So, anyway, Andy still does not have a cite to back up his bullshit. Next: man bits dog!
You do realize, Andy, that the next time you say anything about a feminist in another thread, whatever you say will be discredited by your remarks in this one? How fun.
Funniest thing I’ve read yet today. Especially coming from you, a person who completely lacks any skills of debate.
Funny how that works, isn’t it? The answer is always “They’re everywhere.”
Well if they really are everywhere, they ought to be pretty goddamn easy to point out, right?
Now Andy, you should know that while most people are not allowed to make blanket statements, it’s perfectly allowable for feminists to do so. Ever heard this statement by Marilyn French:
Why aren’t these supposed huge numbers of feminists who oppose man-bashing condeming that blanket statement?
You did say that real feminists are those who fit the dictionary definition of the word, and that those who hate men may call themselves feminists but are not ‘real feminists’. It follows that by your logic, no real feminists hate men. Are you going to claim that you never said that man-bashers aren’t feminists? Because not only have you said it in the past, you continually say it, as in “First, I do not agree that those you quote ARE in fact “feminists”.”
That’s what you said. Don’t try to spin it now.
And what exactly did you do? And if these ‘non-man-bashing’ feminists are everywhere, why could you only come up with one ‘example’?
So what you want us to accept as evidence is a woman who does not consider herself a feminist, isn’t part of the feminist movement, doesn’t do anything that appears anti-male, and who you decide to call feminist because she’d then be a convenient example for you?
Don’t think so. You don’t get to invent evidence.
Sticking up for one friend in a bad divorce case doesn’t indicate a damned thing about whether you actively oppose such things as the entrenched man-bashing being taught in feminist led institutions like ‘Women’s Studies’ programs. Ever written a letter of protest to a university department head because of the unfair and anti-male bias in the reading list for those courses? I have.
Andy and I have proven that, as we claimed, anti-male feminists and out right misandrists exist. You claimed there are feminists who are not misandrists or anti-male. Now it’s your turn to prove your claim.
Unless the matter at hand is what the opinions and thoughts of that person and her followers are. The published works serve as definite proof of the views of those particular authors. That their works are widely used as the curriculum for Women’s Studies and other feminist-education departments at various universities serves as proof that their views are, on the whole, accepted as ‘What feminism is’, else they wouldn’t be taught in that regard, would they?
No, but you do choose to be a feminist. Woman != Feminist.
Feminist is a choice.
Are you reading any of this at all? Hell, are you even functionally literate?
Discredited how? You sure as hell haven’t managed to discredit him.
It is fascinating to see you believe that you or anyone else has, much like it’d be fascinating to see you say you still believe Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy exist.
Since I quit spending so much time on Usenet, I forgot that people as blatantly deluded as you exist.
I’ve been following this debacle with some interest.
I’m a feminist and I’ve been happily married to a male of the species for 20 odd years. He’s my very best friend in the whole world and I love him dearly.
So I guess I’m checking in as a non anti-male and non misandrist feminist.
You’re so cute, catsix. You think that when a guy makes an uncorroborated statement about feminists, to refer to stray, thirty year old quotes is relevant. So for you to question my literacy is presumptuous in the extreme. Sweetie, did you graduate that college you went to? It’s very fun looking back at your conduct at the MS. boards, where you engaged in much the same behavior as you have here. You and Andy both expect your statements to be accepted as fact without backup, and you seem to think that quoting from radical feminists from thirty years ago is somehow acceptible. It’s not.
Given your lack of ability to grasp the difference between 'opinion' and 'fact', it's actually a compliment that you obviously can't understand anything that I've written. But then again, this may be because you haven't read anything.
[quote]
You do realize, Andy, that the next time you say anything about a feminist in another thread, whatever you say will be discredited by your remarks in this one?
[quote]
Heh. You mean, where he refused to provide a cite? He discredited himself. He’s managed to ignore that request for a cite at least seven times. So have you. It’s getting to the point where it’s starting to look like cowardice. Don’t want to face the music, huh? Run away, then.
Catsix, are you trying to be a comedian? Because you’re suceedding wonderfully.
God, I just love people who refuse to provide cites commenting on reality.
Catsix, in small words, Andy has not backed up one single thing he’s said. You’re just as bad as he is. He has not provided factual backup for his bulleted statements about feminists, he has repeatedly quoted the same six or seven thirty-year-old quotes, and he has responded with insults when pressed. All of which you call legitimate and acceptable.
A cite—which you should know, if you went to college and actually graduated-----is a source for a theory. Sure, you can cite some nutjob if you want, but it’s not going to do you a lot of good. If I were to argue about race based on sources in the KKK, that would not be a reputable source. Furthermore, if I were to base my opinions----as Andy has repeatedly, desperately, and cravenly done----on one or two extremists I could rightly be called ignorant or paranoid. Andy just loves to trot out Robin Morgan. It’s like saying that LeRoy Jones represents the black civil rights movement.
And all of this just ignores the essential fact here: Andy has repeatedly avoided the issue of backing up his opinion with facts and proof. You call this citing stuff.
You are not worthy of my time. I’m officially done. There’s no discussion here until andy puts up or shuts up. What’s especially bad is that you’re just his bitter little cheerleader.
Uh, no. This was too blatant to pass up. That’s not what Andy claimed. This is what Andy claimed:
Gee, it’s almost inspiring the way you keep ignoring this. What a good little anti-feminist you are. Go ahead. Keep ignoring this. You’ve got a record to go for, I think.
And once again, just so even Andy gets it:
And once more for catsix:
Do you have anything of value to say, margin? If so, please start now.
Yes, some of my best friends are black too.
Do you do anything to oppose anti-male legal bias such as writing letters to congressmen and state legislators regarding the family court system, or state and federal funded domestic violence support programs that serve only women and turn away abused men?
Have you ever written a letter to the editor of a newspaper regarding the exclusion of men from a Women’s Studies program solely because they are men?
Are you active in any way in the community regarding anti-male slants in the media, such as commercials and sitcoms that describe men as big dumb buffoons who can’t do anything without their hero-wife coming to save the day?
When you see anti-male bias happening, what do you do about it?
I’ll tell you what this feminist guy does about it: the same thing that 99% of the American public does about it. Jack shit.
Are 99% of the American public misandrists?
This is an intellectually bankrupt argument.
Daniel
So, catsix, got anything relevant to say about this?
That’s a strikingly disingenious remark.
A bit silly too really.
I’m not sure why, in order to prove that I’m not anti-male, I have to actively seek redress for what you perceive as the current oppression of men in Western society today.
However, when our male employee was being harrassed by the state of California for child support that he did not owe (the child wasn’t his), I 1)threw all all letters from the state demanding that we granish his paycheck until he could get the situation resolved and 2) gave him as much time off as he needed with pay to consult his lawyer, have the blood tests done etc.
I don’t watch televison programs that portray men as big twits (with the exception of the Simpsons) anymore than I watch programs that portray women as big twits. Mindless sit-coms are not my cup o’tea.
I’ve never written a letter to the editor protesting the exclusion of men from Women’s Studies programs (is this really some huge problem that I’m oblivious to? Are thousands of men being denied their rights to said programs on college campus’ even as we speak?) but you should also bear in mind that I’ve never written the Augusta gulf club to protest the exclusion of female members either.
I tend to be a bit more selective about picking my battles.
Same thing I do when I see racial bigotry or anti-homosexual or religious bias.
I boycott the institution if appropriate, I speak up very loudly and clearly to combat the ignorance and, most importantly, I strive to treat every one equally.
I’m curious about one issue here, catsix.
A number of women have posted in this thread- and identified themselves as feminists. They’ve been quite reasonable but you seem detemined (as as been pointed out to you repeatedly) to define feminism by the extremist fringe.
Why?
Does Louis Farrakhan speak for all black people?
Does David Duke represent all white people?
Why so hostile?
margin, if they didn’t get it the first time, they’re not gonna get it when you repeat it. You can, however, reference people to “the post where I quoted soandso” if you like.
Lynn
For the Straight Dope
Followed by three more posts.
How can we miss you, if you won’t go away?
If you are going to shut up, then shut up. If you aren’t going to shut up, then shut up anyway.
And, taking Lynne Bodoni’s advice, I refer you back to my post on page four where I repeated the multiple cites that SAL has given for his statements. And point out that you (here I am addressing margin) have not done what you promised to do, which is to produce cites for your own positions.
So, as a conservative Doper, I will answer the question posed by the thread title -
Conservative Dopers, please explain the concept of “FemiNazi” to me…
It’s dishonest and foolish twaddle-peddlers like margin, who give the concept of feminism a bad name.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, Andy and you never answered requests for cites to prove his bullets. Period. He has repeatedly quoted Robin Morgan or pulled statements from NOW that do not address his claims. Claiming that fiction proves his point does not. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
If anybody’s peddling twaddle here, sweetie, it’s you.
Lynn I’ve been doing that. I got fiction references and claims that thirty-old remarks proved it. It just seems like they’re determined to ignore it.
Fiction=facts?
Not in the real world.
So, still no cite, huh?
What a surprise.
jlzania Did I get your name right? But your experience is sort of similar to one of my own. We had this aggressively anti-feminist woman at my job a couple jobs ago, and she just could not get her way with the boss. He was kind of a jerk, but if you yelled at him, he wasn’t all that bad. Anyhoo, she yelled at him, couldn’t get her way, then demanded that I stand with her because he’d sexually harassed her. Well, I saw the whole thing and I flat out refused. But of course, she expected me to because I was a feminist and she sounded exactly like **catsix, Shodan, **and Andy in the way she conceived of feminists.
Of course, the boss was just as anti-feminist as she was, and he didn’t change his opinion either. Go figger.
I generally hate labels.
Period.
I wear the feminist label because, as a 47 year old woman I have experienced discrimination as a result of my sex.
That said, my being ** for woman**has never translate as my being against men.
See, I think a world where all people’s are given equal opportunity regardless of their sex or race or religion or sexual perferences is a better place for all of us.
Mary Daly at Boston College recently found herself in a heap of trouble with administration over exactly this issue. Daly wanted to deny men entrance to courses in Women’s Studies because she believed it would be unfair to the women for it to be a mixed gender environment. She is currently being sued for her policy of refusing to admit men to the women’s studies classes, stating that she absolutely will not teach them in a classroom with women.
In light of this, I found a very interesting discussion in which at least one other college professor who calls herself ‘Jeanie’ stated that she too does not think men belong in Women’s Studies courses. According to her, ‘I’ll tell you how I feel about men in my Women’s Studies classes. I’d just as soon not have them there. I see enough of them everywhere else.’ and ’
“Women’s Studies”–a beautiful name. I like it a lot. To my ear, it says not only what it’s about but who it’s for, mostly.’
How many men are actually being denied their rights to such educational programs? If Mary Daly and ‘Jeanie’ have their way, all of them.
Neither have I. Private clubs may follow their own rules as to who is and is not invited for membership. Public agencies like the government and state funded universities are not allowed to exclude women from courses, so why should they get a pass when it comes to excluding men?
You are also making the mistake of equating ‘feminists’ to ‘women.’ Feminist leadership speaks for feminists the way that NAACP leaderships speaks for NAACP members. I’ve never said that those feminists whose views are studied and who lead the marches speak for all women, so why would ou ask me about Louis Farrakhan and black people or David Duke and white people? Louis Farrakhan can speak for the Nation of Islam. David Duke may speak for the KKK. And Gloria Steinem speaks for Ms. Kim Gandy speaks for NOW, Betty Friedan and others who ‘gave birth to third wave feminism’ speak for it, and Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon speak for ‘radical feminism’. Third wave and radical feminism pretty well cover the feminist movement today.
I believe you see hostility where it does not exist because you have drawn a false analogy between ‘feminists’ and ‘blacks’ or ‘whites’. One does not choose to be a particular group. One does choose to be a feminist or not.
Due to what I have seen of the feminist movement, and what it means to me because of that, I choose not to be.
And that most certainly is your right, even if you chose to phrase it a bit like a Dr. Seuss rhyme. 
psst – catsix, it’s been two years since Mary Daly dropped her lawsuit against Boston College and was forced into retirement. Rumor has it that the college had been looking for an excuse to get rid of her for ages, but waited until they had a rock-solid case before doing so.
Most feminist people I’ve met, and that I’ve found online, are embarrassed by her.
Daniel
You’re confusing two separate issues.
First. What is the defintion of feminist and do they exist under that defintion. (You are the one who keeps bringing up the sarcastic and unneccessary “supposed HUUUUGE numbers” etc).
Second. Do “real” (your word) feminists condemn ill advised statements by man-bashers.
You are trying to correlate the first question by using the second as proof.
Which is akin to visiting Kodiak in the winter time and saying “WHAT grizzlies?? I don’t see any grizzlies, they’re not being photographed, they’re not out on the rivers catching salmon, where ARE they”?
Your demands that the “real” feminists must "prove’ their existance by forming groups and opposing the man-bashers is another issue. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether “real” feminists exist or not.
No. That is NOT what I’ve said. You’re getting confused again.
I’ve said, in effect:
Here is a word, it has a meaning. One that has been set forth in the dictionary, and in a generally accepted understanding of that meaning.
Women who fit that definition, are BY DEFINITION, feminists.
The phrase “by definition” does NOT mean that I have labeled them as such, it means just what it says, by definition, much the same as my example re: hotdoggers.
No, again you’re misquoting me. And/or not understanding what I’ve said. I have said they do not fit the definition of feminists, and if and until they either change their beliefs and actions so that they DO fit that defiintion, or until the definition is officially changed for the majority, they are not, by definition, feminists.
Stating that those man-bashers aren’t feminists is not equivelant to saying no “real” feminists could possibly be man-bashers.
I’m sure, that among ordinary feminists that there are bad eggs of all sorts. But the subject of this debate is NOT “what kind of people are “real” feminists” but “do they exist”.
No one is spinning, you asked a number of questions in your last post to me. I answered each of them. But you ignored the entire post in favor of snipping this ONE little point and continuing to focus on it. And by continuing to misinterpret and misunderstand what I’ve written.
Again, if you don’t get something, ask for clarification, don’t make assumptions.
Read my posts above, several examples are posted there, as they are in several previous posts throughout this thread.
You’ve asked this question before, and I’ve answered it, and then you’ve continued to ignore my honest answers to your snippy, snide and accusatory little jabs.
I’ve continued to answer and debate patiently and without insulting you or andy. Unlike, and in spite of the way the two of you have behaved. Don’t throw ME in with margin’s crappy behaviour, I’m not margin.
Case in point. No. I don’t “want you to do anything”. I’m asking a question so that I know what it is that you’re looking for. If either of you EVER answers this question, then I can tell you what I know. Otherwise, I can only tell you what my personal experiences, and those of my family, friends, coworkers, and students are.
So, IS what you are saying is that you refuse to believe that there is such a thing as a “regular” (non-dworkin) feminist, unless they form a group, or are publicized in some way?
And again, if that’s the case, SAY SO. Don’t just fire back with more snotty accusations. Boy, talk about the pot calling the kettle black, that’s FAR off the track for appropriate debating.
Again, snideness, snottiness, accusations. Not logical or appropriate debating technique.
No, I’m not “inventing” anything. I asked the question I did to know where you stand. Again, if that’s the only “evidence” you’ll accept, then only after I KNOW that can I provide or not provide that which you’ve asked for.
Okay, so what you’re saying is that there is a set circumstances of what YOU consider to be acceptable “opposition”?
You writing a letter is an acceptable form of opposition.
A person refusing to accept man-bashing in their every day lives, to YOU, doesn’t count.
Correct?
No you didn’t. You proved that the authors of the books and articles you quoted were nutsos, and likely man-haters. That’s approximately 8 people between the two of you.
And ALL you proved was what they, the authors, believed. You didn’t prove anything about what the rest of the country believed. You can’t even prove what, if anything the people who BOUGHT the books believed. For all you know, they had the same reaction as you and I.
That being, “what a bunch of crap”, and throwing the book across the room.
And your personal experience with your woman’s studies group, as it’s a personal anecdote, doesn’t count anymore than MY personal experiences do. If you want to count that in, go ahead, but you have to, as appropriate debating technique, give MY personal experiences equal weight.
You can’t have it both ways.
[quote]
Unless the matter at hand is what the opinions and thoughts of that person and her followers are. The published works serve as definite proof of the views of those particular authors.[/qoute]
EXACTLY…(by George, I think she might be getting it!!!)
The views of those AUTHORS. Again, please show me a census, a poll, JUST one, that shows that the READERS of those books feel and think the same way as the authors do. You can’t extrapolate their, the readers, thoughts and opinions merely by guessing.
A true cite, a scientific method to prove this, would be a poll of some sort, of those who’d read the books, and how they thought about the opinions therein.
The existance of the books, authors and even followers doesn’t prove that they’ve, the authors, managed to pass on this supposed tradition.
Now here is where you can absolutely blow me out of the water should you so choose.
A defensible “cite” would be for you to provide proof of all these universities that use those books as their curriculum, and that they are not just using the books as examples but that they are teaching FROM Them.
Citing the books themselves is in no way “proof” that any universities “use them as their curriculum”. All we have for that is what YOU say.
In other words, if a class says “here read this, it’s an example of far out there thinking re: feminism” that’s NOT being used 'as the curriculum".
After all, many biology classes reference the bible as an example of what not to believe re: evolution.
They certainly cannot be said to be using the bible "as the curriculum.
Exactly my point Black doesn’t equal civil rights activist either, but in order to fight for your rights, you engage in behaviour that, again, BY DEFINITION, makes one for black rights.
But, one does NOT have to behave as a Black Panther, one can be a black person, and believe that they have the same rights as other people, and STILL not actively be a member of any organizations.
Same thing as being a feminist. You can believe in the original concept of the term, and not have to be a member of anything to technically be considered a feminist.
FTR, Margin?
I gave you the benefit of the doubt the first couple of posts you made.
I thought maybe you were just being a little overzealous.
While you and I share a few similar points. I have to say I really disagree with your attacking posting style.
I think that you’d do a lot better, and have a better time yourself if you’d not look at this as some sort of fight.
There’s a question “on the books” so to speak. You swearing, and being on the attack all the time and screaming “SHOW US THE CITES” and continues snotty “I didn’t think so” isn’t helping at all.
I think that both andy and catsix would be able to slow down, calm down and take a look at other viewpoints with a more open mind if they didn’t feel as if they were being held over an open flame.
I think all of us, at some time online have been guilty of saying the wrong thing, and having a little meltdown. The best thing to do is to use it to better one’s self and try to move on from it.
I hope not to add myself to your enemy list by saying this, but again, you’re just splashing gasoline on a fire here. If you took a deep breath, and stopped seeing these two as “the enemy” it might help.
Sheesh, it’s not like they tried to stomp kittens!!! They merely have a different viewpoint.
(sorry, I’m going to slink off in shame now…I dislike getting after people).