In your last statement, having worked closely with women’s shelters, I can tell you that they don’t “turn away abused men”. Most women’s shelters have a policy of women only to protect battered women from possibly being found they their abusers and killed.
I’d like to know how this in any way supports your “alll feminists are man-bashers” theory? Their policies weren’t put in place to exlude men, nor were they somehow “lobbied” into being.
For most shelters, it’s a matter of common sense, and was brought about with help and advice from police and other protective authorities. The reasoning is that a batterer could easily have a buddy or friend go “undercover” to one of these shelters, and figure out where their target was, and then be able to hunt them at their leisure.
This isn’t something that was somehow “lobbied” into being by congress, as you suggest, it’s generally shelter by shelter policy. And again, it’s common sense. Many shelters have their residents not tell ANYONE where they are, especially if their abuser is likely to kill them.
In our state, there ARE men’s shelters. If you won’t allow others’ anecdotal evidence, then you cannot include YOUR anecdotal evidence either. Again, you can’t have it both ways.
Again, is an official group, or a publicized action or protest the ONLY thing you consider “acceptable”? Again, a lot of folks fight this in their everyday lives. Is that, or is that NOT aceptable?
[/quote]
When you see anti-male bias happening, what do you do about it?[/qoute]
Is this provided they do it as an “official” publicized action? Because both you and andy have insinuated, though not yet admitted, that those don’t count as “significant” or acceptable means of opposition.
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.
Actually I answered this question for you several times before, in other posts in which you’d asked it. There IS no “entrenched man-bashing being taught…”. At least not in my state, nor have I seen this in articles, on the news, and no books written about it either. Unless you can enlighten me as to some “bestsellers” I’ve not seen advertised that outline this conspiracy against men.
Let’s say you and andy had lit a fire under me, let’s say I’m now GUNG HO to fight all these HORRIBLE feminists. What universities should I write to? I haven’t heard any of this stuff publicized, and that should be a biggie to you, since publication is, to you, the only evidence something exists or is true.
Against whom would I protest, WERE I to write such letters? In what states and at what universities?
And again, as jtzania said, where are these thousands upon thousands of men and “ALL” these universities that are being denied entrance, or being “man-bashed” in woman’s studies?
More importantly, please show me “all these men” who’d WANT to be in a “woman’s studies” class. (:D).
I picked up on your doubling back and spinning. You did do that. You have claimed that people like Andrea Dworkin, Betty Friedan, Marilyn French, Catharine MacKinnon, Ti-Grace Atkinson, Mary Daly, and other widely published and feminist-respected women aren’t feminists although they themselves claim they are and large numbers of feminists support them. You said that those who man-bash aren’t feminists. Now you’re attempting to say that’s not what you meant?
I’ve pointed out your inconsistencies and inaccuracies. I’ve also challenged you to provide proof of what you claim exists. Either you can do that, or you can’t.
I have answered that question by providing examples of things that would demonstrate that a person actively opposes man bashing. I cannot provide an example of every action, but I have given you quite a good picture of what characteristics those actions have.
If you didn’t like that answer, that’s too bad. But you can’t claim you didn’t get one.
If I can’t see them, or the affect of their actions, I have to conclude they don’t exist.
A nasty divorce, in and of itself, is not evidence of ‘man bashing’. I have provided examples of ‘man bashing’ in literature and in law. What changes have you or any other ‘non man bashing feminist’ affected or attempted to affect?
Which is why I’ve read reviews by people who read the books, self identified feminists, on feminist sites. I’ve also looked at the opinions of those books by several Women’s Studies professors and why they placed those books on their reading lists. If someone tells me they believed in it, or writes a book review saying they did, or includes it in their course curriculum because they said that it ‘spoke to them about what feminism really is’, then I think I know what reaction they had to it.
Which makes them a black person, not a black activist.
And being a woman who believes in equal rights makes them a feminist where it doesn’t make a black person a black activist?
Nobody is a something-ist just because they want to be treated fairly.
CanvasShoes said:
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.
No one has yet shown any proof or accepted cites that they are either “well-respected” or that they have “large” numbers of supporters.
Anyway, to answer your question, I most certainly did NOT say “those who manbash aren’t feminists”. I said, that of the women you quote, their actions most certainly demonstrate that they, THOSE women, do NOT fit the definition, that of being for equality" of feminism.
I said those who claim to be feminists, and act in ways that do not fit the definition aren’t feminists. Not according to the generally accepted meaning of the word, and not according to the current dictionary meaning.
It’s skewed logic for you to then think that I mean that, by default, that those who do fit the definition are all goody two shoes angels of perfection.
You are misquoting, and or misunderstanding what I’m saying.
quote:
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.
As I’ve pointed out yours. Calmly and without insults, accusations and insinuations. I’ve posted several examples of ordinary feminists acting in ordinary ways. Several times.
quote:
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.
Boy you sure like to skirt the question and wiggle out of an honest debate.
You asked for proof, then people give you examples, then both you and andy come back and ask for proof again.
It’s a simple question, one which you haven’t answered.
Is it your contention that unless a feminist has had her protest Publicized, or unless she forms or joins a group, that her opposition doesn’t count.
Based on your behaviour in this debate, it would seem so, but you haven’t answered honestly, so people can’t provide what you’re looking for if they don’t know what it is.
In simple words, catsix is looking for proof, as proof catsix will accept __________________.
Fill in the blank.
quote:
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?
Well since I haven’t seen ALL these universities, and their actions re: keeping men out of women’s studies groups and/or manbashing in same. I have to conclude that those don’t exist.
Again, you can’t have it both ways. You either accept personal experience, or you don’t. If you don’t accept it from your opponent, you can’t expect to be able to use it for yourself.
quote:
A person refusing to accept man-bashing in their every day lives, to YOU, doesn’t count.
Asked and answered in the other several posts before this one. You really need to learn to read a person’s ENTIRE post, not just pick and choose.
I posted examples of me, in real life, opposing man-bashing behaviour from other people. Stop asking me the same question if you’re not going to read the answers.
quote:
For all you know, they had the same reaction as you and I.
Okay, again, here’s your chance to blow me out of the water, where are THOSE cites? And those articles, written opinions, etc???
“If someone tells you” is a personal experience. Again, if you refuse to accept personal experiences from your opponent, you can’t use it for yourself.
quote:
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.
I would wager that most black people still expect to have equal treatment under the law, and when and if they need to, they take action.
quote:
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
According to the dictionary it sure as hell does. Feminist is to believe in those concepts. Activist as it suggests is one who takes action. Were we arguing whether “real” feminists took action for their “cause” or not. Then it would be a different debate, we’re not, we’re debating whether those that fit the original definition exist.
Well again, you’re confusing my statement that a person “fits that definition” with you thinking that I’m saying that they “have to be” that. Or that they are anything other than that thing.
You seem to be thinking that I’m saying “no, feminists are ALL good, and they’re all men lovers and they are ALL out there fighting for the good of man etc fa lala la”. I’m not.
So now you’re saying Betty Friedan is not a feminist.
You’re saying the woman who launched the modern feminist movement – is not a feminist.
Pick up “Alice In Wonderland” and study Humpty Dumpty’s use of words. It’s very appropriate here.
So, in order to cite a feminist who doesn’t bash men, you have to find a man.
That should tell you something about feminism.
As for what has been done to oppose man-bashing, what I’d like to see is any broad effort on the same scale as feminism. I’d like to pick up the paper or turn on the television and see denunciations of man-bashing. I’d like to see an anti-domestic violence protest that doesn’t picture women as the only victims and men as the only perpetrators. I’d like to see something of the same magnitude as women’s studies courses.
You say you have taken such steps personally. Well, if you have, and I have doubted you, then I understand how you must feel – you must feel that I am not appreciative of your efforts.
So I will ask you to understand my position: In dealing with self-proclaimed feminists, it is always best to err on the side of caution. I have learned this lesson the hard way, from people who practice dirty tricks, a la margin. (In her case, some outright lies she and Biggirl are airing in another Pit thread at the moment.) I mention those two only in passing to note that they are entirely representative of the feminists I have had to deal with personally and professionally – vindictive, irrational, and willing to spread lies against those who differ from them. Men have nothing to gain from trusting to the good will of feminists. They have everything to lose.
What I can say is that feminists have not been very good to men who get smeared by other feminists. When the man-bashing starts, it seems to go on unabated and unchallenged.
I appreciate any woman who has done such a thing. But as a man, I have to keep in mind that the anti-male feminists are the ones who are organized and who have networked. The anti-male feminists have their lawyers, their lobbyists, their pressure groups, their press agents, and their telephone trees, and they can bring that to bear on any organization that displeases them. Men have nothing comparable, notwithstanding the feminist contention that we are all born into power.
What I’m saying is, if it’s happening, it’s not making the papers, so how do I know it’s happening? I’m also saying that when the anti-male feminists go on the war path, I don’t have the number of any handy anti-male-bashing group to call to counter the attack.
It’s not happening in my real life. What your telling me is something like a shadowy underground movement. I don’t know if it’s real or if it’s not. All I know is that the man-bashers are organized and professionally and politically connected, and it would be foolish for any man who works in a field they covet to ignore that.
What I’m saying is that every established feminist group has anti-male measures on its agenda. Meanwhile, all the supposed feminists you mention who oppose man-bashing are not organized and not making their voices heard. So therefore, it is entirely clear to me that organized and activist feminism can pretty much be expected to have anti-male policies. And it’s the activists and the do-ers who count.
I used to be angry. Now I’m just wary. Life is competition, and this is just another facet of it. What I have noticed is a strong connection between anti-male attitudes and the denial that anti-male attitudes either exist or that they matter. If a feminist is anti-male, she is going to deny she is anti-male, and she is going to defend others who are anti-male. Your initial posts on this thread are rife with red flags of that sort.
What I know is that anyone who thought the leader of their group was nutso would stop sending money to it or would vote the nuts out. Since the anti-male nuts are still in control, it’s obvious the rank and file don’t object.
I suppose I could answer that where are all the women who want to be coal miners and construction workers. You might not find a lot, but when you do, is it right that they should be denied the opportunity because of their sex.
If you wanted to do something, I’ll tell you what. Write to NOW. Tell them that they have lost your support because they are anti-male. Tell them that if they ever want to regain the respect and support of women like you, they will have to curb the man-bashing, drop their opposition to fathers gaining child custody, and drop their demands for anti-male affirmative action.
While it’s interesting to see a truly revolutionary movement like feminism likened to passing musical fads, that misses the point. The Founding Fathers are influential and their thoughts are studied today, 330 years after the Revolution. It’s not as though they’ve gone out of style like the music of their day. The first wave feminists are still studied today, and many of the organizations they founded are influential. Moreover, because it takes a long time to get to the top of the corporate or political ladder, a lot of the feminists there now are from the first wave, holding direct influence over our lives. Barbara Boxer, for example.
Oh, another of Andy’s opinions, which he won’t back up with facts. Yawn.
Actually, sweetchrissy a better question to ask Andy would be where he gets his opinions about women’s studies courses, since he’s obviously never taken one. He keeps citing Robin Morgan, Valerie Solanas, or whoever, and doens’t appear to realize that a new century has dawned. There’s a whole new bunch of feminists out there, like Carole Tavris, Susan Faludi, Ann Jones, and Peggy Reeves Sanday. He doesn’t appear to have read anything about feminists that was published after 1978.
Carole Tavris? The one who believes the world is so unfair because women are constantly having to measure themselves against men and because governmental policy doesn’t encourage or reward people as much for ‘nurturing’ as it does for ‘self-reliance’?
The same Carole Tavris who thinks that in order for there to be equality, someone has to compensate for things like pregnancy when looking at a woman’s career path? Nobody would think that a man in a rapidly developing field should take a couple of years off of work to have a kid and still have all his seniority build while he’s gone, but women need that kind of leg-up because it’s just not fair to expect them to work on their career if they want to climb that ladder?
All Carole Tavris does is come up with another reason why women are the perpetual victims of men. And if women are the victims, the only people left over to be the victimizers are men.
Subtle, but still anti-male.
On to Susan " By any objective measure – pay, representation in boardrooms, status – men are still ahead. " Faludi.
Susan Faludi is the author of Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. A charming book in which she discusses how the anti-feminists are waging a war against all women and attacks those who dared to disagree in writing with Betty Friedan and Germain Greer.
Because apparently disagreement with Friedan and Greer, misandrists extraordinaire, is ‘anti-feminist’ and therefore misogynist? So what’s happening there is that Susan Faludi is defending a couple of misandrists. She’s sticking up for them knowing they are misandrist. How come she doesn’t condemn their anti-male attitudes?
Ann Jones, who presents blatantly false statements such as ‘Women usually get heavier sentences than men’ in her book Women Who Kill also likens women serial killers who hate men to those ‘battered women’ who kill their abusers?
She also writes about domestic violence as if it is a crime that only men perpetrate against only women victims. She assumes that in all of these cases the women are merely innocent victims of men and derides police for their ‘failure’ to see things the same way as she does, despite the fact that in many cases of domestic violence, both partners are violent with each other. A fact that Erin Pizzey uncovered when starting her domestic violence shelter.
In this book, women are once again the prepetual victim. The victim of men, the victim of the criminal justice system, might as well be the victim of everything. I wonder what Phil Hartman would have to say about the attitude that women are the only domestic violence victims.
As for Peggy Reeves Sanday, she’s put a lot of effort into proving her hypothesis that men are ‘born biologically to rape.’ She also likes to point out that ‘rape is a fact of patriarchal socities’ and a problem that matriarchal societies don’t have. So if women were in charge of society there wouldn’t be any such thing as rape, huh? Men shouldn’t have any power in society because then they go out and rape women. She also appears to hold the idea that all instances of alleged acquaintance rape really are rape, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded by that anti-woman attitude ‘Hell hath no fury…’ Unfortunately for Sanday, it’s a fact that there are women who lie about being raped, and about being raped by someone they know. Seems that according to her, people who point out that fact are just spouting out their misogynist lies. Women don’t lie about rape, men do, at least according to Sanday.
Seems that the misandry and anti-male attitudes are more pervasive than I first thought.
I’d appreciate a cite for your claims in that post, catsix. Seems to me that there’s just the wee bit of a chance that you’re exaggerating, distorting, or otherwise misrepresenting some folks.
I’m also much more interested in any examples of these people actively working against men – specific bills they’ve advocated, policies they’ve put in place, lawsuits they’ve brought. Facta, after all, not verba.
I’d just be happy if you’d answer a question with a straight answer instead of trying to squirm out of straightforward questions, or answer them with a question in order to continue to attempt to prove your point, though beyond “feminists are satan” I’m not sure what it is.
I find it fascinating and perplexing that the two of you profess to hate and disapprove of NOW Soooooooo much, and yet you are fighting tooth and nail to defend for them their rights to misuse the term feminist as they see fit.
Since they hate men, they technically don’t fit the definition. but you too are consistantly screaming “they are SO feminists, they are SO, see the books they write? See the hatred they spew, THAT’S feminism baby”!!
Well, what that attitude proves, is that to YOU that’s what the word means, you associate the NOW types with feminism. Sad for you, but okay.
What you’re not getting, is that that isn’t a universally accepted meaning of the word.
Now, were it me, and I was, like you two, victims of these people, I’d take this opportunity to further discredit them, along the lines of “AHA! You people are not only the spawn of satan, you’re twisting and lying about being feminists, for the definition of feminism states that it’s about equality of woman, NOT superiority of women, and eradication of men”!!!
They never had my support in the first place, I pay about as much attention to them, as I do their counterparts, those nutsos on Televangilist Stations.
But you still haven’t answered my question. Where are “ALL” these universities that have such hellion/amazons for Women’s Studies classes?
The one case that has been cited here, proved to be detrimental to your POV, rather than in support of it. In other words, the woman was NOT supported, but was drummed out of her college.
Okay, I’ve asked this question before too. What proof do you have that they’ve accomplished any of this? As you say, if they are this powerful and have accomplished this, where are the articles? The publicity? The reports on CNN??
Also, and once again, they, they meaning NOW and morganites etc, don’t really cross the radar screen of “women like me”.
Other than writing books with idiotic concepts and lobbying, (hell anyone can lobby, doesn’t mean they’ll get anywhere), exactly what have they accomplished as a group that was intended to bash, or exclude men?
Originally posted by CanvasShoes
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.
First of all, she didn’t “launch the feminist movement”.
Secondly, what I’m saying, is that if she, is of the opinion that men should be eradicated, then she does NOT fit the definition of “feminist”. If she believes, and promotes such ideas, she’s not “walking the walk”. Feminism wasn’t about becoming superior, it was to bring us up to being treated equally, and being able to legally prevent men from mistreating us.
You’re making it much more difficult than what I’m actually saying.
quote:
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.
What part of “including Tom Leykis” suggests that “in order to find a feminist…”.
And again, you are making a correlation between two different issues.
Those being:
What does the term feminist mean?
That is the issue I’m debating. You keep attempting to state that since to YOU “feminist” means NOW and strictly NOW, then that’s what it means period, in general. You haven’t provided anything to support that view.
The second issue, which you keep mistakenly trying to connect to the first is:
2.) If there are non-NOW feminists, why aren’t they out proving their non-male bashing beliefs?
They are two separate issues.
In mine, and other people’s understanding of the term, it means a woman who expects to be treated equally, period.
That YOU think it only refers to NOW, doesn’t change the fact that your POV of that word isn’t the only, nor necessarily the majority understanding of the term.
Now, as I’ve said before, IF you’d like to debate the second issue, that’s fine, but it’s not “proof” of either the existance, or non-existance of ordinary non-NOW feminists.
What it tells me is that here’s a person who views the term feminism in the same exact way I do, that is that it means “women getting equal pay for equal work”. Period. And if you don’t believe me, listen to his radio show.
Here’s a guy who flat out STATES, ON the radio (there’s the publicized “cite” you’ve been screaming for), that this is what the term feminism means. And again, on MY side, I’ve been arguing the definition of the word, and what it means in general.
Tom Leykis is broadcast all over the place, and he promotes THIS meaning of the term, ergo, it’s a widely accepted understanding of the meaning of the word.
That’s a fair desire, I’m not saying you don’t have a right to want that. I’m not saying that it “shouldn’t” be done. I’m saying it’s a separate issue from “regular” feminists and whether they exist.
Again, if you want to debate THAT issue. Either say so, and start a thread on it. Or state that intention here. The two issues are related, but one is not “proof” of the other.
In other words “regular” feminist does NOT equal Publicized, anti-man bashing crusader.
Not really, I don’t feel you’ve doubted me, I just felt that you were asking a question, getting an answer, and then changing the requirements. Basically, I just would have liked to have a straight answer to a straightforward question. Instead of the beating around the bush, and answering a question with a question, or “second guessing” WHY I asked the question, and going off on a tangent to “head me off at the pass” so to speak.
Yes, but she’s proven, with her postings what kind of person she is, I doubt that being a self-proclaimed feminist has anything to do with that. I believe she’d “debate” the same way, whatever the subject.
I was annoyed to be lumped in with her merely because she and I shared a couple of viewpoints, but I see that you quickly realized that I wasn’t of the same mindset, and reacted respectfully toward me, I appreciate that.
Well, and here I’d have to point out something you said. “…they are entirely representative of the feminists that I’ve had to deal with…”.
See, the thing is, that THEY’VE told you, “we’re feminists” and then they behave in a nasty untrustworthy way. Plus, as you say, women in NOW claim to be feminists and THEY behave in a nasty untrustworthy way. So, in your eyes, feminist has come to mean that sort of woman. And of course a person shouldn’t trust that sort of person. They don’t have any “goodwill”. Again, I think those women and all of their followers are psychotic nuts.
Doesn’t mean that it’s a general consensus.
quote:
… I guess you can keep saying NO feminists are any good.
Where does this sort of thing take place? I’ve never seen or experienced anything like this. Not in my neck of the woods.
I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen. I’m just trying to get you to realize that YOUR experience, isn’t everyone’s. Many people aren’t going to take away what you have from a discussion with a “feminist”.
quote:
And again, I ask you, is an organized "anti-male-bashing group the ONLY “evidence” you’ll accept?
Well, why “they” do that, I don’t know, but I can tell you that as far as I know, the reason you don’t see “old school” feminists up in arms about equality for females is because for all intents and purposes, it’s already happened.
We don’t HAVE to go through what we did pre-70s. So there’s not a whole lot to get out there and BE publicized for. So, most old time “feminists” or women who believed in and worked for equal rights in the “heyday” are just plain old “living their lives” right now.
Again for them to come out and start taking a stand against the “new” rash of feminazis, that’s a separate issue. Should we “regular” women do more? Probably, but does the fact that we haven’t yet mean that we’re not “real”?? No.
Well, I guess this would be similar to the minority notion that we, simply by virtue of having been born white, are somehow miraculously “in power”.
Of course we’re not. But by the same token, whatever “rung of the ladder” we’re on, it doesn’t mean that those who are “minorities” aren’t still facing prejudices that need to be fought. Again, for women? In my neck of the woods, (and I’d be in a position to know, having worked in male dominated fields most of my career), I don’t really see any serious discrimination against women.
But I still don’t know what “things” against men that these women have actually managed to bring about. I know that they talk a nasty game, but what “anti-male” practices have they actually managed to pass?
quote:
In other words, women who fit the definition of feminism standing up in ordinary everyday ways isn’t good enough for you?
That may very well be true. But an “old school” feminists doesn’t have to have, as part of her repetoire “anti-malebasher” in order to BE a feminist.
And again, whether or not there is enough being done to help, by non male bashers is another issue then “what IS a feminist”.
quote:
Opposing it in every day life, as in the examples I gave, isn’t “real life”?
Well, I wasn’t asking you to ignore anything. I understand that it goes without saying, if there are people in your space, who’ve proven to be untrustworthy, obviously you have to protect yourself.
quote:
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”.
You’re right, they’re not, for reasons I mentioned above. But what you two were saying was that they didn’t exist at all. Not being organized or publicized is a different thing.
Again, feminists who campaigned for the reasons of obtaining equality, no longer have to do so. We’ve all retired to our homes, husbands, kids, retirements, etc.
Whether or not we now need to come forward and tame the psycho newcomers is a separate issue than “what is feminism”.
See, again, since most of us don’t have a “cause” anymore, we aren’t “organized” or involved, etc. To us, we accomplished what we wanted to, and are reaping the benefits.
Never said that what they did DIDN’T count. My argument was, and is, that just because they claim to be feminists, doesn’t mean that they fit either the definition or the original spirit of the concept.
So, not only are they man-haters, they’re liars and thieves too.
quote:
You’re so angry at what they’ve done, that you keep seeing me saying that as me defending them.
No, you misunderstood, I didn’t deny that “THEY” were anti-male, I stated that I didn’t believe that their attitude represented “feminists” as a generally accepted definition.
quote:
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”.
Okay, this is what I still don’t get, what is “it” that they are supposedly “in control of”???
Aside from their hateful books, what concrete things have they done against men?
After all, if we’re going to be getting after someone for merely stating ugly beliefs, we better be smacking down a whole Boatload of Black comics for their statements about whites.
Lots of people of different groups have ugly things to say and write about another group, or groups.
How does this consititute phsyical “harm”?
Again, I’m not saying there HASN’T been with that question, I’m saying give cites to actual instances, not someone’s opinion.
Maybe you misunderstood the progression here, so let me lay it out for you.
margin claimed that those women were feminists who weren’t anti-male or didn’t harbor misandrist views.
I refute that by giving examples of anti-male or misandrist views in the books they have written. Their personal views are misandrist, contrary to margin’s claim.
If you would like to prove otherwise, you are quite welcome to do so.
Catsix, you have to quote those feminists and do so at length. You’ve already claimed that Peggy Reeves Sanday tries to prove that rape is biological. In fact, she’s adamantly opposed to it.
Like Left Hand of Dorkness said,
You’ve already been caught claiming one author states something she didn’t.
Erin Pizzey? She was quoted several pages back, and she’s an absolute nutjob.
Oh, and the fifty/fifty domestic violence thing? I guess you didn’t read that study carefully enough, did you? Mens’ rights floggers love to claim that it’s fifty/fifty, but Richard Gelles, the man who actually wrote the study that yielded that figure has gone on record pointing that people are quoting his study extremely selectively—so as to coneal his real findings----and that he in no way supports that. His own conclusions don’t support your statement. So try again there.
Cite? Feminists.com says otherwise, in her book regarding acquaintance rape. She makes the case that rape is pathological and societal, and that women don’t lie about it.
She seems to believe that those who would consider whether a woman lied about being raped are buying into the ‘myth’ that ‘Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.’ and that it’s this attitude that denies women, as victims, will never get justice. The entire book A Woman Scorned: Acquaintance Rape On Trial comes out against the idea that any woman is a false accuser and calls that a ‘stereotype’.
You did call her a nutjob before, but you have yet to actually prove that assertation. Care to do so now? You merely calling her insane does not negate her findings, nor the fact that she was threatened by feminists when she made public that the women admitted to her domestic violence shelter were often as violent as the men they were ‘escaping’.
I didn’t say fifty/fifty. Nowhere in this thread did I say that there are exactly as many male victims of abuse as there are female. I said that domestic violence and abuse are not entirely a male-perpetrator and female-victim problem, something which feminist groups have been unable to accept or admit in all their existence.
Many of them are still quoting the absolutely false ‘Super Bowl’ myth. The fact is that there are men who are abused by women. These men exist, and there are no support systems in place to help them. Feminists believe there is nothing wrong with turning male victims away from domestic violence services because they insist that men are abusers, and would be a danger to their work. These feminists simply do not care whether the male victim of domestic violence lives or dies.
Could you show me where I said that there were as many male victims of domestic violence as female?
What I said was that often, in abusive relationships, both partners are violent. That has not been disproven.
With the rates of victimization being 1,200,000 to 300,000, that’s not the whole story is it?
Cite?
See my comment above.
And why aren’t other men helping them? Your statements seem to imply that women should be helping them.
See comments above about proportions. What’s preventing these men from forming—as women had to—their own support? Why are they evidently demanding that women trust them?
Cite? Quote? Any proof at all?
Women wind up with more severe injuries—and die more often—then do male victims of violence. That is because, simply speaking, they’re smaller and easier to injure.
And CanvasShoes?
The same mindset? I want catsix to apply one standard to Andy’s debating, and that’s it. He hasn’t backed up anything he’s said, and until he does, there’s no real discussion. And Are you really promoting Tom Leykis as some kind of feminist, while accepting catsix’s definition of NOW? Come on.