Sorry, I just have to:
Cite?
If so, then it’s highly suspicious that you go around attacking other people who oppose man bashing.
I’ve posted a number of anti-male quotations from leading feminists – people whose works are still being taught in college. You did not condemn any of those anti-male attitudes. You still haven’t. Instead – typically – you attacked the person who brought them up.
You can’t oppose man-bashing unless you oppose man-bashing.
Andy, you quoted three radical feminists, out of context, and twenty years later. Brownmiller, especially, deserves better than your treatment of her. The first work that discussed rape from a female perspective, Against Our Will tackled the common perceptions of rape victims as sluts or whores, that rape is ‘asked for’ and that it’s a rare crime. Her language was passionate, and yet you pluck one imcomplete sentence out of a book about rape, and you don’t get impassioned over the injustices to women that she detailed, you bitch about the perceived injustice to men contained in one sentence out of approximately four hundred pages.
Shall I quote from Warren Farrell? Any of the female-bashers out there? Warren Farrel, paragon of the Mens’ Rights movement, did a devastating interview in penthouse, in which he talked about the ‘benefits’ of incest. After all, it’s perfectly acceptable to quote selectively. Maybe I’ll quote the portion where he talks about fathers ‘genitally caressing’ their daughters.
Oh, and where’s that cite?
Fringe element? I’ve cited Betty Friedan, who launched modern feminism; I’ve cited leading author, activist and Ms. Magazine editor Robin Morgan; Susan Brownmiller who had a major influence in fueling rape hysteria, Marilyn French, a top-selling author, and others whose work continues to be taught in college. They are about as “mainstream” as you can get.
This is like saying I cited a fringed element of socialism by citing Lenin and Marx.
The views cited here might be whacko, but they are not fringe. What we have is a strong denial of the magnitude of anti-male attitudes in so-called “mainstream” feminists. You are attempting to perpetuate that denial.
I am quoting some of the leaders of the feminist movement. If their own words make them look like extremists, then it just possibly might be because they’re extremists.
Also, whenever someone objects to the anti-male attitudes in feminism, we always have to clear two obstacles:
One, the personal attacks that are launched against people who stand against bigotry.
Two, the “stereotype” ploy, a shopworn tactic you use here. You say that we shouldn’t lump all feminists in to the same batch – even though you are suspiciously silent when feminists are lumping all men together, as Brownmiller does. Let me be clear that I am citing and condemning those feminists who are anti-male. If it happens that an overwhelming number of feminist leaders hold anti-male views, well, that’s something the feminists themselves should be looking into. When we discuss anti-Semitism, we do not have to go through this bullshit tactic you are using. We do not have to wrangle about not all gentiles being anti-Semitic, just the extremists. We know and accept that there are anti-Semitic gentiles and those who are not. And thus we are clear to condemn those who are anti-Semitic.
By running interference for the man-bashing bigots, you are demonstrating you support for them. Or, if your sole motive is that you don’t want to be “stereotyped,” then why is it so difficult for you to understand that other peope don’t want that either?
Robin Morgan, she of the Nazi comparisons, says she’s not a man-basher. In fact, there is not a feminist in the whole wide world who says she’s a man-basher.
Yet the man-bashing is rife and integral.
All I know is that when someone actually does object to man-bashing, feminists like you attack them, run interference for the man-bashers, and try to sidetrack the discussion.
In fact, you do everything in the world except make any serious objection to man-bashing.
Again with the “fringe” dodge. I haven’t cited obscure feminist who cranked out 100-run screeds on a mimeograph. I’m citing “mainstream” feminists like Friedan, Morgan, Brownmiller, etc., who are still being taught in college. If they are “radical,” as you say, then why are we still teaching them?
And the old “out of context” dodge is standard when you can no longer deny their anti-male sentiments.
And as far as “twenty years ago,” does it mean it’s no longer anti-male hatred after twenty years? By your way of thinking, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” are no longer anti-Semitic because they’re more than a century old.
I wasn’t aware that anti-male hatred came stamped with a “use by” date.
My “treatment” of Brownmiller was to quote precisely what she said.
And what she said was pretty abhorrent. If you had any decency, you would be condemning it instead of supporting it.
Nice euphemism. Men get fired for “passionate” language.
Her “passionate” language portrayed all men as guilty of complicity in rape. She crossed the line into outright gender hatred, and “passionate” language is no excuse. You would be frothing mad if anyone directed language like this at you, so why do you lack a conscience when it is directed at us?
It was a complete sentence. And the goal of any demagogue is to get people “passionate” about a subject so that they no longer think clearly. Margin, the person here who has done no thinking is you. You don’t give a damn about people whose lives are destroyed by false accusations. Apparently all those people are acceptable “collateral damage” in your war.
No, what you should do is actually condemn anti-male hatred instead of running interference for it. (And if you have anything from Warren Farrell that is actually anti-female, feel free to post it.)
As for your other questions, the board is painfully slow right now and my answers require a search, so I will post them later when traffic is lighter.
Cite, SAL?
So, if we criticize men as a group, we’re male bashing. But criticizing feminists as a group—and as a group that meets your standard----is not female-bashing.
This is a very good point that SAL seems determined to avoid. It’s also exactly what he’s doing here, despite all the rhetoric about male bashing.
What do you bet if SAL comes up with a cite it comes from a father's rights group? Either way, pony up.
Just to make things very clear:
- Cite to prove all the things you claim in my quote.
- Prove how quoting selectively from twenty-year-old books and articles shows that you are not stereotyping.
[quote]
My “treatment” of Brownmiller was to quote precisely what she said.
And what she said was pretty abhorrent. If you had any decency, you would be condemning it instead of supporting it.
[quote]
Your standard of decency, SAL, included calling me a liar when I pointed out that I’d been fired for complaining about threats of rape in another thread. Then you claimed that I must not have gotten fired because of that but because of a whiny attitude. Furthermore, citing the age of those comments by Morgan, whatever, specifically goes to the fact that the feminist movement in its present incarnation is only forty years old. Movements typically move from radicalism to moderation.
And you know they’re false how? The same way you knew I was lying about being fired?
Cite, please.
Yes, that is correct. When you make a blanket slander against someone because of their sex, it is the same as making a blanket slander of them because of their race or ethnicity. Feminists, however, are a political group and as open to criticism as any political group. “Feminist” does not mean “woman” because not all feminists are women and certainly not all women are feminists.
I’m sure you’d criticize a group like Daughters of the Confederacy. Criticizing them as a group is not female-bashing, now is it?
Whenever some pestiferous little pig-nipple decides to get into a cite war, they usually end up looking like an ass. If you want me to demand cites for everything you say, we can go that route, too.
When it’s exactly what they said, when it’s exactly what they meant, and when they haven’t retracted the man-bashing, it is not stereotyping. It is something they brought on themselves.
One symptom of the man-basher is that she never admits man-bashing goes on. Margin – good name, because that’s where you are – the cat is out of the bag about anti-male views. It’s not like it’s news, and the more you continue to deny the anti-male views in feminism, the less people respect feminism. Now if you turned around and denounced them, you might be able to rehabilitate your movement’s anti-male image.
Uh, SAL, great post. Except you didn’t provide a cite.
Cite, please? Blah, blah, blah, blah for the rest. You’re such a classic female-basher it’s not even funny. Every time someone asks you a question, you just turn around and make these rediculous statements that don’t address the topic at hand.
And you know they’re false how? The same way you knew I was lying about being fired?
So, again. Cite? It’s interesting how you keep avoiding the issue. Cite?
(disclaimer at bottom*)
Feminism:
Opposes men’s rights to due process by insisting that men ought to be fired solely on a woman’s claim that he harassed her. This was part of the campaign whose slogan was “women do not lie about these things.” California Rep. Dellums even tried to pass a law requiring companies to fire men solely on a woman’s accusation of sexual harassment. (Historically, feminists dropped the “women do not lie about these things” about the time some of their patron politicians were accused of harassment.)
Opposes men’s rights to defend themselves against rape accusations via the establishment of so-called “rape shield laws” that rule out evidence contradicting the accusation. The classic example is the rape trial of sportscaster Marv Albert . A woman accused him of raping her and biting her back. Prosecutors made it sound like he was a sex maniac who left her back in shreds. He was put on trial, and the “rape shield law” was used to block his defense from using some very important information. For one, the woman had a history of sexually enjoying biting. Second, she had a history of retalitating against former lovers, and Marvin was one. He had told her he was marrying a different woman.
This information, which the jury was not allowed to here, strongly suggests the woman set him up. She obtained some minor bite marks (none of which broke the skin – it was more along the lines of hickeys) then claimed rape to punish him for dumping her. She even threw in a story about him wearing women’s underwear.
Given her previous history, a reasonable jury would have doubts about her accusation. Because of the “rape shield law,” evidence absolutely vital to the defense was rule out. The result was that a man who in all likelihood was innocent was convicted.
Opposes free speech by advocating various speech codes that apply to men but not to women. Read any speech code and note how it is enforced. Also, the so-called “hostile working environment” laws.
Opposes equality under the law by advocating programs that would exclude men from their benefits. Note any man who has been refused service at a domestic violence center because they don’t take men.
Opposes men’s equal rights to higher education via affirmative action, quotas, women-only scholarships, etc., with men now becoming the minority on campus. (Do you need a cite for the existence of affirmative action?)
Opposes the idea that women’s lives and men’s lives are of equal worth. This is seen in slogans such as “violence against women is always wrong,” with the unspoken corrolary that violence against men is just fine. Also, although women live about seven years longer than men, feminist organizations demand we channel more and more of our resources into women’s health – including quality of life issues.
Opposes equality under the law by advocating laws that protect women but not men or give women a far higher level of protection than men. For example, a woman can call a man a “prick” or an “asshole” and not violate hostile-work-environment laws or speech codes, where a man could be punished for call her a similar obscenity. Finally, there is the anti-domestic violence act that Congress past, which provides women with protections it does not afford men. Also, the law often uses a highly relative standard called the “reasonable woman” and “reasonable man” standards, which basically come down to the idea that a reasonable woman has grounds for finding a lot more things offensive (and hence actionable) than a reasonable man. A man commenting about a woman’s weight is subject to sexual-harassment and hostie-work-environment laws, no matter how innocently it was intended, whereas a woman could denigrate a man on the same grounds and face no sanctions. Feminists have promoted the standard that “if you feel harassed, you are,” which, of course, they don’t extend to men.
Opposes fathers’ rights to visitation and custody. In particular, NOW has not only opposed fathers’ custody but has attempted to portray it as an act of abuse when men seek custody.
NOW’s 1996 National Conference Resolutions
quote:
NOW ACTION ALERT ON “FATHERS’ RIGHTS”
WHEREAS organizations advocating “fathers’ rights,” whose members consist of non-custodial parents, their attorneys and their allies, are a growing force in our country; and
WHEREAS the objectives of these groups are to increase restrictions and limits on custodial parents’ rights and to decrease child support obligations of non-custodial parents by using the abuse of power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers; and
WHEREAS these groups are fulfilling their objectives by forming political alliances with conservative Republican legislators and others and by working for the adoption of legislation such as presumption of joint custody, penalties for “false reporting” of domestic and child abuse and mediation instead of court hearings; and
WHEREAS the success of these groups will be harmful to all women but especially harmful to battered and abused women and children; and
WHEREAS the efforts of well-financed “fathers’ rights” groups are expanding from a few states into many more, sharing research and tactics state by state; and
WHEREAS many judges and attorneys are still biased against women and fathers are awarded custody 70% of the time when they seek it per the Association of Child Enforcement Support (ACES);
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the National Organization for Women (NOW) begin a national alert to inform members about these “fathers’ rights” groups and their objectives through articles in the National Now Times (NNT); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as a part of this alert, NOW establish a clearinghouse for related information by sharing with NOW state and local Chapters the available means to challenge such groups, including the current research on custody and support, sample legislation, expert witnesses, and work done by NOW and other groups in states where “fathers’ rights” groups have been active; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NOW encourage state and local Chapters to conduct and coordinate divorce/custody court watch projects to facilitate removal of biased judges; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that NOW report to the 1997 National Conference on the status and result of this national alert whereupon its continuation or expansion will be considered.
Now, the disclaimer. When some answers a lengthy post with nothing more than a demand for a cite, it’s usually regarded as trollish behavior or stupidity. I won’t guess which are at work with you. But all the topics mentioned here are known to anyone who has paid cursory attention, so demanding cites for matters of common knowledge displays an undue fondness for grade-school Usenet wars. Grow up, Margin. Especially egregious is you demanding a cite for NOW’s anti-father initiatives because we have already discussed this on a different thread. If that doesn’t border on trolling, I don’t know what does.
In sum, this poster is not responsible for readers who have their heads either in the sand or up their arses. When troubleshooting your “cite” reflex, please first check that your head in upright and in the proper position.
Okay, Margin this is getting to the “never argue with an idiot, for people might not tell which is which” stage.
You are using a tired tactic to derail discussion: the claim that objecting to feminist extremism is the same as bashing women.
Cite?
Show us anything I’ve said that “bashed women.” I haven’t, and I never would. I am objecting to bigotry, namely anti-male bigotry. You are embracing bigotry by defending the bigots. Criticizing feminism is no more bashing woman than criticizing Marxism is bashing Europeans.
What I have done is noted the anti-male statements of several leading feminists. And that upsets you, because you would rather not have it looked at.
Well, live with it, Margin. Feminists earned their anti-male reputations themselves. And it is not a secret anymore. A great many people associate feminism with anti-male attitudes. If you want to reverse that course, then start condemning anti-male attitudes instead of running interference for them. The more you deny it, the more you prove yourself a bigot.
I assume you mean Brownmiller’s man-bashing. Well, let’s look at it again. Susan Brownmiller states that rape “is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” – (Against Our Will p. 6)
How do I know that’s false?! Good God, Margin, you’re actually suggesting that type of hateful gender-bashing is true?
All I have to go on when judging you is your behavior here. In that time, I’ve noted that you have been dishonest, didactic, dogmatic, and in denial. You have been petulent, and you employ the nagging-type of argument of a toddler. Given all this, I sincerely doubt your versions of events are true. Moreover, I can honestly see why it would be in the best interest of any organization to include you out.
Please raise the level of your discourse a notch, if not for my sake then for the sake of the board.
Andy, SDMB has been up and running for a long time. If those are not fringe beliefs, can you cite examples from SDMB discussions were many women have advocated the stances you have listed? They certainly sound horribly unfair to me and would to the women that I know. But they should be abundant if that is what feminists actually believe.
Perhaps the most debatable stance listed would be the Rape Shield Laws and surely you and I can agree that it would depend on how it is applied. It seems to have been justly used in the biting case and, judging from the Kobe Bryant hearing, any of the alleged victim’s activities that might have caused the bruising and contusions used as evidence seem fair game too.
I really think that someone has done a number on your head about feminists. In fact, I would think that they would tend to be more fair-minded about custody procedures. (I cannot speak for NOW or its member or their thinking on these issues.)
BTW, I think that passage of the ERA would have made it easier for men to protect their custody rights.
Just a quick after-thought: Ever watch any of those stupid court shows? Do you know which judge is the most biased against men? Judge Joe Brown. He thinks that men always ought to be the ones taking care of the females. It is condescending toward females and unfair to the men.
<hijack>
Joe Brown is also an absolute looney. Know what he was doing before he got the show? He was presiding over a reopening of the James Earl Ray case, a case that was pretty much settled for 20 years until Brown granted some looney motion of Ray’s, about the time Dexter King was looking foolish spouting crazy FBI conspiracy theories. Brown, while still in charge of the case, told author Gerald Posner that he believed Ray was the fall guy for a vast conspiracy.
Brown is a nutjob in his personal life too, telling Posner “in hushed tones” a bizarre story about several of his semiautomatic weapons going missing from his house with no sign of break-in, and concluding that powerful forces were trying to “set me up.” Also, Brown was quoted as saying “Very few people on this planet have an IQ like me, I dumb things down alot so people can understand.”
The guy’s a complete wacko.
</hijack>
Nagging? Classic. What next? Shrew? Is there any sexist cliche that you’ve missed? Oh, yeah, you haven’t called feminists hairy-legged.
And being called a liar by somebody like you? Kind of funny.
Of course, who better to judge events of my life than a raving woman-hater. Still no cite, I see, just more paranoid bitching. You know, guys like you who believe in feminist conspiracies are the reason feminists have such a bad opinion of men. You’re nuts.
And all your blather does not conceal the fact that you cannot provide a cite. You insult. You rave. You rant. You sound like every bully who got sent to the corner. The truly pathetic thing is that you probably went through a bad divorce and now you’re bitter against every woman out there. That’s the very definition of hatred.
All women and all feminists are not alike, but why should I bother with you? You can’t back up any of your ravings.
Cite, please? It’s not going to go away. I’m just going to ignore your raving, because you basically say the same damned thing over and over again: “FEMINISTS ARE EVIL BITCHES WHO HATE MEN.” Yawn.
So pony up that cite, SAL.
And seeing as how they’re all the same, I’ll supply SAL’s next post:
Feminists hate men and want to take their balls away, and you, margin, are a harpy who never gives up. Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, practice witchcraft, kill their children and become lesbians.
There. Saved you the trouble.
And where’s that cite again? Try a laxitive; it might help.
picks up his scorecard and puts another tick under “Ad Hominem” and another under “Straw Man”.
margin, I’m content to sit on the sidelines and draw my own conclusions as to who’s the hate-filled bully here, but in case you need a handy ad hom. for use on me, I’ll just tell you I’ve never been divorced, but I had real trouble getting laid all through my teens. Any use to you?
Btw, don’t attributed quotes and instances count as cites? 
You’re funny.
Heh. Which makes my paraphrasing the Pat Robertson quote so funny. He’s missing the bit about witchcraft, though. Going to have to deduct points from the stereotype-o-rama that SAL’s got going. Otherwise, he was getting all of them, and the Stereotype Olympics judges were leaning toward giving him a perfect ten.
I’m sure he’s a peach on the subject of rape trials, too.
Yep. That’s why I mentioned the Final Solution, because—Oh, wait, no I didn’t.
I thought SAL was bad. You’re amusing. I needed a chuckle today, so thanks.
Who, me? Glad to oblige. What was funny?
Heh. It’d take too long. But you’re just a hoot. I’m sending this to my friends–male and female both----to have a look at this thread.
Oh, okay. So to add to the strawmen and the ad hominems, you’re now adding, what, proof by ridicule? I’m a hoot because you say I am, without specifying what I’ve done that’s so funny, but it’s self-evident and you’d explain what you meant if you had time?
And to add to this I get to worry about being laughed at by all your friends of both sexes. Hmm. This counts as logic in Marginville, KY, does it? More like a horse’s head in the bed, I’d have said.
Take pity on my poor wits. How does quoting what SAL has to say about the excesses of extremist feminism equate to refuting him?
Here’s a bucketful more ???s. It’ll save time later.
Urendi Maleldil