Uh, CanvasShoes Have you read the books in question? Or are you just accepting catsix’s summing up of their viewpoint and their ‘hatefulness’?
I’ve read these books and she’s doing these authors a disservice, as Left Hand of Dorkness suggested. Kind of like Andy not reading books he called Feminist Utopian Fiction, and then trying to insult people who actually had.
False.
The second statement is catsix’s conclusion. Why would a society where women be in control be rape-prone, catsix?
Cite? This sentiment appears nowhere in Sanday’s work.
Sanday did a thoughtful analysis of acquaintance rape and used that line from the Seventeenth Century play to illustrate attitudes toward women
Either you’ve read the books the way you read everyone’s posts but Andy’s, catsix. or you haven’t read them----but have read somebody’s review. Either way, it doesn’t do much to support your contentions.
Oh, this would be the same Carole Tavris who pointed out that being fair and being equal aren’t the same thing, as long as the business world is built on the male worker model—no family responsibilities like sick kids, pregnancy and so on—women will get shortchanged. This is the same CArole Tavris who pointed out that men are getting shortchanged because the language of love is feminized and that when men do express their emotions, it’s often in a different style that society accepts. The same CArole Tavris who wrote about how men dealt with emotion in general?
Or are you reading somebody’s reviews of these books, catsix? Gee, that’s Andy’s technique. Look how well that worked for him, too.
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.
The same mindset regarding your extreme hostility and demanding attitude, rather than honest seeking and sharing of information and proper form and manners in a debate. That’s NOT appropriate debating procedure, and catsix and andy are certainly correct regarding that.
Regarding their differences of opinion with yours? As you can see, once they realized that I wasn’t attacking their personal viewpoints, which took a LOT longer than it should have thanks to your snotty screams of “cite”. They began discussing it with me in a normal way.
The fact that they disagree with me on points throughout this disccussion doesn’t make them “stupid” “bad debaters” or any such thing. Something you’d do well to learn.
Add in to that, the fact that this is a bit of a “hotbutton” topic for both of them, and it seems pretty self apparent that a person would need to exercise patience and, again, manners for pete’s sake!
Well, I am going to support their assertion that you have no knowledge of appropriate debating. Or skills in reading comprehension. He HAS “backed up” the point of view that he’s been trying to get across, that of, that THOSE women have some pretty insane agendas. My point of view has always, from the beginning, been one of definition, in other words, what does the word feminism mean, and to whom, etc.
I have no idea what your point of view is, other than open hostility.
Unfortunately, since you’ve been doing nothing but screaming at him, and being accusatory, and acting as if his viewpoint puts him in the kitten drowning camp, he’s not had a chance to see what it is you’re trying to ask him.
If you’d simply READ what he and I, and even catsix and me have been discussing, you’d see that there is progression in this discussion. And that some of what both you and I had been asking has in fact been answered by both of them.
Debating is NOT browbeating your opponent into submission with a big stick, (yours being the constant snotty screams of "Cite??? I didn’t think SO, etc etc).
???
I’m assuming you’re asking this of another debater, since I haven’t mentioned Paglia.
I have no idea what statement of mine prompted you to ask this question, since you didn’t provide it. If you’d provide the impetus for your question, I’ll be happy to answer to the best of my ability.
I have read the excerpts posted on previous pages from some of the morganite types. And yes, I believe that both andy and catsix made an honest cut and paste with those. Are you suggesting that they made up what they cited? I may disagree with their use of those cites to prove that “feminism” is defined by those cited, but it’s extremely bad form to call a person a liar in a debate. IMHO? They’re citing honestly.
Again, since you didn’t reference what you’re talking about insofar as me having said something re: certain authors, I don’t know which ones you’re talking about.
Several authors have been both referenced and quoted here, not just that one post of catsix’s.
A moderator has spoken to you – very nicely, I might add – and noted your continued out-of-context demands for cites. Perhaps you could take the hint?
But as far as backing things up, I still would like for you to explain how you could file a job complaint with the ERA, as you claimed in this post. How could you file a complaint under an act that never passed?
No, I don’t want to prove anything, please stop being so overly-sensitive. Again, I am NOT margin.
I was asking you for what they’ve done because I simply don’t know. I’ve not heard of any damage “they’ve” caused men. To be honest, I’ve never even heard of those two. (reference my answers to Andy regarding what we 'old school" feminists do).
You are, at least in this forum, and in this thread, the person in the know regarding what they’ve done. In a debate, you can’t “assume” that “oh everyone knows this” just because YOU do.
I know information from my viewpoint and my experiences, but not yours.
You stated, (paraphrased) that these types were “in control” and had caused changes etc to take place that damaged men. I’m not aware of any of these things taking place, or of “them” being in control.
So, I’m asking, “in what ways have they caused damage, and of what government entities etc, are they in control?”
If you want to sway another to your POV you can’t just simply say “well they DID it and that’s that”. You have to provide instances in real life where “they” did in fact DO “it” whatever it may be.
Well, CanvasShoes has found us out. Every man has buddies who are willing to snap into James Bond mode at a moment’s notice, infiltrate shelters, do our violence for us, and then take the prison sentence that goes with it.
We discussed this at our last meeting of The Patriarchal Oppressors Society. Somebody must have talked.
:rolleyes:
Uh, CanvasShoes Have you read the books in question? Or are you just accepting catsix’s summing up of their viewpoint and their ‘hatefulness’?I’ve read these books and she’s doing these authors a disservice, as Left Hand of Dorkness suggested. Kind of like Andy not reading books he called Feminist Utopian Fiction, and then trying to insult people who actually had.
Is the post of mine below what prompted your above question?
If so, I’m going to have to heartily agree with catsix regarding your reading comprehension abilities. Danial IS Left Hand of Dorkness I was agreeing with him, and asking the same question HE asked. Merely phrased slightly differently.
Oh rolleyes right back at you. Don’t be absurd. Stating what has happened to bring about the policies at women’s shelters is in NO way suggesting that “Every man has buddies who are willing to snap into James Bond mode”.
FTR, most women who go to battered women’s shelters are informed not to tell ANYONE where they are. The women’s shelters do the best they can on the budget, staffing, housing, etc. that they’ve got. It’s just common sense to keep it as safe as possible.
Again, you’re trying to roll several different issues into one big “they’re all manhaters” ball of wax.
Issue one. Standard policy at battered women’s shelters. It’s in place because of past instances as the one I mention. It wasn’t brought about because "Every man has buddies who are willing to snap into James Bond mode at a moment’s notice, infiltrate shelters, ".
Issue two. Should there be shelters in place for the 300,000 battered and abused men a year. Yes. I haven’t seen anyone in this thread claim that there shouldn’t be.
Issue three, ARE there any men’s shelters, and DO in fact ALL of the abuse centers “turn away men”?? Has anyone provided a cite for you and catsix’s claim that there are NONE???
Issue Four. Since when is are the policies at women’s shelters something accomplished by “feminists”??? Again, if you make claims of such things, you must provide a cite for them.
You’ve been counseled before about putting fake quotes in quotation marks. Please stop it.
On the issue of how many men have been denied entry into women’s studies courses because they’re men, I would hope that the correct answer would be “even one is too many.” Professor Mary Daly tried to enforce a no-men policy and wound up being drummed out of the university rather than admit men. Why? Because it’s against the law. It was not because feminists across the nation rose up and said “we must stop discrimination against men.” It was because what she was trying to do was illegal. In this case, the law worked
The classic examination of intolerance in women’s studies is Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies
Daphne Patai & Noretta Koertge
New York: Basic Books, 1994
A review of it is here.
I think that you are the only person in the world who would seriously claim that NOW is not a feminist organization. You stance appears to be that feminism is good and pure, and if someone isn’t good and pure, they can’t be a feminist. Well, it’s possible for you to define any movement in purely abstract, pie-in-the-sky terms and ignore what they do in real life. We’ve seen Marxists do it time and again. When the next oppressive Marxist regime comes along, they say that it wasn’t really Marxist and shouldn’t reflect on Marxist theory. You are doing the same.
I think it’s universally accepted that Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Robin Morgan, Susan Brownmiller, Marily French and NOW are feminists. You’re the only one seriously arguing to the contrary.
quote:
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.
You don’t have to be a card-carrying member of any organization to take issue with its views. You asked what you could do to prove you oppose anti-male attitudes, and I told you. So I’ll ask you again: write to NOW headquarters and tell them you can’t support them because of their anti-male policies.
Read “Professing Feminism.” It’s written by two women’s studies professors and gives an inside look at the intolerance there.
quote:
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.
So you’re seriously asking me for a cite that NOW, et al, have supported affirmative action? Because if you are, you’re trolling.
As for their opposition to fathers having equal rights, that has already been documented on this thread, and asking for a repeat is even more of a symptom of creeping marginitis.
This is a longstanding debate in places all over the place, not just on boards.
At any rate, please explain to us how “affirmative action” is against men.
My bosses, two mexican men, would be interested to know how affirmative action was “against them”. Or aren’t they “men” because they’re mexican?
They were able to take 20 years each experience and expertise in their field, and apply for 8(a) status for their company. Which only gets you started, you have to sink or swim on your own after that.
And these guys have had NO trouble parlaying their smarts and experience into work and projects. For three years. And they’re continuing to grow and build.
You act as if, by stating, “companies must give minorities and women an equal shot” that that somehow equals being “against men”. Or that you can’t have both. Men can STILL be perfectly successful with affirmative action in place. As is evidenced by the US Census http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-544.pdf (this is a government publication, please let me know if you’d like more stats, I can get them, or you can simply go to the US Census, they’ve got all this in their various publications), white males do still earn more as a general rule.
I had a website with a newspaper article stating the most recent UE rates. Men were at 5.6 and women were at 5.2, not a huge difference, and according to the document in the cite I reference above, the difference is likely due to the fact that women are about 7 or 8 times less likely to have an executive position, but to be employed in the service industry.
As of 2002 women 5.5 % of women earned $75,000 or more, compared to 15.8 % of men to earn $75,000 or more.
So, men are being damaged by affirmative action HOW exactly?
Then how would you define Betty Friedan’s role, considering that she sparked the second wave with “The Feminine Mystique” and founded NOW?
Yet feminists support affirmative action, which is about legally preventing men from being treated equally.
Also, feminists haven’t pushed to have women register with the Selective Service, aka the draft board. Only men still have to do that.
So what you’re saying is that being a feminist doesn’t actually have to show up in your life. You can hold a belief, just not act on it.
Also, I would note that any movement that says “women should be treated equally” is inherently sexists, because if it actually wanted equality, it would say people should be treated equally. Instead, feminist goes about picking and chosing where it wants to be equal. In areas where the advantages are already with them – such as not registering for the draft, or women routinely getting custody of children in divorce – feminists haven’t striven for equality at all.
Your definition then seems to be that feminist equals a person who doesn’t act on her beliefs. And I see no evidence you have cited of your type of feminist opposing man-bashing.
I have never been treated fairly by any woman who professed to be a feminist – and I’m NOT saying that includes every feminist in the world. I’m just saying that in every instance, feminists embraced anti-male policies, and it was part of my survival to learn where they were coming from and how to protect myself. And if there are feminists out there who oppose anti-male policies, they have proven themselves to be either worthless or cowardly, and certainly hypocritical, by allowing the anti-male faction to dominate feminism. These feminists that you claim exist – the ones who oppose man-bashing – have done nothing to leave their mark. Instead, the rest of the world got fed up with the extremists and the loonies running the movement, and feminism lost support. You meet people who say that they support equal rights for women and all that but don’t consider themselves feminists because they don’t hate men.
quote:
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 can think of several examples – a Coast Guard officer who was hounded into suicide because he told a mildly racy joke. All the officers who attended the Tailhook convention and found their careers blacklisted even when they themselves weren’t accused of any offense; men who got fired on the most specious claims of “sexual harassment,” and all the men in prison who DNA are now proving innocent.
What it means is that as a political force you are non-existent.
quote:
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.
Uh, CanvasShoes maybe it was Andy not provding a cite for his original statements about feminism. And Andy’s been insulting me for quite some time, but good job ignoring that. It’s interesting, especially, in view of quotes from you like this, criticizing catsix for unfair debating techniques:
Canvas shoes to catsix:
So which is it, CanvasShoes? I guess when you get all wound up with catsix, it’s okay.
Andy:
This is amusing. Andy claims in the Cafe Society thread that I denied there was such a thing as feminist fiction. If anybody’s practicing dirty tricks, it’s him. He’s no more provided cites than catsix has. But it appears to bother you only when it affects YOU.
quote]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.
Because if not, I’ve provided SEVERAL examples of just what you’ve said you were looking for. Including Tom Leykis.
[/quote]
catsix, I believe.
This is where I’m honestly hoping you’re not promoting Leykis as some kind of feminist. He’s gone on record saying that men should date women who were abused as they’re liklier to ‘put out’; he named the victim in the Bryant case, and he simply sounds like a vicious frat boy.
catsix:
canvas shoes asks:
Which is why I ask, CanvasShoes have you read these books? You call them hateful and appear to acccept catsix’s opinion that they’re promoting ‘ugly beliefs’. Have you read these books? Yes or no?
Not even that is as bad as what catsix is doing here, which you Daniel called her on, and you did not. Is she quoting selectively or twisting their words? Has she provided quotes from the books, or is she quoting a biased reviwer, as Andy tried to do in his cafe society thread?
Yes, asking Andy to provide cites for the things he claiims is certainly unreasonable, isn’t it? Especially seeing as how I quote you above challenging catsix on exactly that tendency.
When someone refuses to provide a cite for what they claim are facts, why yes, strangely enough it fails to fall under the standard of debate.
Make up your mind. Catsix has treated me as badly or worse than she’s treated you, and you’ve called her on it. I guess I’m not permitted to.
Affirmative action, Andy? You’re a dishonest, weaselly, cry-to-mommy (or to mods) tool, keep that in mind; that’s why my conversation in this thread is with catsix and not with your pathetic self.
I reiterate, catsix: what specific actions taken by these specific feminists do you object to? Failing that, at least provide us with specific quotes in which they call for specific actions to which you object. You may not be as obnoxiously deceitful and all-round lame as Andy, but I still don’t trust you to give an unbiased summary of feminist works.
I don’t care how many times you ‘reiterate’ what you want Dorkness.
I have given you my impression of what I read. The books are not exactly sitting in front of me right now, so you’re not going to get your page number and quotation request.
I suggest you procure yourself a library card and read them yourself.
Uh, no. It’s not anybody else’s job to prove your argument. Can’t support your contention with actual quotes? Haven’t read the books? Withdraw your remarks then, as you can’t prove that your remarks are anywhere near the truth.
Aside from their hateful books, what concrete things have they done against men?
Good grief. You’re obviously one of those people who likes to argue and be hostile just to argue and be hostile. The differences between the way that I’ve asked the two opponents for data, and the way you scream, stomp your feet and demand it is quite apparent.
At any rate, in answer to your question, again, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. My satement of these “hateful and ugly” statements from the books catsix summarized was that I was PARAPHRASING her review of them. NOT that I thought that that’s what the meaning of them said.
“Not that I thought that’s what the meaning of them said.”
What in hell does this mean? It’s hard to have reading comprehension when there’s nothing coherent to comprehend.
“Aside from their hateful books…” Sorry, you’re once again giving catsix too much credit. I guess you didn’t notice the part where she claimed these evil feminists supposedly said all sorts of things, then told Daniel to go read them himself. You’ve repeatedly bitched at catsix for her evasiveness and her tendency to attack rather than actually answer direct questions, not to mention her refusal to actually back up her claims, so your bitching at me for reacting to the very same things is puzzling. S You can’t have it both ways; you can’t lose your patience with her and get snippy, then demand that everybody else do something different.
I’m still waiting for you to clarify your position on Tom Leykis. Are you claiming the guy is a feminist? Everything I’ve read on the guy indicates not just that this is inaccurate, but that this is an utterly impossible characterization.
Originally posted by CanvasShoes
quote:
First of all, she didn’t “launch the feminist movement”.
Her role is as a leading figure within the feminist movement, that I disagree with her more anti-male sentiments doesn’t change that, but the movement started a hundred years before that!
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott (1848) are among the women that one can say “launched the feminist movement”. But that wasn’t in the 60s with Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem, (btw, you DID read the part where Ms. Steinem was a Playboy Bunny RIGHT???, my point being that people can have both positive, negative and neutral contributions to a “cause” without any one of those things being the “be all, and end all” of their contributions.).
quote:
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.
“Legally preventing me from being treated equally”. Hardly. Please provide hard data for this assumption. Affirmative action, as I said in my post above, is a hotly debated topic. And is a whole OTHER issue and subject than the one which we’re debating. It has no bearing on what feminists have tried to accomplish, or have accomplished. While it has good points and bad (and again, those topics are for another debate), it’s hardly a “feminist” invention.
And what does this have to do with the definition of feminism being “equality for women”? FTR, there HAVE been many feminists pushing for the right to be in combat. As to registering with the draft board, do you know for a fact that that isn’t a goal of feminists?
From what I understand, people are trying to do away with the draft board all together.
quote:
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.
Instead of deciding FOR a person what they mean by a statement, how about asking? And No, that’s NOT what I mean. A person can “act on” a belief, as you say, in a number of ways. Just because they aren’t “acting on it” in a way that YOU dictate, doesn’t mean that they aren’t “acting on it”. You’ve dictated that “acting on it” means that they take publicized and/or “joining/forming a group” action. Just because in YOUR eyes that’s not “taking action” doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Ah, I see, so black people, those that strove for equality with the white man, they’re “really” being racist? If a group of people have traditionally NOT held the same privileges and rights, for them to strive to have the SAME rights and privileges as the “prime” group, is in no way anything “IST”. To state a desire for equality is NOT, as you seem to be trying to say, equivalent to trying to be superior to another group. To state otherwise, is to not understand the meanings of the words.
Women have been striving to be allowed in combat. Again, you’re mixing issues here, whether or not the draft is a “good” thing is totally beside the issue of “equality”.
The decision that young men have to register for the draft and that women didn’t was NOT decided by “the feminists,” that was the wisdom of our DoD. For you to suggest that women should attempt to have the right to be drafted, when the draft itself is a questionable tactic whose existence (or past existence) is being currently protested is just absurd.
And as to getting custody in courts? So, is what you’re suggesting is that if women reaaaaaaallly wanted to be equal, they’d simply hand over their children to the husbands all the time, because “that’s what’s equal”? (oh, BTW??? I did “hand over” my child to his father, and didn’t even have to go to court to do it, I felt he was the best parent, and I’ve included THIS example of my dedication several times, you both just ignored it).
At any rate, again a ridiculous example. The emotional turmoil involved in child custody cases has NOTHING to do with feminism. Both parents fight for their children as hard as they can because they love them and want them with them. Neither feminism nor men’s rights have anything to do with that. Why would a woman, for ANY reason, other than for the best interests of the child, (as in my case) strive to make sure the father could have children without question?
quote:
In other words “regular” feminist does NOT equal Publicized, anti-man bashing crusader.
Well, if that’s what you’re assuming I mean, you’d be wrong.
You’ve decided that IF the feminsts I describe actually exist, then they must be anti-manbashers in order to truly believe what they believe. That of the definition of feminism being “equality for women”. Why aren’t they “acting on their beliefs” that there should be equality for women? I’ve answered this for you already a number of times. Equality for women, has for the most part, been acheived, you can still believe in something that’s already been accomplished. Do we suddenly think that we should give America back to the Brits because we’re not “acting on our beliefs that we should be America”?
That’s a standard YOU decided for them. Not one that is inherently part and parcel of being “old school” feminist.
And again, on my part, this IS a question of “what does the term mean, and to whom”. You obviously think that there’s no such thing. Because as you’ve said dozens of times already, “If they exist, why aren’t they out fighting the manbashers”.
And then, YOU put conditions on what actually constitutes an “anti-manbasher”. To you, they must form groups and organizations for the purpose of fighting manbashers or it doesn’t count as “anti-manbashing”.
quote:
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.
These are extremely vague statements. What do you mean, you’ve “never been treated fairly”? What exactly is it that these women have done, other than to SAY mean things or some such, that has consituted “not treating a man fairly”??
So basically, what you’re saying is, “here are all these meanies that are forcing unfair treatment and acts upon men, and no one to rescue me, and since they DO exist, it’s up to someone else to rescue me and fight them”?
Again, I have no knowledge of these groups having managed to actually put into being any laws, acts or whatever that are in fact “unfair to men”.
You admonished me to write NOW and tell them I disagree with “what they’re doing”. What is it, exactly, that they ARE doing?
In other words, I write them my letter and say “Your actions in ______ case, were unfair against men because _____________”.
You haven’t provided any hard data as to what they’ve accomplished, other than writing books with mean old words in them. While you and I may disagree with what they say, it’s still a free country.
I’m not all that crazy about porn, but “they” have the right to say and look at all the grossness they want to, it in no way effects me or others unless they look at it.
Well, once again, this is a question of definition. You’ve decided that the word “feminist” applies to those that you hate and that you think are “unfair” and all. So be it. You’ve made up your mind, in concrete. Nothing I can say will sway you to the fact that other people see the definition of this term differently than you do.
quote:
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.
For the record, here are several cites in answer to your previous accusations of “there are NO men’s shelters for abused men” etc. Including an article with explanations as to why on the MEN’S part, that it’s been a long time in coming. Men themselves often refuse to seek shelter and help. (well DUUUH, who could blame him?). At any rate, it is quickly becoming an issue, and while slower, it’s evolving. Also note the cite from the US Dept. of Justice, which states actual statistics re: men vs. women victims. There are a lot more women’s shelters, because a lot more of them get battered. It’s not a decision of “let’s be unfair to the men” but of numbers and percentages, and likely the budgets, staffing and so on that goes along with that.
See, the above is what is meant by a “cite” or hard data.
quote:
Where does this sort of thing take place? I’ve never seen or experienced anything like this. Not in my neck of the woods.
This is all just anecdotal unless you provide cites for them. Anyone can say that they’ve heard of all sorts of stuff too. Just as in court, hearsay isn’t admissible in a debate, it doesn’t prove anything. Provide a cite for these things having actually taken place. A news article, crime report, etc.
quote:
Should we “regular” women do more? Probably, but does the fact that we haven’t yet mean that we’re not “real”?? No.
So? We never claimed to BE a “political” force. What does this have to do with the defintion of the word? I don’t recall, even back in the supposed “heyday” of the women’s movement that every woman “joined” the cause. A person can believe in something without having to be a “joiner”. I believe in God, but I don’t join in any churches.
Again, you’re bringing up a SEPARATE issue. This has nothing to do with whether people, OTHER than you, see the term “feminism” to mean something other than what you think it means.
quote:
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.
quote:
Okay, this is what I still don’t get, what is “it” that they are supposedly “in control of”???
Well, they’re in charge of what they’ve decided to CLAIM is feminism.