Damned double post.
I know that NOW is the largest feminist organization in the U.S. I know that their platform, which their membership supports by paying dues and being part of that membership, does not meet the dictionary definition you posted. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Why do you insist upon identifying people as feminists for them?
I am not a feminist, no matter what you say. The working definition of feminist is too damned far removed from the dictionary definition for me to ever be associated with that word.
Amazing how you are starting to sound like one of those ‘either you’re a feminist or part of the problem’ people.
Wait, no it isn’t.
Those groups elect leaders who put in place the statements of the organizational mission. They authorize their leadership to speak for them, and to press those ideologies. They support ideas that suck.
No human being wants to have less rights and less pay than someone else for doing an equal job. That doesn’t require a special word applied to them by you. It’s covered fairly well under being human.
You bet your ass I know women who not only would agree to it, they demand it. They demand special consideration for jobs, in family courts, when it comes to alimony, child support, taking time off from work to do things like go to their kid’s school play or being able to take years out of their careers while not losing any seniority although they’re not actively working on the same projects everyone else is. They flat out fucking insist on different standards from men. They want to be ‘more equal’.
One, don’t put words in my mouth or assume you know how I’ll answer a question. Two, human beings generally want to be treated fairly. It has nothing to do with being a feminist and everything to do with being human.
What human would? Are the men who wouldn’t want to be paid less than a woman for the same job feminists? Masculinists? Or are they just human beings like everyone else who wants a fair shake in the world?
Don’t have to. They’ve authorized their leaders to speak on their behalf, and if they really disagreed, they’d quit paying the mouthpieces.
There were exactly two grades for the semester in that class. One fifty page term paper, and one final exam. I was originally given a D on the paper, and told that I would find it costly if I were to question publicly the professor’s grading criteria. As it was, failing that paper would’ve meant I could at best obtain 50% of the total grade for the course - which is still an F.
Well that really depends on how many assignments your final grade consists of, doesn’t it?
I knew the professor’s views. I also believed that like other professors who had very strongly held beliefs I disagreed with that they wouldn’t be a factor in grading an objective course.
And so you label every woman a feminist in order to try to support your own point? What a bullshit tactic.
I believe I already asked people not to call me ‘sweetie’. And as for the rest of this comment, you might as well say ‘Some of my best friends are black. I can’t be racist.’
Wow, now you’re condescending because you think you know how old I am. You at one point had some of my respect in this thread. You’re rapidly losing it. I have no reason to trust you or to discount my experiences in life because you matronizingly say ‘TRUST ME’.
quote:
CanvasShoes said:
You’re wrong. You cannot possibly know what all of the several million feminists in the US think, or if they do, or do not “fit that definition”.
Again, if all the members of NOW do indeed follow the beliefs that you’ve posted regarding man-hating etc. Then they are Feminazis. NOT FeminISTS.
Also, how many women belong to the NOW organization? 10,000? 100,000? I don’t know, but we’ve repeatedly asked YOU for cites to prove your assertions that they speak for feminists.
No, you dont’ say “all” feminists. But saying “feminists” is exactly the same as saying “Blacks” do thus and such (negative activity).
Talk about obtuse, you seem to be deliberately not understanding that I am saying that it DOES NOT MATTER that this group has decided upon their own definitions and agendas for feminism.
That does NOT change the orignal meaning, nor does it change the fact that most women who are feminists (and by the dictionary definition most grown working American women are) are in the majority, NOT organizations like NOW.
quote:
Technically, the largest active group of feminists are NOT those in NOW, or Ms. Mag (I didn’t even know that Mag was still around). But in your every day "woman on the street.
I’m not. The dictionary does.
quote:
I didn’t slap any label on you. Please see ABOVE where I cut and pasted from Dictionary.com. If that is what you believe, you are. TECHNICALLY a feminist. Or would you prefer to go back to the days of “don’t worry your pretty little head about it”? Or, “why are you out here? Where is your husband, how come he doesn’t take care of you” (a question I was actually ASKED, while on the job in a male dominated field).
I’m not calling you a feminist. I’m stating that a woman who fulfills the beliefs and actions of the dictionary meaning is one, by definition. Do you not understand the difference between ME saying it, and it being TECHNICALLY true?
What? You CAN read right? I have repeatedly tried to explain this, as simply as possible. We have already established that some of the NOW type people have distorted the word. That they have done so doesn’t change the meaning of the word. It only means that they’ve started a spinoff culture.
Again, similar to my analogy of the “Black Panthers” and black people.
???
quote:
Again, since you do not know every member of the so-called “large mainstream (??? says who?) feminist lobby groups”, you do not know that the outspoken and publicized weirdos do in fact speak for them.
Really? So, all of we Americans are staunch supporters in EVERYTHING that George Bush does and says?
quote:
I’m not calling anyone anything. Again, I’m speaking TECHNICALLY. Unless these women would happily agree to take less pay, and have fewer/lesser rights than their male counterparts, TECHNICALLY by DEFINITION they ARE feminists.
[/quote]
No human being wants to have less rights and less pay than someone else for doing an equal job. That doesn’t require a special word applied to them by you. It’s covered fairly well under being human.
[/quote]
Sigh. I’m NOT the one who applied the word. I’m saying that there is a word, in place, in the dictionary that defines what feminism is.
If you (collective you, not YOU you, maybe that’s why you got so mad before, sorry I should have clarified), fulfill the definition of a label you are, by definition (NOT because I said so) that “thing” whatever it might be.
quote:
Oh, reeeeaaaally? (perplexed, not sarcastic). So, let’s say you personally know, enough to speak with and know of their lives and lifestyles, about a hundred women. Of those women, do you know any that would agree to be treated by a different standard than their male counterparts?
Then those are not feminists. Again, by dictionary and technical definition they do NOT fit that definition. They are many things, including selfish inconsiderate people, but by definition they are NOT “feminists”
Regardless, you misunderstood my question. Do you know any women who would go BACKWARDS. And be willing to not receive equal treatment and equal pay etc??
quote:
No? Okay then. By the accepted and technical definition of the word, those women ARE feminists. That they don’t fit the CRAZIES’ definition does NOT make them less so.
I’m not “putting words in your mouth” hence the question marks after the word no, in other words “Would you say no”?? if so, here is the reply.
And again, you’re not understanding that I’m not defending either position either way, regarding feminism OR feminazism. I’m trying to make clear to you that the word feminism refers to a specific set of practices and beliefs.
If a person took a word, (any word, say chef to use a, hopefully, neutral word), and decided that he/she was going to start a movement to change and bastardize that word for his/her own use and the use of that movement. It doesn’t matter how strongly they voiced their opinions in books and on Jerry Springer, or Oprah, the ORIGINAL and TECHNICAL meaning of the word, would still be the actual meaning. And people fitting THAT definition would be the actual chefs. Not those who made mud pies or something.
quote:
There are millions of women in this country. Do you know of, or have you seen ANY on the census information who would willingly accept being paid less for the same job, or who would accept getting lesser treatment under the law?
Asked and answered above.
quote:
Again, do you know each and every one of the members of these groups, on a speaking basis to know that each and every one of them does in fact agree with their so-called leaders?
Again, soooooo…That means that every American believes wholeheartedly and without reservation in what G. Dubya has to say on our behalf?
quote:
I’m sorry, I don’t buy it. This WAS a class in an American University wasn’t it? You’re telling me that one assignment made you get a “D” unless you were willing to “sell out” which you said you “had” to do rather than flunk? Based on your description of the situation, she’s a bitch and a bad instructor. Things she could be withOUT benefit of being a feminist.
Bolding mine. This sounds highly suspicious and unethical, I’ve never heard of an instructor able to get away with this sort of thing! Have you since turned her in? That’s absolutely heinous! I hope you have. That’s positively communist! Telling a student they not only don’t have a right to discuss the reasons for their grades, but that if they dare to, that they will pay??? UUGGGH, infuriated for you.
quote:
I also don’t mean to be “snarky” but since I am also an instructor at a university, I know that it takes more than one assignment to cause you to flunk a class.
This is astonishing. The teacher’s entire grading criteria were based on two assignments? 50% each? I thought it was pretty much a standard thing to have a range of 4 or 5 criteria for grading. At our college the instructors are required to grade for:
Attendance
Participation
Assignments
Tests
Quizzes and Misc
quote:
If she was that rabid, you must have known her attitudes well before an assignment that was close to the end of the semester and liable to affect your final grade. If one assignment was enough to put your final grade into the D category, she must have had it in for you all semester. You would have had more luck to have fought her from the get go, or have dropped her class.
My point is that you had a right to expect the instructor to keep his/her views OUT of the grading process and to grade for content, skill, ability etc PERIOD. This is a whole 'nother thread, but I’m aghast. Also based on your anger and frustration at your treatment at the hands of women like this, why on EARTH did you let her get away with it??
Surely this university would have backed you up?
quote:
This is what I’m trying to tell you, that most feminsts aren’t IN some organization, they’re just ordinary women, working and living, like the rest of the humans.
No. I’m saying that women that fulfill the definition of feminists ARE feminists. Good grief. Again, talk about obtuse.
If they do NOT act and believe according to the dictionary definition of feminist then they aren’t. But I don’t know of too many women today who would go back to what we put up with in the 70s and earlier, do you?
quote:
Well sweetie (said in an honestly kind way, NOT a condescending one). If you want to believe that I don’t harbor anti-male view, I suggest you wander over to IMHO, and see some of my posts about boyfriends and sex etc.
I’m old. I’ve earned the right to call people sweetie and honey. 
Seriously, I am earnestly hurting for you and in what you’ve gone through.
Also, I answered your question of "some of the women in this post are posting anti male sentiments (paraphrased) period. I certainly wasn’t saying this as an “some of my best friends are black” statement.
I put my money where my mouth is. A co-worker and friend of mine has spent the last almost 2 years going through a heinous divorce, in which this woman first accused him of abuse. And it just went downhill from there. Alaska laws regarding abuse are ridiculous, but not slanted toward females. The way it works here is that, no matter WHO you are, if the other person is the first one to get to court and file a restraining order, unless you can come up with the money to hire a good attorney, what they ask for in the restraining order, the stupid judges pretty much award.
I went to every court date with this poor guy, because he isn’t very skilled in writing and such, I wrote out his concerns and complaints and counter documents. I got his judge replaced, and helped him every step of the way.
I took time off of work to do this. The woman, his ex-wife was purely in the wrong. She pulled every vindictive trick in the book to “make him pay”. I don’t believe she falls under the dictionary definition of a feminist though. She very much believes, or demonstrated that she believes, that the man should take care of the woman.
So no, I’m not just paying lip service to how I consider men.
quote:
Honestly, it sounds to me as if you’re fairly young, and have been burned by some rather mean and nasty man haters. TRUST me, those types have been around for centuries, feminism or no feminism.
No, I’m saying “it sounds to me…” in other words, based on your posts, and the things in them, such as you still being in college. If you are a fairly old person who has just recently been in college, my apologies. The reason that I say “you sound young” is NOT because that’s supposed to mean “and therefore you can’t handle it”. It means, IN PART, “and perhaps part of your experiences are so concentrated in the college environment etc that they DO consist of more than their fair share of feminazis rather than normal feminISTS”.
I don’t see it too much in the university where I teach, but then Alaskans tend to be a bit different.
I am a matron, got two kids, one full grown, one teenaged boy. But seriously, I don’t say “trust me” because of MY experiences, sorry for not clarifying, but I say “trust me” to mean “just look at history” and at all the manipulative bitches who, WELL before the definition of feminism was ever thought of, were horrible, man-hating, baby-killing, bossy, selfish, evil people.
Look, you’re “shooting the messenger”. I am NOT “for” FemiNAZISM. Which is what, with the NOW leaders and such, you are describing here, NOT feminism.
You do not get to decide for ‘most grown working American women’ as to whether they’re a feminist or not. When will that message finally sink in with you? I don’t give a flying fuck what the dictionary says. You don’t get to slap a highly subjective label onto someone just because you think it fits. If someone thinks that label fits them, then they can damn well apply it themselves.
The dictionary does no such thing. It provides a denotation of a highly subjective word describing a philosophy some people subscribe to and others do not. Those people will decide for themselves whether they fit both the denotation of the word and the connotation of the word.
It most certainly doesn’t say ‘the majority of grown up women in America’, nor does it list names. You’re contorting that to fit your beliefs about what philosophies people subscribe to. That’s not your call to make.
It is not technically true because with something such as a political ideology or philosophy, the denotation of the word isn’t the only thing that carries weight. It’s not a binary issue with discrete sides where people are either in one category or the other, no matter how much you wish to strictly apply a couple of lines from Merriam-Webster or whoever the hell wrote the dictionary onto people’s beleifs. The dictionary doesn’t decide who’s a feminist, no matter how much you wish it did.
That’s your opinion. I don’t think there’s much at all I agree with you on. I do think the NOW type people changed the meaning of the word feminist. Regardless of what the dictionary says, if you go out and ask 100 random strangers what ‘feminist’ means, the vast majority of them are going to tell you it means the things they see it in daily life to mean. That’s the way language works.
No. Which is entirely because it’s extremely difficult for those who disagree with the leadership to just up and leave the US and renounce American citizenship, but it’s very, very easy to leave a political organization one has voluntarily joined.
Comparing someone’s citizenship to their membership in a lobby group is absurd.
They fit the definition of feminist that applies in common usage.
I didn’t misunderstand you. I considered your question bullshit. Women want to be treated like humans, therefore they’re feminist? You’re really stretching now. Is everyone who wants to be treated like a human being a something-ist?
You did it because you thought you’d painted me into a corner where you could look really smart. You failed.
How a word is used in the common language is far more important to its meaning than what’s printed in the dictionary. If that weren’t the case, the dictionary would never change.
I went to a university. Professors were expected to be able to think for themselves in terms of how to grade their courses. Most were fair, some were not, and some of them even based the entire semester grade on a single project.
I didn’t believe they would. I believed I would have been painted as, at the very least, attacking feminists and at the very worst as a misogynist because I refused to agree to that particular view. I’d already seen it too many times before: disagree with a self-avowed femnist, get called a misogynist. I learned to never push a view that could possibly be construed as ‘attacking a victim or oppressed group.’ because someone will smear you for it.
I thought you weren’t applying labels to people and telling them whether they were feminists or not. Now you say you are applying the feminist label to people if you think it fits them. If, in your opinion they fit the defintion of feminism that you accept. It’s still not up to you.
I don’t want your sympathy, I didn’t ask for sympathy, and I don’t want you calling me sweetie or honey. I brought up my Law and Politics class as an example, not so you’d ‘feel’ for me. This is a debating thread, and I’m not interested in sympathy here.
I am not ‘still in college’, and never said that I was. I discussed an incident that happened when I was in college, and that occurred years ago. I post one example of a college course and it causes you to think my experiences are concentrated solely in college? You jump to a lot of conclusions. I could go with examples from jobs too, if you want. I’m trying to condense since my posts are kind of long.
Well, I’m sorry, but I think feminazism took over feminism some time ago.
quote:
CanvasShoes said:
That does NOT change the orignal meaning, nor does it change the fact that most women who are feminists (and by the dictionary definition most grown working American women are) are in the majority, NOT organizations like NOW.
<---------Bangs head on desk.
I. Am NOT “slapping the label” on anyone. I’m saying that the defnition of feminism already exists. And that which is practiced by the NOW type people is NOT feminism.
When they replace the dictionary definition with one describing what is now happening, then you can say that the NOW people are feminists. They currently are NOT. Again, this is what this thread title was asking.
The NOW organization consists of femiNAZIS.
quote:
I’m not. The dictionary does.
You’re completely misunderstanding what I’m saying.
I am not applying labels to anyone. I’m saying that the defnitions exist. If a person acts and believes according to the definition then they are, TECHNICALLY, that item.
Not “according to Shoes”, but TECHNICALLY. No, it’s NOT up to me, or anyone else to say. But, again, I’m speaking completely and purely from a definition and technical standpoint.
quote:
I’m not calling you a feminist. I’m stating that a woman who fulfills the beliefs and actions of the dictionary meaning is one, by definition. Do you not understand the difference between ME saying it, and it being TECHNICALLY true?
You’re getting it backwards. You’re thinking that I’m saying that the dictionary somehow determines peoples beliefs and actions. No, I am NOT saying that. Of COURSE any particular person decides upon his or her own actions.
Once he or she does this, and those actions and beliefs fall under a specific defnition, that person is then defined as that “thing,” in this case feminists.
If a person joins the military, he “swears in”. He is then a patriot. By definition of what he swore too. No one made that decision for him, not me, not you, no one. BUT, once he took on that definition of himself by swearing in, and swearing to uphold those rights to the American people that IS what he became.
No one “made” him do it. He/she became that by definition of what he/she now practices and believes.
Otherwise, you’re contradicting yourself. You’ve decided that the mere belonging to the NOW organization means that any woman fitting THAT description is automatically one of those man-hating amazon wannabes.
quote:
We have already established that some of the NOW type people have distorted the word. That they have done so doesn’t change the meaning of the word. It only means that they’ve started a spinoff culture.
[quote]
That’s your opinion. I don’t think there’s much at all I agree with you on. I do think the NOW type people changed the meaning of the word feminist. Regardless of what the dictionary says, if you go out and ask 100 random strangers what ‘feminist’ means, the vast majority of them are going to tell you it means the things they see it in daily life to mean. That’s the way language works.
[quote]
First, your opinion that the NOW people have changed the meaning of the word feminist, IS just that. Opinion. 1
Second, you’re trying to “prove” your point by saying "go ask 100 people. This is the same thing I’ve been saying to you, and which you’ve been refuting as a reasonable way to determine the meaning of the word. You can’t have it both ways.
quote:
Really? So, all of we Americans are staunch supporters in EVERYTHING that George Bush does and says?
You don’t have to LEAVE the country to disagree with what the pres says. Nor do you have to leave the country in order to work against him if you believe that he’s SO dead wrong that he doesn’t need to be IN the office in the first place.
There are organizations of all kinds and all different levels of political activity, from heavy and extremely “hot button” (like NOW) to mellow and not so frantic (like perhaps the PTA).
The people in these organizations do not necessarily have to believe in EVERY single thing the organization stands for in order to still be “good” people and be working to do the best that they can.
Again, though I AM a feminist, I do not belong to any organizations. So I don’t know how many members they have. I submit that neither do you. I further submit that you have NO way of knowing what these members, as a whole, believe in or accept from their “spokeswomen”. You don’t know what kinds of political activities take place within these organizations, or how many of the NOW members roll their eyes and fight against their more outspoken and outrageous members like Dworkin.
So you, without a DEFINITE cite, showing who and how many members of now, absolutely support, the nutsier “amazon” ideas, cannot say “This is Today’s Feminist, I declare that this is now the meaning of the word”.
Not at all, it’s quite appropriate, for reasons I state above.
quote:
Then those are not feminists. Again, by dictionary and technical definition they do NOT fit that definition. They are many things, including selfish inconsiderate people, but by definition they are NOT “feminists”
Asked and answered above.
quote:
Regardless, you misunderstood my question. Do you know any women who would go BACKWARDS. And be willing to not receive equal treatment and equal pay etc??
Asked and answered already.
quote:
I’m not “putting words in your mouth” hence the question marks after the word no, in other words “Would you say no”?? if so, here is the reply.
No. That’s not what I did at all. I did exactly as I describe above. Next time I will state the entire question if you’re going to skew things in a hostile manner. I’m not “trying to look anything”. I’m trying to come to an understanding with you. Hostility in this sort of situation doesn’t help.
quote:
And people fitting THAT definition would be the actual chefs. Not those who made mud pies or something.
With that reasoning, since NOW has been an ongoing organization for quite a while now, wouldn’t the current dictionary have already changed its definition of the word?
You misunderstand me, I am NOT defending the NOW people, I think that, from what I see, that many of their ideas are jerkish and nutso. I’m saying that they are NOT feminists. Regardless of their wish to have made that word their own.
quote:
This is astonishing. The teacher’s entire grading criteria were based on two assignments? 50% each? I thought it was pretty much a standard thing to have a range of 4 or 5 criteria for grading. At our college the instructors are required to grade for:
Attendance
Participation
Assignments
Tests
Quizzes and Misc
Yes, I understand, I teach at one. The five items I gave were a guideline, the teachers don’t have to choose all five, or even those five. I didn’t explain that very well.
And I understand, depending on whether you have an engineering course with one main project or the like, yes then one grade for one project makes sense. However, your instructor’s attitude didn’t fall under that, she basically “forbade” you to “think for yourself”. And in fact, forbade you to question the methods of her grading under threat of retaliation. That smacks seriously of a terminable offense.
quote:
Also based on your anger and frustration at your treatment at the hands of women like this, why on EARTH did you let her get away with it??
Surely this university would have backed you up?
Then you are allowing yourself to be oppressed in a way in which feminists originally started fighting against. Someone has to take a stand sometime.
And if you had stuck specifically to what the instructor had done wrong. That she forbade you to question your grade and her methods, and that she didn’t grade you on your actual work, but your inability to agree with her opinion, then you would have been helping those that come after you and have to have her as an instructor.
I’m not a man, but I would have argued the same thing with her. GEEMINY christmas. What a witch.
quote:
No. I’m saying that women that fulfill the definition of feminists ARE feminists. Good grief. Again, talk about obtuse.
If they do NOT act and believe according to the dictionary definition of feminist then they aren’t. But I don’t know of too many women today who would go back to what we put up with in the 70s and earlier, do you?
Noooo. I’m saying that if they are acting and believing in the way that is already defined under a specific term, then by definition (NOT by what a person says) then they ARE that term.
quote:
I’m old. I’ve earned the right to call people sweetie and honey. Seriously, I am earnestly hurting for you and in what you’ve gone through.
Want what you want, I will express what I desire to express. I did not know that before you said this. I don’t read minds.
quote:
No, I’m saying “it sounds to me…” in other words, based on your posts, and the things in them, such as you still being in college. If you are a fairly old person who has just recently been in college, my apologies. The reason that I say “you sound young” is NOT because that’s supposed to mean “and therefore you can’t handle it”. It means, IN PART, “and perhaps part of your experiences are so concentrated in the college environment etc that they DO consist of more than their fair share of feminazis rather than normal feminISTS”.
Argh. I said “SUCH AS”. A simple “oh, no I’m not in college any longer” or the like would have sufficed. Do you think that your extreme hostility and porcupine like attitude might be part of why you face what you do from women?
quote:
Look, you’re “shooting the messenger”. I am NOT “for” FemiNAZISM. Which is what, with the NOW leaders and such, you are describing here, NOT feminism.
Again, Loudness, obviousness and being well publicized does NOT equal “taking over” or the majority.
Unless you and I polled all the women in the country, and/or the world, we’ll never really know how many are merely feminists or in your argument merely people, and how many are feminazis.
My main argument was that the existance of these loudmouth nutsos and the fact that they are more visible and “in your face” than we normal women doesn’t mean that they make up the majority, or speak for “feminists” just because we’re not out there marching and being "nutso " in a backlash movement against them.
Well, actually I do know how many members NOW has. They make that information publicly available. I guess this makes your ‘submission’ wrong.
You’re not going to go about it by telling me that the dictionary definition of feminism is more important than the working, general language use definition is and then repeatedly saying ‘It doesn’t matter whether women say they’re feminists or not, they are if I say they are and if they say they are, they’re probably feminazis.’
I don’t give a flying fuck who you think is a feminist. The largest feminist organization in this country, and the vast majority of feminists I have seen at various rallies, seminars and events, are not the dictionary definition of the word, and they’re not who you think feminists are. But they are what 500,000 feminists and the average person on the street thinks of as a feminist.
The way a word is actually used, every day, by the people who speak a language gives us the working meaning of that word. What the dictionary says the word’s definition is doesn’t hold the same weight as what a random person on the street will understand that word to mean.
For example, the American Heritage Dictionary, copyright 2000:
So there you have a definition of what a Lesbian is which is completely and totally irrelevant in modern day America because if you ask 100 people on the street, the overwhleming majority of them (hell, maybe all of them) use Lesbian to mean ‘a homosexual female’ and have never even heard of the land called Lesbos.
What matters in language is what the person you’re communicating with understands your words to mean. And in this day and age right now, ‘feminism’ conjures up a shitload more meaning than what’s in the dictionary.
You mean because I disagree with feminism? Well shit, I never considered that feminists who have a pattern of being nasty to people who disagree with their political philosophy would be nasty to me for disagreeing with them.
Do you actually think I’m so stupid as to not have considered that feminists wouldn’t be nice to me because I disagree with them?
Those who self-identify as feminists are such. Of those, I’ve met maybe two or three in my lifetime who didn’t serve to reinforce every negative opinion I have of feminists. Your constant attempts to say ‘I’ll tell you who the feminists really are, and it’s not the people who identify as feminists, it’s only nice people.’ have put you in the category of people who further the low opinion I have of feminists.
Anyone who attempts the ‘You can’t argue about feminism because it doesn’t mean what NOW or Ms. or feminist organizations or 500,000 feminists, or feminist scholars or the people who teach feminist theory says it does, it means what I say.’ are, in my opinion, merely attempting to sidestep any kind of debate about the actual feminist ideology. Side-stepping debate with that tactic seems pretty weasly, but it’s not something I find surprising coming from a self-identified feminist. I’ve seen it before. It happens without fail, every time I’ve ever seen anyone attempt to debate any part of feminist ideology. It’s a sidestep, it’s recognized as one, and it’s adding to the lack of respect I have for feminists and feminism in general.
The more you continually repeat ‘You’re just wrong because I said so.’, the less interest I have in taking any of your posts in this thread seriously.
quote:
CanvasShoes said:
So I don’t know how many members they have. I submit that neither do you.
Great! Now we both know. You still do not know the minds of each and every one of these 550,000 women. And how much, if any, of them share the opinions belonging to the more visible members and nutso members and leaders.
quote:
I’m trying to come to an understanding with you. Hostility in this sort of situation doesn’t help.
[/quote]
You’re not going to go about it by telling me that the dictionary definition of feminism is more important than the working, general language use definition is and then repeatedly saying ‘It doesn’t matter whether women say they’re feminists or not, they are if I say they are and if they say they are, they’re probably feminazis.’
[/quote]
First of all, I did NOT say "the dictionary definition is ‘more important’ than that that has been appropriated by certain NOW members and their ilk (please provide a cite that theirs and your version of feminism is the “general language use definition”). I said it’s the technically correct term. Period.
Second. I’ve never said "they are if I say they are. I’M not saying they’re anything. I’m saying that the CORRECT, TECHNICAL definition is that which is in the dictionary. If it were incorrect, as you pointed out in your last post, they would have updated it.
I’m laughing here now. You’re still not getting it, and you’re getting yourself all worked up over nothing. I don’t think ANYONE is a feminist.
I’m saying that according to the dictionary, an accepted “CITE” the correct definition of feminist is what I posted (about 6 posts ago), REGARDLESS of what NOW claims the term to be.
So what? The fact that they have appropriated this term, twisted it, demeaned it, hell offered it to satan for all that matters, does NOT magically mean that the term is invalid in its original and CURRENTLY defined by published sources, meaning.
Unless you have a cite to back up the above statement, this is just an opinion on your part. And again, you YOURSELF in a previous post stated that when a term DOES change in the public perception that the dictionaries etc CHANGE to reflect this. This has not happened with this word.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, trying to remember my College psych and Greek Mythology. I could be wrong, but if I remember right, within the stories ABOUT Lesbos, it was pretty clear that these were women who loved women. I can understand why the dictionary wouldn’t want to put something quite that “R” rated so to speak, in a dictionary that’s available to anyone from grade school kids on up.
How many people do you have as friends, acquaintances and family? Counting those with whom you converse online, let’s say about 200-300, just for a guesstimate. I don’t know about you, but I work two jobs, and I also teach at a university. My “real” job (I teach for fun) takes me out into the world quite a bit, I don’t just sit in an office.
My teaching job puts me into contact with about 50 college aged girls per semester.
I’m going to take a wild guess that your “people you know and talk to” count is similar to mine, give or take a few.
(I’m 44, I’m still guessing you at about 25-28).
Your experiences, based on your posts here, have mostly been with rabid feminists of the “feminazi” persuasion. Therefore, your opinion is that "feminist = NOW type feminazis.
That’s fine, that’s been your experience.
Where you’re wrong is in believing that because that has been YOUR experience, and that YOU believe that feminsts equals Rabid NOW members, that means that it’s a commonly accepted term for everyone.
quote:
Do you think that your extreme hostility and porcupine like attitude might be part of why you face what you do from women?
Nope. That’s not what I mean at all. Now, a few posts back, you got all up in arms and accused me (several times) of “putting words in your mouth”. Please be considerate enough to not do the same to me.
I mean, the fact that you are getting angrier and angrier, simply over the definition of a simple term, and assuming that because I somehow defending these rabid NOW members by doing so. I’m not.
First, huh? Second, have I been nasty to you? I’ve remained matter of fact here. If you’ve misconstrued something I’ve said as “nasty” I apologize.
I don’t think you’re stupid at all. And please read my question again. In that question, I wasn’t talking about feminists at all. We’ve been discussing this for what? 10 posts (each?), and I’ve remained matter of fact, though occasionally perplexed or exasperated, while you’ve gotten angrier and angrier and continued to assume that I’m somehow “on their side”.
quote:
Unless you and I polled all the women in the country, and/or the world, we’ll never really know how many are merely feminists or in your argument merely people, and how many are feminazis.
You’re doing, exactly what you’ve accused me several times of doing. That of putting words in someone’s mouth. You know for a fact that everyone who has said “I’m a feminist” is a Feminazi follower?
I’ve identified myself as a feminist. I belong to no organizations and I sure as HELL don’t want to see fewer men in the world.
Sigggh. Nope, that is NOT what I’ve been “attempting” to say. Not once have I said "only the nice people are the “real” feminists, what I HAVE said is (paraphrased) “feminists aren’t all feminazis”
I’ve been talking TECHNICALLY speaking all along. It’s like you’re standing there with your fingers in your ears going “LALALALAAAA I can’t HEAR you”.
Again, my main argument has been on the technical side of the meaning of the word. And the side of: just because the NOW types SAY that they are what feminists are, doesn’t make it so.
I didn’t say you couldn’t argue about it at all. Nor was my very simple "the NOW group doesn’t fit the technical and dictionary definition meant in any way to side step the wrongs they’ve done.
The feminazi types IMHO, are dead wrong, and even if you thought they were right, (and I always butcher this saying) “I may think what you’re saying is wrong, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”. These types would be wrong, IMHO, in what they’re doing no matter WHAT they called themselves. I believe that they’re dead wrong in doing it in the name of “feminism” which was not at ALL meant to stand for what they’re claiming it does. (I know, I was there back when).
I think that they, (the dworkins etc), are nuts. I think that a lot of problems of the pendulum swinging too far the other way has been brought on by her type. So your argument that I’m trying to say you’re wrong about their actions and attitudes is silly. You’re right on in that for a lot of “them” they’re bloodthirsty man-hating little bitches.
I haven’t said that “you can’t argue because you don’t know which is which” at all, nor was I attempting to distract you BY trying to define the difference between feminists and feminazis.
I’m saying, don’t paint everyone with the same brush because of YOUR opinion of who the “real” feminists actually are.
This is a cop-out. If you’d wanted to debate the wrongs they’ve done, you were MORE than free to do so. I wasn’t stopping you in any way, shape, or form. In fact, if you’d have paid attention, you’d have seen where, in most of the replies to you, I AGREED with your assessments of the dworkin feminazi type evil deeds.
Well this is what happens when you read what YOU want to into what someone else is saying. Too bad you feel that way, if you’d have stopped and listened for a nano-second, instead of being “on the fight” so much, you’d have seen that I agree with your opinion about the feminazi types.
Ignoring the repeated bleating of ‘But you’re wrong because I said so.’
Already have done that in the context that the largest feminist groups in existence and the most legislatively influential feminists (MacKinnon and Dworkin were insturmental in sexual harassment laws being passed) are flat out fucking wrong in their motive (all women are victims, those who don’t think so are part of the patriarchy) and in their goals (legal system biased against men). The problem is that you fail to acknowledge how influential they are.
No, you don’t. I have read everything you said. And it’s been an attempt to say ‘but those are just lunatic fringies who aren’t really important.’
That’s bullshit. If they weren’t lunatic fringies, they wouldn’t be the people whose theories are being taught as ‘the way’ in women’s studies classes and who are credited with accomplishing legislative change in at least two countries.
They are not the lunatic fringe if they have that much influence.
Well rats, I’d already replied, but the hamsters ate it.
I’ve not been saying “you’re wrong because I think so”. You’ve been hearing that because you’re mistakenly thinking that my “next” statement will refute your next argument. Which also isn’t true.
I’ve merely been stating that there is a technically correct term for the word. Period. That in no way is a statement for or against what you believe the NOW organization and their ilk to be guilty of.
quote:
This is a cop-out. If you’d wanted to debate the wrongs they’ve done, you were MORE than free to do so. I wasn’t stopping you in any way, shape, or form. In fact, if you’d have paid attention, you’d have seen where, in most of the replies to you, I AGREED with your assessments of the dworkin feminazi type evil deeds.
No. I haven’t “failed to acknowledge that”. I simply had not yet addressed that. Neither, other than in vague references intended to support YOUR theory of the meaning of the word feminist, had you. If you had, you would have said something to the effect of “let’s explore THIS aspect of it” and then gone on to argue your point regarding their influence, evil etc and your unhappiness with it.
Thing is, you would have gotten no arguments from me on those points. I agree she and her kind ARE evil, nuts and have a harmful agenda.
quote:
Well this is what happens when you read what YOU want to into what someone else is saying. Too bad you feel that way, if you’d have stopped and listened for a nano-second, instead of being “on the fight” so much, you’d have seen that I agree with your opinion about the feminazi types.
See my above statement, because I have not at ALL been saying that they weren’t really important. What I said was that they neither make up the majority, nor do they necessarily speak for all feminists or all members of NOW.
Once again, you’re “second guessing” and misinterpreting my arguments in an attempt to “head off at the pass” what you think I’m going to argue next. I’ve not been arguing “lunatic fringes aren’t important. I’ve been arguing that “lunatic fringes does NOT = the entire feminist movement”. Those two arguments are not the same thing.
Well, now, lunatic Fringies, I’d have a problem with, we can’t have fashion victims just running around on the loose.
(Hoping one of these lame jokes will help you lighten up a LITTLE for crying out loud).
At any rate. If you are trying to say that NOW has a large population of instructors populating universities and infiltrating women’s studies classes in universities, you’ll have to provide a cite for that. One bitchy and incompetent instructor that you had doesn’t count.
Also, which legislative changes in which countries has NOW actually accomplished? And how are those changes detrimental to men and supporting andy’s theory that feminists want to rid the world of men?
My point was never that they, (the dworkins) didn’t have power. That’s a completely different point than the one I was making. My point was that despite their being well publicized, visible, loud, and out there, that does NOT mean that they make up a majority, or define the “feminist movement”.
THEY would like to think so, and they’ve apparently convinced YOU that they are “real” feminists. But there are those of us who disagree with THEM, along WITH you. Along with our disagreement with their agenda, we ALSO disagree with their bastardizing the term and the movement itself.
Just because you, personally have heard more from the “bad” side, than the “good” side doesn’t “prove” which side is larger or more defines the “true” meaning of feminism. Nor does how visible a particular side is define its true nature, or numbers.
Somehow, you’ve mistaken my explanation of the technical and official (as is publicized) meaning of the word as meaning that I then disagree with your right to disagree with the NOW group and their ilk. It does not mean that at all. Again, I VERY much disagree with their “kill men/pro-amazon wannabe” agenda.
“Lunatic fringe” does not mean powerless or without influence. Nor did I say that it did. After all, a “lunatic fringe” took down the towers in NYC.
Nor was I saying that they (the dworkin types) were powerless or without influence. What I said was that the “lunatic fringe” didn’t necessarily speak for the entire feminist movement, or the entire membership of NOW.
Similar to the way George and his group does not speak for all Americans. Granted, George isn’t exactly the “lunatic fringe” but his views aren’t terribly popular and are getting less popular by the second.
Does the fact that he and a group of politicos believe the way they do define what it is to be American? No. And by the same token (and this is the point I’ve been trying to make), neither does NOW speak for “feminists”. Not necessarily even within their own organization.
Margin was denying the existence of such fiction. Citing it’s existence is indeed, a cite.
I note your sarcasm in putting quotation marks around not guilty. As if it is unheard of that a man could actually be not guilty! So your post is in itself a pretty good cite of the attitudes spawned by Brownmiller and other fomenters of the all-men-are-rapist school of thought.
But if it is a cite you want, I can provide them. Indeed, all you would have to do is put down your copy of “Our Bodies, Ourselves” and pick up a newspaper. Or go to Google News and search for dna rape innocent. You can find matters such as these:
Honestly, these cases have become so common in the news in the past few years that demanding a cite for them is an admission of being ill-informed. Considering that innocent people have spent decades in prison, and some innocent people have died in prison, it seems awfully cold of you to put “not guilty” into sarcasm quotations.
I think you would rather play semantic games and try to derail discussion than to actually address the anti-male attitudes rampant in some feminist circles. In other words, you are running interference for the anti-male crowd, so it seems safe to include you in their number.
Tell that to Earl Washington, Michael Crowe, and Kirk Bloodsworth.
Also, I and others have presented some of the most blatant anti-male attitudes straight from the mouth of supposedly mainstream feminists. To say actual quotations from feminists are not grounded in reality is simply debating in bad faith. It is a transparent act of denial, and denial is an attitude that has often been observed in bigoted thinking.
It is hardly a figment of the imagination to note that prominent feminists such as Robin Morgan are comfortable quoting “The S.C.U.M. Manifesto,” or Robin Morgan’s own statement: “I feel that “man-hating” is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” So I am going to ask you, CanvasShoes, whether you will condemn that statement from Morgan. I am asking you directly: Do you condemn that statement or not?
Once again we see the “fringe” dodge.
So, CanvasShoes, if feminists like Brownmiller, Morgan and even Friedan herself are fringe, you should have no problem in condemning them. You condemn fringe elements, don’t you? If so, then let us see you condemn them.
You have put plenty of time into arguing that these extremely influential feminists are fringe. Why not spend a little of that time condemning them?
Or perhaps you don’t and won’t condemn them because you don’t actually disagree with their anti-male attitudes.
If you don’t agree with them, then you would condemn them. If you don’t agree with them, you should have no problem in other people pointing out the anti-male attitudes of them.
But you do seem to get quite upset when we note the fact of widespread anti-male attitudes in feminism and the clear lack of any self-identified feminist in condemning anti-male attitudes.
I’ve been away from the board for a few days. That brief span away from Margin’s posts has given me some insight into the collective sigh of relief her co-workers must have made when she was dismissed.
I have to say that this response is pretty typical whenever someone points out the anti-male hatred emerging from the ranks of feminism. And because feminists refuse to acknowledge it, because they refused to address the problem, they have to attack those who oppose anti-male attitudes. (And it is not just anti-male attitudes, as there is a great deal of hostility directed toward the majority of women, who don’t go along with them. That’s when you hear fine and fair-minded women called traitors, collaborators and tools of the patriarchy, etc.
Margin, do you think you can identify bile? I’ve quoted Robin Morgan in particular and asked you to condemn her praise of hating men. You haven’t responded. I’ll put the quote here again.
"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."
Do you condemn that statement or not?
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.
More shit, Andy. Where’s that cite for where I denied there was such a thing as fiction? Who gives a shit what you say unless you can back it up.
I’m sorry, but the wrongfully-convicted cases have what to do with feminism? Oh, that’s right. It’s obviously not the failure of the legal system for not instituting mandatory DNA testing in rape cases. No, it’s those damned feminists!
I’m still waiting for my cite about those bullet comments. And now you owe me for your claim about me denying there was such a thing as feminist fiction.
**Put up or shut up. **
I think what bothers a lot of us, including me and catsix, is as follows:
Feminism first came about when women rose up and said “Don’t you dare tell me what it means to be a woman!” to employers, patriarchs, etc. Just because I’m a woman doesn’t mean I don’t want a career, shouldn’t get paid as much, etc etc.
But a lot of the feminists mentioned in this thread have caused other women to stand up and say the same thing to them ! “Hey, Dworkin! Hey, MacKinnon! Don’t you dare tell me what it means to be a woman!”
The feminists that I respect (listed above) critique these women because they seem to think they are speaking for all women, when in fact, they speak for only a small number. Mohanty argued that you simply can’t use “woman” as a category of analysis - you can’t say “Women want this” or “Women need this” or even “Women have these interests.” She suggested that it is more appropriate for women to unite on the basis not of their gender but of the issue that they are struggling against - equal pay, affordable day care, women’s shelters etc.
catsix: you want a cite for
Why? Why do feminist people who don’t discriminate against men not count? What counts as “discriminate?”
In the interests of intellectual honesty I will tell you why I haven’t yet provided such a cite.
First of all, feminism is not only about organizations. Lots of feminists are academics, they don’t all join “organizations” in the sense you mean. We have been known to brandish signs but a lot of us are in academia because the activism involved in joining organizations is distasteful to us, too, for many of the reasons that it is distasteful to you. Does this mean that we do not exist? That our opinions are not relevant?
Second, feminists like me, when we join organizations, join ones that (as you mentioned many pages ago) are “human rightsist” - concerned with all kinds of oppression, of which gender-based oppression is only one. I agree that groups whose sole purpose is to “fight sexist oppression” are tiresome, because I don’t think you can separate gender-based oppression from oppression based on race, class, sexuality, nationalism etc. So there are lots of organizations that fight against all of these things. Colours of Resistance is one.
There are also lots of feminist organizations that fight against single issues that are relevant to women in specific communities: INTERCEDE (advocacy for the rights of domestic workers) is one, also try Women and Environments International, a journal.
On the definition of feminism: My own HO, which you can take or leave as you please, may shed some light on this. Feminism is a contested term. That means that everyone (the nasty feminists listed in this thread, the nice ones, the people who wrote the dictionary, all the people posting to this thread, etc) has a different idea about what it means and no one is “correct” about it. (I, for example, have problems with the dictionary definition of it. I would define it quite differently.)
But at the end of the day, what does it matter who is “right”? Once you insist that there is one correct definition and everyone who disagrees be damned, then you get situations like catsix’s where she has met too many “You’re either with us or against us” type of feminists, got really pissed off, and washed her hands of them. Who could blame her? I did the same thing too until I discovered all the (huge numbers, take my word for it) of people who call themselves feminists and encourage debate and dissent, and who realize that in these kinds of struggles the goal is not to be “right” or to be a “true” feminist, but to give every woman the option to live her life as she sees fit, and that this could mean very different things to different women.
As an example: wouldn’t we all be learning so much more from this thread by discussing things like domestic violence and the alleged patriarchy, then by arguing over the definition of Feminism and who fits it and who doesn’t?
Andy: why should we
? I ignore those feminist circles because I disagree with them. I address the issues I disagree with in my own way (which is, currently, writing essays). Why should I spend my time and effort disagreeing with people in the context that you wish? Why can’t I be the kind of feminist I want to be, and screw the rest?
And please stop talking about “mainstream feminists” as if they make the rules about what feminists are. See the rest of this post, as well as the one further up the page, for more. I know you disagree. But you can’t expect me to behave in a way that’s incompatible with my belief but compatible with yours. (And yes, I do condemn that statement by Morgan, since you asked. So does CanvasShoes, and probably Margin although she hasn’t specifically addressed it. Can you drop it, now?)
One, everybody whether male or female wants fair pay for the work they do. Two, what parent whether male or female doesn’t want affordable quality day care? Three, pressing for ‘women’s shelters’ to be funded or supported by the government creates a situation where men and women are not treated equally under the law, biased in favor of women. It also means that men who are victims of domestic violence have nowhere to go.
Yes, like Mary Daly, whose sexist opinion is that no male belongs in a women’s studies class that has women in it because that man will make it impossible for the women to have ‘their space’ and talk freely. I’d love to see how she’d react if there were a men’s studies class in which the professor didn’t want any women because it would hamper the ability of the men to talk freely in ‘their space.’
Or Ti-Grace Atkinson, faculty at Tufts University, who said:
Who is the enemy? Men are, according to Ti-Grace Atkinson. Yet another example of a sexist professor.
Which is why I now believe that it will not be possible to have a meaningful discussion of feminism with CanvasShoes. The extremely narrow view that ‘This is what the dictionary says, and I agree with the dictionary, so it doesn’t matter what millions of other people understand that word to mean.’ is not conducive to a discussion. It’s exactly the same attitude that turned me off of feminism years ago.
And meaningful discussion with those who cannot accept that ‘feminism’ means things to a large, large number of people other than the two or three sentences in a single dictionary seems downright impossible. A strict and narrow viewpoint is something that I’ve found in most every feminist I’ve ever met, whether it was over the meaning of the word feminism or the existence of the patriarchy, it’s been ‘But this is what X says, and I agree with X, so everyone who disagrees is wrong.’ over and over again in almost every case.
Until I reach a point where hearing the exact same thing ‘I disagree with you, so you’re wrong.’ gets tired enough that I walk away.
What makes you any more right about the meaning of feminism than the members of NOW, or of Ti-Grace Atkinson, Mary Daly, Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Robin Morgan, Susan Brownmiller or Germain Greer? If they don’t make the rules about it because there is ‘no authority on what feminism is and isn’t’, what makes your opinion of what feminism is the authoritative and valid one? What makes CanvasShoes’s version valid? Or the editor of a dictionary? Or some random woman in some random city?
If the rules of feminism and what feminists are get made by every feminist for herself, the Dworkins and Morgans have rules just as valid as the cowgirls and the margins and the CanvasShoeses.
catsix: I agree entirely with your last comment:
And remember where I said “So have a discussion about the issues, for heaven’s sake, and stop talking about what feminists do !”
The important difference between my view and some of the others you mention is that I have never, nor will I ever, say to anyone that they are anti-feminist, that their views are anti-feminist, that they can’t join my feminist club, etc. I say yes, their (what I agree are often) bizarre views are valid, but I’m not interested in talking about “what makes a feminist.” If they talk about an issue, I can engage with them, and if they get irritating, I can leave. But it will be because of the issue, not because of some nebulous definition of “feminism.” Once I start saying “My feminism doesn’t include you, Ms Daly” then I am guilty of the exact crime we are condemning them for.
Which brings me to my next point: You said
and I absolutely agree that these are good points. Mohanty was basically saying “We can’t have a meaningful discussion about these things when we keep calling them ‘women’s issues’” for exactly the reasons you state, among others. Of course men have an interest in these things. I would like to respond to each point individually, but hell, we’re on page five, wouldn’t want to stop the mudslinging for a reasonable discussion now ! 
But Mohanty is still a feminist.
Andy: will you retract this statement:
I am a feminist. I condemn anti-male attitudes.
quote:
Your opinion, or your recanting of what some poor “not guilty” rapist went through is not a “cite”.
That would be YOU putting thoughts and opinions on this as if I had said them. No, I put quotation marks around it as a common technical writing practice meaning: I PERSONALLY don’t know the facts on this, so I’m not going to state it as fact until I do.
You’re so ready to assume that a woman is “against” believing anything good about a man that you INFERRED that meaning from my sentence. Remember, we’re typing here. We can’t see each other’s expressions or hear each other’s voices. The arguments, questions and requests I’ve been making are all very matter of fact.
I don’t really have much of a dog in this fight. I’ve spent almost my entire working career in male dominated fields, and with few exceptions (gotta love union) been treated fairly well. I also have had some really awesome relationships with men, so I’m certainly not “hatin” (quotes to denote slang, not sarcasm) on that level either.
You just have an emotional stake in this issue and so are way too ready to take offense where none is intended.
Our Bodies/Ourselves? I haven’t read that for a very long time, maybe I’m confusing it with another book, but (help me out someone who has actually read it recently) isn’t that about sexuality? And fantasizing? And how to NOT feel guilty about enjoying sex etc?
If so, your using it to “prove” your point that women think all men are rapists is inefficient. If it is, then shame on those that wrote it.
Re the quotation marks around “not guilty” asked and answered above. As to your complaint about cites, you’ve been on this board long enough to know that saying “this is common knowledge” is NOT acceptable as a cite.
quote:
A cite is either a reference from an actual study, case history, history book, law case and so on AND/OR LINKs to such references.
I’m perfectly willing to discuss whatever it is you wish to discuss, however, if you are to state something as fact, on THIS board at least, you must be able to back it up. Not everyone is as well versed in every subject.
YOU may consider this “common knowledge” but that doesn’t make it a fact unless there is actual proof. This isn’t “semantics”. And as to wanting to discuss the wrongs done to YOU by this particular group. Go TO it. This IS the pit. Nothing any of us have said is designed to stop you from saying what it is that makes you mad about these groups.
Just, IF you post a statement as fact, you WILL be called on to back it up. This has nothing to do with anyone “wanting to derail” your rights to complain. This would be required of you no matter what you were arguing about.
quote:
Again, you seem to be confusing the act of some feminazis or feminISTS, with the concept of feminism.
Your fear and paranoia is completely ungrounded in reality.
It was the NOW organization that falsely accused them? And then sat on the Jury, and then decided their sentence? I disagree that these men should have had this happen to them. But there are others in the prison system who have been wrongly accused and their crimes had nothing to do with rape. The system itself is imperfect.
No, I’m NOT saying that quotations from nutsos like dworkin are ungrounded in reality. I’m saying that to take those people as gospel for what we ALL stand for isn’t grounded in reality.
ABSOLUTELY, and if you’d READ any of my other posts, you would have seen that I did that some time ago. I think she and her type are nuts. And I HEARTILY disagree with the idea of lessening in any way the amount of men we have in society.
What, however, does that have to do with my assertion that no matter WHAT she considers to be “feminism” is NOT speaking for all feminists, and not even necessarily speaking for all NOW members???
You two DO understand the difference between me saying “they don’t speak for all NOW members” and me saying “they don’t NECESSARILY speak for all NOW members” don’t you?
I’m not stating that they do or don’t. I’m saying that they don’t NECESSARILY speak for all of them. Unless you, or I, or Joe Schmoe somewhere in a research lab interviews and gets to know each and every one of the 550,000 members. NONE of us know how much they believe and follow the dworkin types.
quote:
The fact that some of the women arguing the “cause” here in this thread are saying (to keep it simple) “Feminism isn’t bad” is NOT the same thing as them advocating what the fringe extremists have said.
No. What you’re seeing is simply me trying to explain the different meanings in what I’m saying.
We’re NOT advocating what those women have done. Period. You keep trying to equate our saying “all feminists aren’t bad and this small group IS” with us agreeing with what they’ve done.
We don’t. Period.
You don’t do reading comprehension very well do you? This is what I, and others in this thread have been saying all along. So again. No, I don’t have a problem condemning the manhating elements of what you’ve quoted these women as saying.
Again, READ my previous posts.
quote:
In other words, one can be a feminist and still NOT agree with MacKinnon, or whoever was determined to have sortof made the “sex = rape” type comments.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. You’re trying to make them one and the same, and they just aren’t.
LOL, you’re confusing me with someone else. Again, I have no “dog in this fight”. MY main argument was purely one of you and others using the word incorrectly in a TECHNICAL way.
As to your frantic screams of “WELL then CONDEMN them if you don’t agree…ad nauseum”. Again, read my previous posts. I’ve put at least one statement disagreeing with their man-hating attitudes into each one of my posts.
You’re so angry and bitter at what you percieve to have been done to you by this element, that you have a knee jerk reaction ot any sort of argument on this subject and instead of seeing that the person is NOT “on their side” you just push out in an all out offense without listening to a word.
A shame really. If you’d calm down a second you just might see you have people who are actually agreeing with you. You’re just too busy trying to find something to jump on to see that.
quote:
cowgirl said:
She suggested that it is more appropriate for women to unite on the basis not of their gender but of the issue that they are struggling against - equal pay, affordable day care, women’s shelters etc.
You seem to be missing the part where this is not ALWAYS what happened. This is one of the premier reasons that “feminists” (not what you claim to be the “standard common knowledge” but the original) started fighting. So that they could GET and keep that right.
Women have traditionally had a much much lower standard of living after divorce, and since many women end up (rightly or wrongly) with custody, it’s traditionally been a woman’s issue. That said, it (the daycare assistance programs and so forth) have benefitted single MALE parents as well. At least in my state. The programs are applied to “custodial parents”. PERIOD. No discrimination if that custodial parent happens to be a male.
As to why more funding goes to domestic violence assistance to females? According to the Justice Department 1.2 million women are victims of domestic violence a year compared to 300,000 men.
From my limited understanding of women’s shelters, the reason they do not allow men there is NOT because “why would you need protection you’re a man” but to protect the women already there.
Many of them have a policy of “no males” for protection of the women only. NOT to make a statement of “males dont’ need protection”.
Should there be male shelters for the males that get abused? Yes, IMHO that there should be.
Is the fact that there are not any a result of what the feminazis have done or accomplished in Congress by lobbying etc? If so, please provide a cite. Because I’ve never seen anything like this in the news, or in “commonly understood knowledge” etc.
quote:
Lots of feminists are academics,
[quote]
Yes, like Mary Daly, whose sexist opinion is that no male belongs in a women’s studies class that has women in it because that man will make it impossible for the women to have ‘their space’ and talk freely. I’d love to see how she’d react if there were a men’s studies class in which the professor didn’t want any women because it would hamper the ability of the men to talk freely in ‘their space.’
I didn’t say “I agree with the dictionary”. Again, all I was ever trying to get across was that there is a standard publicized definition in place.
There are many who FIT that definition. Those that DON’T fit that definition (the man-killing ones) are not, by definition, TECHNICALLY feminists.
This in NO way says that “CanvasShoes” agrees, doesn’t agree, likes, doesn’t like feminists or even that I particularly think that the definition is an apt one.
I’m NOT, by simply stating what the actual word and its meaning are, telling you what to believe or not believe by ANY means. You just keep on thinking that I’m somehow trying to tell you and other feminists what to believe. I’m not.
Again, all I was doing was stating what the correct term was. PERIOD.
If a person wants to follow those beliefs and actions of COURSE that’s up to them.
If an organization decides to call itself Boy Scouts, and then proceeds to, NOT sell candy and make merit badges, but to steal cars and rob old ladies, It doesn’t matter HOW many of them say they’re boy scouts, or HOW outspoken and well-publicized and how heinous their words and acts, they’re STILL not “boy scouts”
quote:
On the definition of feminism: My own HO, which you can take or leave as you please, may shed some light on this. Feminism is a contested term.
That’s not what we’ve been saying, we’ve been saying X generally and originally referred to Q, that some have changed X to mean something evil does NOT mean that we do not fit the definition of Q.
[quote]
What makes you any more right about the meaning of feminism than the members of NOW, or of Ti-Grace Atkinson, Mary Daly, Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Robin Morgan, Susan Brownmiller or Germain Greer? If they don’t make the rules about it because there is ‘no authority on what feminism is and isn’t’, what makes your opinion of what feminism is the authoritative and valid one? What makes CanvasShoes’s version valid? Or the editor of a dictionary? Or some random woman in some random city?
[quote]
Again, you’re not understanding that I was NOT saying that the dictionary definition was “valid” just technically correct. Not sure why you keep thinking I’m talking about my feelings on feminism and whether others have to fit that or not. I’m not.
I’m talking STRICTLY words, and their meanings. The technical meaning. Period.
What is it that you want to happen here then? If you so despise what you believe has not become the meaning of “feminist” then why not do something about it? Start an anti new “false” feminist feminist group. (ANFFFG???)
First, once again, I haven’t not made any statements on the “validity” of rules at all. I’ve made one statement, (albeit in several different wordings), and that has been merely to impart the technical definition of the word, and that I dont’ think NOW fits that definition.
I’m confused, I don’t understand how you can gripe about the dworkins and morgans man-hating in so many posts and then turn around and say that their rules are valid. You’ve been complaining all along about how awful and unfair that they are.
It’s always fun to trot out Robin Morgan’s man-hating quote just to see how often margin will ignore it.
“I feel that “man-hating” is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
Now how does that not fit your definition of a cite, Margin?
Also, I’ve asked you repeatedly if you condemn the sentiments in Morgan’s statement. You have yet to answer.
After I noted the theme of women-only societies and Ms. Magazine adopting an Amazon mascot, you said:
quote:
Let’s see, for proof of what feminism is about, who should we listen to? The guy who keeps repeating the same thing—you know, about how feminists want to kill off the male population, stuff like that, and never backs it up because it exists only in his fevered little imagination … Unless you come up with a cite by someone reputable, all you’re ranting about is your own paranoid fantasies. Feminists want to kill off men? Uh, yeah, sweetie.
Granted you were misrepresenting what I said so you could attack the strawwomyn, but you claimed that the works I referred to existed only in my “fevered little imagination.” You also said:
quote:
Oh, not really. His personal experiences lead him to make accusations that feminists—he didn’t qualify that to 'only the extreme ones when he did that bullet list-----want to kill off the male half of the speices.
Again, you misrepresent my comment on feminist utopian fiction in which the male half of the human race disappears. But here you pin it to my “personal experiences” rather than the actual existence of such works. I mean, it’s right here in this thread. You really need cites for your own posts, now?
It is advisable for you to not put invented quotes into quotation marks.
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.
So bigotry now deserves a newbie break?