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

That’s the whole point, catsix. You haven’t proven that the people you’re bitching about have the agenda you blame on them. It’s especially sleazy to make comparisons to the KKK. Using that analogy accurately would entail pointing out how resistance to the KKK by black people gets them labelled as anti-white.

I’ve coined a new word for our friend, margin.

Imbecite.

See previous references to feminist utopian fiction in which women achieve utopia because the men are gone. This has been previously referenced in this thread.

Or reference “The S.C.U.M. Manifesto,” paying attention to the fact that right in the opening it says " there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex." This has been previously referenced in this thread.

For additional citations, see Sally Miller Gearhart and her tome, “The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.” In it she states that “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.”

This philosophy is also followed by Professor Mary Daly, who resigned from Boston College rather than allow men in her women’s studies courses. Daly said: “If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.”
Here is an elaboration:
Daly has long advocated for research into parthenogenesis to dispense with men. Her book, Quintessence is half-science fiction novel, half bizarre manifesto in which she explicitly lays out her views. Daly herself is a character in the book who visits a utopian continent where – thanks to the influence of Daly’s books – a lesbian elite reproduce solely through parthogenesis.

And there is no doubt that Daly considers this both desirable and possible. Here’s Daly from a 2001 interview with What Is Enlightenment magazine (emphasis added),

WIE: In your latest book, Quintessence, you describe a utopian society of the future, on a continent populated entirely by women, where procreation occurs through parthenogenesis, without participation of men. What is your vision for a postpatriarchal world? Is it similar to what you described in the book?
MD: You can read Quintessence and you can get a sense of it. It’s a description of an alternative future. It’s there partly as a device and partly because it’s a dream. There could be many alternative futures, but some of the elements are constant: **that it would be women only; that it would be women generating the energy throughout the universe; that much of the contamination, both physical and mental, has been dealt with. **
WIE: Which brings us to another question I wanted to ask you. Sally Miller Gearhart, in her article, “The Future—If There is One—Is Female,” writes: “At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we were to create and preserve a less violent world. 1) Every culture must begin to affirm the female future. 2) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. 3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race.” What do you think about this statement?
MD: I think it’s not a bad idea at all. If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore.
Of course what Daly is advocating here is nothing short of gendercide, and yet Daly is taken seriously by radical feminists.

Radical feminist Andrea Dworkin, for example, called Quintessence a “masterpiece.” When the Boston College controversy erupted, Daly’s supporters held a fundraiser called “A Celebration of the Work of Mary Daly” which included **Diane Bell, Director of Women’s Studies at the George Washington University; Mary Hunt, Co-Director of the Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual; Frances Kissling, President of Catholics for a Free Choice, and others. Daly also counted Eleanor Smeal, Gloria Steinem and other feminists outside of academia in her corner. **

When you have Gloria Steinem, Eleanor Smeal, a director of women’s studies in Washington, and numerous other prominent, nationally known activists on your side, it is no longer just a few marginal nuts. They may be nuts, but they were at the core of feminism, not on the fringes.

Sure, you’re out to defend feminism. And, for the record, let’s note that you didn’t say “defending some feminists.” You used the term here and elseswhere as a blanket term, so maybe it’s time to cease nit-picking when others do it.

And here you go again, trying to use the defense that it’s only a few feminists who say this.

Still does not qualify as a cite, Andy.

And you know, being called an imbecile by you would matter if you knew what it meant. Given your difficulties understanding the word ‘cite’ you probably think it means the opposite of what it actually does. After all, you think whining about your paranoid fantasies about feminism qualifies as a cite.

It’s also been pointed out that it’s not relevant before, too.

You keep saying ‘previously referenced’ as if to try and make your desperate flailing about for any kind of proof whasoever seem intellectual. It’s not.

You’re done, Andy. You don’t provide cites, because you haven’t got any.

In sum, the people who use the word ‘feminazi’ are really just portraying themselves as pathetic female-bashers who are so afraid of women that their hatred of them has gotten out of control. The less evidence they have, the more shrilly they proclaim their viewpoint. It’s often seen in the far reaches of the paranoid conspiracy.

So in desperately trying to legitimize this term, Andy, you’ve just outed yourself.

So I guess Andy still doesn’t have a cite, huh?

Bolding mine. Here is the difference, you’re assuming that everyone who is a feminist has “joined” some sort of group. It has not been proven that “feminists” = NOW.
You, andy, and a few others are debating here as if the two were one and the same. My point all along has been that they’re not.

No, you didn’t “expect” too much, you were assuming too much.

Someone who identifies as a feminist has joined the group of folks who identify as feminists. One thus considers it reasonable to presume that they believe in a thing called ‘feminism’.

People who have unfortunate experiences with things called ‘feminism’ (of which I personally believe there are a fair number) are quite likely to be wary of people who call themselves ‘feminists’, because of their apparent affiliation with those unfortunate experiences. And even if they’re aware that there are a number of things called ‘feminism’, they still had the experience of being hurt by people in the name of a philosophy with the same handle – it’s not really possible to judge whether this person or philosophy is “one of the okay ones” without time.

quote:

Originally posted by CanvasShoes
Neither of them have provide cites OR “proof” that feminists want to eliminate men.
Or that “feminists have a tradition of desiring a non-male society”.

See previous references to feminist utopian fiction in which women achieve utopia because the men are gone. This has been previously referenced in this thread.

Or reference “The S.C.U.M. Manifesto,” paying attention to the fact that right in the opening it says " there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex." This has been previously referenced in this thread.

For additional citations, see Sally Miller Gearhart and her tome, “The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.” In it she states that “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.”

This philosophy is also followed by Professor Mary Daly, who resigned from Boston College rather than allow men in her women’s studies courses. Daly said: “If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.”
Here is an elaboration:
Daly has long advocated for research into parthenogenesis to dispense with men. Her book, Quintessence is half-science fiction novel, half bizarre manifesto in which she explicitly lays out her views. Daly herself is a character in the book who visits a utopian continent where – thanks to the influence of Daly’s books – a lesbian elite reproduce solely through parthogenesis.

And there is no doubt that Daly considers this both desirable and possible. Here’s Daly from a 2001 interview with What Is Enlightenment magazine (emphasis added),

WIE: In your latest book, Quintessence, you describe a utopian society of the future, on a continent populated entirely by women, where procreation occurs through parthenogenesis, without participation of men. What is your vision for a postpatriarchal world? Is it similar to what you described in the book?
MD: You can read Quintessence and you can get a sense of it. It’s a description of an alternative future. It’s there partly as a device and partly because it’s a dream. There could be many alternative futures, but some of the elements are constant: that it would be women only; that it would be women generating the energy throughout the universe; that much of the contamination, both physical and mental, has been dealt with.
WIE: Which brings us to another question I wanted to ask you. Sally Miller Gearhart, in her article, “The Future—If There is One—Is Female,” writes: “At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we were to create and preserve a less violent world. 1) Every culture must begin to affirm the female future. 2) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. 3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race.” What do you think about this statement?
MD: I think it’s not a bad idea at all. If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore.
Of course what Daly is advocating here is nothing short of gendercide, and yet Daly is taken seriously by radical feminists.

Radical feminist Andrea Dworkin, for example, called Quintessence a “masterpiece.” When the Boston College controversy erupted, Daly’s supporters held a fundraiser called “A Celebration of the Work of Mary Daly” which included Diane Bell, Director of Women’s Studies at the George Washington University; Mary Hunt, Co-Director of the Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual; Frances Kissling, President of Catholics for a Free Choice, and others. Daly also counted Eleanor Smeal, Gloria Steinem and other feminists outside of academia in her corner.
quote:

This is simple matter of two people making a blanket statement about a group. It’s exactly the same as saying “black people have a tradition of wanting to rule whitey” and so on.

When you have Gloria Steinem, Eleanor Smeal, a director of women’s studies in Washington, and numerous other prominent, nationally known activists on your side, it is no longer just a few marginal nuts. They may be nuts, but they were at the core of feminism, not on the fringes.
quote:

My gripe isn’t about “defending feminism”. It’s in that if one makes a blanket statement about a group, ANY group, you’re wrong. Period.

Sure, you’re out to defend feminism. And, for the record, let’s note that you didn’t say “defending some feminists.” You used the term here and elseswhere as a blanket term, so maybe it’s time to cease nit-picking when others do it.
quote:

In fact, it’s kindof funny, you hate what you consider “feminists” because of their supposed generalizations about “men”. Yet here you are, after 7 pages, still insisting upon judging an entire group by the actions of some of that group.

And here you go again, trying to use the defense that it’s only a few feminists who say this.

Interesting, a copy of a quote instead of my replies. Well, here are the actual replies. sorry about the extra post.

quote:

Originally posted by CanvasShoes
Neither of them have provide cites OR “proof” that feminists want to eliminate men.
Or that “feminists have a tradition of desiring a non-male society”.

That is just idiotic, if you use that kind of “proof” then we can extrapolate that anything that is written about in fiction shows a tradition desired by the group about which that fiction is written.
What I am talking about, and what margin is trying to ask for is proof that this has gone on in IN REAL LIFE. Other than the ancient Amazons. What REAL “traditions" exist that are trying to lead our society to this sort of reality? (that of a feminist utopia).

This person is NOW is she not?
Again, how does SHE speak for “feminists”? NOW does not equal the concept of feminist in its entirety, nor even necessarily in its majority.

You can quote these women 50,000 times over, their words (whether fiction or not) in NO way “prove” that they are in the majority, or that a majority of feminists follow them.

Rap is a pretty good money-maker, lots of folks do it, love it and are “good” (whatever that means) at it. But Rap does NOT equal Music, however noisy, and “popular” it may be.

This is simple matter of two people making a blanket statement about a group. It’s exactly the same as saying “black people have a tradition of wanting to rule whitey” and so on.

First of all, it’s not “my side” I couldn’t care less what those psychos do. As I’ve said, I do my part in my day to day life, as I’ve seen a lot of other women do.
You never did answer the question regarding those who fight the “bad feminists”. Based on your statements in here, your belief is that, unless a woman joins or starts a counter movement to NOW, then she not “really” against the “bad feminists”. So my question (which I asked several times) was is that NOT good enough for you? That a woman fight prejudice on her own turf?
Again, NOW and other organized groups with these women (helm or fringes) do NOT = feminists.
And again, when you make a blanket statement, that means you’ve just said that ALL of the people in that group do as you accuse them. You and the others have NOT been saying “some feminists groups” or “NOW” or even “too many feminists”. You’ve been saying “feminists”. Period. And that, is incorrect.
AS incorrect as saying “blacks [insert group of your choice] do XYZ negative action”.
quote:

My gripe isn’t about “defending feminism”. It’s in that if one makes a blanket statement about a group, ANY group, you’re wrong. Period.

That’s just plain silliness. I’m saying that it’s incorrect to make that sort of blanket statement. Asked and answered above. Saying “feminists” do XYZ is the same thing as saying “women/men/blacks do XYZ”.
quote:

In fact, it’s kindof funny, you hate what you consider “feminists” because of their supposed generalizations about “men”. Yet here you are, after 7 pages, still insisting upon judging an entire group by the actions of some of that group.

Not once have I said “it’s only a few”. All I’ve said throughout this entire thread is “feminist” does NOT equal NOW. Nor have I said that those that DO do this are without power or influence, if you’d read my posts instead of trying to get all cutesy (the last resort of someone who has no intelligent rebuttal), then you would have already SEEN that I agreed that those that you’ve mentioned are bad people with agendas that aren’t for the good of society.
The term Fringe Lunatic does NOT mean that I equate that with “just a few” or “without power or influence” something I’ve explained many times, and you’ve just ignored.
I realize that despite their weirdness, and lunacy, there are women who will think they’re the greatest, and follow them.
They are STILL not the meaning, the be all and end all, and the epitome of what the word “feminist” means.

Your comment there might be witty, or insightful, or even funny, had I ever claimed I was a feminist.

You will note for the sake of accuracy (if you know what that word means) that I have, throughout this thread, stated that I am most certainly not a feminist.

And there we have the salient point.

Still shoving your head into the sand as far as it will go, I see.

No, they equal the group ‘feminists’. Those who apply the label to themselves have chosen to do so, much like there are those who choose to apply the label ‘skinhead’ to themselves. Now, it may be that there is no tight-knit definitive organization nationwide for all skinheads, but if someone refers to himself or herself as a skinhead, they are identifying with a racist philosophy. By the same token the choice to apply the label ‘feminist’ to oneself is now often seen as the identification with a sexist philosophy.

Both are voluntary titles, neither are strictly defined groups, and neither are things attributable to a person solely by both. Generalizations about what skinheads believe, on the whole, are valid, and so are generalizations about what feminists believe.

Not even close. Being female, black, male, white, asian, etc are things one cannot change about oneself. Your gender and your race are not alterable. Your political affiliations and philosophical associations are. If you can choose to be a skinhead, you can choose to be a feminist. It’s not racist to assume things about what skinheads believe, nor is it sexist to assume things about what feminists believe. Quit trying to compare ‘feminist’ with a genetic characteristic. You’re being dishonest by doing so.

Does anyone else see the parallels between this discussion and the many discussions regarding Islam and terrorists (ie, “but the radical ones aren’t really Muslims and don’t speak for all us/them”).

And no, I didn’t really have a point beyond that. Just struck me as interesting.

You know…someone argued in another thread that Republicans basically equal racist. It seems, in the past, some people at the core of the Republican majority were pushing this agenda. And, now there are still fringe groups of the GOP which apparently push this agenda. It seems you can find quotes galore, especially from the past, which are pretty racist from many prominent Republicans…

But that doesn’t make it an okay (imho) to make that generalization.

However I may sometimes be exasperated by some Republicans, I know they are a large and diverse group. Sure, they have a few basic tenants that they hold, but ‘racism’ is no longer, and arguably was only of that good party on a small, but vocal, scale. However vocal some people were, and however wacky I find some of the groups that belong to the great ‘Republican’ umbrella, it does not make it true of the whole in the present.

And…

However I may sometimes be exasperated by some Feminists, I know they are a large and diverse group. Sure, they have a few basic tenants that they hold, but ‘killing of the male species’ is no longer, and arguably was only of that good party on a small, but vocal, scale. However vocal some people were, and however wacky I find some of the groups that belong to the great ‘Feminist’ umbrella, it does not make it true of the whole in the present.

Some “feminists” would be dismayed by me, I encourage my husband to buy ‘playboy’ after all. That does not mean those who have corrupted the ideal of feminism in their sphere get the title of feminist, leaving rational feminists (like those who have been in this thread) with no name of their own.

I’ve been following this thread for awhile now. It makes me sad

But, shucks, this is just the point of view of a lurker.

Yeah, actually I had noticed that, though I don’t take part in those discussions.

To say that because a person has “chosen” an ideal or concept in which to believe basically means that it’s open season on them as far as making generalizations is still pretty silly. From what I’ve seen, at least of the people I know, the muslim people as a whole are NOT some terrorists just lurking in wait to kill the “American Dogs”.

And I made a comment on this early on in this thread too. Are they widely quoted? Popular among a certain group who’ve taken their beliefs to extremes? Powerful?

Absolutely, does this mean Muslim = Terrorist?
No, and THAT, as religion is a choice and NOT as catsix flung up, genetic.

And to compare feminists to skinheads or KKK is just really scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses to keep on tagging an entire ideal as “bad”.

And again, even women who, (unless you’ve decided to become Amish, or forsake all benefits of living as a woman in this day and age), FIT THE DEFINITION of the word as it is spelled out in the current dictionary.

Despite SOME (be it 20 or 500K) having supposedly warped and claimed it for their own. The concept, the word, and the ideal is and was, to bring women up to equal status.

NOW members and the women that Andy has quoted here 500 times need to coin their OWN word, for they do NOT in fact fit the definition, the spirit, the concept or the ideal as it was originally intended.

And again, MY point has always been, we do NOT know how many “ordinary” feminists are out there. Neither catsix nor Andy have provided proof that the “bad” feminists are in the majority, other than personal and anecdotal.

All they have provided (over and over) is the same grouping of NOW type leaders and authors and their SAME quotes from the SAME books.

This is not proof that that type of feminist is in the majority. That is not proof, that this is unequivically what the word feminist now means.

All it is “proof” of, is that there is a militant faction of feminists out there with some really loony ideas.

Seems fair to me to compare people who are sexist with people who are racist.

As for the rest of your completely unproven drivel, well, maybe if you want it to be accepted you could offer up some proof?

Something to actually counter all of the previous examples, which have been that every feminist who is remotely famous, published, or in a position of any kind of leadership is a sexist.

I’ve never argued with you that the women in the examples you and andy offered weren’t sexist, horrible psycho and nutso. They are.

Again, and for the 15th time, you’ll get no argument from me against the fact that THOSE women are psychos whose ideas are bad ones.

What I’ve argued is that THEIR beliefs do not speak on behalf of a broad blanket generalization of “feminist”.

In addition, I’ve argued that their beliefs, as heinous as they are, don’t constitute a majority.

I’ve also stated that, short of interviewing every woman in America, there IS no way to state absolutely, what percentage of feminists are the “Feminazi” type, and what percentage are the “normal” ones.

I’m not stating that I have proof of which type of feminist is in the majority.

I’m stating that there IS no way to determine that. And that’s what I’ve been talking about all along. Just plain old common sense. It’s a concept, an ideal.

And, I’m stating that you and andy have yet to show that the Dworkin types (and the quotes he’s provided from them in many posts now) in ANY way support your (the both of you) claims that they do represent the majority.

Repeating over and over again that you think there are non-sexist feminists does not prove they exist.

So, how bout some proof?

Otherwise this is just you repeating the same mindless crap I’ve heard out of hundreds of other feminists. Namely that nothing in feminism can be argued because ‘not all feminists are like that.’

For someone who claims ‘not all feminists are like that’ you sure are good at pulling out the same tired bullshit.

First of all, I have not once said or even inferred that “nothing in feminism can be argued”. Of COURSE There are things wrong with it. I’ve said and agreed to that several times within this thread.

The trouble is, neither of you read past the first few sentences.

At any rate, That’s not been anywhere NEAR the ballpark of my point(s) to you. I’m really not emotionally tied into whether “feminists” are good, bad or indifferent. I’m talking about the incorrectness of making a blanket statement about a group with no proof of said statement. Which so far, neither of you have provided.

The KKK, and the skinheads have a specific purpose OF racism, by design. Feminism from its infancy had only equality as its ideal. (and again, no matter what you believe it has turned INTO, it’s inception was not for the purpose of sexism, so there IS a difference).

You and andy have both made a statement about “feminism”. Neither of you said “SOME” feminists, or these particular feminists (meaning the NOW group and the women andy’s quoted so many times).

Second, I’m not the one who made a blanket statement. In other words, I didn’t come into the thread and say “feminists are XYZ (where XYZ is a variable painting them as all good or some such)”. Which would be equally incorrect.

If that is, in fact what I HAD done, then I could see where you’d want “proof”. As it is, I haven’t said anything which NEEDS proving. I’ve not said “feminists are good” as a direct opposite to that which you and andy are claiming of feminism (that it’s “become” bad).

I’m not making a statement either way. I’m saying, NO one knows this. At least not in this thread. It’s entirely possible that someone, somewhere has some studies and polls, showing some sort of census of whether or not modern women consider themselves feminists. But so far, we’ve not seen them posted here either way.

And that’s exactly my point. YOU don’t know, and neither do I. And quotes from psycho NOW leaders isn’t proof. For that matter quotes from goodie goodie feminists wouldn’t be proof either. What I’M talking about are polls, studies and some sort of census showing a percentage of women, and what they believe.

And IF they consider themselves such, whether it’s of the “feminazi” NOW variety, or the boring normal variety. And in what numbers or percentages.

And if you would actually read my posts, you’d see that I had agreed with both you AND andy on several of your complaints regarding the nutsos he was quoting. You both keep ignoring that I agree with your condemnation of those women and their ideas.

I’m saying that what you and andy are doing, that of painting an entire group with one brush, is incorrect. Period.

Again, I don’t have any kind of emotional stake in this. I’ve not been treated all that horribly by men in the workaday world. I’ve not seen any of these rabid feminist of whom you speak in MY neck of the woods.

I’m in this thread because I find that see what makes you and andy tick is interesting. But it would be MORE interesting if you both would stop being so quick to be all upset and up in arms.

I’m speaking strictly logic and the meanings of words and correct speaking and writing insofar as debates and so on. That is why I kept referring to the technical, not the NOW meaning of the word. If it’s bothering you, I’ll quit.

I didn’t mean to upset either of you. Since this isn’t something that is one of my emotional issues, it’s kind of nice to have this distraction to keep my mind of that which DOES bug me (love, a man, and all that entails).

I honestly didn’t mean to get you mad or for you to think I was trying to “talk you out of” your anger against those who’ve harmed you. I have no reason to doubt that both you and andy (as jerkish as he’s been) did in fact suffer what you say you did. And FTR, I have not once said I disbelieved your personal experiences.

And what “tired old bulls***” am I supposedly pulling? You don’t even know, because you’re merely assuming that I’m saying you don’t have a right to be mad at those who’ve done you wrong, and so you’re not reading any further than you want to in order to get more “ammunition”.

If you would take 5 minutes to read my posts, you’d see that that I’m not at ALL saying that “You aren’t allowed to say anything bad about feminism”.

But you’re so up in arms, that that’s all you can see.

Last chance, **Satisfying Andy Licious. **

No fiction, no thirty year old quotes from extremists. You specifically state ‘feminism.’ Not ‘extremist’ feminism, not extremist feminists. Either apologize and whine that you meant to put a qualifier in there, or reitire from the debate.

Cite or shut up.

Me:

It’s not a cite when you repeatedly talk about *feminists, plural.
[/quote]

Your job, Andy, is to provide a factual cite for your assertions that feminists desire the eradication of men. You have, instead, repeatedly cited selective thirty-year-old quotes from extremists, and claimed that they represented feminists. Those are not cites.

I noted above your bullet comments about feminists. You have to provide a cite for those, or you’ve got no argument. ** People arguing against you have nothing to debate because you have not supported your statements. Not one. You keep desperately whining about the same three or four feminists, and then you pull up Google searches of supposedly feminist fiction that you’ve never read, but you’ve yet to find a factual source for any of the bullet comments that I cited yet again, above.

Until you provide a cite, there’s no discussion. Interesting that you whine so much about men falsely accused of rape, but you accuse feminists of genocide, and claim that fiction is enough proof.

So, Andy, cite? You have nowhere else to go.

I agree that feminist!=black, but feminist also !=skinhead, although the comparison is illuminating.

My first skinhead friend as an adolescent, after all, was a Puerto Rican Jew skinhead who was a member of SHARP, or Skin Heads Against Racial Prejudice.

Assuming skinheads are racist is simply incorrect.

Of course, being a skinhead is an aesthetic choice linked to certain diverse political movements. Being feminist is a range of diverse political choices: my own feminist leanings have little to do with Mary Daly’s feminist leanings.

Daniel