# Conservative Dopers, please explain the concept of "FemiNazi" to me **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 16, 2003, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889 "2003-10-16T23:28:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2003, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/241 "2003-10-31T09:05:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CanvasShoes \* > \*\*You’re confusing LOUDNESS, PUBCLICITY, and NOTORIETY for majority. You’re seeing that those that are on display as claiming that they speak for all of us are either published, or perhaps a leader in some part of the movement or another. > > Doesn’t mean a thing, other than that THOSE particular women are a bit “teched”. 😃 \*\* No, catsix is not confusing anything. Catsix is noting widespread attitudes. You can see those sorts of intolerant and anti-male sentiments from the most recognized feminist leaders to the obscure message boards. If the majority opposes man-bashing, then where are the signs of that? Why isn’t there an equally loud and equally well-publicized voice for feminists who oppose man-bashing? How do these feminists sell so many books, teach so many courses, and influence so many laws, if no one supports them? ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2003, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/242 "2003-10-31T09:24:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CanvasShoes \* > **You’re wrong. You cannot possibly know what all of the several million feminists in the US think, or if they do, or do not “fit that definition”.** If feminists by millions of books containing anti-male, intolerant or alarmist polemics, we can pretty much know that millions of feminists are reading them. But let’s turn this around on you. Since this thread mentioned Rush Limbaugh (whom I’ve never listened to) in the first post, let’s use your argument: Have you listened to all of Limbaugh’s broadcasts? No? Then you can’t possibly know what he thinks. Have you talked to all of his listeners – every single last one of them? No? Then you can’t know how they think. You cannot know how millions of them think. You cannot make any statement about the beliefs of Limbaugh or his followers. Now have you ever made such statements about Limbaugh? If so, you need to start applying your standards to yourself. > [@](#): > > Again, do you know each and every one of the members of these groups, on a speaking basis to know that each and every one of them does in fact agree with their so-called leaders? Let’s keep this in mind in case she ever makes a generalized statement about Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Catholics, Baptists, Midwesterners or any group. Let’s make sure CanvasShoes has personally interviewed every Democrat in existence before speaking about what Democrats believe. ## quote: ## But why add her example to the “See? feminists hate all men” attitude? Why not simply chock it up to “yup another nutso”??? We keep seeing another nutso, and another nutso, and another nutso. What we don’t see are any established feminist organizations that actually oppose man-bashing. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, I don’t buy it. This WAS a class in an American University wasn’t it? You’re telling me that one assignment made you get a “D” unless you were willing to “sell out” which you said you “had” to do rather than flunk? Based on your description of the situation, she’s a bitch and a bad instructor. Things she could be withOUT benefit of being a feminist. > > You could have done things the “American” way, fought your rights all the way to the dean. That’s simple for you to say if you have never had a professor like that. I have had similar experiences. Believe me, colleges can be very ideological. And if your grade – and your future – are on the line, and there is no support anywhere when you go up against the entrenched faculty, are you going to chose to throw your future away to make a point? > [@](#): > > I also don’t mean to be “snarky” but since I am also an instructor at a university, I know that it takes more than one assignment to cause you to flunk a class. If you had a problem with this teacher, you could have dropped her class, or simply “coasted” and gotten a decent grade simply by giving her what she wanted to hear. Some instructors **do** grade that way. And out in the real world, where some people have to pay their own way through college, graduate and get jobs, we don’t have the luxury of cherry-picking our classes and paying for another semester. > [@](#): > > If she was that rabid, you must have known her attitudes well before an assignment that was close to the end of the semester and liable to affect your final grade. Oh, sheesh. Now we’re supposed to be mind readers and it’s our fault if we aren’t. (deleting more blame-the-victim mentality.) ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2003, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/243 "2003-10-31T12:09:59Z")
Uh, Andy? Quoting Robin Morgan does NOT serve as a cite. Period. All it does is show that Robin Morgan has that opinion. Are you fucking stupid? It does not prove anything except you’re paranoid and capable of extrapolating from one woman to a vast group of them. So, once again: Put up or shut up. All those bullet comments demand cites, Andy. And, really? It’s so pathetic the way you keep dodging around those statements. I guess you think that making yourself look stupid is the way to argue, but repeatedly tapdancing around a really simple question only indicates how little you’ve got to base your argument on. > [@](#): > > No, catsix is not confusing anything. Catsix is noting widespread attitudes Well, if you say so. After all, your research has thus far proven itself to be impeccable. > [@](#): > > Actually, margin isn’t interest in cites. I’ve provided them for many assertations and, you will note, I’ve asked her what other points she wishes citations for. She refuses to answer what she specifically wants cites for, she simply makes up something I never said and then says I didn’t supply a cite. In other words, she wants to derail discussion because she has no legitimate points to make. It’s fine by me, because I’ve backed up everything I’ve said, though I’m not about to back up things that are merely her invention of what I said Uh, dipshit? I’ve repeated myself at least **five fucking times.** You haven’t provided a cite yet. It’s really simple, and I’m not copying and pasting those bullet comments again. Provide a cite for those bullet comments. I’m sure you think that you’re a master debator, but you haven’t been able to support anything you’ve said. You’ve repeatedly generalized from thirty-year-old books to the present day, and stereotyped feminists based on a few radicals. When pressed for proof, you suddenly claim that citing fiction you’ve obviously never read (as **Lamia** proved all to well in your fiction thread) is relevant to a discussion of _reality._ > [@](#): > > It’s always fun to trot out Robin Morgan’s man-hating quote just to see how often margin will ignore it. > “I feel that “man-hating” is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” > > Now how does that not fit your definition of a cite, Margin? Morgan is one person, you fool. You made a whole host of bullet statements about feminism. You haven’t backed them up. Of course, if you really believe that one quote from one woman from thirty years ago really proves your point, you’re seriously paranoid and lack any concept of logic or reasoning comprehension. > [@](#): > > Granted you were misrepresenting what I said so you could attack the strawwomyn, but you claimed that the works I referred to existed only in my “fevered little imagination.” You also said: That does not, however, indicate that I denied the existance of what you call feminist utopian fiction. It does, however, show how desperate you are to avoid getting even close to proving your bullet statements. And as I mentioned earlier, **Lamia** has proven pretty conclusively that you’ve never read the books you’re bashing, and that none of them match your definition of it. You’re just making yourself look bad, the way you avoid the issue. You really can’t back up your statements, can you? I guess instead of ‘feminazi’ what we need is a snappy word for a ‘paranoid, feminist-bashing loser who makes shit up to stoke his fears.’ Oh, and you claimed that I denied the existance of feminist ficiton. That’s a lie, which makes your claims that you’re being lied about all the more amusing. I’ve quoted you. The way you twist to avoid answering direct questions would be amusing if it weren’t so pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/244 "2003-10-31T18:18:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Malacandra \* > \*\ ***SAL** , I was done with this thread, but I’ll check back in long enough to say: Go easy on **CanvasShoes** (not that she needs me to stick up for her). She’s made it abundantly clear that she finds man-hating feminists, whom she happily describes as “feminazis”, despicable and contemptible. > > Based on what she’s already said about Dworkin, I’m prepared to trust her opinion on the rest of 'em. \*\* Looks like a wolf in sheeps clothing to me. She’s determined to dismiss **catsix’s** experiences and to engage in denial of man-bashing. So she says she doesn’t agree with Dworkin? Fine. But that is not the same as actually taking a real-life opposition to Dworkin. ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2003, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/245 "2003-10-31T18:37:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by margin \* > \*\* I’m sorry, but the wrongfully-convicted cases have **what** to do with feminism? \*\* We’ve previousy discussed Brownmiller and her influential feminst work on rape. Brownmiller, as you will recall, said that rape was something that all men use to keep all women in fear. This was the start of the feminist campaign that all men were somehow guilty of or complicit in rape. These feminists fostered the mentality that **all** men were guilty. They created a climate of hysteria in which rape was said to be rampant, and that one out of three women would be sexually assualted in their lives (the exact figure kept changing to suit the rhetoric.) In this climate of fear and guilt, a lot of innocent men were sent to prison. Brownmiller is perhaps the most notorious of the rape hysteria leaders. But Gloria Steinem herself was active in promoting the belief that there were “satanic cults” active in daycare centers, etc. Steinem got involved in the witchhunt at McMartin Preschool, promoting among other things the belief that there was a secret underground chamber in which children were raped. Ms. Magazine ran a cover story showing a snake around an infant and the words “Satanic Cults? Believe It.” These feminists preached that all men were guilty, and that all women were in danger. Now put a man on trial facing that kind of mentality. The fact that Steinem to this day has not apologized for her role in the McMartin Preschool withhunt is particularly shameful. The fact that Brownmiller seems unfazed by men being cleared ten or twenty years after conviction is shameful. They created that climate of hysteria, as palpable as any anti-Semitic blood libel, yet they show no remose. That’s sad. > [@](#): > > Oh, that’s right. It’s obviously not the failure of the legal system for not instituting mandatory DNA testing in rape cases. No, it’s those damned feminists! These men went on trial at a time when DNA evidence either did not exist, was still primitive, or wasn’t available to them. What was available and widespread at the time was feminist hysteria over the “rape epidemic.” Today, rational thought has replaced Brownmillerian hysteria, and we see that many of these men are innocent. The city of Salem, Massachusetts repented its witch trials a few years after they occurred. I’ve never seen a feminist actually repent the rape hysteria that lead to the jailing and sometimes the execution of innocent men. I guess the big differences is that Salem showed that it was capable of possessing a moral conscience after the hysteria wore off. > [@](#): > > I’m still waiting for my cite about those bullet comments. And now you owe me for your claim about me denying there was such a thing as feminist fiction. > > \*\*Put up or shut up. \*\* Your own quotes on denial are already posted in two threads. I’ve already gone through the bulletted list. Is there any particular point on that list you would like to refute or have me back up further? Merely yelling “cite” is not refutation. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2003, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/246 "2003-10-31T18:39:09Z")
Just popped in to say what a fucking tool **Andy** is. His propagation of deceptive and willful ignorance the Feminist Utopian Fiction thread is the worst I’ve seen since december’s disappearance. Robin Morgan’s quote makes her sound like a psycho nutball; I’ll operate on the belief she is a psycho nutball until someone shows me otherwise. But her pyschosis no more reflects most of the feminists I’ve met than **Andy’s** psycho nutballness reflects most of the friendly males I’ve met. **Andy’s** analogy to reading Rush Limbaugh is intellectually bankrupt. Had I never read a single word written by the man, or watched a single of his shows, then sure, I’d be as unqualified to have an opinion on him as **Andy** is unqualified to have an opinion on feminist utopian fiction. However, I don’t have to have read his entire oeuvre or watched every one of his shows to have an opinion: the one and a half books I’ve read by him and the handful of shows I’ve seen by him are enough to let me say with reasonable confidence that the man is a shyster. Similarly, I haven’t read every feminist utopian fiction out there, but I’ve read a good half dozen or more of the better-known examples, and that’s enough for me to know that **Andy** doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about when he discusses common themes in the genre. I’ve taken to ignoring him in that thread, because what i have ot say to him is pitworthy. Shut your fucking trap, you fool, when you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. That’s all. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2003, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/247 "2003-10-31T18:50:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by margin \* > \*\*Uh, Andy? Quoting Robin Morgan does NOT serve as a cite. Period. All it does is show that Robin Morgan has that opinion. Are you fucking stupid? \*\* Really? Providing a cite from Morgan’s work is not a cite? What is your definition of a cite? > [@](#): > > It does not prove anything except you’re paranoid and capable of extrapolating from one woman to a vast group of them. A paranoid will see enemies where there aren’t any. Morgan, however, was very clear that she felt that man-hating was an honorable and justifiable act. Morgan may be one woman, but she edited Ms. Magazine and became a widley read author, and edited at least one book that became a staple of colleges women’s studies courses. She had a very big platform from which to spread the message that hating men is a good thing. Now let’s say that feminism is a vast group of women and many of them oppose man-hating. You should be able to find a lot of cites condemning Morgan’s anti-male attitudes. If so, then please list them here. In other words, cite? If Morgan did **not** reflect the common view of feminism, where are the feminists who objected to her hatred of men? Please cite them. Also, I’ve asked you several times to condemn Morgan’s support for man-hating. You have not. > [@](#): > > Uh, dipshit? I’ve repeated myself at least **five fucking times.** You haven’t provided a cite yet. It’s really simple, and I’m not copying and pasting those bullet comments again. I wish you would, though. I love seeing them repeated. And I will repeat the citations I’ve given, so that we all can be more amused at your repeated screams of “cite!” You realize that by repeating them, you aren’t refuting them. Margin, pick one item out of the bulletted list you want to discuss and I’ll back it up. That is, if you’re interested in honest discussion and not just derailing the discussion. > [@](#): > > Provide a cite for those bullet comments. I’m sure you think that you’re a master debator, No, what I think is that you’re just jerking off. > [@](#): > > but you haven’t been able to support anything you’ve said. You’ve repeatedly generalized from thirty-year-old books to the present day, and stereotyped feminists based on a few radicals. If they were the “radicals,” please quote us from the moderates – the ones who opposed anti-male hatred. > [@](#): > > Morgan is one person, you fool. That’s margin – the Mobius strip of posters. > [@](#): > > I guess instead of ‘feminazi’ what we need is a snappy word for a ‘paranoid, feminist-bashing loser who makes shit up to stoke his fears.’ I suppose those innocent men sent to prison must have needed something like that to pass the time, eh? ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2003, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/248 "2003-10-31T19:16:05Z")
## quote: ## Originally posted by CanvasShoes He doesn’t with that posting, but he certainly DOES do so with his “feminists desire a society in which men are not a part” (paraphrased) post. > [@](#): > > It is advisable for you to not put invented quotes into quotation marks. What part of PARAPHRASED don’t you understand? Your actual quote is on page 4 a few times and perhaps on this page as well. At any rate, my quote is a shortened version of what you actually DID post. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2003, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/249 "2003-10-31T19:48:58Z")
## quote: Originally posted by Malacandra SAL, I was done with this thread, but I’ll check back in long enough to say: Go easy on CanvasShoes (not that she needs me to stick up for her). She’s made it abundantly clear that she finds man-hating feminists, whom she happily describes as “feminazis”, despicable and contemptible. ## Based on what she’s already said about Dworkin, I’m prepared to trust her opinion on the rest of 'em. > [@](#): > > Looks like a wolf in sheeps clothing to me. > > She’s determined to dismiss catsix’s experiences and to engage in denial of man-bashing. So she says she doesn’t agree with Dworkin? Fine. But that is not the same as actually taking a real-life opposition to Dworkin. I’m not dismissing **catsix’s** experiences at all, and stated such in most of my posts. And for the record, as an instructor I was appalled at his teacher’s actions and attitudes, and thought her extremely incompetent, and SAID so. Secondly. What consitutes a “real-life” opposition to the dworkins/feminazis of the movement? Do YOU take “real-life” opposition to them? You obviously can’t or won’t read a person’s post past or more in-depth than that which you can use as fuel to allow yourself more sulking and fit-throwing fodder. From the very beginning post I madein this thread, I said that I opposed the attitudes of Mackinnon, and others like her. Not being a young, set in my ways college woman with feminazi leanings, I haven’t read much from these women. You asked earlier, if so many women (who may, or may not be feminists or feminazis) DON’T believe them, then why do their books sell? Well HELL, it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the answer to that one. I don’t plan on murdering anyone, nor do most “normal” people, but “Helter Skelter” sold (and still sells) pretty well. I’m not a communist, nor are many Americans, but Marx’s manifesto is a pretty good seller still. I tried to explain this before, but you apparently didn’t read far enough to see it. A person doesn’t have to agree with EVERYTHING another person says to still be interested in the basic subject. For instance. I’m a fitness instructor. There are a lot of publicized and published “fitness professionals” out there, from Atkins to Dr. Phil. Most of these fellow fitness instructors have pretty similar and good information. But some of their information IMHO, is not helpful or “good” information. Still, I’ll buy a book out of interest, or to see what they have to say. Doesn’t mean I’m a diehard Atkins or Dr. Phil Convert. Again, I’M not claiming to know the minds of these women at all. And that’s PRECISELY my point. NO ONE does, and certainly not you. So, you can’t just arbitrarily go around making huge sweeping generalizations. Which brings me to your comment to me (paraphrased, hope you’ve figured out the meaning of that word by now), of "hope you don’t generalize on democrats etc. I hope I don’t also. I try not to. But in the case that I DO make a blanket statement about a specific group, I won’t be surprised at all to see someone, likely SEVERAL someone’s call me on it. Which is what is happening to you in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2003, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/250 "2003-10-31T20:09:26Z")
Yawn. Andy avoids providing a cite yet again. What a surprise! ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2003, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/251 "2003-10-31T20:22:49Z")
## quote: ## but you haven’t been able to support anything you’ve said. You’ve repeatedly generalized from thirty-year-old books to the present day, and stereotyped feminists based on a few radicals. > [@](#): > > If they were the “radicals,” please quote us from the moderates – the ones who opposed anti-male hatred. Well, 2 or 3 of us have made SEVERAL posts in this thread that you’re more than welcome to quote. Otherwise, see, here’s you’re problem. Because those women/feminsts who do NOT support the “anti-man” platform are (according to you, I don’t know since I don’t follow this subject with a great deal of interest, til your silly posts), not published, they hence are not “opposed” or in disagreement to it. Again, I’ll (attempt to) post my analogy of George Bush. A lot of Americans are opposed to his dealings in Iraq. Do you doubt this because they’re not published? In other words, what is it that you so desparately need as proof, in order for you to see that there are non-hating feminists so that you can have your mind set at ease that not all of us are of the “make men disappear, or become oppressed yadda yadda” agenda? You keep pounding this "but none of you are opposing this “real-life” etc. What would constitute “real life” opposition to you? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2003, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/252 "2003-10-31T21:09:10Z")
It is absurd to suggest that the decent feminists are not published. Look at bell hooks: > [@](#): > > As all advocates of feminist politics know most people do not understand sexism or if they do they think it is not a problem. Masses of people think that feminism is always and only about women seeking to be equal to men. And a huge majority of these folks think feminism is anti-male. Their misunderstanding of feminist politics reflects the reality that most folks learn about feminism from patriarchal mass media. or Hillary Rodham Clinton: > [@](#): > > There cannot be true democracy unless women’s voices are heard. There cannot be true democracy unless women are given the opportunity to take responsibility for their own lives. There cannot be true democracy unless all citizens are able to participate fully in the lives of their country. or Charlotte Perkins Gilman: > [@](#): > > There should be an end to the bitterness of feeling which has arisen between the sexes in this century. or Margaret Atwood: > [@](#): > > Does feminist mean large unpleasant person who’ll shout at you or someone who believes women are human beings. To me it’s the latter, so I sign up. or Anna Quindlen: > [@](#): > > It’s important to remember that feminism is no longer a group of organizations or leaders. It’s the expectations that parents have for their daughters, and their sons, too. It’s the way we talk about and treat one another. It’s who makes the money and who makes the compromises and who makes the dinner. It’s a state of mind. It’s the way we live now. or Betrand Russell: > [@](#): > > For my part I distrust all generalizations about women, favorable and unfavorable, masculine and feminine, ancient and modern; all alike, I should say, result from paucity of experience. Sure, you can focus on feminist dolts, but the feminist geniuses are out there, and eloquent, and often working toward progressive social issues in general. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2003, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/253 "2003-11-01T06:52:58Z")
> [@](#): > > ## \*Originally posted by cowgirl \* \*\*Andy: will you retract this statement: quote: > > ## and the clear lack of any self-identified feminist in condemning anti-male attitudes. > > I am a feminist. I condemn anti-male attitudes.\*\* First, I can’t respond to a partial quote. You will have to give me the entire context. Second, I’ll be glad to look at any letter to the editor you have sent protesting male-bashing, or any resolution you have drafted objecting to anti-male propaganda by feminists, or any similar, public and verifiable opposition you have registered to anti-male attitudes. Once proved with that, I will gladly retract my comment, though I would still like to see the full context of it. ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2003, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/254 "2003-11-01T07:24:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CanvasShoes \* > **Secondly. What consitutes a “real-life” opposition to the dworkins/feminazis of the movement? Do YOU take “real-life” opposition to them?** You bet your sweet ass I do. > [@](#): > > You asked earlier, if so many women (who may, or may not be feminists or feminazis) DON’T believe them, then why do their books sell? Well HELL, it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the answer to that one. > > I don’t plan on murdering anyone, nor do most “normal” people, but “Helter Skelter” sold (and still sells) pretty well. Yes, Helter Skelter was written by the attorney who opposed and prosecuted the Manson family. It wasn’t Manson’s own manifesto. So what is your point? Are you seriously arguing that people by books by Robin Morgan, Dworkin, Brownmiller, et al, because they oppose them? Are you saying “The Feminine Mystique” sold so well because people were horrified by the actions described in it? Really? > [@](#): > > I’m not a communist, nor are many Americans, but Marx’s manifesto is a pretty good seller still. Actually, I doubt it is. But if you’re arguing that “Das Kapital” doesn’t sway anyone anymore, you don’t know your leftists. > [@](#): > > Still, I’ll buy a book out of interest, or to see what they have to say. Doesn’t mean I’m a diehard Atkins or Dr. Phil Convert. But some are. And they get that way through the books, don’t they? There are some pretty fanatical Dr. Atkinsers out there. So how many feminists do you find it acceptable to become Dworkin and Brownmiller converts? ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2003, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/255 "2003-11-01T07:35:35Z")
> [@](#): > > ## \*Originally posted by CanvasShoes \* \*\*quote: quote: > > I note your sarcasm in putting quotation marks around _not guilty._ As if it is unheard of that a man could actually be not guilty! So your post is in itself a pretty good cite of the attitudes spawned by Brownmiller and other fomenters of the all-men-are-rapist school of thought. > > * * * > > That would be YOU putting thoughts and opinions on this as if I had said them. No, I put quotation marks around it as a common technical writing practice meaning: I PERSONALLY don’t know the facts on this, so I’m not going to state it as fact until I do. > > You’re so ready to assume that a woman is “against” believing anything good about a man that you INFERRED that meaning from my sentence. Remember, we’re typing here. We can’t see each other’s expressions or hear each other’s voices. The arguments, questions and requests I’ve been making are all very matter of fact. > > \*\* As a matter of fact, CanvasShoes is an “intelligent” poster. She believes she is “charming.” She says that she is “opposed” to man-bashing. She says her beliefs are “sincere.” She says that we can “trust” her. > [@](#): > > If so, your using it to “prove” your point that women think all men are rapists is inefficient. If it is, then shame on those that wrote it. I don’t think all men are rapists. I don’t think all women think all men are rapists. I do know that important feminists have painted all men as rapists. > [@](#): > > Re the quotation marks around “not guilty” asked and answered above. As to your complaint about cites, you’ve been on this board long enough to know that saying “this is common knowledge” is NOT acceptable as a cite. No, but it an indication that the information is freely available. It is accessible, however, only to people who are interested in seeing it. > [@](#): > > Just, IF you post a statement as fact, you WILL be called on to back it up. Margin is simply screaming “cite” at entire posts. I’ve offered again and again to expand on any particular point. She refuses to say what one she doesn’t understand. In other words, she’s not debating, she’s derailing. > [@](#): > > (On rape hysteria sending innocent men to prison.)It was the NOW organization that falsely accused them? And then sat on the Jury, and then decided their sentence? So what you are saying is that you could whip up a frenzy of paranoia against Japanese-Americans, and then your hands are perfectly clean if somebody _else_ inters them. > [@](#): > > ABSOLUTELY, and if you’d READ any of my other posts, you would have seen that I did that some time ago. I think she and her type are nuts. And I HEARTILY disagree with the idea of lessening in any way the amount of men we have in society. Good. But I still see you running an awful lot of interference for the anti-male feminists, and it leads me to honestly wonder what your motives are? > [@](#): > > What, however, does that have to do with my assertion that no matter WHAT she considers to be “feminism” is NOT speaking for all feminists, and not even **necessarily** speaking for all NOW members??? What catsix and I both want (but don’t expect) are demonstrations that major feminist organizations actually _oppose_ anti-male polices. We’ve noted plenty of examples of anti-male feminists. Then we have to note the absence of any organized group that in any ways overs any serious opposition to man-bashing. So we see that anti-male hatred is widespread and accepted. And we really don’t see much opposition to it other than people coming on to message boards and saying “I oppose it.” Well, if they do, then how could it be so prevelent and unchecked? So many say they oppose it, yet in real life we see so little actual opposition. It might just be that the feminists who don’t hold anti-male attitudes are the ones who are in the minority, marginalized and out of power in the movement. > [@](#): > > We’re NOT advocating what those women have done. Period. You keep trying to equate our saying “all feminists aren’t bad and this small group IS” with us agreeing with what they’ve done. Why is it that the popular impression of feminists is of widespread anti-male attitudes? You say it’s a small group. But the feminists who are out on the streets, or in the universities, or in feminist groups who actuall oppose man-bashing – they seem small to the point of non-existence. > [@](#): > > A shame really. If you’d calm down a second you just might see you have people who are actually agreeing with you. You’re just too busy trying to find something to jump on to see that. I’m calm, but when feminists say they oppose man-bashing, I’m entirely skeptical. And believe me, I’ve earned a right to be. We see feminist organizations run by some very anti-male feminists. Then we see other feminists who claim they don’t support man-bashing. But they put all their energies into fighting a charge of man-bashing instead of actually doing anything about the man-bashing. From my experience, the skepticism is honestly, sincerely and entirely well-earned. You haven’t earned the right to say you oppose man-bashing until you can actually show me something you did to oppose man-bashing. Fair? ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2003, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/256 "2003-11-01T07:42:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > **Just popped in to say what a fucking tool Andy is. His propagation of deceptive and willful ignorance the Feminist Utopian Fiction thread is the worst I’ve seen since december’s disappearance.** Oh, is it now? Well, speaking of deception, can you explain this, Daniel? In one spot on that thread you claim to have read “somewhat widely in the field,” and then it was pointed out that you said you actually had read about six books! (Y’see folks, that’s why Daniel is unleashing the profanity. He hasn’t offered to explain the discrepency either. Boy, is he sore. I love it.) > [@](#): > > I’ve taken to ignoring him in that thread, because what i have ot say to him is pitworthy. Shut your fucking trap, you fool, when you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. > > That’s all. > > Daniel So, you’ve posted _somewhat widely_ on this thread, haven’t you? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2003, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/257 "2003-11-01T08:05:18Z")
> [@](#): > > ## \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* **It is absurd to suggest that the decent feminists are not published. Look at bell hooks:** > > ## And a huge majority of these folks think feminism is anti-male. Their misunderstanding of feminist politics reflects the reality that most folks learn about feminism from patriarchal mass media. Yes, let’s look at her saying that feminism’s reputation for anti-male attitudes is _someone else’s faulty._ And that feminists are victims of the patriarchy. > [@](#): > > or Hillary Rodham Clinton: Oh, now _there’s_ a voice of intergrity! > [@](#): > > or Charlotte Perkins Gilman: (cough, sputter) _Charlotte frickin Perkins Gilman?_ The racist? Good lord, are you **serious?** Tell me you’re kidding or that someone hacked your account and logged on as you. Charlotte Perkins Gilman! Great God in heaven. Where to start? Here’s what a fellow feminist has to say about Gilman: Curiously, neither those feminists credited with the discovery/recovery of Gilman’s writings in the 1970s, nor more pressingly, the vast majority of those who have recently written on Gilman, have noted the centrality of racialized reproductive thinking to her feminism, or her express concern with women’s role in creating a “pure” national genealogy. … this article … excavates Gilman’s racism and nativism, while simultaneously tracking the persistent celebration of her feminism by her readers. … in Gilman’s substantial corpus, genealogy emerges as her lifelong obsession; her belief in women’s reproductive role in crafting the proper (white) national genealogy was an enduring component of her feminism. … Women’s work is not solely in the home, Gilman argued, but also in building a better society and ultimately reproducing a racially “pure” nation. [Feminist Studies](http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0300/2_27/78392712/p1/article.jhtml?term=scholarly+genealogy) Or this: ["Charlotte Perkins Gilman:](http://www.uiowa.edu/uiowapress/rudchaper.htm) Optimist Reformer looks at Gilman’s legacy for women at the end of the twentieth century; in doing so its contributors reassess both her reformist ideas and our own views on fin de siècle feminism. Gilman scholarship has indeed moved on from the much needed recovery of her work to more critical treatments that allow us to acknowledge elements now regarded as unacceptable. As a result, the essayists here reappraise Gilman and her writings in ways that directly address hithertofore overlooked points, **such as her racism, her almost willful disregard of issues of class,** and her broadly essentialist view of women." Way to prove your point about decent feminists being published, Daniel. You’re siding with a racist. > [@](#): > > ## or Margaret Atwood: > > ## Does feminist mean large unpleasant person who’ll shout at you or someone who believes women are human beings. To me it’s the latter, so I sign up. Way to go, Maggie. Taking a firm stand against people who said women weren’t human beings. All two of them. This quote has nothing about Atwood condemning man-bashing, though. Besides, she still hasn’t atoned for “Surfacing.” > [@](#): > > or Anna Quindlen: Oh, you mean the New York Times columnist who said " “It’s not that I don’t like men; women are just better.” That Anna Quindlen, Daniel? > [@](#): > > or Betrand Russell: Good for you, for getting a man in there who opposed stereotypes. Now if you could just find some feminists who do. > [@](#): > > Sure, you can focus on feminist dolts, but the feminist geniuses are out there, and eloquent, and often working toward progressive social issues in general. > > Daniel Like Gilman working for a white nation – is that what you mean, Daniel? I do believe that you have _somewhat widely_ made a fool of yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2003, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/258 "2003-11-01T08:12:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CanvasShoes \* > **Again, I’ll (attempt to) post my analogy of George Bush. A lot of Americans are opposed to his dealings in Iraq. Do you doubt this because they’re not published?** Actually, you can easily find a lot of published condemnations of Bush. However, if the only place you could find criticism of Bush was on a few message boards, you’d conclude that those views are the views of the fringe. If you wish to compare feminists who condemn man-bashing with the number of people who condemn Bush – why, there must be an awful lot of published sources on that. All I’m asking is to see your sources for feminists who condemn man-bashing. And if all you can cite are a few posting on a message board, well, that view looks pretty marginalized. > [@](#): > > You keep pounding this "but none of you are opposing this “real-life” etc. > > What would constitute “real life” opposition to you? Real life. Not on the message boards. Actual actions that you can cite. Published letters, books by feminists who condemn man-bashing, platforms adopted by feminist organizations condeming man-bashing. Actual acts, not lip service. I’ll look at anything and everything you cite. ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2003, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/259 "2003-11-01T10:29:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Margin is simply screaming “cite” at entire posts. I’ve offered again and again to expand on any particular point. She refuses to say what one she doesn’t understand. In other words, she’s not debating, she’s derailing. Uh, fuckwad? I’ve quoted you six fucking times. \*\* Either you really are that fucking stupid, or you know you can’t back up what you need to present a source for.\*\* You’ve never offered one single source for your allegations against feminism except for whining about thirty-year-old quotes. \*\*Put up or shut up, Andy. \*\* Are you going for a record in being obtuse? **Miller** demolished you pretty effectively in your Cafe Society thread, which is based upon this one. And you haven’t proven a single point in this one either, unless your whole purpose was to demonstrate how **not** to debate. **I do believe that you have somewhat widely made a fool of yourself.** Yeah, because not reading a book and then criticizing it for stuff it doesn’t contain is _such_ a sign of intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2003, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889/260 "2003-11-01T10:31:56Z")
**Way to prove your point about decent feminists being published, Daniel. You’re siding with a racist.** Daniel appears to have read the books in question, Andy. You have not. Oops, moderators, I forgot which thread I was in. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-please-explain-the-concept-of-feminazi-to-me/207889.md?page=14)