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

The BBQ Pit
361

Aha. Now we’re getting somewhere. See, THIS is what I’ve been talking about all along. You say it yourself right here:

“entire political movement that is called feminism”. By WHOM is it “called” feminism? Well Duh, by the NOWs, and the dworkin/morgan, blah, blah, blahs.

And you’re gonna take THEIR word for it? Really weird considering how much you say that they’re evil and how you say they’ve caused you “15 years of damage (paraphrased)”

You don’t seem to be reading my posts, or you would have already seen that.

But anyway, I’ll just try it a different way.

There is a group of people out there, that has some bad, bad ideas. They advocate, among other things, the eradication of men in our society (I’ve already put in MY 2cents as to how I think that’s a really bad idea).

Several of the members of this group are self-proclaimed leaders, and they’ve written books and articles about their bad ideas, policies and prejudices.

You’ve cited those leaders/authors.

I AGREE with you. That group is pretty much a bunch of bad eggs, with bad and hateful ideas. They SHOULD be condemned and disagreed with IMHO.

Where we disagree is that that group is in fact made up of “feminists”.

They can label themselves as such, loudly from the rooftops, if they so desire.

Technically and regarding the meaning of the word, it doesn’t matter if the entire 550K membership of NOW calls themselves feminists.

They aren’t. They fit neither the definition nor the spirit of the term.

Now I’m a reasonably decent skiier. Intermediate, I can even take moguls and maybe even execute a teensy jump or two. (You have to know how to ski if you live in Alaska, it’s a state law…That’s a joke son).

At any rate, if I so desired, I could gather 550k of my closest friends and other mediocre skiiers together, and we could all start calling ourselves “hotdoggers”.

Some of us could even write books on the subject, after all, all you need for a book is knowledge and research, not actual skill (note I didn’t say GOOD book).

If we were loud enough, and went around proclaiming our “hotdogger” status enough, along with a sufficiently “jerky” attitude, people who didn’t know what a real hotdogger was and had only seen US, and OUR bad attitudes, might actually think “those hotdoggers, they’re jerks etc”.

My point is, it doesn’t matter HOW much we kept on mediocre skiing, or HOW much we proclaimed our devotion to hotdogging. We still would NOT be hotdoggers.

Unless one of two things happened. Unless we actually gained the physical skill sets and knowledge and BECAME hotdoggers, OR if the term hotdogger officially became the term that defined mediocre skiiers.

That is the same thing I’m arguing here.

The NOW folks and the authors you and andy have quoted ad nauseum, ARE bad folks with bad ideas, YES.

However, no matter HOW loudly, or how strenuously they claim to be for the “cause of feminism” they’re not.

Only IF, and UNTIL either the term is changed to MEAN that which those NOW types currently practice, OR until the NOW folks fit the actual definition. And that means overall, for good, not just the folks that they’ve conditioned to believe that they actually are “feminists”.

I mean as a whole, in our everyday language. So far, that hasn’t happened, and you and your cites of their nasty books hasn’t shown that it’s happened.
quote:

CanvasShoes said:
Is it your contention, that unless a “normal” feminist is a part of, or has started an “organization” of some sort, that she/they “can’t” be considered as evidence of feminists who do NOT buy into the “NOW/Morgan/Dworkin” beliefs?

You didn’t answer the question. What do you consider proof?

An “official organization” of what you call “moderate” feminists?

Oh, and I do have at least ONE “look up-able” cite for a “normal” non NOW type feminist. A celebrity who is a self-proclaimed feminist, and he doesn’t believe in ANY of the agenda that NOW pushes.

You might have heard of him, his name is Tom Leykis. If you don’t feel like looking it up (tomleykis.com) he states that he’s a feminist, AND why, using the correct definition, on almost every radio show. He’s on at 4-8pm LA time (at least I think that’s correct, it’s 3-7pm Alaska time).

quote:

Funny that you should say that, as YOUR defense in a question of "Morgan/dworkin/NOW’ does NOT equal the term feminist is to provide exactly the same cites that you’ve provided before.

You’re still not understanding my point here. All the cites that you’ve provided prove is that THOSE authors have really horrible agendas.

They don’t “prove” that those women either ARE feminists, or that the speak for feminists. Keeping in mind that I mean the original definition of “equality for women”.

These women are so far off the mark as far as fitting that definition that they are near opposite of it.

quote:

What I SAID was, (and you choose to keep ignoring this) was that by the technical, current dictionary meaning, I fit that definition, so by THOSE criteria, I am. Just as are all women who fit that definition, until they change it.

Your first sentence contradicts your second. If the dictionary does INDEED change to reflect the vernacular (are you sure you know what that word means, or are you just regurgitating it from other debates?) that is “The everyday language spoken by a people as distinguished from the literary language” then as the “NOW types” have been using the word feminism in everyday language for decades now, shouldn’t the dictionary AS you yourself said have “changed to reflect the vernacular”, that is everyday use, of the word?

On the other hand, another meaning of the word is “A variety of such everyday language specific to a social group or region”. Which would actually prove my point, rather than yours. That is, that this particular use of the term “feminist” is specific to the groups like NOW and their ilk.

And again, why are you taking the word of a group you profess to have so much against?

At any rate, all your quotes from the psycho NOW types does NOT support your belief that they are currently what is majority “working definition” of the word feminism.

Regardless of how they use that term, and try to convince others that they are “feminists”.

quote:

They are, by definition. You can’t seem to wrap your mind around that I am discussing etymology here.

My opinion? Again, if you think that, then you have not been reading my posts. The only “opinion” that I’ve expressed here is in support of YOUR beliefs that the NOW types are “bad”.

Otherwise, it’s been a simple, “sorry, they don’t fit that definition/technical meaning”.

Not really an applicable analogy. Your example is discussing a slang term and descriptive term. Not a word with an already established meaning that referred to a belief and/or group of people.

I’m pretty sure that the dictionary hasn’t replaced the word “bad” to mean “cool, hot, good” etc. either.

quote:

And thank GOD most of us “normal” feminists

Hence the quote marks. You do seem to have trouble understanding what someone is saying. I said I am a feminist by definition. That doesn’t mean I’m saying “OOOOh, I’m a feminist, I’m a feminist”. Aside from that, this little statement you’ve snipped was from a tongue in cheek smart alecky remark meant in silliness.

quote:

Again, I’m talking about feminism in its ORIGINAL meaning, which is “equality”. Period.

No, the current discussion started when Andy made a blanket statement about “feminists” and posted a bulleted list about the nasty agenda they have.

The bulleted list was from the dworkins, NOT the “feminists”.

And then, when in answer to his post people said that’s not “feminISTS” that’s the femiNAZIs" he went off on a tangent about how we were defending “them” and so on and so forth.

My point, and I’ve said this several times, is that as the original OP asked, FemiNAZI defines the NOW types, those that both you and andy have quoted dozens of times here.

And we AGREED with both of you, (for the 20th time) yes, those sorts ARE bad apples.

Again, that THOSE people call themselves “feminists” and have lead others to think of them as such, still doesn’t make it so.

quote:

They seem to keep taking my descriptions of the definitions as announcements that I’m on (GASP) “their” those horrible horrible Morganites’ side.

LOL! What? That I disagree with you? That I state a point by point rebuttal, and unlike you and andy, stay away from silly insults about a person’s character, intelligence, etc?

quote:

It’s a very distracting thread though, I’m sorry to be boring you, I know there is more world worthy and cerebral subjects to be discussed.

See my statement re your debating style including insults and silliness.

But to answer your question… by the way, what WAS your question? It seems to be a cross between you accusing me of having odd beliefs about patriarchy and still accusing me to be on “their (the NOW psychos)” side again. I fail to see how patriarchy has anything to do with the current discussion.

But okay, I’ll bite.

Your statement/question/comment was “to see if I (meaning me, shoes, I’m guessing you mean) subscribe to the definition of partriarchy”.

What exactly are you asking? Do I think that it (society) should be partiarchal? Or are you asking do I think it already is?

That would be no, and no. No I don’t think it should be, and no I don’t think it currently is.

Or are you just asking if I think patriarchy still means what it says in the dictionary?

Yes, I believe that it still means what it says it does in the dictionary, I haven’t seen anything to prove otherwise. Why, have you?

362

and I thought I was a mental case…

I’m out

363

Actually, the argument goes like this:
A) Not all feminists hate men.
B) Therefore, no feminists hate men.
C) Have you got that, you prick?

364

:dubious:

What are you talking about here? Not even andy has conducted himself as a “mental case”.

It’s called a “debate”. People post points supporting “their” side of an argument, their opponents rebut with their arguments.

But then, “you’re out (you sure you didn’t really want to say “audi”? :D)” so this explanation will likely fall on deaf ears.

At any rate, if you’re still wanting to post in SDMB, you’ll see a lot of this sort of “back and forth” here in the pit, as well as GD.

Not so much in the other forums. Just an F.Y.I.

365

Not one person in this thread has said “no feminists hate men”, or any version of that. So this whole thread long, you’ve been arguing against something that wasn’t even said during this debate.

366

I’m convinced that Andy is a troll. Nobody could be this pathetic, this illogical, and still crow that he was winning this debate handily. It’s too easy. He’s a walking cliche of the woman-hating cretin who whines that women are taking over. I bet he’s actually a staunch but misguided feminist who thinks that by spouting all the cliches he’s demonstrating what sort of opposition women still face.

Okay, nah, maybe not.

I just hate to see somebody embarrass himself so badly.

367

You know, for some reason I conflated that one with this one in my mind. What happened to intelligent debate?

You’re giving catsix too much credit. She defends Andy, claims he’s provided cites, and despite having been to college appears to have no knowledge of debate or sources or logic. I’ve run into the Camille Paglia school of women who claim they’re not feminists—or are actively hostile to whatever straw women Paglia has them believing in----while espousing feminist values for themselves. It’s kind of difficult putting it into words, but it’s like this anti-abortion person I was arguing with. This is what these anti-feminist women always remind me of. She claimed that she was opposed to abortion because 'women are so strong and powerful that we need to start being responsible." Looks like a compliment to women, doesn’t it? Except the flip side of the coin is in you’re not strong and powerful, if you do anything frail and human and stupid—the way everybody does, the way I do, the way normal people do everyday----she had nothing but contempt for you. This is the sort of thing that Camille Paglia and her little fans do. Nobody needs help and assistance when they’re strong and powerful, or has difficulty finding friends. Things like abortion and feminism exist precisely because people do need help and aid and at least have enough courage to ask for them.

As long as catsix defends Andy and claims that he’s posted cites, and that he has backed up his argument, she’s nothing but a cheerleader, and she’s just as illogical as he is. I see nothing salvageable there, frankly. She dismissed out of hand all those reasonable quotes that you? posted, and wouldn’t even consider them.

I still think it would be interesting to see what feminism means to people. I’d like to see how much reading people do.

** So, Andy, got that cite yet? Oh, guess not. What a surprise.**

So, anyway…

368

What you claimed was:

1.) There are women who hate men.
2.) Those women may call themselves feminists, but they are actually not.
3.) Real feminists are interested in nothing more than equality and don’t hate men.

Combining the above what we get is a statement from you that ‘No real feminist hates men. Those who hate men are not real feminists.’

So you see, you did claim that no feminists hate men.

Statement makes much more sense if you replace every instance of ‘Andy’ with ‘margin’.

He has provided cites which you have ignored. Also, you need to learn the difference between ‘dismissed out of hand’ and ‘refuted with further evidence of sexism by the very same people that Dorkness quoted.’

What I did was disprove Dorkness’s assertation that those people were not sexist by posting sexist quotes of theirs. That is called ‘refuting’ or ‘debunking’ a cite. Dismissing out of hand is what you do, where you refuse to even read them.

I don’t believe this for a minute. What I do believe is that you would be interested in seeing what feminism means to people who believe it means the same thing you do. For anyone with differing opinions and evidence to back them up, you call names and refuse to read cites.

369

catsix, you may call that “debunking,” but I think we’ve got something of a “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” situation. Given that you can’t name a single public figure with whom you agree on gender politics, we’re left without a viable alternative position to consider. It may well be that the people I named are the least sexist people in the public eye, even though you were able to pull up some quotes that you consider sexist.

Daniel

370

I think that if someone speaks about equality out of one side of their mouth and out of the other makes sexist comments, that person is not someone to respect.

I’m quite sorry you don’t expect integrity out of people before you put your support behind them.

And if someone will publicly make sexist comments, they are not the ‘least sexist’. Not even close.

371

Uh, no.

Catsix, sweetie, you’re not qualified to continue here. Andy has not provided cites. Buh bye.

372

Well, now here’s a post by CanvasShoes that I can entirely agree with.

373

Then that is where we have to agree to disagree. We have noted anti-male attitudes in feminism dating back to Betty Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique,” which launched modern feminsm, through feminists in the classroom today. We have also noted the lack of any evidence of any recognized faction of feminism who make it a policy to oppose man-bashing. Here, you claim there are feminists who are not anti-male. Yet we do not see any evidence of those feminists putting their beliefs into practice in the real world. What we see is that when the charge of man-bashing is made against feminists, then feminists come out and say they don’t approve of man-bashing. But if they really and truly don’t approve of man-bashing, then why do they sit on the sidelines while it goes on? In short, the feminists who claim they oppose man-bashing have not taken any real-world action to register their opposition. When feminists are accused of man-bashing, these feminists will tell us how much they disapprove of it. But if they really and truly did, then they would evince that opposition in other actions than lip service.

First, you would not have to interview every woman, because woman does not equal feminist and feminist does not equal women.

Second, on the matter of established groups such as NOW: if the majority of enrolled members opposed man-bashing, they wouldn’t support officers who engage in it.

Thirdly, let’s concede your argument that you can’t determine what a majority of feminists believe in. We’d settle for you showing us any organized faction of feminists who have made it a policy to oppose man-bashing. If man-bashing were not endemic in feminism, you would have a division between groups who engage in it and groups who condemn it. But no such groups opposed to man-bashing are present, while it’s common to see feminists who will villify authors such as Sommers who oppose man-bashing.

And fourth, the man-bashers are the ones who are organized and putting their beliefs into action. They are the ones hiring lobbyists and applying political pressure, the ones arguing in court, the ones influencing how laws are drafted, how the courts work, and how the issues are covered. The supposed feminists who oppose man-bashing apparently are not committed to that position enough to take any action at all.

So the anti-male feminists hold the positions that allow them to influence the real world. The supposed feminists who oppose man-bashing take no significant action to counter them.

They certainly represent other feminists. As for feminists who actually oppose Dworkin and her ilk, they are virtually voiceless.

374

You can’t just clap your hands over your eyes and keep saying make it go away. On this thread alone there are multiple examples of feminists who theorize about women-only utopias. I don’t say that all feminists do this, but I do say that there’s ample evidence of feminists who do take that view. And as for a “tradition of desiring a non-male society,” it goes back in feminist fiction to the beginning of the previous century and continues into the 21st with people like Daly. So yes, to me that is a tradition.

Straw man. I spoke only of feminists who desire such a world.
The feminists who do propose women-only societies offer theories on how it could be done – through cloning, parthenogenesis, or other means that are not yet scientifically practicable. Or, in Daly’s case, they fantasize about Mother Nature getting fed up with all the nasty things done by those brutish men and deciding to snuff them out. I say that those fantases are inherently anti-male.

For the deniers, we can prove that such anti-male attitudes are rife. Then we ask, where are the feminists who oppose this anti-male hate. The lame answer we get every time is that such feminists are everywhere. And yet you can offer no proof of them taking any significant action to oust man-bashers from the leadership positions of feminism.

Feminists have lodged some pretty strong objects to what they see as misogyny in popular music. A lot of times they are right. They don’t have to go through silly arguments that rap and heavy metal are not the real world. If the lyrics are misogynistic, that is evidence enough of misogynistic attitudes.

I haven’t seen them in the paper. Haven’t seen them in the Capitol. Haven’t heard them on TV or radio.

So show me any evidence of you fighting prejudice on your own turf.

You seem to want a free pass. You want to claim that you oppose man-bashing. Yet you devote all your energies to attacking people who object to man-bashing. So when we ask you to show us any action you have taken against man-bashing, and you can’t, why should we credit you with opposing it?

I could also say that the United States invaded Iraq. You could come back by citing U.S. citizens who oppose the intervention. Yet it still doesn’t alter the blanket statement that the United States invaded Iraq.

Wrong. People don’t chose to become black or white or Hispanic. People do chose to become feminists.

Yet you haven’t shown us any real-world examples of feminists opposing man-bashing.

Yet no one could deny that Robin Morgan, Gloria Steinem, Mary Daly, Dworkin, etc., are feminists.

375

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Left Hand of Dorkness *
**Margin, did you read the same cafe society thread I read? I didn’t exactly see Andy restricting himself to honest, responsible debate there.

I’m interested in the discussion, but not with Andy. Not, anyways, until he apologizes for shitting all over me and other people in that other thread and shows that he’s reformed his conversational style. And believe me, I ain’t holding my breath for that one.**

[quote]

Then could you at least brush your teeth?

Daniel, once again you are somewhat widely :wink: off from the truth. I started that Cafe Society thread. You entered it and made two obvious misstatements – one about my original post, and one about your familiarity with the books being discussed.

I asked you, in an entirely civil manner, to correct your misstatement about my original post. You took a supercilious attitude rather than own up to your misstatement. I also noted the blatantly irreconcilable discrepencies in your claims of knowledge. You have to date made three different and irreconcilable statements on that score. You also cussed me like an eighth-grader for pointing it out.

Wesley Clark got caught making contradictory statements at the start of his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. He had to confront them directly, rather than run away and say he’s not talking to the people who brought it up, and cussing them out for doing so. That’s how adults handle the situation.

I didn’t “shit on” you or anyone else – unless you consider someone pointing out the truth to constitute shit. In which case, I understand why you’re a feminist.

376

Then this would be a blanket statement about feminism – a practice which you seem to have been condeming of late.

377

Actually, check the first page. People like Zoe made blanket statements about feminism, including this one:

They were trying to paint feminism as a movement that believes in equality and egalitarianism, which would by definition preclude the hating of another group. (It was a blanket statement, and drew no objection from your quarter.)

That is when I joined the thread and said that feminism has not embraced those goals at all. It has been a movement to benefit feminists, no matter what the costs to others – as indicated in its advocacy of anti-male job discrimination, etc.

Also, your own early posts were full of denial about the magnitude of anti-male beliefs in feminism. Plus you tried to turn the blame in Catsix’s dilemma with the professor back on Catsix. Catsix and I have shown that these attitudes are far from rare. What is rare is any feminist who has taken action, beyond lip service, against anti-male attitudes.

378

First of all, I didn’t say that “real feminists are interested in nothing more than equality”. You keep confusing the definition of the term, with actual women, and their emotions and their own personal beliefs and actions.

And to put 3 and 3 together and get 8, that’s some really skewed logic.

I haven’t addressed, in any of my posts, what the attitudes of what you say I call “real” feminists, think or feel about men. So you’re statement that me saying that the NOW types don’t fit the definition of feminism = me saying that no feminists hate men is both illogical and untrue.

Asked and answered. Again, since these women, including Friedan do NOT fit the definition of feminist, it doesn’t MATTER what they claim to be. Even if they wrote books on it, they do not fit the profile or walk the walk.

And again, I’ve asked this question several times. Is it your contention that an official organization or group with such policies is the only proof you’ll accept that they do in fact exist?

Because if not, I’ve provided SEVERAL examples of just what you’ve said you were looking for. Including Tom Leykis.

Wrong, I’ve posted several examples of just one person, me, doing just that. On more than one occasion, and with more than one male. But again, since you’ve never answered my question of whether that’s “good enough” for you, I guess you can keep saying NO feminists are any good.

Define “sitting on the sidelines”. Again, I’ve posted several examples of women standing up and saying “I don’t accept this kind of behaviour”. And again, I ask you, is an organized "anti-male-bashing group the ONLY “evidence” you’ll accept?

In other words, women who fit the definition of feminism standing up in ordinary everyday ways isn’t good enough for you?

Opposing it in every day life, as in the examples I gave, isn’t “real life”?

Again, WHAT is “good enough” for you, in order for you to feel vindicated? Nothing short of a national organization of “real” feminists against man bashing?

If so, be HONEST and SAY so. Don’t keep beating around the bush and saying “no real life action is taken by so-called ‘real’ feminists”. Stand up and STATE “I don’t believe that ordinary every day opposition is good enough, only a group or organization formed for the sole purpose of anti-manbashing is sufficient”.

quote:

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.

Exactly my point. Neither of us, and I’ve stated this SEVERAL times, knows what percentage of American women (leaving other countries out to keep it as short as possible) believe what about feminism.

If you’d stop reading my posts, looking for evidence with which to suddenly shout “AHA, I KNEW it, you hate men,” you might be able to comprehend what I’m actually saying instead of using it as ammunition and ignoring its meaning.

I’m going to attempt to make this as simple as possible.

I don’t know that. Neither do you. And I have never said I did know what they were thinking. You’re so angry at what they’ve done, that you keep seeing me saying that as me defending them.

I’m making a simple statement of fact. Neither you, nor I know what 550k members are thinking. We don’t know how many support their leaders, how many are mindless sheep following along and not really paying attention to what the agenda is, and how many have good intentions but are on the wrong vehicle.

What I’ve said all along is that a person, whether you, or anyone else, is incorrect in making blanket statements when they do NOT in fact know the people involved. You know what a handful of leaders and authors say about NOW, and their beliefs. Neither you NOR I know what the entire membership thinks about their leaders and the “nutsos”.

379

Sorry to make it two posts, in order to answer all of your questions it made for a really long post.
Should they oppose them and all? Both you and I think they do. Again, you’ll get no argument from me there. But logically and debating-wise, that’s a separate issue. And really doesn’t have much to do, other than them claiming to be feminists, with our current debate.

Lots of groups have bad agendas. That’s not what we’re debating here, if you’d like to address that, which you have, a lot, then address it separately from the base discussion, that of “what is a feminist”.

You keep trying to roll them all into one big “Feminists are SATAN” ball of wax. Not logical.

Ah, now we’re back to what consitutes TO YOU, an acceptable degree of “opposition”. And again, I’ve asked this question of you, though the answer seems implicit in your many complaints of this…
Is it your contention that the only acceptable opposition in real life is that a group of feminists have an official organization?

If so, own it. Otherwise, accept that my examples are honest ones, and likely not the only ones. As is evidenced by a number of about 30 students, me, and Tom Leykis. Again, a number than exceeds in percentages, your 8 authors and “feminist” leaders.

Again, we have two separate issues here.

First, I do not agree that those you quote ARE in fact “feminists”. Yes, I KNOW that they call themselves that. I don’t agree with their use of the term, anymore than my previous example of hotdoggers. It doesn’t matter how much they scream it, or how many members are in NOW, they’re not, by the definition of the word, “feminists”.

For you to take them at their word, is to give THEM undue power.

Second, the “where are the groups that oppose it” question. Again, I ask is this the only manner acceptable to you by which to oppose man-bashing?

Again, you’ll get no arguments from me here. The MAN-BASHERS do in fact do this. And? How does this in any way prove that they fit the definition of feminism? Or allow them free reign to bastardize that word for their own use?

So, fighting for a coworkers rights during his divorce, including creating a way for our boss and him to protect a good portion of his paycheck from his troll bitch from hell ex isn’t “any action at all”?

Again, is it your belief that women, like me, who take action in everyday life, and every day situations “don’t count”. Or aren’t “taking any action at all”?

And again, this is a SEPARATE issue from “what is the definition of feminism”.

Supposing we DID have a way to prove what the women of America believed in regarding their stance on feminism.

For the sake of argument, let’s say it’s 50/50 50% “old school” feminists" 50 % NOW “feminists”.

Again, the definition of “feminists” doesn’t state ANYWHERE that in order for you to “prove” that you’re a “real” feminist, that you have to join and/or organize a group fighting against man-bashing.

Now, before you get ALL upset again and start in with the “I knew it, you don’t care, you don’t oppose it, blahblahblah”. I’m NOT saying that this would be an acceptable attitude. I am talking strictly defintion.

You just stated this argument above. Asked and answered.

quote:

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.

And? Again, I’M talking the meaning of the word here. How does the lack of an outspoken authored etc “real” feminist faction disprove their existance?

And again, I am NOT saying that there may, or may not be a need for a group to speak out against it. I’m saying that the lack of such a thing, LOGICALLY doesn’t preclude their existance.

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”.

Asked and answered many times. I have read the quotes, I believe you, and I agree with you that THOSE attitudes by THOSE women are heinous. However, this doesn’t show that feminsts have a tradition of desiring a female only society etc.

And again, if there WERE such a majority of this thought process, where is the progress? No such “delete males from modern life as we know it” IRL processes are happening.

And again, people can WRITE about a lot of stuff re: future tense, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.

An actual and proveable cite is something along the lines of a scientific study, a poll even, census. Numbers showing that a thing, whatever thing that might be (in your case that feminists want a female utopia) is in fact “on the books” so to speak.

And again, I’m speaking logically, I’d say the same thing about any subject. If you brought in books by Piers Anthony, Isaac Asimov etc and used them to prove that “American’s have a tradition of conquering the stars” I’d STILL say phooey!!!

For that, bring me NASA reports, books etc from the Apollo program etc.

You see the difference? A person’s thoughts and opinions, despite the fact that she may be published is NOT a defensible “cite”.

Asked and answered above, also see my arguments re: the definition of the term “feminism” to be what I am mainly arguing.

quote:

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).

No, you haven’t. Until this post, you’ve consistantly said “feminists” period.

You said it yourself, “Fantasies”. This is not a cite, as in a report of female only societies or some such actually taking place and so on. For the record, just knowing my fellow females? It ain’t gonna happen, most of us like men, and their hearts (and other eqpt) WAY too much.

I think you’re taking way too much to heart the rantings of these women authors.

quote:

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.

You keep saying the same thing over and over. No one has argued that anti-male attitudes aren’t out there. FTR, so are anti female/black/jew/indian, and on and on and on. Not a whole lot of anti ANYTHING bashers, at least not in your demanded “organized group” way, when it really comes down to it.

You’ve asked this many many times before, and I’ve answered this question and asked one of my own many, many times before.

First, What do YOU consider “significant action”? Second, lack of an organized group to fight the “bad feminists” isn’t logical evidence of their supposed non-existance.

Third, I’m going to take a guess as to, in between all the angst, you’re asking "if they exist, why don’t they do anything, where anything to YOU is “form an anti-male bashing” task force.

Going off into a whole 'nother issue here, but I’d wager that the reason is that most “old school” feminists are satisfied with their lives. Most of us don’t see this heinous and widespread movement to eradicate males. And most of us fight prejudice in our own lives in everyday, regular, plain old life ways.

Again, that you consider that to be “not significant” doesn’t mean it’s not true. To say so is like trying to prove that their are hundreds of people that don’t like oranges.

Well HELL You say, “if they don’t like oranges, where ARE they? Why aren’t they forming groups to fight the growing and distribution of oranges”.

Ummm, perhaps because they simply deal with it by not BUYING oranges?

In other words, if women don’t see, what you say you’re seeing, then they’re not going to see something with which to RESPOND with “significant” opposition.
quote:

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.

What are you talking about?

That was what was called an analogy. I most certainly don’t want to veer off into yet ANOTHER related issue. Again, my argument is that the word “feminist”, despite its being hijacked by NOW and their ilk, is NOT about manbashing etc. Period.
quote:

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.

So, I take it your answer to my question (asked 500 times now) of “what do YOU consider to be real life opposition” would be “They are only opposing man-bashing, or making a significant statement if they are publicized, or well known, or form a group”.

Correct?

quote:

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.

I’ve posted this several times already. The problem is, you’re so ready to see offense where none is intended that you’re not reading other people’s posts, only snatching what you can use to be argumentative. Being argumentative isn’t the same as “debating”.

At any rate, in my every day life, if I hear someone tell stupid “wedding” jokes, (where the man is the butt of the joke, OR the woman), I speak up, and make it known that I do NOT appreciate that kind of humor.

I always do the same at the idiotic “dumb man left home alone with the kids” commercials.

In this, and several of my previous posts, I describe my going to bat for a male coworker during his divorce, including creating a way for the boss to change his paycheck to protect a large portion of it, and yet for him to still get an equivelant, but non-monetary (something she couldn’t touch), value, in the way of company housing. This creature, (she can’t rightfully be called a woman), had done such evil things to this poor guy, he’d been such a nice “yes dear” man all his life.

So when he started telling me things she was doing to him, both in the home and during the separation and divorce, I stepped in and gave him as much time (including many many phone calls, filling out paperwork, going to every court date, showing up with him for visitation so she couldn’t claim he’d “attacked” her, and so on and so forth).

This divorce took almost 2 years, and I went through every step with him AND as I mentioned before, I got the entire company involved, and made sure that when this guy was ousted from his house, that he had all the furnishings and things he needed to start over, by rousing family, coworkers and friends.

But then I didn’t form a group or publish it, so that doesn’t count.

I haven’t attacked you at all. Again, MY argument has been about the definition. The term “feminist” means something. Regardless of what the NOW idiots have said, they DON’T fit the definition. Now catsixhas said something to the effect of “well yes, but that’s what it’s COME to mean”. I’d be willing to concede that if I saw proof. But, I personally believe that most folks are smart enough to see that the dworkins are loony, and that they do NOT in fact represent the mainstream definition of feminism.

Each and every time you’ve asked what I’ve done against male bashing, I’ve provided examples in posts. Every time. But I’m now getting your drift that since it’s not been published, or isn’t an official group, it “doesn’t count”.

But since you haven’t ever stipulated that in order to be considered “acceptable” or “real” opposition, it must be either publicized or to start a group or organization, how am I to know that?
quote:

And that, is incorrect.
AS incorrect as saying “blacks [insert group of your choice] do XYZ negative action”.

Feminists are usually WOMEN, we don’t choose to be women anymore than blacks choose to be black.

To want to be equal to the other members in society (remember, THE definition of feminism) is NO different than blacks or any other minority wanting to be equal in society.

The analogy is similar to making a blanket statement against civil rights activists because of the actions of groups like the Black Panthers.

It is true, people DO choose to become civil rights activists, but thier difference, their minority, or status of inequality is what brought them there.

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.

Asked and answered.

quote:

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.

I most certainly do. And that’s been my point all along. These women, according to your cites, are in favor of eradication of men. That belief alone (setting aside all their other nutso concepts) is not at all “equality for women”.

This is in NO way fitting the definition of feminism. I don’t care what THEY call themselves. To me (and remember, this debate WAS “what does the term feminazi mean to you etc”), and to a LOT of people, they’re not feminists. Not by definition.

380

Actually, that was a grammatically horrible sentence in which I had forgotten to include a key statement, and that would have been “who may or may not”.

At any rate, it was an error and an incomplete sentence:smack: , I’m surprised you were able to glean any meaning from it.

But not surprised that the meaning you chose was again that I was supposedly making a “blanket” statement, or somehow defending the “dworkin crowd”.

Again, with that sentence (and the many other’s I’ve posted like it), the point is not “all women are feminists” “or all feminists are good” or anything of the sort.

The point I’ve been trying to make (and you keep misreading)is:

1.) here is a word

2.)this word has both a dictionary, and an established meaning (yes, I KNOW you’ve been brainwashed into believing that the NOW people are the “real” feminists seems to me you’d be glad they’re not).

3.) People who fit that definition are BY definition (that’s a technical statement, not one of opinion or judgment, you seem to keep not getting that), that thing/item/member etc.

My main point is, “some people have taken this word, which has a technical meaning, and claimed to BE that word, they do NOT in fact fit the definition”.