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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
Well, if you say so. After all, your research has thus far proven itself to be impeccable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Really? Providing a cite from Morgan’s work is not a cite?
What is your definition of a cite?
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.
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.
No, what I think is that you’re just jerking off.
If they were the “radicals,” please quote us from the moderates – the ones who opposed anti-male hatred.
That’s margin – the Mobius strip of posters.
I suppose those innocent men sent to prison must have needed something like that to pass the time, eh?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yawn. Andy avoids providing a cite yet again. What a surprise!
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.
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?
It is absurd to suggest that the decent feminists are not published. Look at bell hooks:
or Hillary Rodham Clinton:
or Charlotte Perkins Gilman:
or Margaret Atwood:
or Anna Quindlen:
or Betrand Russell:
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
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.
You bet your sweet ass I do.
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?
Actually, I doubt it is. But if you’re arguing that “Das Kapital” doesn’t sway anyone anymore, you don’t know your leftists.
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?
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.
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.
No, but it an indication that the information is freely available. It is accessible, however, only to people who are interested in seeing it.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.)
So, you’ve posted somewhat widely on this thread, haven’t you?
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.
Oh, now there’s a voice of intergrity!
(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
Or this:
"Charlotte Perkins Gilman: 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.
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.”
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?
Good for you, for getting a man in there who opposed stereotypes.
Now if you could just find some feminists who do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.