Actually, SAL and others have provided dozens of cites, ranging from quotes from prominent feminists to utopian fiction. You have not.
So let’s see the evidence for your position.
Unless, as SAL seems to have noticed much earlier in this thread, you don’t really intend to debate in good faith.
Andy is backing his shit up. You are not.
Regards,
Shodan
Andy’s backing his shit up? Really? Please explain to me what ficiton has to do with proving his claims in the bulleted list. Otherwise, don’t waste my time.
Uh, prominant feminists? Uh, yeah. Gee, Shodan, it almost seems like you’re reading just one side. Love it the way you ignore Andy’s nazi imagery, too. “Final Solution”?
Yeah, on second thought, whatever to you, too. I used to think that feminism was too radical. After watching Andy’s antics on this thread—and those of his equally blind supporters—I can only conclude that I was far too moderate. Congratulations!
I didn’t think so.
Unfortunately, the kind of nonsense you have been spewing is a big part of what moderate people object to in modern feminism - dishonesty, inability to defend a position rationally, ad hominem attacks on the hated male, etc.
And, since you expect to be doing even more of this as you move away from moderation, the “feminazi” term becomes more and more appropriate.
So I guess we have answered the question of the thread title at last.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, you’ve all too adequately demonstrated that nothing, absolutely nothing would make you see what Andy’s spewing for what it is.
I love guys who persist in ignoring the ranting of hateful men but are exquisately sensitive to any reaction of women to the crap that trolls like Andy spew. Then comes out the cries of ‘male-bashing!’ and ‘man-hater.’
If Andy were ranting about the Blood Libel—although he came close with that Final Solution remark----or Nat Turner, if people would see him for what he is.
Me three! I don’t recall having heard of anything about signs.
Are they talking about the symbols for male and female??? Or some other kind of sign.
As far as “what is a feminazi” I don’t have any cites, but I’ve had several people in debates (on other boards) accuse women of being one because they:
Wanted the right to choose who do date (this from a few self proclaimed “nice guys” who insisted that most if not all young women PURPOSELY dated “bad boys” in order to put down and hurt nerdy nice guys).
Insisted that they knew their own minds and didnt’ need to be “little womaned”.
Believed in the right to choose.
Had an opinion on anything outside of the kitchen or bedroom…
Etc.
So, whoever was chastizing the OP for not providing a cite. Heck, if he/she has heard it used as such by various other people, whether or not he/she was trying to be a smart aleck or whatever, why CAN’T the OP ask “the way I’ve heard it used IRL” and the like without having to provide a cite"???
How do you provide a cite for your assholish ex-coworker who used to point and say “FEMINAZI”!! as an example of how you’ve heard the word used?
At any rate, they way I’ve heard it used in conversation it seems as if it’s been relegated to the status of let’s use this word to mean whenever we think women aren’t “staying in their place”.
The thing is, we branched off into whether or not you’re right—Andy claims that he’s using ‘nazi’ version only to mean extreme feminists, but he came up with thirty-year-old quotes, and a list of bullet statements that he claims are the objectives of feminism. He’s repeatedly refused to provide a cite for those statements. Now he’s claiiming that feminist Utopian fiction wants men dead, and—in a thread in Cafe Society—that I didn’t know that this type of fiction existed.
Andy claims that feminism is devoted to certain objectives. He won’t provide a cite for where he got those, probably because he got them from one of those scary websites. If he can’t prove that feminists actually desire this stuff, he’s stereotyping and sexist. And his little buddies are incapable of seeing that. So there you go.
FWIW, the guys I’ve seen in real life who were as vehement in their mysogyny as Andy were the guys who had the least experience with women. And let’s be honest. There’s no way I believe that Andy limits his bile to just feminists.
Where does it do this? I believe that THIS is the reason people keep asking you for cites.
You’re saying the above happens, but not providing any cites for it.
I think you’re a perfect example of why the OP asked the question (however he may have MEANT it to be inflammatory) what is feminazism.
You’re describing extreme acts and attitudes. There are 6 billion people in the world. Roughly half of whom are female. Likely millions are some shade of feminist.
Most are of the “gender equality” type. You however, are using the extremist examples to paint an IDEA (which is all feminism is) with one broad brush.
Do you truly think that those women who treat men badly did not ALSO do that well before feminism was ever introduced to modern society, or thought of?
Hell no. If a woman, or women are determined to be nasty, vengeful little troublemakers. then that IS what they will be (same with men, if they want to cause trouble, they will). Those types of people aren’t being that way because feminism somehow magically made them that way…
That they label themselves “feminists” doesn’t mean that the concept is a wrong one. It means that those who have decided to behave in an evil way simply decided to use that as their vehicle.
What in tarnation are you talking about here??? Speech codes? Again, THIS is what people are talking about. Please provide a cite and example for what you mean. You simply stating that these so-called “speech codes” exist (no matter HOW many times you keep providing the above and thinking it’s a “cite”) is NOT a cite.
Such as? No, I haven’t noted any man who has been refused service at a domestic violence center. Has it happened? Possibly, but UNTIL YOU PROVIDE an ACTUAL CITE, how are we supposed to know?
No, but we need a cite showing that the presence of affirmative action somehow has vastly reduced the number of men on college campuses. If you truly believe that, I want some of what YOU’RE smokin!!!
??? The slogan (which I haven’t seen) “violence against women is always wrong” is translated by you to conversely mean “violence against men on the other hand is okay”???
Sweetie? You’ve got issues.
You’re from UK right? I don’t know anything about your medical establishment, but here, women’s health issues have historically gotten little attention in the “it’s all in your pretty little head” way of dealing with things. The push to channel resources into women’s health issues has been to bring it UP TO what men have, NOT to surpass and leave men in the dust.
? And this would be practiced where? I’ve been in the corporate world for a LOOONG time. And been to many long boring and mandatory “Sexual Harrassment” training sessions.
NO sexual harrassment is okay, ever according the the dozens of the darn things I’ve been to. Again, cite?
Providing an accusation, but not backing it up with actual references is NOT “providing a cite”.
??? I haven’t seen this act, so unless you provide the actual act, no one can know if that is, in fact the intent of it. In other words. CITE?
NOW’s 1996 National Conference Resolutions
NOW ACTION ALERT ON “FATHERS’ RIGHTS”
…
[/quote]
Okay NOW I see how you’re getting confused (though not why you refuse to provide cites as requested).
You’re equating feminism with NOW and actual feminazis (remember them? The subject of the OP???).
Someone’s wonderful analogy of (sorry paraphrased and likely butchered):…
“The Black Panthers, etc are NOT equivalent to the civil rights movement”
…Is a very apt one.
NOW does not speak for all feminists or women. NOW leaders do NOT even speak for all NOW members.
I think she/he requested cites because what you’ve provided so far, while perhaps well written, or whatever, it still, does NOT consistute an actual reference of any kind supporting your assertion that feminists = man hater/basher etc.
Well then, my requests for specific cites to what are merely your OPINIONS should fit your demand for what constitues a reasonable cry of “cite” then.
I see that the feminists in this thread are going to be just like the feminists on a certain other messageboard and ignore the cites and information staring them in the face, the cites that Andy and I and others have provided showing that the feminists whose names are bandied about on the news and in women’s studies classes every day (where the hell do you people think I heard the names Andrea Dworkin, Robin Morgan, Gloria Steinem, Germain Greer, Susan Brownmiller, etc for the first time anyway? From the god damn tv news and my feminist college professors who spouted the tripe that came from those anti-male bigots as if it were fucking gospel) Feminists don’t seem to want to participate in fair debate regarding the positions that the political movement of feminism actually holds because they know that if their leaders were looked at objectively, they’d come off as misandrist hate-mongers. And so instead we have this typical dishonesty, trying to patronize the opponent (by demeaning them with child names like ‘sweetie’), repeatedly ignoring the facts presented to them, and bleating that constant wail 'but feminism isn’t monolithic, so you can’t criticize it. **The last time I got that argument, at that other board, I responded by saying that if feminism’s not monolithic, that means I can be for 100% equal treatment under the law and be a feminist. Instead I was told I had no right to define what feminism was, called a misogynist, and eventually banned because I was supposedly a man in disguise. **
I never knew that feminists regarded equal treatment under the law as misogyny until then. I also never completely lacked respect for feminists before that.
The only difference between this message board and that other one is that over here, the tactic can’t move beyond the fingers in the ears ‘I can’t hear you but I can scream ‘Cite’ all day long.’ bullshit into actually banning people who provide references for the misandrist bullshit the feminist movement is.
And considering some of the things that Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton had to say, I’m not even sure I can say that it ever used to be about ‘equality’.
catsix, I am going to try to explain something to you here. I don’t think you’ll understand it, but I’m going to try. I sometimes amuse myself by wasting my time in such a way.
The reason why you run into problems when you attempt to debate the statements of feminist “leaders” with feminists is that feminism does not have leaders in the sense that you seem to think it does. There is no president or pope of feminism. Feminists do not hold elections and declare the winner the Grand High Queen of the Amazons. There is no individual or group of individuals who all, or even most, feminists swear allegiance to. The people you are calling feminist “leaders” are really merely famous feminists. Some of them are famous for being, to put it bluntly, nuts.
But you have decided that these women are leading the feminists of the world and you want the feminists of the world to answer for it. No wonder you haven’t been happy with the quality of debate you’ve had with feminists. As an American, I wouldn’t respond well to being called upon to answer for the actions of the current American president (who I did not vote for), and I certainly wouldn’t be happy if I were expected to answer for the actions of any nutty but famous American that an anti-American person cared to name. “Bennifer” is not my fault.
If you were to simply say “Famous feminist X said this. What do other feminists think about that?” you might actually get somewhere, but “Famous feminist X said this, and she’s your leader, so you all have a lot of explaining to do for the horrible thing she said!” is not going to lead to a reasonable discussion.
Well, I did just that, placed quotes of specific things you’d posted in this thread and asked for cites on them. So far you haven’t addressed them.
At any rate, all your arguments are STILL against specific people who’ve made foolish statements. Even if there are several of them, that still, in no way, equates to “feminism” supporting those attitudes against men.
Feminism is a concept, an idea, NOT those that have made statements in the name of feminism.
Warning: Huge HIJACK
GAH!! Are you serious? Sheesh, there aren’t enough good and available men out there as it is!!!
Works of fiction are not “cites”. Your opinion, or your recanting of what some poor “not guilty” rapist went through is not a “cite”.
A cite is either a reference from an actual study, case history, history book, law case and so on AND/OR LINKs to such references.
Again, you seem to be confusing the act of some feminazis or feminISTS, with the concept of feminism.
Your fear and paranoia is completely ungrounded in reality. Were feminists, even those (gasp) holy terrors in the so-called powerful organizations like NOW, were SO able to effect all of these changes, the 20% male population would likely be here and now.
The fact that some of the women arguing the “cause” here in this thread are saying (to keep it simple) “Feminism isn’t bad” is NOT the same thing as them advocating what the fringe extremists have said.
In other words, one can be a feminist and still NOT agree with MacKinnon, or whoever was determined to have sortof made the “sex = rape” type comments.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. You’re trying to make them one and the same, and they just aren’t.
The basic and original (and still believed and worked for) concept of “feminism” was “equal pay for equal work, respect and decent and fair treatment”.
Because, again, feminism is a CONCEPT, not a person or persons. To keep trying to wed the two is the same as trying to make like O.J Simpson represents black people.
No, he represents CRIMINALS. Just as these radical man haters represent craziness, NOT feminism.
Newsflash: Entire thread dedicated to the demonstration of the One True Scotsman fallacy. Film at 11.
P.S. I would have said that O.J. Simpson represents O.J. Simpson. Period.
I didn’t decide this. I was told this by my raging feminist poetry, literature and anthropology professors and had it confirmed by those lovely people who are under the employ of Ms. Magazine.
So what does it mean when large numbers of feminists attend these peoples seminars and repeat their words like gospel at rallies all over the place? The domestic violence lie about Super Bowl Sunday is repeated over and over again, along with the notion that all men are oppressors and maybe abusers every fucking year at the University of Pittsburgh Campus Women’s Orgainization ‘Take Back The Night’ rally.
They march through the damn streets shouting a bunch of ‘facts’ that have been proven false and praising Dworkin, MacKinnon, et al.
Do you have any idea how far you’d get with that if you tried to tell the people over at Ms. that you’re a feminist but you don’t agree with MacKinnon that all women are oppressed by the patriarchy?
I can tell you from experience that you’d not be welcome there. Nor in any other feminist organization or meeting place I’ve ever been to.
Really? I said that’s what I believed in at the feminist message board, at the CWO, in my classes with feminist professors, and I was at best told I was no friend of feminism and at worst called a misogynist who either was a man or deeply wanted to be one.
There was a time when I tried to work with feminists. Then I found out how intolerant and hateful the ‘idea’ of feminism is. Now I’d much rather work with human-rightsists.
Post a link.
You don’t need to provide that link, by the way. I did my own poking around. An anti-feminist troll named Catsix was banned from the Ms. Boards in June. Strangely enough, she often posted in conjunction with another markedly non-feminist named Shodan.
Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
Links available upon request.
All of these women told you specifically that MacKinnon, et al, are the leaders of feminism and that all the feminists of the world follow them? Uh huh. Right. Does it hurt your head to lie this much?
And by the way, “people who post on the Ms. message board” are no more in “under the employ of Ms. Magazine” than I am in the employ of the Chicago Reader. Someone who took the posts of members of this message board to be representative of the views of employees of the Chicago Reader or Chicagoans in general would be a damn fool.
Oh, margin? I cannot but notice that since you asked for a cite on the Pizzey story - you know, the one about how she received death threats against her and her children from feminists for daring to state that in her experience women had as much propensity for domestic violence as men did - and since I provided you with one, you’ve gone awfully quiet on the subject.
There’s not a lot of point in demanding cites if you’re not going to read them, now is there?
Also, margin, concerning Catsix’s banning from the Ms boards - I don’t think you’re telling us anything that Catsix didn’t. And can you confirm or deny her claim that she was banned for her controversial stance that not all men are evil rapist oppressors?
[quote]
There’s not a lot of point in demanding cites if you’re not going to read them, now is there?
]/quote] And, now that you have received one of the cites you clamored for, please provide cites for your claims.
Since we don’t want a double standard.
Or else, by continuing to ignore requests by others for cites while using it as a major tactic of your own, show that you never intended to debate in good faith.
Regards,
Shodan
She was banned for being a troll and violating their member agreement. She was lucky she wasn’t banned here for her part in fueling an inter-board war, and it looks to me like she’s doing her best to encourage another one now (while skating along the edge of the letter of the law by not posting direct links). I’m surprised she’s so proud of her bad behavior.
I don’t think it’s fair to bash posters on another message board when they aren’t here to defend themselves, and I would hate to see another inter-board war started by someone going over there and telling them “Hey, look what’s being said about you on the SDMB!” I don’t doubt that a war would result from this, because as best as I can tell from a brief visit to the Ms. forums today, catsix has mischaracterized and outright lied about them. That’s the sort of thing that tends to make people angry.
While I was over there I easily turned up a lengthy recent thread in which the subject of feminist “leaders” was discussed. All quickly agreed that there is not really any such thing, although certain feminist organizations do of course have their own leaders. MacKinnon was mentioned by name as a famous feminist who isn’t actually a leader. The discussion then moved on to questioning certain aspects of the feminist “party line”, with posters explaining why they disagreed with certain common feminist views. Everyone seemed pretty reasonable, and no one was banned for daring to express a contrary opinion.