extended period of time, and it's going to be harder for her to get a position now. As it should be.

. . .

Maybe your sister and her husband should've decided differently. Society didn't force your sister to quit her job instead of her husband. That's a decision they made.Perhaps you should have read his further comments where he already addressed that issue?

He already pointed out that the decision, and decisions like those by other people, are often the result of societal presumptions. He never made the claim that anyone forced any particular action. However, in a society where equality had been achieved, the results of similar decisions would be more likely to go closer to 50 - 50, rather than to go overwhelmingly toward the woman sacrificing her career.

We have not achieved that level of parity and so his example is used to illuminate (not to prove) the current unequal status of women in society. Coming back with a rejoinder that basically says "it's their own fault for their decisions" does not address either the fact or the reason behind similar decisions being made in an overwhelming number of occasions in our society--which was the point he was making.

catsix

10-30-2005, 09:46 AM

tomndeb said:
He already pointed out that the decision, and decisions like those by other people, are often the result of societal presumptions. He never made the claim that anyone forced any particular action.

He's on about how these 'social presumptions' have to be changed, but he himself points out that through their own conscious decision his very enlightened sister and brother-in-law chose to go along with the herd instead of doing something different.

They could've chosen the opposite, the opportunity for doing so certainly existed. Where was his sister denied an opportunity because she was female? The fact of the matter is that they had a choice. Unless AHunter3 is arguing for equality of outcome, how on earth was equality of opportunity denied to his sister and her husband in this case?

However, in a society where equality had been achieved, the results of similar decisions would be more likely to go closer to 50 - 50, rather than to go overwhelmingly toward the woman sacrificing her career.

So you are talking about equality of outcome, which means that you will not be happy unless the decisions people make of their own free will agree with the decisions you would have them make. I obviously disagree with equality of outcome as a good goal to try and reach.

We have not achieved that level of parity and so his example is used to illuminate (not to prove) the current unequal status of women in society.

I don't believe that unequal outcome proves unequal opportunity or that women are unequal in society.

Or do you think that men are unequal in society because 50% of BSN graduates aren't male?

tomndebb

10-30-2005, 10:32 AM

He's on about how these 'social presumptions' have to be changed, but he himself points out that through their own conscious decision his very enlightened sister and brother-in-law chose to go along with the herd instead of doing something different.

They could've chosen the opposite, the opportunity for doing so certainly existed. Where was his sister denied an opportunity because she was female? The fact of the matter is that they had a choice. Unless AHunter3 is arguing for equality of outcome, how on earth was equality of opportunity denied to his sister and her husband in this case?

So you are talking about equality of outcome, which means that you will not be happy unless the decisions people make of their own free will agree with the decisions you would have them make. I obviously disagree with equality of outcome as a good goal to try and reach.

I don't believe that unequal outcome proves unequal opportunity or that women are unequal in society.

Or do you think that men are unequal in society because 50% of BSN graduates aren't male?You are arguing against a position that no one here is arguing for.

Had you stopped after your first paragraph, you would have clearly identified the situation. The social presumptions need to change. This indicates that there is still work to be addressed from the perspective of the Feminist movement, which was the original point.

No one has proposed imposing new rules.
No one has insisted that any individual decision needs to be reversed.
No one has claimed that the de jure opportunity needs to be changed.

For that matter, no one has argued that the outcome must be based on a measure of exactly 50%.

The sole claim has been that when the numbers are entirely lopsided in one direction, then the general recognition of equality has not yet permeated society.

I have expressed no desire to be "happy" when any particular event occurs, so you can put that strawman back in the closet. On the other hand, would you really argue that there are no societal pressures that keep the rate of male BSNs very low? Go back to your first paragraph: men are not excluded from entering nursing (and many more now are), but there are still social presumptions that reduce the number of men who might.
This does not call for changes in laws or school admnissions boards or any overt action, just a general effort by people (Feminists, if you will) to change the social presumptions that render that result.

Hypnagogic Jerk

10-30-2005, 11:55 AM

Because your position amounts to the claim that male lives are worthless, and female lives are valuable, and that's not a nice thing to say ? It's also the kind of attitude that makes it hard to take seriously the claim that feminism has anything to do with equality.
Well, in all fairness, I think we are more likely to see the idea that only men should be subject to military draft among traditionalists than among feminists. I'm certain that there are some feminists who think that only men should be drafted since they are fundamentally violent and only them are responsible for wars, but those would be the extremist feminists the OP is talking about. An average feminist is more likely to think that if there needs to be a military draft, then, there is no reason why women shouldn't have to do their part. I know this is what I would think.

Traditionalists, on the other hand, are more likely to see women as fragile little creatures who need to be sheltered from the horrors of war, while strong men, while their lives are not worthless, are able to be heroes for their country. This is an anti-feminist opinion.

This said, I'd also like Ellis Dee to explain why dead female soldiers are more unsettling than dead male soldiers.

astro

10-30-2005, 12:57 PM

Perhaps you should have read his further comments where he already addressed that issue?

He already pointed out that the decision, and decisions like those by other people, are often the result of societal presumptions. He never made the claim that anyone forced any particular action. However, in a society where equality had been achieved, the results of similar decisions would be more likely to go closer to 50 - 50, rather than to go overwhelmingly toward the woman sacrificing her career.

We have not achieved that level of parity and so his example is used to illuminate (not to prove) the current unequal status of women in society. Coming back with a rejoinder that basically says "it's their own fault for their decisions" does not address either the fact or the reason behind similar decisions being made in an overwhelming number of occasions in our society--which was the point he was making.

Tom, with all due respect, in my experience WRT to the decision about who (husband or wife) takes care of small children your notion of "closer to 50 - 50" is never going to happen in any real world context. While I'm sure there are some women who would gladly give this over to caretakers or their SO, in a dual income household where either partner can support the family, women most often decide how this is going to go, and the husband stying home with the kids while she works is not an option most women seriously entertain unless her earning power is significantly greater than his, or he is unemployed.

In other words, unless circumstances necessitate it many women with young children want to stay home with the kids and be full time mothers if the option exists. It's something they enjoy doing and find fulfillment in, it not like they lost a paper-rock-scissors contest with their SO.

Johanna

10-30-2005, 02:15 PM

You say 'we', but weren't you living as a socially-identified man until quite recently? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but if you didn't start living as a woman in society until you had already established a career, then how can you speak to firsthand experience about getting a leg up or even imply that you know firsthand what it was like for someone like me who came up through a field mostly populated by men having been a girl the entire time?I have no firsthand experience of World War II either, to take one example, but as an American I can say "We beat the Nazis," even though I didn't exist at the time.

I am a woman. I identify with women's struggle for equality and am actively committed to working for it. I identify with the feminist heritage of our foremothers like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, just as do other feminists. Even though none of us existed back then, we can say "we" when we talk about early feminism because we carry on what they began. I feel spiritually connected to their struggle. Their unimaginable courage going up against insuperable odds, knowing they would not live to see any results in their lifetimes, but struggling with all their might anyway for the sake of future generations, fills me with awe and inspiration, and reminds me to have courage in the face of difficulties. Nothing we face now can be compared to what they went through. They were starting from zero but were undaunted by the impossibility of the task. We owe an incalculable debt to them for leading the way. Let this never be forgotten.

My history of being male does not take away from my feminism in the present. What would detract from it would be if I held onto the male privilege I once enjoyed. I have been conscientiously seeking out the insidious, pervasive ramifications of male privilege and discarding every last trace of it. Eeewww, get it awaaayyy from me. It's true there are transwomen who have not made this effort, who lazily hold onto their male privilege even while they want to claim to be women. One disturbing example cited by Deirdre McCloskey: she saw MTFs sitting around talking sports just like guys while genetic women did all the housework, cooking, washing dishes, etc. These lazy transwomen bring disgrace on the rest of us. They are not true to themselves and they need to undertake serious self-examination. Feminists rightly criticize them. I personally feel disgust at the level of falsehood and self-deception they find acceptable. I am there at the kitchen sink with the other women. In the movement, you have to put your ass where your mouth is (please feel free to insert kinky sexual innuendo ;) ) or else shut up.

When I walk alone on the street at night, there is no difference at all between me and all other women with regard to the danger we face.
Not all of us agree that there is a patriarchy. I certainly didn't experience any of that 'patriarchal system' as I worked my way up through a field in which I was out numbered 10 to 1 by men. It's not as if those doors were closed to anyone who had a second X chromosome, it's that despite the encouragement by those in the university's administration, the women just flat out weren't interested in computer engineering as often as the men were. I'm very happy for you. What makes you think your experience is in any way typical of what most other women go through? The statistics don't lie, nor do the innumerable stories told by women of the gender discrimination they have been facing for all these years. I don't detract from the personal truth you found in your individual experience, but no way can I see it as typical. I believe the women who tell of discrimination. I believe Anita.And in my experience, it's very anti-male and the only way that a man can gain acceptance from feminists is to become self-deprecating and slather himself with guilt and try to be more like a woman so that feminists will accept him.In my experience within the movement and actually participating in it, that just is not true at all. Especially in recent years, the feminists I work with have been very welcoming of men, and conscientiously practicing full gender equality within the movement. I have traveled across the country, I have pitched in to help with one feminist movement after another, and I have never seen a single castrating feminist like you describe. Helen Reddy sang "I know I'll make my brother understand." This accommodating spirit lends strength and resilience to the movement and keeps it based within the real world. Really? I think most men don't need to change because they aren't chauvanists.I don't know about "most men" being blatant chauvinists, it doesn't look as though they are. But chauvinism lives on insidiously, is unconsciously, in all men who have not taken a good look within themselves and honestly examined the privileges accorded them by the system. There are still examples of blatant chauvinism too.

When I lived as male, I frequently experienced disgust when guys felt free to display their chauvinism, thinking there were no women around. You just haven't seen what I've seen. When I worked in the Defense Department, I was sitting next to a whiteboy Christian U.S. serviceman and overheard him saying to an Arab Muslim: "You guys have the right idea, keeping your women under control." Once I was working near a naval attaché in another DoD installation, and there was a P.A. announcement about celebrating March as National Women's History Month. He loudly spewed his anger that women get a month. It was outright naked hatred.

I don't mean to pick on our boys in uniform, I'm only giving examples of military male chauvinism because I happened to work in that milieu. You could probably find it, though, in any line of work, especially careers that emphasize toughness, violence, and machismo.

I said chauvinism is lessening among men, and it makes me very glad. Maybe you've been fortunate to work in a field where chauvinism isn't rampant any more. It still persists in too many areas, the struggle is far from over, don't stick your head in the sand.That's when I started hating feminism.Better to hate chauvinist attitudes that make feminism necessary, sister.

In general, we should not hate our fellow human beings (I'm not saying that you do, catsix, just saying in general). We have nothing to hate but hatred itself.

astro

10-30-2005, 02:58 PM

I
I said chauvinism is lessening among men, and it makes me very glad. Maybe you've been fortunate to work in a field where chauvinism isn't rampant any more. It still persists in too many areas, the struggle is far from over, don't stick your head in the sand.Better to hate chauvinist attitudes that make feminism necessary, sister.

Not to hijack my own thread, but since we're on the topic and you appear to have some experience in this realm, some years ago (about mid-late 90's) there were various women's groups committed to the idea of women needing male free "safe spaces", and transgendered men to women were definitely not on the the invitation list to these "male free" events or locations, and in fact there was actively (and fairly intense) hostility by some of the more militant (mostly self identified lesbian) members of these groups toward TG M-F's "pretending" to be women while still being genetically male, and they were quite pointedly excluded from these gatherings.

It's now 2005 and you speak glowingly of the "sisterhood" you feel with other feminists. Have these older attitudes changed, and transgendered M-F's are now embraced and welcomed by women's groups, and more specifically are you welcomed by the lesbian members of those groups?

Odesio

10-30-2005, 05:02 PM

One disturbing example cited by Deirdre McCloskey: she saw MTFs sitting around talking sports just like guys while genetic women did all the housework, cooking, washing dishes, etc. These lazy transwomen bring disgrace on the rest of us. They are not true to themselves and they need to undertake serious self-examination. Feminists rightly criticize them.

I think this illustrates one of the reasons why some people don't have such a peachy view of feminism. What kind of sexist garbage says that a female can't sit around and talk about sports because she's got house work to do? I sure hope this was just a silly metaphor used to illustrate how those transgendered individuals weren't properly allied with their sistren as they should have been and not a literal representative. One of the tenants of feminism, at least what I thought was feminism, is that everyone should have the opportunity to be themselves regardless of sex, orientation, and cultural expectations. Is this true or false? I also see it as a dig on men. Are men lazy bastards who contribute nothing to the home while women do everything?

I don't detract from the personal truth you found in your individual experience, but no way can I see it as typical. I believe the women who tell of discrimination. I believe Anita.

How about the personal truth of others who had bad run ins with self-proclaimed feminist? I have met feminist whose entire philosophy could be summed up in four words, "Man bad, woman good." Granted, that's not the whole of feminism, but that was my first exposure to feminist.

But chauvinism lives on insidiously, is unconsciously, in all men who have not taken a good look within themselves and honestly examined the privileges accorded them by the system. There are still examples of blatant chauvinism too.

Yep, men are pretty much assholes by default until they're exposed to feminist thought and changed. :smack:

When I lived as male, I frequently experienced disgust when guys felt free to display their chauvinism, thinking there were no women around. You just haven't seen what I've seen.

Of course by that same token you haven't seen what I've seen. I saw Dr. M.E. Dyson give a lecture a few weeks back and he described the ocean as being the truth. You can put some of that truth in s glass and say you have the truth, but you don't have all the truth. Our worldview is heavily influenced by whatever baggage we bring with us. You haven't seen what I've seen. As I said earlier, I've met some feminist who were decidedly anti-male, but you seem to think that everyone critical of feminist got their information from Rush or some other similiar source.

Marc

Johanna

10-30-2005, 06:41 PM

It's now 2005 and you speak glowingly of the "sisterhood" you feel with other feminists. Have these older attitudes changed, and transgendered M-F's are now embraced and welcomed by women's groups, and more specifically are you welcomed by the lesbian members of those groups?Yes. They have changed. :) I'm so glad to be coming out in 2005 rather than 1980. I've been warmly welcomed by a newly formed lesbian feminist group as a founding member, fully accepted as a woman, with my trans never even mentioned as though it doesn't matter in the slightest. This was a separatist group in that they respectfully asked two heterosexual women to leave, wanting to have a space specifically for queer women. (But we consensed about it first.)

They showered me with love. It was so beautiful. I'm crying tears of happiness as I contemplate how blessed I've been.

The Michigan Womyn's Music Festival is still going by their infamous transphobic rules, but so many other womyn's music festivals—dozens—have blossomed all around the country and they are all trans inclusive with Michigan remaining the only stick-in-the-mud. MWMF is increasingly seen as outdated and irrelevant. Camp Trans, which has been there for several years now, across from the entrance to MWMF, actually got a reputation as a more lively and fun scene than the original.

I'm glad you asked, astro, I'd like to get the word out that things are wayyy better now. I believe there's ample hope on the horizon for a bright feminist future that accords equal dignity and respect to all humans. The key principle in this is to be free of authoritarian attitudes, to let each individual be her own authority. Today I just heard a description of Reclaiming Witchcraft (to which I also belong) as "anarchofeminist." I like that word... anarchofeminist. I am sooo there.

When I was in Atlanta last month kickin it with my lesbian peeps, we went to Urban Tea Party, a teahouse run by and mainly attended by queer women of color. The proprietress welcomed me right in, she was so sweet. We heard poetry and live acoustic music by an amazing lesbian band from New Orleans, Mother Tongue, which included a transwoman, while enjoying some luxurious tea. I would much rather savor tea & poetry than alcohol & overly amplified pounding music in some bar. I got a really good impression of Atlanta's vibrant queer scene.

Johanna

10-30-2005, 07:19 PM

Yeah, Marc, Deirdre McCloskey's anecdote probably wasn't the best example to cite of unenlightened transwomen, but it was the only one to come to mind as I was writing off the top of my head. Deirdre is a conservative and a Christian from Iowa, so she probably has no problem with traditional Ozzie & Harriet gender roles, for all I know. She is no feminist. No, I totally agree with you, feminism is not about barring women from sports or keeping women in the kitchen, of course! Feminism got Title IX passed, making women's sports feasible in the USA on a national scale. Feminism got women out of the kitchen and encouraged men to pull their own weight in housework. The only point I was making with this is, when you do have a situation in Iowa where the women are all in the kitchen and the transwomen are all sitting around acting like stereotypical guys, not lifting a finger, then they are not being true to who they say they are. Frankly, they look just like unenlightened male chauvinists when they behave like that.

Saying that chauvinist attitudes exist unconsciously in men as long as they're unexamined is not the same as calling all men "assholes." By misrepresenting my argument, it's like you're dismissing out of hand the fact that male chauvinism is an obstacle to achieving full equality for women.

I am not attacking men for being men. You are human beings the same as anyone, with all the beauty, tenderness, foibles, and flaws as women have. My father is one of the most excellent men I've ever known in my life. I feel very fortunate to have been born to him and raised by him. He has certain limitations, he's old now and too set in his ways, but I have no complaints about how he raised me. He treated my mother very well given the era he grew up in, and he raised my sisters to be autonomous individuals, sent them to college. He did the very best he could. I love my father and hold him in such high regard, how could anyone accuse me of man-hating?

It's the male chauvinist attitude, and the system based upon it, that's the problem. Criticizing it is not the same as hating men. I don't wish evil on anyone, I want the best for men, and I think it would be beneficial for them to free themselves of the whole chauvinist system. In a society where men oppress women, you will also find some men oppressing other men. The only "man" I'm attacking is the one made of straw that you used to misrepresent my argument.

As I said to catsix above, I'm not denying the personal truth of anyone's experience. If some of you have had unpleasant run-ins with man-haters, then so you have. My contention is that it isn't representative of feminism any more than Pat Robertson stands for Christianity. If I were Christian, I'd be very clear that Robertson does not speak for me, like Mr. Rabin said so eloquently to Israeli fundamentalists, "Sensible Judaism spits you out." Christians should tell Robertson and his ilk "Sensible Christianity spits you out," and Muslims should tell Bin Ladin and the Wahhabis, "Sensible Islam spits you out." I say to anyone within feminism who preaches hatred, "Sensible feminism spits you out." The thing is, they are a small minority within feminism.

You might as well ask what's wrong with African-Americans that some of them hate Whitey.

Guinastasia

10-30-2005, 07:20 PM

Cite?

Surely you've heard of the Glen Ridge rape case (http://www.chron.com/cgi-bin/auth/story/content/chronicle/ae/books/9798/08/31/ourguys.html)? It was huge-a mentally retarded teenager who was lured into the basement rec room of one of the accused-where she was sexually assaulted with, among other things, a broomstick?

While the girl in question was not forced into the basement, and did "willingly" participate, she was definitely NOT capable of consent, and the boys were well aware of this. She had a mental age of 8 years old, at most, and yet she was painted as a "slut". And when the town talked about the event, they didn't talk about poor "Leslie", but "those poor boys, this will ruin them!"

Salon article (http://www.salon.com/aug97/mothers/guys970813.html)

There was a tv movie with the girl from Welcome to the Dollhouse playing the victim, and a "ripped from the headlines" episode of Law & Order.

Keep in mind, the Ms boards were a very small percentage of feminists. I don't think there's a hidden, controlling patriarchy conspiracy, but sexism still pervades our society. A lot of it stems from ignorance, rather than malice, but it's out there.

Johanna

10-30-2005, 07:33 PM

sexism still pervades our society. A lot of it stems from ignorance, rather than malice, but it's out there.Thank you, Guin, that's all I was trying to say. It's ignorance rather than malice. Girlfriend, I need you around more often to condense my prolix verbiage into a punchy, succint point.

Guinastasia

10-30-2005, 08:02 PM

Shouldn't you buy me dinner first? :p

Odesio

10-30-2005, 08:29 PM

Feminism got women out of the kitchen and encouraged men to pull their own weight in housework.

It's comments like these that make me believe there are feminist who devalue the labor of men. Since when did men not pull their own weight around the house? It was typically men that maintained the automobile and garbage disposals, fixed the plumbing, and did the yard work.

The only point I was making with this is, when you do have a situation in Iowa where the women are all in the kitchen and the transwomen are all sitting around acting like stereotypical guys, not lifting a finger, then they are not being true to who they say they are.

As I said earlier, it must be nice deciding when people are being true to themselves. You must have some sort of special insight to the souls of these individuals. If a man were to go do the dishes instead of watching or talking about sports would you say he wasn't true to himself?

Saying that chauvinist attitudes exist unconsciously in men as long as they're unexamined is not the same as calling all men "assholes." By misrepresenting my argument, it's like you're dismissing out of hand the fact that male chauvinism is an obstacle to achieving full equality for women.

I'm not misrepresenting your arguement.

But chauvinism lives on insidiously, is unconsciously, in all men who have not taken a good look within themselves and honestly examined the privileges accorded them by the system.

What you're saying is that "all men" are flawed because they're naturally chauvanistic. Apparantly I am a chauvanist by default though I'm comforted to know that I can redeem myself. I thank you sincerely for throwing me that bone, seriously.

Marc

Hypnagogic Jerk

10-30-2005, 10:03 PM

Saying that chauvinist attitudes exist unconsciously in men as long as they're unexamined is not the same as calling all men "assholes." By misrepresenting my argument, it's like you're dismissing out of hand the fact that male chauvinism is an obstacle to achieving full equality for women.
I mostly agree with you, Johanna, but I see where MGibson is coming from. I'm a man, and yet I don't feel that I was a chauvinist until I examined these attitudes unconsciously present in me. I think that these attitudes were never present in me. Of course, this may be because I'm only 23 years old and I've been raised in a rather progressive environment, but you yourself said that when you self-identified as man, you were disgusted by the chauvinist attitudes you saw in other men.

I'm sure that you recognize that there are men who are not "chauvinists until they see the error of their ways", but maybe it would be a good idea to say it.

catsix

10-30-2005, 11:16 PM

I typed a very long, and pointed response that I don't think I can post here.

There is no way for me to express the opinion I have and not see tensions flaring, so I'm not going to.

The most I can say is that I really don't think that someone who claims to be a feminist and be in favor of all women having the right to choose how to live their lives and be anything they want is going to slam those women who watch sports instead of watching football, my point against feminism has been made far better than I could make it myself.

Feminism to me has become the mantra of 'you can be anyone you want as long as you do it our way', and that is not a philosophy I will align myself with. Where I have I run into these feminists who made me wish to be associated with almost anyone but them? Well, everywhere that they tell me doing dishes instead of watching football is putting 'my ass where my mouth is.' Everywhere that a book someone read is considered more valid than my own personal experiences in life. Everywhere that someone tells me to think exactly like them, and then calls me sister. Everywhere that someone thinks chauvanism is inherent in every man until a woman enlightens him, and doesn't back down from that until someone finally corners them into saying 'OK maybe not all men.'

Guinastasia

10-30-2005, 11:32 PM

catsix

10-30-2005, 11:40 PM

Maybe in some people's houses, there are people who chase others out of the kitchen.

You ever stop to think that your opinions of who 'should' be in the kitchen don't fit into everyone's house?

Of course, Johanna did specifically say that the MTF transsexuals, in order to show their sisterhood with the born-women should've been in the kitchen.

I guess that makes me a man, in her opinion.

Guinastasia

10-30-2005, 11:42 PM

Because traditionally, women did all the work cleaning up while the men sat around and watched TV?

catsix

10-30-2005, 11:48 PM

So you haven't considered that what you think 'should' happen maybe isn't the way it 'should' work in everybody's house?

Can I introduce you to my mother? She would haul your ass out of the kitchen kicking if you even attempted to help her cook, clean, or do dishes. Sometimes they're doing it because they like to.

Odesio

10-30-2005, 11:54 PM

I think Johanna's point was, shouldn't EVERYONE have been in the kitchen, helping out?

Wouldn't you be annoyed if you were the one doing all the work, and someone else sat around, watching TV, even if they helped make the mess?

Most households have a division of labor. For example in my house I do the dishes most evenings but my wife is the one who cleans the bathrooms. Once in a while she'll do the dishes or I'll clean the bathroom but typically we stick with our routine. On a more practical note I'm sure you're familiar with the law of diminished return. Two people might be doing a bang up job cleaning in the kitchen but a third or fourth person will just get in the way and make things less efficent.

I wouldn't be annoyed if other people were just sitting around enjoying themselves while I did the dishes because I see it as my job to do them.

But perhaps we're just picking at nits with all this talk of dishwashing and avoiding the main thesis of the OP.

Marc

10-31-2005, 12:34 AM

Because traditionally, women did all the work cleaning up while the men sat around and watched TV?

Still like that at my folks house....and at my wifes folks house too come to think of it. In my folks case my mom works, but she works because she likes too (now a days...in the old days she worked or we didn't eat, and she worked as a maid to rich white folks). In addition to working she cooked most of the meals (some meals were 'mans' work so my dad would banish her and my sisters from the kitchen and take over), cleaned the house and such while my dad would sit around on the veranda with his feed propped up (we didn't have a TV until I was in High School). Even today my mom draws my fathers baths, makes him food if my dad even expresses general hunger (or bugs him to eat them makes it for him), cleans the house and still managed to work. My wifes folks (who aren't hispanic) are actually worse. My father in law once told me (after he got by the shock that his little girl was marrying one of those damn Mexicans ;) ) that women working was a 'fad'. I love both of my in-laws, don't get me wrong, but they are completely gender fixated in their roles, and while they have actually (and surprisingly) made some progress, I doubt they ever will completely break out of them.

I think its a generational thing with folks of my parents age (those still alive) have a certain mindset about male/female roles and responsibilities which are enforced on both sides strangely enough. Folks of my generation have our own baggage, even though I grew up during the 60's and 70's and my wife was initially involved in college with the Feminist movement (she later dropped out for various personal reasons I won't get into here which did have a lot to do both with the people in her local group and with their attituded). From my perspective I believe women should have equal rights, but that means 'equal', reguardless of biology or biological factors. If a woman does equal work then she should get equal pay. The problem is the whole equal work thing sometimes. Women are as capable of men in most things (there are some physical activities I don't think the majority of women are ready for...yet). They can generally do as good a job as their male counterparts depending on individual variance...if all things were equal. They aren't. Women aren't men, and they have other factors that impact them jobs wise.

For instance, when I worked for <a big Fortune 500 communications and IT company> my immediate supervisor was a woman and I was her Tech Manager and Principal Engineer, controlling a helpdesk of 50 people, including Tier one bubble boys/girls, Tier two technicians and Tier three engineers (and Tier four Network Gods/Devils...my own category ;) ). At the first tier we had 25 bubble boys/girls...with perhaps a 60/40 ratio of men to women. At the second tier we had 15 techs...5 of whom were (initially) women. At the third tier there was one woman. At the managers/Gods/Devils level there was my boss (the PM, female), the Help Desk manager (Female), and 2 high level engineers (one female and perhaps the best engineer I ever worked with...not counting myself of course :p ), and me (male obviously), the Principal Engineer for the contract.

Ok, all that boring stuff...what the hell does it mean? Only this. Within 2 years nearly all the first tier technicians were male. I'm going from memory here but I believe there were like 4-6 out of 25 women left in the bubble. Of the tier 2 techs there was 1 left. At the third tier there were 2 women (an actual increase), and of the managers/Gods/Devils it remained essentially the same. Why? Couple of reasons. I wasn't the PM but I was her tech manager and she showed me the individual productivity stats. It was pretty clear that our female employees in general had more health related problems and took more days off than our male employees....they were less productive overall than their male counterparts. In addition, a number of our younger female employees had quit their jobs due to either getting married or getting pregnant (the older women in the higher level slots btw suffered neither the same ratio of missing work nor did any of them quit due to either marriage or pregnancy, despite one engineer getting married and my network Devil friend getting pregnant despite not having a father to pin it on).

Ok, that kind of explains what happened to even the females we originally hired...why didn't we hire others to fill their place? Because my boss (a woman btw) believed in giving the best job to the best applicant reguardless of race, creed or sex (and she could get away with it because we already matched our unofficial 'quota' of minorities/women that allowed us to work on government contracts). Essentially more men than women applied for the jobs, and in general the men were more qualified for whatever the reasons.

That said, the long and the short of things is that we as a society are already moving towards greater and greater equality between the sexes (and between the 'races' too). Most of the folks who agitate about current inequalities in the US on a race/sex basis are either fanatic types, or are white males looking to fix the sins of their fathers or lessen their own 'guilt'. The main stream, IMO, sees that there is still a ways to go, but recognizes how very far we've come in a short time. Think where we were 50 years ago, or a hundred years ago...and where we are today. Think about the fact that Rosa Parks died...and she was instrumental in the whole civil rights movement in this country. She is currently lieing in state at the Capital IIRC (think about THAT and what it means for a momemt). Think about how it was in her day...and how it is today, how very far we've come. And think where it will be when the current generation in school is in charge and running things (scary as that thought might be :p ).

Well, I've managed to rant on here a lot longer than I intended...must be the scotch talking. I'll just wind up by saying the same thing said earlier by others...Feminism got a bad rap because of a few fanatics who presented extreme views in a very vocal and public way. Like other groups who have a fringe fanatic element that tends to color public perception of the entire group. THink about the Democrats painted with the 'left wing liberal' brush, and even painted with the brush dipped in the EXTREME left wing paint. Look at the Republican's painted in similar fashion with the 'right wing fundamentalist religious' brush. The Feminist as a whole got painted with the same brush from THEIR lunitic frings who also happened to be the folks who got the headlines. My wife has told me horror stories about her time in a group she joined in college and the reasons why she left and its no real shock to me why the Fems have been painted with a broad brush in the publics mind.

-XT

Johanna

10-31-2005, 01:50 AM

Sigh, I already said that the kitchen division of labor wasn't a good example, there were better examples I was trying to think of but couldn't recall at the time of posting. It seems this medication fucks with my memory recall; it comes with a whole garage sale of side effects. I was looking for examples of transwomen continuing to abuse male privilege. Maybe you don't care about this, but it matters to me because it reflects on my integrity by association. As soon as I'd posted it, I knew the example sucked, so Marc, I'm glad you agree with me that picking this nit is beside the point. Just now I was reading a gender issues thread on another message board, and one of my really angry Tgirl friends had something to say about another who she felt was trying to use male privilege inconsistently with claimed female identity: Had her cover letter explained that although the resume suggested she was a man, she was really a woman, it's much less likely she would have gotten as far as an interview. Actually, I agree with her tactics,

Yeah, lying is such a fine bedrock to a new relationship.

What horseshit.

If she wanted to get the job as a man, then she should have fucking delayed her transition until after she'd settled in at the position. David wants his cake and Dianne's cake and just like a guy, he thinks he deserves it. Fuck him. Fuck her. He makes a mockery of all of us who are out and struggle with the consequences every goddamned day.

I hate to say it, but she got what she deserved.

If she was committed to her transition, she should have interviewed as Dianne, and not tried to coast in on a final magic carpet ride of male privilege.
I could cite another example from Saudi Arabia where a transwoman got her gender legally changed to female, but then when her father died, as a woman she got half as much as inheritance as she would have had she remained a man, under their strict application of Islamic law. So she sued to claim she was born a man so she should get the full amount. What chutzpah! This is a plain lack of personal integrity. Trying to have one's gendercake and eat it too. It's unworthy of a person of good character. As you can see, the issues are more weighty than who does the dishes.

Marc, you distorted my argument by insinuating that I called all nonfeminist men "assholes." I never did anything of the sort. I said that because of being brought up in a male chauvinist dominated system, and enjoying the privileges it confers on men, they have unconscious male chauvinism in them as long as it remains unexamined. By giving a couple examples of outright male chauvinism, I specifically stated I did not mean to blame all military men for it, nor, by extension, all men in general. Although it's a problem for gender equality, I said from the start we should not hate people, that I would like to see men freed from this oppressive system too. I don't think it really benefits most men that much. You ignored all that I'd said that demonstrates I am not a man-hater. This is how badly you misrepresented my argument. I think that's unworthy of a decent debate.

catsix, I never said you have to think exactly as I think. Please be reasonable.

Both of you, please chill with the wild accusations. I treat you with respect, it would be nice if you treated me with respect. We could work through our differences and maybe all arrive at a better understanding of this issue together, and maybe even find out we're not that far apart. It happens sometimes. Why does this have to be so painful? I thought this was Great Debates, not the Pit.

severus, it's young people like you who give me hope for the future of a better humanity. I'm exactly twice your age. It doesn't matter if I'm of an older generation, I like to keep learning from the young. Staves off senility from my antique brain. If as you describe it's possible for a young man to grow up free from chauvinist attitudes in the present day, that's good news indeed. I am doing my best to raise my son and grandson that way, with all the love in my heart.

catsix

10-31-2005, 06:06 AM

Johanna said:
I never did anything of the sort. I said that because of being brought up in a male chauvinist dominated system, and enjoying the privileges it confers on men, they have unconscious male chauvinism in them as long as it remains unexamined.

And you really can't see what a sexist statement that is? There's something wrong with every man and how he treats women unless you help him fix it? Men don't come flawed any more than women do, and it's not up to you or any other feminist to go about showing them their 'unconscious male chauvanism' and fixing it.

This is where the idea that feminists are really sexists begins. It begins with someone saying that there's something that needs to be 'fixed' about a man purely because he as a penis, and that he's a chauvanist until it is fixed by some feminist.

Although it's a problem for gender equality, I said from the start we should not hate people, that I would like to see men freed from this oppressive system too.

As long as that means they change to suit you, right? There are plenty of us, men and women, who don't want you 'freeing' us to think just like you.

catsix, I never said you have to think exactly as I think. Please be reasonable.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe I don't need to be told what it is to be a woman.

Both of you, please chill with the wild accusations.

Now pointing out historical fact is wild accusations?

I treat you with respect, it would be nice if you treated me with respect.

But you haven't treated all those poor, subconsciously chauvanist until you and your feminist sisters come in and fix them, men with respect. I have stated why feminism to me is nothing more than sexism. It is not my fault that you have made some sexist statements in this thread.

We could work through our differences and maybe all arrive at a better understanding of this issue together, and maybe even find out we're not that far apart.

Your opinion is much, much further from mine than you want to admit. As long as you believe in 'unconscious male chauvanism' present in all men unless it is 'examined', we will never have a better understanding of this issue together. All you'll find is that I keep great distance between myself and statements like those.

Evil Captor

10-31-2005, 09:21 AM

To respond to the OP, all along feminism has been about a LOT of important things that have diddly to do with hating men, like equal pay for equal work, easing the day care burden for working mothers, developing respect for SAHM (OK, it took awhile and some debate, but feminists back in the late 80s pretty much decided that SAHM contribute greatly to social welfare by caring for children and such, and hence were worthy of a lot more respect from society at large), fighting against rape and so forth (I don't equate opposing rape with hating men, though for feminists of the "all men are rapists" stripe probably fill the bill. But most feminists understand that men who are rapists are different from those who are not) and many feminists also dropped the anti-porn thing and became sex-positive, fighting for things like unionization and health care for sex workers, and the development of porn for women as well as men.

Feminists have been doing this kind of stuff all along, but the conservatives have someone managed to create the sick meme that feminism is about hating men. It's not, but I am not sure what feminists can do to convince a largely uninformed society that it's not.

AHunter3

10-31-2005, 09:36 AM

I do recall saying that the remaining mess is a lot more complicated than the obvious stuff, most of which has been effectively dealt with.

Let's say catsix wants to get married. To a male person, no less. There are feminists who have said that in a world where heterosexuality is compulsory, and the fringe benefits attend to heterosexuality while the hazards attach to the alternatives, women cannot said to have "chosen" men as their sex partners in the same sense as where no such coercion was applied. Would it piss off catsix that such feminists cast doubts on whether or not she is really into guys? Then there are feminists who have said that the institution of marriage is historically a patriarchal structure, both in effect and in purpose, and that even largely cleansed of statutory inequities, its central axioms — exclusivity, monogamy, permanence, promises that preclude subsequent free choice — are still patriarchal; and that marriage is sold to females with fervent marketing passion in such a way that most women marry without seriously considering any alternative options for how to structure ongoing love and family relationship(s). Would it piss off catsix to have these feminists declaring that she doesn't know what she's doing when she enters into a marriage, and that it's intrinsically oppressive and bad for her? And heck, we haven't even gotten to whether or not she changes her name to his and what name the children will have!

And yet, barring occasional use of sweeping generalizations phrased as absolutes, those feminists haven't said that catsix is brainwashed, oppressed, or pressured into doing any of these things. What they've said is that the pressures do exist, the formidable concept-marketing pressures do exist, the weight of tradition does exist, and that females in general are subjected to these things and that, as a consequence, some women are doing these things for reasons other than having chosen them after a careful consideration of the options that was made with an awareness of sexual politics and history. And that that, insofar as it makes individual women miserable, is a bad thing.

Problem is, it's hard to make those distinctions on a bumper sticker, jacket pin, or a 10 second sound bit for NBC when they come to cover your protest march.

Guinastasia

10-31-2005, 09:37 AM

catsix, she wasn't saying all men are chauvanists-nobody is. What we're saying is, society in general has an under current of chauvanism, and that a lot of people act this way without realizing it.

Good for your mom. However, the way I was brought up, you always at least OFFER to help. It's just good manners.

We're talking about men who sit around and let the women do the cleaning, without offering to help, because cleaning is "women's work", and therefore, they, as men, should not have to. Do you not agree that that's wrong? That one should not assume that "Oh, of COURSE the womenfolk'll clean it up, because that's what women do."

Feminism is not, in and of itself, sexism. That some who call themselves feminists are sexist does not make the entire group sexist. Think of the feminists in the past who paved the way for women today. You like being able to vote, have control of your own reproductive health, control your own finances, right? Well, those are all due to feminism.

Johanna

10-31-2005, 10:07 AM

The question of holding onto male privilege while claiming otherwise is a serious issue much debated these days in circles where trannies interact with and hold dialogues with feminists. If any Dopers are unaware of this, I don't blame you, it's a fairly esoteric subject to the public at large. But this is a real concern that feminists put forward, and I think they're right to ask trannies to behave consistently with their claims. The Qur'an says, "Sometimes you have to bear witness against yourselves." (i.e. in a moral sense, not in a courtroom.) It means that when you're in the wrong, the moral and honest thing to do is own up to it. It's in my own interest to criticize it. It tends to delegitimize our entire existence in the eyes of many who would otherwise support us. I care about it because demanding to have your cake and eat it too is one of the less endearing characteristics of male chauvinism, and especially when that's brought into women's space, it really is offensive. If someone wants to claim to be a woman, let her learn from other women's examples how to relate, instead of bringing over old assumptions about gender roles.

Odesio

10-31-2005, 11:14 AM

Marc, you distorted my argument by insinuating that I called all nonfeminist men "assholes." I never did anything of the sort. I said that because of being brought up in a male chauvinist dominated system, and enjoying the privileges it confers on men, they have unconscious male chauvinism in them as long as it remains unexamined.

I don't think I really distorted it but I will cop to using inflammatory language. I consider myself a nonfeminist because "feminism" has to much baggage attached to it. While I firmly believe in equal rights for all human beings I did no arrive at that conclusion via feminist ideals or examination of sexism. You might not be saying that all men are fundamentally flawed but that's the message I get when you say we're all sexist until we examine the issues in whatever way you wish to frame them.

By giving a couple examples of outright male chauvinism, I specifically stated I did not mean to blame all military men for it, nor, by extension, all men in general.

Well if it's any comfort, I for one never thought you hated men in general.

Both of you, please chill with the wild accusations. I treat you with respect, it would be nice if you treated me with respect.

I haven't called you any names and I even recognized that we each bring our own personal baggage to the discussion. I don't see how I could be more respectful.

Marc

catsix

10-31-2005, 12:15 PM

Guinastasia said:
catsix, she wasn't saying all men are chauvanists-nobody is. What we're saying is, society in general has an under current of chauvanism, and that a lot of people act this way without realizing it.

What Johanna said was that men, not some men, but [/b]men[/b] have underlying chauvanism unless and until it is 'examined'. So, it's pretty clear that Johanna has made a generalization about an entire gender.

You like being able to vote, have control of your own reproductive health, control your own finances, right? Well, those are all due to feminism.

The right to vote was granted, at least US wide (Wyoming and a few other states allowed women the vote sooner so that they could become states) by Constitutional Amendment. Most of those who ratified the Amendment were men, because that's who was in government at the time. If you want to believe the feminists 'gave' me that right, you go ahead. Reproductive freedom came from Supreme Court decisions regarding Constitutional law, not from feminists dictating policy.

AHunter3 said:
And yet, barring occasional use of sweeping generalizations phrased as absolutes, those feminists haven't said that catsix is brainwashed, oppressed, or pressured into doing any of these things.

They've said exactly that, when they weren't calling me either a tool of the patriarchy or a 'wanna be man' or just flat out calling me a man. I've also been told by people who did not experience entering a career that has a much higher population of men than women what my experiences were like when they clearly have no firsthand experience with that whatsoever. I've been told that I'm oppressed because, get this, I like having orgasms. Don't you know that orgasms are yet another tool of patriarchal control by men over women? I've been told this first hand by feminists. Even in this thread, I've been told by someone else who doesn't have any basis for knowing how it is to grow up as a girl what the 'sisterhood' has experienced. That's why I think feminism is not about equality, but about a belief system that is shared almost religiously by its followers.

AHunter3

10-31-2005, 12:29 PM

Well, they obviously weren't the feminists I was talking about. ;)

catsix

10-31-2005, 12:44 PM

The 'no true Scotsman' argument?

Mr2001

10-31-2005, 01:22 PM

Then there are feminists who have said that the institution of marriage is historically a patriarchal structure, both in effect and in purpose, and that even largely cleansed of statutory inequities, its central axioms — exclusivity, monogamy, permanence, promises that preclude subsequent free choice — are still patriarchal;
Patriarchal? What's so "male" about monogamy and permanent choices?

Evil Captor

10-31-2005, 01:26 PM

Patriarchal? What's so "male" about monogamy and permanent choices?

When it's for the women and not the men, it's pretty darned patriarchal. Remember the old double standard?

Mr2001

10-31-2005, 02:03 PM

When it's for the women and not the men, it's pretty darned patriarchal. Remember the old double standard?
No, I guess I don't. I thought marriage was supposed to be exclusive for both partners. The axioms AHunter3 listed are inherently gender-neutral, as far as I can tell. (The degree to which they were enforced on men and women may have differed historically, but that wasn't the subject, and I'm not convinced it's true anymore anyway.)

AHunter3

10-31-2005, 02:54 PM

They are historically patriarchal, i.e., the reasons for institutionalizing fidelity were patriarchal.

You can disagree with that assertion (feel free, it's off-topic). The point was that feminists make points x y and z which describe circumstances in which someone like catsix finds herself. Now, catsix may be in those circumstances simply because those circumstances appeal to her.

There are employees who are yelled at, subjected to draconic punishments for minor infractions, and humiliated on the job in front of others by their employer, who get off on it and wouldn't have it any other way. (Or at least so says the film Secretary, who am I to doubt?) Creating a social movement against workplace oppression doesn't (properly) say anything about whether or not the individual employee in Secretary is oppressed, it says that, categorically speaking, workplace oppression is a problem, and it does predict that if you find someone being treated that way, it's due to an unfair and coercive power imbalance. (She would just be the exception to that observation, see?)

The world may be full of women who would prefer to take their husband's name and have the kids take it as well even in a world without expectation, pressure, or tradition of doing it that way. Kinda hard to know, and there is reason to assume it mostly takes place due to expectation, pressure, or tradition, but sure, it might be. Therefore feminists have no business saying to one individual who takes her guy's last name, "Hey, gal, you're oppressed by the Man, you don't see him changing his name to yours, not that you have a last name in the same sense, you can take the name that's his and his father's before him and his father's before him, or you can keep the name that was your father's and his father's before him, but neither one of those is a woman's name" — not because they are wrong in general (they aren't) but because they may not be right in this particular case and it's up to her, the individual, to make that judgment call.

The 'no true Scotsman' argument?

Aye, lass.

Anecdotes you may relate about individual feminists don't detract from the fact that the thrust of feminist theory, and of feminists speaking it and writing it, has been to critique systems, to describe largescale patterns. Not to cut out a template for proper female behavior and impose it on women.

That some local Susie Libberton or Marianne Speakoutsky nevertheless acted that way to you in your lifetime, I don't doubt. But if you're going to pin that on the movement as a movement I'm going to have to ask for a cite. Someone other than Valerie Solanas :)

Johanna

10-31-2005, 03:05 PM

I'm being told that just because I'm trans I have no right to talk about feminism. That is transphobia, it's ugly, it's unjustified bigotry, and my kind has to suffer it every day.

In fact, I have just as much right to be concerned about feminism and talk about it as you or anyone else. Disagree with me all you want, but don't you dare take away from my humanity on the basis of my gender identity.

Johanna

10-31-2005, 03:15 PM

using inflammatory language.Hey, just look at the thread title. This whole thing was set up to be inflammatory from the start. Will cooler heads prevail?

Malacandra

10-31-2005, 03:23 PM

I'm being told that just because I'm trans I have no right to talk about feminism. That is transphobia, it's ugly, it's unjustified bigotry, and my kind has to suffer it every day.

Piffle. What catsix said was:

Even in this thread, I've been told by someone else who doesn't have any basis for knowing how it is to grow up as a girl what the 'sisterhood' has experienced.

Not telling you that you have no right to talk about feminism. Vishnu on a unicycle, AHunter3's a man and he hasn't been told he has no right to talk about feminism. What catsix said was factually correct - that you do not know how it is to grow up as a girl - and it's highly arguable that she is in a much better position to know first hand what females experience from birth onwards than any amount of gender studies can teach you, Johanna. Be slower to play the victim card; you're articulate and informed enough to argue better.

In fact, I have just as much right to be concerned about feminism and talk about it as you or anyone else. Disagree with me all you want, but don't you dare take away from my humanity on the basis of my gender identity.

Who did? :rolleyes:

I did note in your anecdotes above, btw, how quick you and/or the women you describe are to attribute negative behaviour patterns to masculinity:

I care about it because demanding to have your cake and eat it too is one of the less endearing characteristics of male chauvinism, and especially when that's brought into women's space, it really is offensive.

And it's ballsachingly offensive to see "demanding to have your cake and eat it" associated with male chauvinism and being "brought into women's space" - as though wanting it both ways were something no woman, trans, queer or else, was ever guilty of without being infected by men.

catsix

10-31-2005, 03:32 PM

AHunter3 said:
The point was that feminists make points x y and z which describe circumstances in which someone like catsix finds herself. Now, catsix may be in those circumstances simply because those circumstances appeal to her.

The point is that what feminists are telling me definitely happened to me most certainly did not happen to me. I'm being told that my life experience is invalid because of what someone else read in a book.

That some local Susie Libberton or Marianne Speakoutsky nevertheless acted that way to you in your lifetime, I don't doubt. But if you're going to pin that on the movement as a movement I'm going to have to ask for a cite. Someone other than Valerie Solanas

They learned these viewpoints that seem so common from somewhere. Why else would so many of them from so many different places have exactly the same attitude?

Johanna said:
I'm being told that just because I'm trans I have no right to talk about feminism.

Nope. What I'm saying to you is that you have no basis from which to speak in such a firsthand way about what it's like for a girl to grow up interested in the sciences, go through engineering school with a ten to one male to female ratio, and consider your viewpoint more valid than mine. I lived it, so for you to tell me what an uphill battle and what male oppression there is in those ranks is insulting.

In fact, I have just as much right to be concerned about feminism and talk about it as you or anyone else.

And I have every right to the opinion that someone who has never walked in my shoes inserting the word 'we' into my experiences and then telling me about the oppression is insulting. I don't pretend to know firsthand what it's like to be transgendered, and I wouldn't put what I read in literature above your personal experience, so why do you do that to me?

Disagree with me all you want, but don't you dare take away from my humanity on the basis of my gender identity.

Pointing out the fact that you were definitely not one of the 7 women in my class of 70some EE/CoE majors does not take away your humanity. It's a fact, and no matter how much you use the word 'we', you weren't there and IMO, shouldn't speak as if you were.

Malacandra said:
What catsix said was factually correct - that you do not know how it is to grow up as a girl - and it's highly arguable that she is in a much better position to know first hand what females experience from birth onwards than any amount of gender studies can teach you, Johanna.

Exactly. When I'm talking about my life as a girl who grew up intrested in math and science in a very conservative area (SW Pennsylvania) and then deciding to go into engineering at the University of Pittsburgh, I've got quite a basis for knowing how I (and other females like me) were treated through that in this area.

It's analgous to someone who grew up in the Hamptons saying that it was so hard for 'us poor kids from coal patches' to go through college. They might've read about that exprience, but I lived it. The Kennedy clan has no more a basis for telling me they know firsthand what it's like to grow up a poor coal patch kid than someone who didn't grow up as a girl to tell me how that felt.

Voyager

10-31-2005, 04:44 PM

I'm a male who grew up in the '50s and '60s, and I have to say that for my generation Johanna is exactly right. We were bombarded by what would now be called chauvinistic messages from the time we were born. I don't remember one married woman on TV who worked. (Kids or no kids.) Men who did housework back then were shown emasculated, in aprons. Remember the old plot about men and women switching jobs? Sure, the superficial message was usually that women were smarter, and did a better job in the man's role than the man in the woman's, but a underlying message that men shouldn't even try to do housework - and so were off the hook.

I don't know what message kids today are getting - I'm sure it is a better one. And not all of us have to buy the indoctrination. But it was definitely there.

Der Trihs

10-31-2005, 05:49 PM

I don't know what message kids today are getting - I'm sure it is a better one. And not all of us have to buy the indoctrination. But it was definitely there.Well, I grew up in the 70's and 80's, and the message I got was "men are pigs". I grew up assuming that vast majority of women hated me and wanted me dead or worse.

Guinastasia

11-01-2005, 12:10 AM

The right to vote was granted, at least US wide (Wyoming and a few other states allowed women the vote sooner so that they could become states) by Constitutional Amendment. Most of those who ratified the Amendment were men, because that's who was in government at the time. If you want to believe the feminists 'gave' me that right, you go ahead.

The men in Congress were NOT the ones thrown into prison, beaten, and force fed with tubes down their noses after being arrested for demonstrating. Are you seriously arguing that the suffragists had nothing to do with the right to vote being extended to women?

Or that women didn't fight for the right to control their bodies because it was the MEN on the Supreme Court who ultimately decided that?

:dubious:

Malacandra

11-01-2005, 03:20 AM

Remember the old plot about men and women switching jobs? Sure, the superficial message was usually that women were smarter, and did a better job in the man's role than the man in the woman's, but a underlying message that men shouldn't even try to do housework - and so were off the hook.

Fascinating. So if we purport to show that women can switch easily to doing men's work, and do it better than the men, while men are utterly clueless when it comes to doing women's work, this is in some way a slam on women? :dubious:

Y'see, I'd see a message that "men shouldn't even try to do housework" as a short step from "men are useless, and should be grateful that women even deign to dictate terms on which they'll put up with them".

Guinastasia: Women being the ones who threw the tantrums does not detract from the truth that it was men who granted the rights.

Ellis Dee

11-01-2005, 05:10 AM

This said, I'd also like Ellis Dee to explain why dead female soldiers are more unsettling than dead male soldiers.I believe that more women than men tend to prefer being the primary stay-at-home caregiver to small children. This disparity is a primary reason that I'd hate to see a wartime draft include women...I don't want a SAHM dragged away from her small children to lay face down in a foxhole. I guess I'm old school.

Also, even if there were an exemption that prohibited drafting anyone with children under the age of four, (good luck!), I'd still be uneasy about it. I believe men are simply more disposable than women. Biologically speaking, that is an indisputable fact; what's the upper limit on offspring for a man and woman? Quite a bit lower for the woman, meaning that women are less disposable.

I don't have any problem with women in the military, nor even that much of a problem with women on the battlefields, provided they are there voluntarily. The diversity of women is truly staggering, and while I've known women I'd gladly count on to have my back in a firefight, I've also known women I wouldn't want within a thousand miles of any combat I was involved in. A draft would not distinguish between the two.

Also, generally speaking, men are easier to train and function in a hierarchy (chain of command) more naturally than women do, who tend to gravitate toward a more egalitarian approach. The former type seems better suited for being military conscripts than the latter, IMO.

I'm not arguing that I'm right. I'm explaining why I'd feel uneasy about a wartime draft that included women. Basically, even though not all women are SAHMs, there are a lot of them, and I don't want to see any of them drafted. There are so few SAHDs out there that I don't hold the same concern for them. (And SAHDs don't breastfeed, either. It'd be tough for mom to pump from a hotzone on another continent.)

Another thought just occured to me. Imagine if a small child had both parents drafted? That would suck, and seems to add an unnecessary complication for Selective Services to worry about.

And finally, we have seen how unusually distracting it is when a pretty girl becomes a POW. I can't see that going away, and I'd hate to see that effect balloon up from a coed draft.

I guess when push comes to shove I agree with the family courts: when given a choice to care for the kids, default to the mom. In a wartime draft, this translates into drafting only men.

Malacandra

11-01-2005, 06:49 AM

Mmf. Bottom line: it's fine for women to go to war if they want to or be SAHMs if they want to. Sexism's fine as long as it leads to women getting what they want.

You don't want SAHMs dragged away from their children: but dads can be dragged away all anyone likes.

You view (correctly) women as having a lower upper-limit on their breeding age and argue that "therefore" they're less disposable. Mmf again. Either they're back from the war in time to breed, or not; but they're hardly likely to spend their entire breeding window in a foxhole.

Women have "truly staggering" diversity (are men homogeneous?) and the draft would be unable to distinguish those who'd be worth their salt from those who wouldn't. I'm really choking on this one.

Men will do as they're told and women won't? Arguably true. But the military has ways and means of dealing with those who won't "train and function in a hierarchy", and men who would prefer a more egalitarian approach can just suck it up. Why can't women?

I seriously doubt we'd tear a breastfeeding mom away from her child, but you preclude even arguing for a draft that includes women who aren't SAHMs simply because "there are a lot of <SAHMs>".

If it's distracting to see a pretty girl taken POW, well, perhaps we need to be a little desensitised. The first one's the hardest. By the time a few tens of thousands of them have gone into the bag, you'll find it easier to bear.

Thing is, I have no objection to clearly defined gender roles. On the whole, I'm rather in favour of them. What I'm not in favour of is picking and choosing: on this I'm the equal of you, on this I'll hide behind my femininity. That's just plain dishonest.

Mr2001

11-01-2005, 06:55 AM

Also, even if there were an exemption that prohibited drafting anyone with children under the age of four, (good luck!), I'd still be uneasy about it. I believe men are simply more disposable than women. Biologically speaking, that is an indisputable fact; what's the upper limit on offspring for a man and woman? Quite a bit lower for the woman, meaning that women are less disposable.
It may be indisputable, but it's irrelevant. We're not facing a population crisis.

The diversity of women is truly staggering, and while I've known women I'd gladly count on to have my back in a firefight, I've also known women I wouldn't want within a thousand miles of any combat I was involved in. A draft would not distinguish between the two.
The same is obviously true of men.

Another thought just occured to me. Imagine if a small child had both parents drafted? That would suck, and seems to add an unnecessary complication for Selective Services to worry about.
The child of a single father (or a gay couple) would face the same situation if his parent(s) were drafted.

I guess when push comes to shove I agree with the family courts: when given a choice to care for the kids, default to the mom. In a wartime draft, this translates into drafting only men.
What about childless women? Are you so concerned about being fruitful and multiplying that you wouldn't even draft them?

Ellis Dee

11-01-2005, 08:15 AM

hildea

11-01-2005, 08:37 AM

Ellis Dee, since this thread started with a question about the term feminism: Do you consider yourself a feminist? In my opinion, both of the stances below are in direct contradiction with the the very definition of feminism:I guess when push comes to shove I agree with the family courts: when given a choice to care for the kids, default to the mom. In a wartime draft, this translates into drafting only men.Feminism is about equal rights, about putting an end to discrimination based on gender. Discrimination against men is just as indefensible as discrimination against women.
Women being the ones who threw the tantrums does not detract from the truth that it was men who granted the rights.That is a joke, right? I mean, you're not seriously describing a struggle for equal rights as a tantrum? And, to both Malacandra and catsix, are you really saying that the improvements in women's rights the last 100-150 years were won independently from the contributions of the people who actually fought for those rights, or do I misunderstand you?

Stonebow

11-01-2005, 08:57 AM

That's just the way it is.

The same claim could be made for quite a few other wrongheaded assumptions.

Thing is, the thought of half of the body-bags coming home belonging to women doesn't disturb me in the least (I'm not really concerned about the breeding window, and I'm sure we can work out the details on ensuring at least one parent is exempt, whichever gender they are is up to the couple); I'm actually more concerned about the POW aspect. 50,000 female soldiers getting raped would be worse for morale, I think. Didn't Israel run into this, at least with respect to women serving as front-line soldiers?

Of course, I know that my own sensitivities shouldn't hold sway where equal treatment is concerned, as much as I dislike it. In fact, I think that a lot of chauvinism stems from the axiom that men should hold all the power because we bleed for it. The vision of the man that has everything is a myth- men have made trade-offs, and the biggest problem I've seen with recent feminist thought, aside from the man-hating, is the idea that women can 'have it all.'

Mr2001

11-01-2005, 08:58 AM

Are you joking with this rebuttal? If you're serious, then please provide a cite showing that single fathers and gay male couples have anywhere near the number of children that mothers have.
I never said they did. If you're concerned about children growing up without a parent, though, shouldn't you also be concerned about the children who only have a male parent? Just exempt parents from the draft and leave sex out of it.

Just to be clear, you guys want to see women drafted, right? Because I'm stating a position I believe in. Are you? Or are you just playing devil's advocate for shits and giggles?
I'm entirely serious, and a little amused that you think it could be otherwise.

I don't want to see anyone drafted if possible, but if the situation is dire enough that we need to force our own citizens into military service, we shouldn't overlook 50% of the able-bodied potential soldiers just because they're female.

Yes, females tend to be caregivers to children more often, but so do minivan owners. That logic is faulty. You can actually find out whether or not someone is a parent (or whether they can have children in the future); you don't have to guess based on their gender.

In any case, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better if you are trying to convince me that 50,000 dead women would be a good thing.
I only want to convince you that 50,000 dead men would be equally bad.

Sorry to men everywhere, but you are more disposable when it comes to matters of large-scale death tolls. That's just the way it is.
That, sir, is the kind of disgusting remark that can only be properly responded to in the Pit.

Malacandra

11-01-2005, 09:01 AM

You view (correctly) women as having a lower upper-limit on their breeding age and argue that "therefore" they're less disposable. Mmf again. Either they're back from the war in time to breed, or not; but they're hardly likely to spend their entire breeding window in a foxhole.
I don't understand this. My objection was 50,000 bodybags. Agreed with Mr2001 that we're not in a population crisis, so it's not a major issue, but I still feel it relevant on general principle.
Then make your mind up what point you're addressing. It's irrelevant how long women are fertile for; they are viable breeders for more than long enough to meet the replacement rate. I don't see how you get from "A woman can procreate for maybe twenty-five years of her life, a man for more than fifty" to "therefore, women must be protected, but men need not be". If I'm mis-stating your position, please correct me. State why it's relevant, and how, if you're going to call objections simpleminded and worthless. Indeed we are not in a population crisis; nor would even 50,000 female fatalities trigger one.
Just to be clear, you guys want to see women drafted, right? Because I'm stating a position I believe in. Are you? Or are you just playing devil's advocate for shits and giggles?
Playing devil's advocate is not necessarily done for shits and giggles, but to see where the logic breaks. In this case I'm curious to push the bounds of what you might call selective equality. Rights are equal, or they are not. I'm all in favour of women not being drafted; what I mostly want is to get away from a mindset that military service is compulsory for one sex, optional for the other - especially if the sex for which it's optional is the one that's been screaming about how it's just as fit for the military as the sex for which it's compulsory.

That is a joke, right? I mean, you're not seriously describing a struggle for equal rights as a tantrum? And, to both Malacandra and catsix, are you really saying that the improvements in women's rights the last 100-150 years were won independently from the contributions of the people who actually fought for those rights, or do I misunderstand you?
Well...
The men in Congress were NOT the ones thrown into prison, beaten, and force fed with tubes down their noses after being arrested for demonstrating. Are you seriously arguing that the suffragists had nothing to do with the right to vote being extended to women?
Perhaps describing this as a "tantrum" is excessively flippant, but I think it might as well be one for all the demonstrable effect on hastening women's suffrage. I might be wrong, but given that post hoc ergo propter hoc is a well-known fallacy, I'd like to know where the evidence is for this kind of behaviour actually bringing about votes for women; or whether it was more the case that it became accepted that allowing women to vote was an idea whose time has come, and it had better be done, and in fact it was men who voted to approve the measure. Saying "But women fought for these rights! And then we got them!" doesn't prove that A caused B.

Mr2001

11-01-2005, 09:39 AM

I don't see how you get from "A woman can procreate for maybe twenty-five years of her life, a man for more than fifty" to "therefore, women must be protected, but men need not be".
I thought that by "upper limit on offspring", he meant the number of offspring a person can have. Men are arguably more "disposable" in the sense that one man and 150 million women could repopulate the country a lot faster than one woman and 150 million men.

Ellis Dee

11-01-2005, 10:05 AM

I am not a feminist, and I do not support equal rights. Here is a sampling of inequalities I endorse:

Ladies Night in bars and clubs.

"Women and children first" on a sinking ship.

Women should not be drafted into combat duty. A draft for non-combat positions would be fine by me, but not active combat. I have no desire to think through the atrocities that could only be inflicted upon women in POW camps. (It begins with rape room pregnancies...)

Giving up my seat to a woman on a crowded train or bus.

I endorse women's sports being segregated from men. (LPGA, WNBA, Olympics, etc...)

I believe women should be preferred (though not guaranteed) in child custody cases.

Men and women are different. The fact that this fundamental truth is politically incorrect makes me sick.

Odesio

11-01-2005, 10:15 AM

I am not a feminist, and I do not support equal rights. Here is a sampling of inequalities I endorse:

Ladies nights in bars and "women and children first" are hardly examples of inequal rights. When we talk about rights we're generally speaking of loftier topics such as voting, education, housing, inequality of payment, etc. Though you do at least include some meatier topics such as custody and military service.

Marc

Ellis Dee

11-01-2005, 10:24 AM

Ladies nights in bars and "women and children first" are hardly examples of inequal rights.Tell that to people on a sinking ship.

But seriously, regarding the former, you are sadly mistaken (http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2004-06-02-ladies-night_x.htm). Now if feminism were truly about being equal, you'd think it would have been feminists who championed the eradication of "Ladies Night." But somehow, that seemed to have slipped their notice.

It seems that all inequalities that favor women somehow slip past the feminist agenda. Perhaps that is a partial answer to the OP.

AHunter3

11-01-2005, 10:46 AM

It seems that all inequalities that favor women somehow slip past the feminist agenda.

Untrue. Feel welcome to provide a cite if you want to continue to argue this.

I've known very few feminists to get riled up about "ladies' night" in the bars — but a few, yes (alleging that it sets up the women present, insofar as their drinking is subsidized, into being part of the entertainment; toss in a couple of parallels to prostitution and voíla, feminist argument against ladies' night).

More common is the feminist opposition to the single-sex draft. NOW is on record against it. Read your theorists. Those who don't subsume the issue into the larger issues of "wars should not exist, nations should not exist, coercion in any form should not exist" — and speak at all to wartime service and the draft — generally condemn the practice of drafting only men and/or of only having men serve in combat. Many point out that it keeps women from advancing in the military and/or politics.

Ellis Dee

11-01-2005, 11:54 AM

Untrue. Feel welcome to provide a cite if you want to continue to argue this.

I've known very few feminists to get riled up about "ladies' night" in the bars — but a few, yes (alleging that it sets up the women present, insofar as their drinking is subsidized, into being part of the entertainment; toss in a couple of parallels to prostitution and voíla, feminist argument against ladies' night).

More common is the feminist opposition to the single-sex draft. NOW is on record against it. Read your theorists. Those who don't subsume the issue into the larger issues of "wars should not exist, nations should not exist, coercion in any form should not exist" — and speak at all to wartime service and the draft — generally condemn the practice of drafting only men and/or of only having men serve in combat. Many point out that it keeps women from advancing in the military and/or politics.Yeah, but I wasn't talking about the draft when I referenced inequalities that favor women. That one favors men, in that combat experience is the quickest ticket up the chain of command. But you did a nice job refuting that which I was not arguing.

Show me a feminist getting riled up by the grade deficit of boys, or the child custody policies of family court.

Der Trihs

11-01-2005, 12:09 PM

Guinastasia

11-01-2005, 12:28 PM

Guinastasia: Women being the ones who threw the tantrums does not detract from the truth that it was men who granted the rights.

"Tantrums?" Yeah, sure, non-violence resistance during a protest is a "tantrum". Demonstrations and protest marches are "tantrums." Uh huh.

And oh, so because these men ever so generously granted rights to women that they should have had in the beginning, we should ignore the people who fought on the front lines? What next-because it was largely whites in office who signed the civil rights legislations, that Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks were largely irrelevant?

:rolleyes:

AHunter3

11-01-2005, 01:00 PM

Yeah, but I wasn't talking about the draft when I referenced inequalities that favor women. That one favors men, in that combat experience is the quickest ticket up the chain of command. But you did a nice job refuting that which I was not arguing.

Show me a feminist getting riled up by the grade deficit of boys, or the child custody policies of family court.
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djglp/articles/gen8p301.htm

To be sure, feminist response to the child custody issue is pretty mixed. Many feminists have said that there's a huge risk that men who don't actually want custody can use custody as a lever in court to strip the dissolving marriage of material assets. And admittedly, regardless of what feminist theory may say about the ideal egalitarian world, the first priorities of most feminist activity is going to be skewed towards helping women. Would anyone expect otherwise? Nevertheless, the link above goes to an explication of a feminist rewriting of child custody laws, a rewriting that does not favor the female parent, a rewriting that has in part been actually adopted into actual practice. Mmkay?

Odesio

11-01-2005, 01:08 PM

I used to tweak the noses of some feminist in my class by pointing out the movement owes a great debt to male philosophers. I will say this, male policy makers and judges didn't "grant" rights to women they simply recognized that they have certain rights as human beings.

Marc

Guinastasia

11-01-2005, 01:17 PM

By the way, I'm not saying that it was soully the result of women demonstrating that suffrage was achieved. Nor am I saying that we don't owe those in Congress who voted to pass the Amendment.

What I AM saying is that you cannot dismiss the work of those who fought to make it an issue, those who were out there, working, writing to their congressmen, educating others about the issue, getting the word out, etc. These things don't happen in a vacume. Did Congress just wake up one day and say, "I say, let's give the ladies the right to vote!"

And yes, men worked with the women. I said it was FEMINISTS. I happen to be one of those feminists who believe that men can be feminists too.

As for the draft-I believe if there HAS to be a draft, then yes, women should have to sign up too. Morale, please! I always forget her name, but during WWI there was a female sergent in the Serbian army. Not only was she decorated by the Crown Prince Regent for her bravery, but her men said that she inspired them even more than a male officer would have, because here was a WOMAN, being so brave, and for them to do any less than their best would be cowardice. How could they shed tears, when a woman did not? They had to live up to her.

That being said, I am absolutely against the draft unless there's a dire need.

Perhaps a better word than feminist would be "equalist", because I believe feminism is not necessarily about advancing things for women only, but making sure than gender stereotypes are not hurting others. Until someone comes along to change it, we're stuck with the term "feminist", and there's not much we can do about it.

Ellis Dee

11-01-2005, 01:33 PM

It also tends to cripple and kill men; it's only favors men if you think the lives and health of men are worth nothing.Is that really the only way combat experience favors men? Really? I was unaware that the casualty rate in the military was 100%. Consider my ignorance fought.

I've gone terribly off track here. I only posted to say that I'm leery of equal rights because I don't want to see large numbers of drafted women come home in bodybags. I'm not sure why so many of you want to argue my opinion. Noble ideals are not always right or moral. (The noble ideal of democracy is neither right nor moral if it's a lynchmob voting to "string up the darkie", for example.)

I prefer the idea of dead men. You guys would rather cut those numbers with the bodies of dead women. Don't worry; I think you're all as insane as you think I am.

Der Trihs

11-01-2005, 03:03 PM

Is that really the only way combat experience favors men? Really? I was unaware that the casualty rate in the military was 100%. Consider my ignorance fought.Don't play word games. I meant that a man in combat takes risks that a woman who avoids it doesn't.

I've gone terribly off track here. I only posted to say that I'm leery of equal rights because I don't want to see large numbers of drafted women come home in bodybags. I'm not sure why so many of you want to argue my opinion. Noble ideals are not always right or moral. (The noble ideal of democracy is neither right nor moral if it's a lynchmob voting to "string up the darkie", for example.)So women sending men off to die for their own profit is "moral" ?

I prefer the idea of dead men. You guys would rather cut those numbers with the bodies of dead women. Don't worry; I think you're all as insane as you think I am."Women are valueable, men are expendable" is as bigoted as anything the Taliban ever said.

Ellis Dee

11-01-2005, 04:06 PM

Don't play word games. I meant that a man in combat takes risks that a woman who avoids it doesn't.Risk and reward go together. You seem to be under the assumption that risk negates reward. Let's substitute your clarification on what you meant as your actual response:Yeah, but I wasn't talking about the draft when I referenced inequalities that favor women. That one favors men, in that combat experience is the quickest ticket up the chain of command.a man in combat takes risks that a woman who avoids it doesn't.Does your response make sense even to you? Are you saying that if there's any risk at all to something, it is by definition a bad thing? Let's reimagine this exchange in a different context, one in which women are not currently allowed to play the stock market:I wasn't talking about the stock market when I referenced inequalities that favor women. That one favors men, in that playing the market is the quickest ticket to increasing wealth.It also tends to leave men destitute; it only favors men if you think the life savings and financial security of men are worth nothing. Meaning that a man playing the market takes risks that a woman who avoids it doesn't.Hey, that makes exactly as much sense: None at all.

So women sending men off to die for their own profit is "moral" ?You'll have to explain what you mean by "women", "profit", and "moral" in this sentence, because as it stands it fails to address both my remark and reality.

"Women are valueable, men are expendable" is as bigoted as anything the Taliban ever said.Your entire post is as ridiculously out of touch with reality as anything Ann Coulter ever said.

Der Trihs

11-01-2005, 04:56 PM

Let's reimagine this exchange in a different context, one in which women are not currently allowed to play the stock market: A more accurate scenario would be one where men are required to bet on the stock market, and must invest all their money in it. They don't even get to choose what stocks they buy; the government does. If they lose it all, people like you make speeches about how it's a privilege.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "women", "profit", and "moral" in this sentence, because as it stands it fails to address both my remark and reality. The men go off to war and risk death; the women stay back and rake in the loot/oil/ego gratification of conquest. That's unfair, therefore it's immoral. What's there to explain about "women" ? You do know what a woman is, don't you ?

Your entire post is as ridiculously out of touch with reality as anything Ann Coulter ever said. You're the one who seems surprised if people are offended when you deem men's lives worthless; it's hard to get more out of touch with reality.

catsix

11-01-2005, 05:11 PM

hildea said:
And, to both Malacandra and catsix, are you really saying that the improvements in women's rights the last 100-150 years were won independently from the contributions of the people who actually fought for those rights, or do I misunderstand you?

I'm saying that those who keep trotting out 'you can thank feminists for your rights' are being completely dishonest by blatantly ignoring the fact that most of those rights were either voted for by men or enforced by a Supreme Court that had a majority of justices on the bench being men.

To imply, as they are, that feminists did it alone is extremely misleading. Why are they ignoring the men in the equation who voted for these rights in Congress and who authored these Supreme Court decisions?

AHunter3 said:
nd admittedly, regardless of what feminist theory may say about the ideal egalitarian world, the first priorities of most feminist activity is going to be skewed towards helping women. Would anyone expect otherwise?

Nope. Which is exactly why I won't get on that sexist bandwagon.

And labeling other people who support equal rights as feminists so that you can claim them as your own while they would never self-apply such a label is wrong.

Scott Plaid

11-01-2005, 06:01 PM

[Homestar Runner]

All wight you two, break it up, break it I say!"

[/Homestar Runner]Let's contrast two news reports. One concerns the death of ten ground troops, all female. (An Israel news report, in America?) The other concerns the death of ten ground troops, all female. If photos from childhood and names of the soldiers are broadcast, which group do you think would get the most emotional response from society, as a whole? Hell, even as two sentences, no pictures, just names. I believe that while it would be nice for both groups to be morned in the same amount, the actual reply would show us that"Women are valuable, men are expendable"in some limited ways.

Guinastasia

11-01-2005, 08:20 PM

I'm saying that those who keep trotting out 'you can thank feminists for your rights' are being completely dishonest by blatantly ignoring the fact that most of those rights were either voted for by men or enforced by a Supreme Court that had a majority of justices on the bench being men.

To imply, as they are, that feminists did it alone is extremely misleading. Why are they ignoring the men in the equation who voted for these rights in Congress and who authored these Supreme Court decisions?

No one is ignoring them, but we're saying that they wouldn't have done so had the suffragists been fighting for the change. And once again, we're not excluding men, we're saying that FEMINISTS did it. There were MEN who were feminists. One of the best essays on women's rights I read was John Stuart Mill's "On the Subjugation of Women".

You make it sound like Congress just decided to vote for women's suffrage, or that the Supreme Court decided for Jane Roe just for shits and giggles, that it didn't make a difference that there were others out there working for a change.

I honestly do not see how helping women is "sexist." Jesus, you can't help EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME. Sometimes you concentrate on one area or another. In the case of women's suffrage, it was the women who needed help.\

Why are you so eager to deny sexism exists? It does and it hurts ALL of us. Not just women. Not just men. ALL of us.

AHunter3

11-01-2005, 10:03 PM

catsix:
AHunter3 said:
nd admittedly, regardless of what feminist theory may say about the ideal egalitarian world, the first priorities of most feminist activity is going to be skewed towards helping women. Would anyone expect otherwise?
Nope. Which is exactly why I won't get on that sexist bandwagon.

And labeling other people who support equal rights as feminists so that you can claim them as your own while they would never self-apply such a label is wrong.

I've made no secret of the notion that feminism as a theory, and the word as it applies to the attempt to attain sexual equality, originate in the notion that a historical power imbalance exists, and that it disfavors women: patriarchy.

If one were to disagree that patriarchy has historically existed, one would not want to use the term "feminism". (Such a one is a person I would consider not in touch with reality as evidence outlnes it though).

If one were to disagree that patriarchy currently continues to exist, perhaps one would once again not want to use the term "feminism", even while acknowledging that patriarchy has historically existed. (I have no derogatory things to say about such a person, although I differ, opinionwise, about the completeness to which patriarchy has as of yet withered away).

Shagnasty

11-01-2005, 11:10 PM

Ok, I'm a get it done kind of person. From what I can tell, Feminism has devolved from a movement with clear goals to a disjointed quasi-religious philosophy.

Women's suffrage - check
Full legal standing with men - check
Abortion rights - check
Zero Tolerance for Domestic abuse - check
Parity with Men in the Workforce - check (if you break out the .70 per dollar quote you better have have some cites and the capability to interpret them in a meaningful way. No one has ever been able to do that here before).

What is it that Feminism is supposed to accomplish now? What aspects of feminism should appeal to my executive wife (who has her older brother as an employee)? What about my mother who is a very successful, international full-time speaker and built her business herself? What will it offer my 3 year old daughter twenty years from now?

If you don't have goals then you don't have a movement? What are they?

hildea

11-02-2005, 01:29 AM

I agree with what Guinastasia wrote on feminists and voting rights. To go into some more tedious detail (based on the history of my own country, as that's what I know best):

In 1885 the Gina Krog founded Kvindestemmeretsforeningen (Organisation for Voting Rights for Women). Viggo Ullmann (male, member of Parliament) offered to raise the issue in parliament. From 1886 and onwards it was voted on after every election. Meanwhile, feminists (of both genders) wrote about the issue in newspapers and held meetings. One important part of the struggle was to convince the majority of women that voting rights was in their interest. Some political parties took up the issue. In 1913, the (still all-male) parliament voted -- once more -- on changing the constitution to give women full voting rights, and this time everybody voted for.

Malacandra and catsix, do you really think that if feminists both in Norway and abroad hadn't "thrown tantrums" for years the time would somehow have ripened on its own, and women would have gained the right to vote the first time someone suggested it to the parliament?
Do you hold this stance on similar issues -- for instance, do you think black people gained equal rights in South Africa because the time was ripe, independently of the "tantrums" of the anti-apartheid movement?

Shagnasty, you've achieved full equality in rights and opportunities for both genders in USA? Wow, congratulations. We've not come that far here, despite a law which explicitly aims at stopping gender discrimination (http://www.likestillingsombudet.no/english/act_act.html). Some recent cases from the Gender Equality Ombud include:
Discrimination of men in divorces with shared custody if the father isn't a Norwegian citizen
Discrimination of a woman in a employment case in a bus company
Discrimination of fathers when assigning places at a day care for children of employees at a university
A male and a female employee who does the same kind of job in the same company, significantly higher wages for the man
A woman who lost a job because she was pregnant
An IT company with two female and two male employees doing the same kind of work, significantly higher wages for the men
The rules for the Norwegian Civil Defence exempts mothers in case of draft, but not fathers
A prison where female prisoners have significantly fewer facilities than male prisonersThere are also several cases where different treatment of men and women are ruled as legal according to the law, such as a football education in a specific town for men, and a women's camp in the armed forces to encourage more women to become officers.

At least in my country, the fight for equal rights wasn't won when we got them legally. There's a lot of inertia in society which leads to discrimination, sometimes subtly, sometimes blatantly. The time hasn't come to rest on our laurels yet.

Guinastasia

11-02-2005, 01:49 AM

Or the fact that if a woman is raped she's put under a microscope, and called a whore, a slut, what was she wearing, she must have been asking for it?

That men who do traditionally feminine tasks or hobbies are seen as "girlymen" or "wimps"? Why is anything feminine automatically wimpy for men?

And the right to choose is still not completely secure-it's under constant assault from the religious right.

Thanks, hildea. It's funny, at this moment, Rosa Parks is lying in state in the Rotunda. The same notion that people are applying to women's rights (it was the men in charge who really made it happen) could be said of the civil rights movement. After all, Parks and King weren't in office, THEY didn't make the laws, so why do we say we owe THEM a debt of gratitude?

catsix

11-02-2005, 06:15 AM

Guinastasia said:
No one is ignoring them, but we're saying that they wouldn't have done so had the suffragists been fighting for the change. And once again, we're not excluding men, we're saying that FEMINISTS did it. There were MEN who were feminists. One of the best essays on women's rights I read was John Stuart Mill's "On the Subjugation of Women".

I don't consider the belief in equal rights, or the work to secure them, feminism any more than I'd consider it African-ism. You can attempt to claim those who do as feminists in order to try and legitimize the religion like belief structure it has, but I'll never buy it. Feminism exalts women above men, it's sexist, and I want no part of it.

Why are you so eager to deny sexism exists? It does and it hurts ALL of us. Not just women. Not just men. ALL of us.

Because I don't think it exists the way you think it does. Because all the bullshit that feminists spewed at me about what difficulty women have in these 'male dominated' fields like engineering was exactly that: bullshit. Every day, every month, every year passed by and I wasn't discriminated against or treated poorly by those around me and those above me, and I didn't see this happening to the other women in the program or in the field either. It turned out to be that the only people who had a serious problem with what I did and based it on my gender were feminists who called me the feminist version of an Uncle Tom.

I did experience sexism, but it all came from feminists.

Or the fact that if a woman is raped she's put under a microscope, and called a whore, a slut, what was she wearing, she must have been asking for it?

Or the fact that if a woman has a regret the day after, she can ruin a man's life without having to get a conviction at all, since the mere accusation is enough to get his name and picture on TV and in the newspaper next to the word 'rapist', and even if he's acquitted there will always be those who think he's guilty merely because he was accused.

That men who do traditionally feminine tasks or hobbies are seen as "girlymen" or "wimps"? Why is anything feminine automatically wimpy for men?

That I've been called a 'tool of the patriarchy' and a 'sellout' and a 'wannabe man' or even an actual man because of what I do for a living and the hobbies that I have? Why is doing anything masculine automatically selling out for feminists?

And the right to choose is still not completely secure-it's under constant assault from the religious right.

Well, that's a religious debate, not a feminist one.

After all, Parks and King weren't in office, THEY didn't make the laws, so why do we say we owe THEM a debt of gratitude?

I don't exactly think 'gratitude' is the right word. Respect for the courage Parks had to follow a belief with action? Yes, that I have. I won't get into my opinion of King Jr. I certainly respect those individuals (Alice Paul comes to mind) who stood up for themselves, but it's not gratitude and I don't think it needs to be.

hildea

11-02-2005, 07:39 AM

I don't consider the belief in equal rights, or the work to secure them, feminism any more than I'd consider it African-ism. You can attempt to claim those who do as feminists in order to try and legitimize the religion like belief structure it has, but I'll never buy it. Feminism exalts women above men, it's sexist, and I want no part of it.Well, if you define feminism as a sexist ideology which exalts women over men, then obviously those who fight for equal rights for both genders aren't true-feminists-as-defined-by-catsix. However, this isn't, to put it mildly, the usual definition of feminism.

Do you agree that there are, and have been, people fighting specifically for rights for women who do so without trying to put down men? Or do you claim that all (or almost all) people trying to improve the situation for women are guilty of "exalting women over men", unless they work to right a bunch of non-gender-related wrongs at the same time?

If someone describes herself or himself as a feminist, and works against gender dsicrimination, would you say that he/she is deluded when using the feminist label, or would you say that a person working against gender discrimination will automatically become a female chauvinist, or would you say that such people don't exist?

I apologise if I appear to put words in your mouth here, but I'm honestly curious to figure out what your world view looks like -- it's obviously very different from my own.

hildea

11-02-2005, 08:39 AM

Oh, and one more question: I certainly respect those individuals (Alice Paul comes to mind) who stood up for themselves, but it's not gratitude and I don't think it needs to be. I did a quick search to find out who Alice Paul was, and the first thing I found (http://www.alicepaul.org/alicep.htm) describes her as a feminist. Would you say that's a wrong use of the word feminist, in your opinion?

Guinastasia

11-02-2005, 12:15 PM

Feminism exalts women above men, it's sexist, and I want no part of it.

Where did you get that idea? Sources? And don't give me some stupid little message board that no longer exists. If you are judging all feminists by some of the Ms posters, that's a very tiny sample size.

Because I don't think it exists the way you think it does. Because all the bullshit that feminists spewed at me about what difficulty women have in these 'male dominated' fields like engineering was exactly that: bullshit. Every day, every month, every year passed by and I wasn't discriminated against or treated poorly by those around me and those above me, and I didn't see this happening to the other women in the program or in the field either. It turned out to be that the only people who had a serious problem with what I did and based it on my gender were feminists who called me the feminist version of an Uncle Tom.

So because you personally didn't experience it, or see it, that means no one did? If people called you a feminist Uncle Tom, they were idiots, but it doesn't mean that your experience was universal. Those feminists were simply insecure and would probably have castigated you for chosing a traditionally feminine path because that was "playing into gender roles." Some people are impossible to please, so fuck 'em.

I did experience sexism, but it all came from feminists.

No one said feminists were perfect. I'm not going to play the Scotsman fallacy and claim they weren't true feminists. However, I think it would be fair to say they were bad feminists. Just like Pat Robertson may be a Christian, but he's a bad example of one. Can you say that ALL feminists you have met are like that? I don't believe I am, and I don't believe hildea is.

Or the fact that if a woman has a regret the day after, she can ruin a man's life without having to get a conviction at all, since the mere accusation is enough to get his name and picture on TV and in the newspaper next to the word 'rapist', and even if he's acquitted there will always be those who think he's guilty merely because he was accused.

Cite? Not about some woman going to someone's apartment to have sex initially and then changing her mind before engaging in sex, then being forced to. I want to hear actual cases of women who had sex willingly THEN claimed rape. Concrete, solid, actually-happened ones, not just hypotheticals.

That I've been called a 'tool of the patriarchy' and a 'sellout' and a 'wannabe man' or even an actual man because of what I do for a living and the hobbies that I have? Why is doing anything masculine automatically selling out for feminists?

It's not. I've been called that too, by idiot feminists. I've also been called a radical bra-burner by non-feminists. I don't let the assholes define me. Nothing wrong with seeking a traditionally masculine path. However, would you say it's fair to use the idea of doing something traditionally feminine (say, sewing or knitting) and degrading men as weak or "pussies" if they attempt it?

By the way, when I think of "patriarchy", I don't believe there's some monolithic entity like some sort of Illuminati of Sexism. More like the ingrained old-fashioned notions people have, of a woman's role in society. Think of idiots who would tell you that because you're a woman, you shouldn't be taking a "man's job" that you need to go and get married and have a bunch of babies and get back in the home? They're out there, and some of them are in positions of power. (Rick Santorum, I'm looking in YOUR direction!) People who still think a woman must, by law, notify her husband if she chooses an abortion. (Alito, for one.) Pharmacists who refuse to fulfill prescriptions for birth control (who are NOT the owners of the pharmacy, and therefore have no say in company policy).

Look at that article I posted in the Pit a few weeks back, about parents being up in arms because SEVENTEEN magazine printed an article about vaginal health that happened to include photographs of vaginas for educational purposes? (sorry for the run on sentence!) There were mothers saying, "It's dirty, it's dirty, I don't want MY child (sixteen years old!) seeing that kind of filth!" Young girls out there are being sent a message that their bodies are dirty, something to be ashamed of. That girls aren't supposed to be sexual creatures, because it's not what "nice girls" do.

And no matter what Shagnasty thinks, there ARE still issues out there that need to be addressed. If not in the US (although I disagree), in the world at large. Look at the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia, women are second class citizens. Look at the epidemic of female genital mutilation. And while I'm not for automatic circumcision of boys, the procedure can, at least, sometimes be necessary in certain medical scenarios. But female "circumcision" has no other purpose than to destroy a woman's sexuality.

Well, that's a religious debate, not a feminist one.

Of course, but the right to choose is an issue for feminism.

I don't exactly think 'gratitude' is the right word. Respect for the courage Parks had to follow a belief with action? Yes, that I have. I won't get into my opinion of King Jr. I certainly respect those individuals (Alice Paul comes to mind) who stood up for themselves, but it's not gratitude and I don't think it needs to be.

Fair enough. Gratitude, respect, etc, it's all good. I just got the impression you were saying that feminists had NOTHING to do with the gains women have made, and that's not true.

I'm not your enemy, catsix. I'm not insisting you become a feminist. I don't think anyone HAS to be a feminist. I do, however, wish you would look at some of the better examples of feminism out there, and stop judging it by the fringe elements. For every Dworkin and Daly, there's a Steinem and a Paul. (I'm going to ignore Solanas due to the fact that she was mentally ill.)

And as for the bit that feminists chose to work for the benefits of women primarily, so what? That doesn't mean they're doing it at the expense of others. Some choose to work for the rights of minorities. Some for the rights of the disabled. Some for children's rights. You can't do everything, and some have chosen women's rights as their issue. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't think it's too much to ask that someone stop painting with such a broad brush, no?

catsix

11-02-2005, 04:56 PM

I don't think any of the issues you brought up in your last post have a damn thing to do with sexism.

The best you can do is pharmacists who don't like birth control because of their religious beliefs and Rick Santorum?

You've got to be kidding me.

Guinastasia

11-02-2005, 05:06 PM

Not necessarily sexism, but WOMEN'S issues. Feminist issues.

Nice of you to just gloss over most of what I had to say because you prefer to make generalizations.

Philip J Fry

11-02-2005, 07:04 PM

I have lots of problems with feminism. Not because I believe that women are not of equal value to men and ontologically (although not functionally) the same, but because I believe that feminism is a intellectually dishonest and inherently selfish worldview.

One of the problems with these sorts of discussions is the whole problem of defining exactly what "feminism" is. The reality is that there is a wide range of often incompatable views as to what "feminism" is and so these arguments often devolve into disagreements over what true feminism is. So the criticisms here are obviously not true of all feminists, nor do these criticisms only apply to feminists.

Anyway I think the major problem with typical "feminism" is that it attempts to effectively whitewash history to fit with its own ideology. Typically feminism presents a history where women have been oppressed by some non-descript "patriarchy" where as men were free to live in relative freedom. This is simply not true. If you look through history most oppression is economic rather than gender based. So 200 years ago the main factor in the type of life you could expect was economic, not gender. Despite feminist rhetoric if you were born the son of a poor farmer you would have far less freedom in life than than a woman born into a rich family. So the whole idea that it is gender inequality that has been the major problem in society throughout history is patently false.

Secondly though the assumption that women were oppressed but men were free is also I think untrue. I think that a much more honest reading of history is one where each gender was trapped in their own rigidly defined expectations. While there were disadvantages to being female, there were some significant advantages as well. As a simple example thoughout history it has typically been men who have been the largest victims of war, since most of the dead in warfare were the men killed in battle.

However if you look at society today I think that feminism has to some extent freed women from their gender expectations, yet left men trapped in theirs. So for instance it is facsinating to look at how society reacts to men and women who are unemployed. Women are typically asked "are you going to choose to go back to work or are you going to focus on your family, ect", where as men are asked things like "when are you going to get a job, support your family and not be a deadbeat, ect". For every book like The Feminine Mystique (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393322572/qid=1130977773/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4799776-2893508?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) about women's dissatisfaction with their role, there are other books like Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568582463/qid=1130975213/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4799776-2893508?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) which detail the dissatisfaction that men have with their societal role. Typically though while feminism has been active in giving women choice, it has either been silent, or worse still enforcing a strong gender stereotype for men.

As an example as to how this still happens, have a look at the typical feminist rhetoric on reproduction. When looking at women and reproduction it is ardently argued that reproduction is a "choice" that women should be completely free to make. Yet at the same time when it comes to men and reproduction many of the same feminists actively argue against men having choice in reproduction, saying that men have no say in abortion, and even that it is men's responsibility to pay child support, even though having the child is the women's choice. All this does is continue to trap the man in the societal expection that men are the providers, while at the same time giving women the freedom to choose whether or not to be the child carers.

Another problem with feminism and history is that current feminists claim to be a continuation of the the earlier feminist movments of the late 19th early 20th century when in reality there is a huge ideological divide between the two movements. Many of the positions held be these early "feminists" and the logic that they employed to justify them were vastly different to the typical positions and logic used by feminists today.

So for instance "feminists" by the modern definition actually had very little to do with women gaining the vote. If you actually go back and look at the arguments used by a lot of the sufferagete women they were actually agruments based on gender inequality. A common argument of this type was that men are typically logical in their thought processes, where as women are typically more compassionate. Therefore women should be given the vote so as to temper the typical male disposition and hopefully end up with a more just society. A lot of these types of arguments todays feminists would reject out of hand, yet these were the arguments that these women used. Another example of this kind is abortion. Abortion was regarded by many of the early "feminists" as a barabarous practice and a crime against nature, yet today it is seen as one of the cornerstones of the feminist ideology.

To therefore claim that the achievements of these women is the result of "feminism" is simply wrong.

Fry.

Siege

11-03-2005, 06:08 AM

You know, I think I've worked out one of the reasons catsix and I wound up with the different attitudes we have towards feminism. You see, she and I attended the same college, although I'm pretty sure I attended several years earlier. That college required people who were in one of its larger sections to take courses in several areas to get their degree. While the courses I took fulfilled the required diversity, I never had any desire to take a class in Women's Studies, and I'm glad I didn't. I knew that society had different expectations of men and women. Back when I was in junior high school in the 70's, I wasn't allowed to take shop because I was a girl and the rule was simply that girls don't take shop. They take home ec, which was cooking and sewing, instead. I wanted to take classes which related to my degree and, when that wasn't an option -- there weren't any classes in the natural sciences which related to a degree in Japanese -- I wanted to take classes which looked interesting, which is how I wound up in a class called "Intelligent Life In the Universe." I may consider myself a feminist, but I consider classes in women's studies to be, for the most part, a load of codswollop.

There was a story on the front page of this morning's paper which has reminded me that we still have a way to go to achieve equality. Here's a link. (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05307/599884.stm) It seems some local girls are boycotting Abercrombie and Fitch for selling t-shirts which read things like "Who needs brains when you've got these?" (printed across the chest) and "Blondes are adored. Brunettes are ignored." The girls think, and I agree, that these t-shirts are sending out a message that looks matter more than anything else when it comes to women. I'm an ordinary looking woman. Judged on my looks alone, I'll do badly. I stand a better chance in other areas, and, while a gentleman I know insists I'm cute, I really don't want people's opinion of me to be primarily influenced by my appearance, especially if I'm trying to get a job.

A few years ago, a friend of mine who was a teenaged girl at the time told me that women are no good at math or science. She's an intelligent young woman whose grandmother was a biologist, but somehow she still came by that attitude. When I went to listen to her read an essay at her school her senior year, I was struck by the fact that out of 6 young women who read essays that day, all but one of them mentioned marriage; none of them mentioned a career. No young men read essays that day, but I wonder how many of them would have mentioned marriage and how many of them would have mentioned what career they intended to pursue.

Philip J Fry, you spoke of economics. As a feminist who knows my history, I know that 100 years ago, women were not allowed to own property in the United States, or even control their own paychecks. Indeed, one of the reasons feminists were behind the temperance movement so strongly was women would go to work, earn money, and then be left helpless when their husbands chose to spend it on drink rather than food and rent. It's only in the last 40 or 50 years that it's become easy for women to get loans for businesses in their own right, if memory serves. Traditionally, the jobs available to men with only a high school education, jobs such as the building trades, manufacturing, etc. have paid better than jobs available to women with only a high school education such as secretary or waitress. Some of this is due to unionization; some of this is also due to the assumption that men have to support their families on their income, while women only have to support themselves. That is changing as manufacturing jobs become harder to come by. I also freely admit that I took advantage of the roles society assigns to women a few years ago. As a laid off programmer, I think I had a better chance of getting clerical work than a man would have, alhtough I could be wrong. On the other hand, how many male receptionists have you seen?

I like men. My closest friends are either men or rather unconventional women. One reason I became a feminist is because the stuff the guys were doing looked like it was a lot more fun. I also freely admits that anyone who thinks less of me because I'm a brunette (actually more of a redhead these days) not a blonde or who considers my boobs, not my brain isn't worth my time. I also get fed up with the fringe man-hating element of feminism as well, and I won't deny they exist. It's to counter their influence that I proudly call myself a feminist.

I'm CJ. Judge me for who I am, brains, boobs, Bohemianism, and all. Don't assume I'm dumber than you (I've got the card to prove odds are I'm not), less logical than you (I'm a programmer who writes kick-ass code), weaker than you, or in any way less than you because I'm a woman. That's all I ask.

CJ

Revenant Threshold

11-03-2005, 07:34 AM

I think the most worthwhile point's already been made in this thread, by a good few people; there are feminists who are "good" examples of the idealogy and those that are not, in the same way that Falwell is a "bad" example of christian idealogy.

Whenever you have a subset of people based on idealogy, those people are never going to agree completely. To take it down to it's most base point, there are (to my knowledge) no people that share the exact same views on everything that I have. I may agree with people on some things, but not others, or to a different extent.

I personally believe that women do have the same basic rights as men, and that, in a court of law, both genders should be considered equally. However, this does not stop me thinking, when a case comes up in the news about a man or woman suing for sole parental guardianship of a child, that the woman would be a better choice. It's a socially ingrained response; i've "learnt" this from other people, from television, films, and books. I know it's wrong to have this thought, logically and philosophically speaking, but I do anyway. You could call this "innate chauvinism" and i'd agree. However, this doesn't mean i'm not going to fight this part of me; I know it's wrong, and so, were I the judge for that case, I would listen to the evidence presented on both sides and make my decision based on that. The thought that "women are better at taking care of children" is dismissed. So yes, i'd say in my case that I do have some level of "innate chauvinism", but this is not because I am male, but because I have been raised in a society where recently, and still now, females and males are treated, even if not believed to be, differently. I, for one, try to fight this learned behaviour in myself, as it does not compare with my personal beliefs that women and men have equal rights.

In the case of it being "worse" if 500,000 women come back in body bags, i'm going to have to agree that it is no different that if it were 500,000 men. I'm against the idea of a draft, but if there had to be one, drafting both men and women is surely the only way it can be done. If you say women shouldn't go because they're frailer, or weaker, or not as designed for war as men, that's sexism prioritising men. If you say that women shouldn't go because they are more valuable than men, as they are capable of breeding faster than a similar amount of men would be able to, that's sexism prioritising women ( it might be different if there is an actual population shortage, but I hate to think what sexism would be like under that situation!).

The biggest problem I have with the "bad" side of feminism, as it were, is the whole notion that women are better than man because they create new life. Well, no, you kinda can't. Women can gestate life, but not create it. If you stuck 50 men on one island, and 50 women on another, and then came back after 200 years, the results are going to be the same - very boney islands and very happy crabs. Both men and women are needed to create life; if you want to say women are superior because they alone can gestate life, that's fine by me.

Philip J Fry

11-03-2005, 07:34 AM

Siege, I don't mean to be harsh, but your post demonstrates a lot of the problems with feminism.

But first off you seem to be saying that you should treat people as people, not as genders, and on htat point I completely agree. That's not why I dislike feminism. I dislike feminism for it's intellectual dishonesty and quite frankly its narrow-focused selfishness.

While it is true to say that women have suffered a lot in history, many women have similarly done quite well out of their gender as well. But more than that in many societies what delineates between those who do well and those who do not has little if anything to do with gender. So for instance in my country (Australia) the group who are the worst off is not women, it is the Aboriginal Indiginous people. While we can talk about women's sufferage, in Australia quite shamefully Aboriginals only got the vote in the 1960's. And even today there are some terrible problems of lack of health-care, unemployment, poverty, substance abuse and greatly reduced life expectancy, problems that are just not present in the anglo or even other ethnic communities. Compared to these people the SUV driving soccer-mom insisting that she is oppressed because she is a women is clearly absurd. And it is like that all over the world. In Europe for instance, why is it that in some countries a rediculously high percentage of the children of Romany Gypsies (something like 80-90%) are in schools for the educationally sub-normal. This is opression on a far grander scale and far worse than anything that happens because of gender. That's not to say that it is OK to treat women poorly, but if feminists were truly interested in 'equality' then there wouldn't be feminists per say, because gender doesn't really describe societal mistreatment.

Secondly your view of opression is incredibly biased. Tyoically to the feminist anything in which women do worse than men is because of 'patriarchy', yet anything where men do worse is swept under the rug. So if women are so oppressed and mistreated why is it that in Australia (and presumably the rest of the western world as well)
* Even including rape and domestic abuse, men are more often the victims of violent crime than women
* Men have a much higher crime conviction rate, get longer sentances, and represent a vastly disproportionate percentage of prison populations
* Men have higher rates of unemployment amoungst those seeking work
* Men typically do worse in schools than women, and represent a larger percent of people in undergraduate university courses
* Medical research directed at diseases that affect mainly women (eg: breast cancer) get hugely disproportionate levels of funding compared to diseases that affect mostly men (eg: prostate cancer), even though roughly equal numbers die from each.
* Men have a much higher suicide rate than women
* Women are more often granted custody rights by the family court
...................

the list goes on. Yet in spite of all these inequalities feminists still insist that there is systematic descrimination in society against women, yet in many cases this is simply not true. This shows that practically feminism is typically far more interested in getting things for women rather than any sense of equality.

So for instance you talk about women being objectified. Have you seen any advertising in the last 10 years? Advertisers have worked out that women do the larger amount of the spending in society, and so many ads now present a positive view of women, and quite a negative view of men. In most ads women are the strong, intelligent, organised people who hold the family together, where as the men are either the bumbling sidekick who is obviously dependent on the women, or is little more than eye candy and completely sexually objectified. Some ads do still objectify women, but a great number objectify men as well. Yet again while railing against one many feminists are silent when it happens in the other direction.

Or again you talk about how none of the essay talked about career. But if guys were writing the essays I would guess that every one of them would be about career, because if you are a guy that is all you have. There is a much stronger cultural expectation that guys will be devoted to their careers than women will be devoted to their families.

Fry.

catsix

11-03-2005, 08:47 AM

Siege said:
The girls think, and I agree, that these t-shirts are sending out a message that looks matter more than anything else when it comes to women.

So do you hold the same contempt for David & Goliath T-Shirts that bear messages like 'Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them.' and 'Boys lie. Poke 'em in the eye.'

Never heard of them? Really? I guess it's only major news when stupid jokes are made about women.

Philip J Fry said:
Yet in spite of all these inequalities feminists still insist that there is systematic descrimination in society against women, yet in many cases this is simply not true.

Something that Erin Pizzey recognized when she started the first domestic violence shelter - that men too were victims of domestic violence (Phil Hartman is probably the most famous case) and she wanted to help all the victims, regardless of gender.

Today, there are programs where I live that will help women who are victims of domestic violence, but will not only reject male victims of domestic violence, but also the female victims' sons from their shelters and programs because they don't want any man even knowing where the shelter is.

There is a much stronger cultural expectation that guys will be devoted to their careers than women will be devoted to their families.

They're expected to spend 40, 50, 60 hours a week at a job and miss out on many important functions in their kids' lives so that they can provide the food on the table and the roof over the head. Many men are locked into this role no matter what they would rather do, forced by societal expectations and gender stereotypes to be the paycheck earner even if their life's ambition is to be a stay-at-home dad.

Feminists, however, will turn all of that around and claim that it is really the women who are victims. There have already been feminists who claim that women are the real victims of war, even when it's primarily men who are killed and maimed and psychologically devastated by their battlefield experiences. It seems like sexism is totally acceptable to them as long as it's men getting the short end of the stick.

I'm not even going to get started on the disparity between breast cancer research money and prostate cancer.

Siege

11-03-2005, 09:10 AM

Actually, I do hold those t-shirts in contempt, too. One reason I don't watch most family oriented sitcoms is I don't like seeing men shown as idiots. Some are, true; so are some women. I also freely acknowledge that men can be victims of domestic violence and, having been emotionally abused as a child, I agree that women can inflict damage just as easily as men, even if it's not always as visible.

I'll try to post more later,but I'm on a short break on a busy day.

CJ

AHunter3

11-03-2005, 09:55 AM

Philip J Fry
I dislike feminism for it's intellectual dishonesty and quite frankly its narrow-focused selfishness.

Elaborate and provide a cite on the intellectual dishonesty thing?

Are you saying the broad sweep of thought, theory, and social action called "feminism" is intellectually dishonest, or are you saying "There was this feminist who...." and "There was this widely touted statistic which...." —??

I could say "Americans are intellectually dishonest" and back it with a handful of documented occurences of Americans twisting truth, but it would not be a good argument. How does yours differ?

While it is true to say that women have suffered a lot in history, many women have similarly done quite well out of their gender as well. But more than that in many societies what delineates between those who do well and those who do not has little if anything to do with gender. So for instance in my country (Australia) the group who are the worst off is not women, it is the Aboriginal Indiginous people. While we can talk about women's sufferage, in Australia quite shamefully Aboriginals only got the vote in the 1960's. And even today there are some terrible problems of lack of health-care, unemployment, poverty, substance abuse and greatly reduced life expectancy, problems that are just not present in the anglo or even other ethnic communities. Compared to these people the SUV driving soccer-mom insisting that she is oppressed because she is a women is clearly absurd. And it is like that all over the world. In Europe for instance, why is it that in some countries a rediculously high percentage of the children of Romany Gypsies (something like 80-90%) are in schools for the educationally sub-normal. This is opression on a far grander scale and far worse than anything that happens because of gender. That's not to say that it is OK to treat women poorly, but if feminists were truly interested in 'equality' then there wouldn't be feminists per say, because gender doesn't really describe societal mistreatment.

I call this the "poor starving children in China" argument. Hey, you, how dare you complain about the moderation on this board, or police brutality in Philadelphia, or the neglect of children in foster care in our cities, when there are poor starving children in China?

a) Women have a right to complain about their lot. They don't have to have it worse than Australian aboriginal people in order to be entitled to seek social justice on their own behalf. Period.

b) Radical feminist theory, like marxist theory of the late 1800s, is a macrotheory. You may not agree with it (although you should be sure and read it before you dismiss it), but it says that the reasons Australian aboriginal people (and oppressed Romany gypsies and poor starving children in China and so on) are in that situation is because of patriarchy. Patriarchal structures. Patriarchal priorities and values. Patriarchal belief systems. Nothing narrow about their focus, they consider themselves to be addressing the root of all oppression and all inequality. And their argument would be "It does no good to fight this individual circumstance of oppression when the root cause remains intact, as long as human affairs are organized around the power of some people over other people, more occurrences will just sprout up elsewhere".

c) Most individual feminists I've known also support other equality movements nevertheless. You'll see them at marches against racism and marches against religious intolerance and yeah, they probably donate to causes that work on behalf of Romany gypsies and Aboriginal Australians for Social Justice and Gay/Lesbian Rights Coalition and so on. Feminism as an endeavor doesn't take a stand on these issues as a general rule (except for gay/lesbian rights which is closer to a set of core issues) because different feminists are going to have different priorities, attitudes, and political takes on such things. One feminist may be donating money to help the Jewish settlers who settled in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank while another puts resources towards helping the Palestinians recapture their land from the invading Zionists, etc etc, you get the picture. They generally aren't doing these things as a sideline to feminism, or as an unrelated afterthought, but as an expression of their feminism. They reached the conclusions about the goodness of these endeavors as a consequence of their feminist analysis of things.

Guinastasia

11-03-2005, 01:26 PM

So do you hold the same contempt for David & Goliath T-Shirts that bear messages like 'Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them.' and 'Boys lie. Poke 'em in the eye.'

I do. And yes, I've seen them. But this IS Aberzombie and Bitch we're talking about. They're not exactly known for their tact.

Today, there are programs where I live that will help women who are victims of domestic violence, but will not only reject male victims of domestic violence, but also the female victims' sons from their shelters and programs because they don't want any man even knowing where the shelter is.

Cite? And by the way, I'm still awaiting a cite for cases where men have been charge with rape simply because the woman regretted it the morning after.

They're expected to spend 40, 50, 60 hours a week at a job and miss out on many important functions in their kids' lives so that they can provide the food on the table and the roof over the head. Many men are locked into this role no matter what they would rather do, forced by societal expectations and gender stereotypes to be the paycheck earner even if their life's ambition is to be a stay-at-home dad.

So are many mothers! Moms are expected to work full-time, and come home and take care of the house. I do agree with you that perhaps we need more stay at home dads. Some companies offer paternity leave, but it's unpaid, which I think is wrong. I agree that we need some equality in our working force so that EITHER parent can stay home with the kid-whether it's Mom or Dad.

Feminists, however, will turn all of that around and claim that it is really the women who are victims. There have already been feminists who claim that women are the real victims of war, even when it's primarily men who are killed and maimed and psychologically devastated by their battlefield experiences. It seems like sexism is totally acceptable to them as long as it's men getting the short end of the stick.

Not ALL feminists. Stop with the broad brush. As far as war goes, everyone's a victim. I only used the war example once to point out to someone who seemed to be saying that women are unaffected by war. And I am totally against the idea that women are somehow more valuable than men when it comes to the battlefield.

I'm not even going to get started on the disparity between breast cancer research money and prostate cancer.

Have you done anything about it? Are you out there working to get funding for prostate cancer research? Why not?

I believe the reasons why some feminists react the way they do is they're tired of the "more oppressed than you" game. Someone always comes along and says, "Yeah, well men have it worse, blah blah blah..." And instead of just saying, "yes, that's bad, I agree," they get goaded into one-upmanship.

catsix

11-03-2005, 04:10 PM

Guinastasia said:
Cite? And by the way, I'm still awaiting a cite for cases where men have been charge with rape simply because the woman regretted it the morning after.

You could do what I did and call the county agencies. That's how I found out that they don't help men.

As for the other cite, there was a case that was discussed on this forum about a man who spent years in prison because a woman claimed she was raped and gave a description that matched him in order to cover for the fact that she had sex with someone while in a relationship with someone else.

It took years before DNA evidence finally got him out of prison.

I believe the reasons why some feminists react the way they do is they're tired of the "more oppressed than you" game.

Pity that after years of being anti-male, they didn't see it coming.

Guinastasia

11-03-2005, 04:46 PM

The Dotson case? That was not what you described. In that case, she LIED and claimed she was raped to cover up a pregnancy. Which, while wrong and disgusting (and she should be in prison for what occurred) , is NOT the same as someone being successfully charged BECAUSE a woman changed her mind. Honestly, do you think if I went to the police and said, "Officer, I was raped-we had sex last night and I really regret it!" they'd do anything besides laugh me out of the station?

:rolleyes:

And for godsakes, stop saying all feminists are anti-male. Repeating it every post doesn't make it so.

Siege

11-03-2005, 05:10 PM

Guinastasia, while I obviously don't have an on-line cite for it, the reputation and ultimately marriage of a very dear friend of mine were ruined because he was falsely accused of being a sex addict and a sexual predator. I suppose I could, if you insist, arrange an introduction. The offense he committed was placing his hand on a young woman's thigh after they and others had been in a hot tub together. The damage done to his reputation and to him were quite real. I know because I stood by his side through this and gave him a place to stay when he moved back to town, his old life and marriage in tatters. Things like this happen; they're real; and they're unfair and stink to high heaven. I'll do what I can to change them, but I'm afraid there will always be unethical people among us. If you need more information, e-mail me or call me, but I'll be incredibly busy for the next few days.

That's also why I can't spend much more time on this board, at least, not if I want to eat dinner tonight!

CJ

furt

11-03-2005, 06:20 PM

I haven't read the whole thread, so this may be a repeat, but I thought of this thread title while reading a review of Are Men Necessary? (http://) as well as an excerpt of the book (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/magazine/30feminism.html).

I can only imagine the outcry if someone were to write a serious book with that title about women, much less parrot offensive generalizations like "if there's one thing men fear, it's a woman who uses her critical faculties."

Why did feminism become synonomous with man-hating? Well, it might have to do with at least some feminists hating men.

Guinastasia

11-03-2005, 09:45 PM

Shagnasty

11-03-2005, 10:41 PM

Here are three simple reasons why I believe many sane people don't want to associate with feminism:

1) It has no clear goals in the U.S. "Ending female oppression in patriarchal society" doesn't bring to mind any clear action items especially since many people don't know exactly what you are referring to. What is it supposed to DO? How are you going to get people identifying with the movement if all you have to offer is some dense literature and some statistics on female circumsision in Africa? Fire the marketing department.

2) It tries to be both a social movement as well as a very vague and obscure academic subject lying in its own little universe of rules and terms. I am pretty sure that I could write a computer program to generate an award winning feminist academic essay. You can work magic with a small list of buzzwords inserted into sentences: " e.g. patriarchal, goddess, sacred, mystique, oppression, vulva and symbolism".

3) The term "Feminism" is trite, inappropriate, and antiquated. It would be similar if people that work for race equality called themselves "abolitionists". It was once a great movement but that stage is over. Time to celebrate a victory and move on. You aren't going to get many recruits with a name like that. Masculinism (http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/webs/gender/tsld002.htm) is a real term but has only a very small movement. You know why? Because no one in their right mind is going to call themselves a "Masculinist". That differs from feminism only in degree.

Blake

11-04-2005, 12:22 AM

I don't think most people cry "rape!" falsely...

Last I heard about 25% of people who cried rape to the police were accusing people who were later convicted. And barely over 50% of cases that made it to court resulted in a conviction.

Or to put it another way 3/4 of people who cried rape were falsely accusing an innocent man, and half of those who proceded to trial were accusing innocent men. After all we still assume anyone not proven guilty to a reasonable standard is innocent don't we?

Of course the standard (feminist) response to this is that this is simply indicative of a flawed legal system when it comes to rape. The problem with that line of reasoning is that it's circular nonsense. We don't want to believe that the vast majority of people who cry rape are doing so falsely so we say that our method of determining the truth of the claim must be flawed.

But by the best standard we have of judging whether those who cry rape are doing so with a reasonable degree of honesty then most of them are indeed making false claims.

Guinastasia

11-04-2005, 03:38 PM

Blake, you got a cite for that?

catsix, it also occurred to me why there may not be as many men's shelters-how many men do you know who would admit to being beaten by their wives?

Or hell, witness the threads we have about female teachers who molest their male students. Some wiseass always has to pop in and say, "Gee, I wish I had had her for a teacher when I was in school!" Don't you think that's another problem?

catsix

11-04-2005, 04:06 PM

Guinastasia said:
catsix, it also occurred to me why there may not be as many men's shelters-how many men do you know who would admit to being beaten by their wives?

Maybe if society didn't just automatically think they were lying, pathetic, or the 'real abuser' in the situation, those that are would actually admit it and get help before they end up like Phil Hartman.

Or hell, witness the threads we have about female teachers who molest their male students. Some wiseass always has to pop in and say, "Gee, I wish I had had her for a teacher when I was in school!" Don't you think that's another problem?

I think it's a huge problem that crimes against teenage boys and pre-teen boys are not taken seriously. I blame the sexist and harmful attitude that men have to be tough, and that any man who admits to being a victim is not a real man.

Feminists buy heavily into that stereotype, considering how much time they spend protesting against men and all their 'macho chauvanism'.

Blake

11-04-2005, 05:04 PM

#If the rape is reported to police, there is a 50.8% chance that an arrest will be made.
# If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.
# If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a felony conviction.
So, even in the 39% of attacks that are reported to police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.
http://www.rainn.org/statistics/punishing-rapists.html

Which is pretty much as I recalled it.

There are better statistics avaliable which separate out those rape complaints where the alleged attacker wasn't identified from those where the attacker was identified and questioned by the police. Those are even more shocking IIRC, with something like 75% of men being accused based on evidence insufficent to warrant prosecution and 75% of those who are prosecuted being convicted.

Even by the figures given above, of those men arrested for rape only 80% warrant further prosecution, and of that 80% only 58% result in conviction for rape. IOW only 46% of men arrested for rape are actually gulty of rape, the rest are innocent men. Allow that some proportion of those who aren't arrested will be accused but not warrant arrest, and another sizable portion will be accused but the accusation later withdrawn. I'm not going to do an in-depth search for figures to back up my claim of 75% falsely accused but it's hardly inconceivable.

But the precise figures are rather academic.

I think we can safely conclude that most of the people who cried rape were falsely accusing an innocent man, and around half of those who proceded to trial were accusing innocent men. After all we still assume anyone not proven guilty to a reasonable standard is innocent don't we?

Guinastasia

11-04-2005, 05:56 PM

Maybe if society didn't just automatically think they were lying, pathetic, or the 'real abuser' in the situation, those that are would actually admit it and get help before they end up like Phil Hartman.

Or, they're ashamed to admit that they're being beaten up by a woman, because it somehow makes them "less of a man." Think of terms like "pussy-whipped", "throws/hits like a girl," "you were beaten by a GIRL?"

I think it's a huge problem that crimes against teenage boys and pre-teen boys are not taken seriously. I blame the sexist and harmful attitude that men have to be tough, and that any man who admits to being a victim is not a real man.

Which is exactly my point.

Feminists buy heavily into that stereotype, considering how much time they spend protesting against men and all their 'macho chauvanism'.

No. Not against MEN, per se, against stereotypical "Macho Caveman" type thinking. That a real man has to be such and such, and if he's not, he's a sissy, or a "fag." (Even if he were the latter, there's certainly nothing wrong with that!). I'm not saying guys have to be New Agey-weepy wimps, but at the same time, we need to stop expecting EITHER gender to live up to some outdated roles.

Feminists aren't the only one saying this. How many men bash each other for being "pussy-whipped" or "not manly enough?" It's not just feminists. I'm talking about the macho, he-man stereotype that a lot of people-male and female, feel that men have to live up to, or they aren't "real men. Think of men who freak out when they find their 2 year old sons playing dolls with their sisters. We had a topic here about a boy who wanted to dress up as Dora the Explorer for Halloween, and the parents weren't going to let him, because that wouldn't be right. Several people said, "Well, he's a boy, he shouldn't dress up like no sissy girl!" or something to that affect. Can't we agree, that's just as wrong?

Novalyne

11-05-2005, 02:39 PM

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/punishing-rapists.html

Which is pretty much as I recalled it.

There are better statistics avaliable which separate out those rape complaints where the alleged attacker wasn't identified from those where the attacker was identified and questioned by the police. Those are even more shocking IIRC, with something like 75% of men being accused based on evidence insufficent to warrant prosecution and 75% of those who are prosecuted being convicted.

Even by the figures given above, of those men arrested for rape only 80% warrant further prosecution, and of that 80% only 58% result in conviction for rape. IOW only 46% of men arrested for rape are actually gulty of rape, the rest are innocent men. Allow that some proportion of those who aren't arrested will be accused but not warrant arrest, and another sizable portion will be accused but the accusation later withdrawn. I'm not going to do an in-depth search for figures to back up my claim of 75% falsely accused but it's hardly inconceivable.

But the precise figures are rather academic.

I think we can safely conclude that most of the people who cried rape were falsely accusing an innocent man, and around half of those who proceded to trial were accusing innocent men. After all we still assume anyone not proven guilty to a reasonable standard is innocent don't we?You have got to be joking.