Fascinating Guardian article" Feminism is "outmoded"?

[Zoe]

Shodan:Not to mention that NOW posts that you have to support abortion to be part of their organization.

]

You are confusing NOW as an organization with all feminists. Also, although that is part of NOW’s agenda, there is no requirement for membership that says you must support pro-choice.

SAL"Feminists support choice for both men and women. Equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunity."

You are the one who twisted it to mean something else.

Feminists support choice = Men and women who are feminists support the right of parent, both male and female, to make choices about whether they will work in the home or outside the home.

Feminists, both male and female, by the definition of the word feminist* support equal rights, equal pay, and equal opportunity for both* sexes.

I take it that you don’t. If I am mistaken about your support for these equalities, please do correct me.

[Zoe]

SAL:quote:

Imagine going to college and being locked in an all girls’ dorm at eight o’clock every night while the guys were free to come and go from their dorms as they pleased.

Yes, imagine it. That’s better than proving it ever was that way.

You are way out of line in impuning my integrity in this forum. If you want to do that, take it to the Pit and have at.

If you expect for me to dig up my college student handbook from 1961, you may have to wait a while. I doubt that you would have any direct knowledge of what the rules were that long ago. You were…how old?

The women’s movement began in earnest in the mid-1960’s while I was working instead of going to school. When I returned to school in 1968, in a different college, we were given keys to the dorm. By the time I graduated the following spring, the dorm was no longer locked.

You and Shodan have perhaps had some very painful dealings with women. I am truly sorry that that has happened to you and that you are so bitter. I hope that things bode well for you in the future.

Lina, welcome to SDMB. You don’t usually find this level of argument in a forum titled “In My Humble Opinion.” Some of my Black female friends have said that they have been more oppressed by sexism than racisim. What is your take on that?

Also, I’m really just not into male-bashing at all. Don’t even listen to sexist jokes anymore than I would racist ones. I have been extremely fortunate in my relationships with men. They have appreciated my strength and independence. A lot of that has to do with their feelings of confidence in themselves.

[Shodan]

*Originally posted by Zoe *
**
You are confusing NOW as an organization with all feminists.
**

kung fu lola has explicitly denied membership in the feminist movement to anyone who does not support Roe v. Wade.

*Originally posted by Zoe *
**
Also, although that is part of NOW’s agenda, there is no requirement for membership that says you must support pro-choice.
**

In the same way, a pro-choicer could join the National Right to Life League. If they wanted to support an organization whose avowed purpose is contrary to their own.

And don’t kid yourself about tolerance for diverse opinions among hard core feminists. If you doubt this, trying joining the Ms. messageboards and then expressing pro-life sentiments, or questioning any of the sacred cows of the far Left, and see how long you last.

*Originally posted by Zoe *
**
You and Shodan have perhaps had some very painful dealings with women. I am truly sorry that that has happened to you and that you are so bitter. I hope that things bode well for you in the future.
**

Would you object if someone posted to a lesbian “I am truly sorry that you hate men and are so bitter towards them”? Or is it possible that one can disagree with one side or the other based on rational thought, rather than emotion?

Let’s make an agreement here. If you promise not to tell me that my objections to the farther extremes of feminism must be based on my bitterness towards women, I promise not to say, “Oh, you are so upset. PMS?”

Regards,
Shodan

[YoudNeverGuess]

I have been trying to keep up with reading this thread and though I’ve been infuriated several times and have intended to reply, I haven’t because I’ve been too busy in work till now.

Thankfully astro said it for me. Congrats on a mature, intelligent and rational post!

This thread has descended to the level of mud-slinging and childish squabbling. It’s depressing.

*Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious *
**
There has not been one feminist in this thread who has condemned anti-male stereotypes. There are several who have promoted anti-male stereotypes. And of course, when men object, they angrily dismiss it as a plot against women.
**

Sorry - I should have spoken up before but I want to register the fact that I am a feminist and DEFINITELY condemn anti-male stereotypes as much as I condemn anti-feminist stereotypes. None of these things help the situation of understanding and compromise between the two sexes that I would have thought was the ultimate goal of feminism. Yes there are male-bashers around and they really p**s me off :smack: because they damage the cause other people are fighting for and give the feminist-bashers amunition for their own warped views of feminism. This is just like the way anti-white racists give bigots like the KKK amunition, or in Northern Ireland, republican extremists give bigots like Ian Paisley amunition. Neither party is looking at the whole picture. I don’t know …

This all seems obvious to me but apparently not to some people and there are both male-bashers AND feminist-bashers who have hi-jacked this thread and should really take it to the Pit if they want to continue their pointless, circular argument.

Progress will never be made until people give up their favoured stereotypes and actually stop to consider the merits as well as the faults in their opponents’ arguments.

[astro]

*Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious *
**To all those posting here, I think we need a bit more of this attitude and approach. More level-headed. More fair and even handed. I’m glad we can have, on this thread, at least one person who does not engage in finger pointing – or who can at least condemn the practice while engaging in it. And I’m glad we have someone who is willing to address issues rather than posture for effect. I think that laurel branches must verily sprout from astro’s brows – which would make for some interesting topiary experiments. **

Hey, don’t be jealous. Chicks dig it!

[pokey]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**There is nothing on the page you linked to that says men are more likely to put their children in the hospital than women. **

No, it was a link to generally show that household violence, whether it is against the child or against the wife, factors into whether or not it’s safe to presume 50-50 custody when a couple splits up. I said that men put family members in the hospital more often than women do because I include battered women as family members and I’m pretty sure father’s rights groups don’t think it should make any difference. When feminists raise concern for the changes fathers rights want to see to custody law, they are raising concern over whether a battered spouse will be able to leave a marriage without automatically having to still see the agressive partner until it can be proven in court that he or she is dangerous to the child. Automatic joint custody doesn’t account for women who are abused and fear for the safety of their children or for their own safety. I posted that link because it addresses the reasons automatic joint custody is not as great a solution as it might appear.

There are certainly different types of child abuse. Overall, most of it is committed by women. If NOW is arguing that women should be the custodial parents by default because men are statistically more likely than women to commit child abuse, NOW is mistaken.

They’re not arguing that mothers should be the default parents at all. The only postition they take in that statement is that the agenda of the fathers rights movements should not be ignored by NOW or its chapters. I brought up family violence because it’s probably the main reason feminists would not want to see joint custody as a default.

I don’t understand your point here. Is this about child abuse, or visitation rights, or something else?

It’s more complex than both those things. On top of the issues the link discusses there is the issue of whether it is right to automatically assume joint custody because sometimes one parent is not a caregiver at all, let alone equally.

Actually, what it does say is that “father’s rights” movements are inherently dangerous, and that anyone who is favor of mediation instead of court hearing, presumption of joint custody, or increased penalties for false reporting of child abuse, is a wife beater. Or at least in sympathy with them.

Read the bolding.

It says that fathers rights groups are abusing the power that they have in the system in the same manner as batterers. Then it says that they want presumption of joint custody (automatic joint custody when it is in dispute), penalties for “false reporting” (which is in quotes to indicate contempt for the expression “false reporting” because what this means is that if a father denies abuse and wins, it does not necessarily mean the report was false, just that it could not be proved) and mediation instead of court hearings (meaning that maybe custody disputes should be a matter for the courts.) Those are three aspects of the debate. If a family is violent and one partner leaves and takes the kids to a shelter, presumption of joint custody means that parent will be violating the abuser’s rights. If that parent does not have access to a good lawyer or has anything else impeding his or her ability to prove that the abuse harmed the child, he or she would be penalized for ‘false reporting.’ And that parent would not get to take it to the judge.

That’s it. If you believe it’s about feminists trying to deny men their fair and equal rights for no reason but spite, that’s what you’re going to believe. But problems in fairly assigning custody are not all about a bias against men as caregivers, there are other facets to it and NOW raises the alert about that because the other facets involve women’s issues and it’s their job to make sure a ‘father’s’ point of view is not the only one heard. Whether you agree with the idea of automatic joint custody or not, it is not an anti-father stance to oppose it. Myself, I am able to understand that while fathers’ rights and responsibilities as parents need to be addressed by the law in a way that does not promote a sexist bias against men as caregivers, it does not mean that automatic joint custody is fair either. Personally, I think custody should be assigned according to who does the caregiving and when it is in dispute it should go to court. I think that a partner who flees with his or her children out of fear of physical violence should be given a window in which to legally do so without having to stand around a violent household wondering if they have enough or the right kind of evidence to hold up in court later because failure to prove it in a court of law is going to incur legal liabities later. I think, “I was afraid he/she was going to hurt us” should be enough reason to take the kids away until a judge can rule on it and that if there isn’t enough evidence of abuse to deny the accused his rights as a parent, that should not mean the accuser is lying and must be penalized, it simply means that in the long term, a claim of abuse in absence of other more concrete evidence is not enough to take away parental rights. That’s only a feminist position in light of the fact these are all issues that affect women more often than they do men and that the point of feminism is to make sure women’s interests are promoted as equal to men’s.

[Shodan]

*Originally posted by pokey *
**No, it was a link to generally show that household violence, whether it is against the child or against the wife, factors into whether or not it’s safe to presume 50-50 custody when a couple splits up. I said that men put family members in the hospital more often than women do because I include battered women as family members and I’m pretty sure father’s rights groups don’t think it should make any difference.
**

And I am pretty sure you made that last part up. Please provide some cites from father’s rights groups to the effect that evidence of spousal abuse should not be a factor in deciding custody.

*Originally posted by pokey *
**
Automatic joint custody doesn’t account for women who are abused and fear for the safety of their children or for their own safety. I posted that link because it addresses the reasons automatic joint custody is not as great a solution as it might appear.
**

That sounds an awful lot like saying “presumption of joint custody is a bad thing, because all men should be presumed guilty of wife battering until proven innocent”. At least, that is how you sounded when you said -

*Originally posted by pokey *
**
I brought up family violence because it’s probably the main reason feminists would not want to see joint custody as a default. **

*Originally posted by pokey *
**That’s only a feminist position in light of the fact these are all issues that affect women more often than they do men and that the point of feminism is to make sure women’s interests are promoted as equal to men’s. **

Well, it depends on how you define it, but child abuse is an issue that affects women more than men because women do more of it.

Therefore, if NOW is arguing in favor of the mother as default custodial parent, and against the presumption of joint custody, they might be promoting women’s interests, but they are probably not promoting men’s interests as equal, and they are certainly not promoting children’s interests at all.

Regards,
Shodan

[Zeldar]

Just so that Zoe doesn’t get credit/blame for the invention out of thin air for something, see for yourself here under “feminism”:

Main Entry: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1895
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

• fem·i·nist /-nist/ noun or adjective
• fem·i·nis·tic /"fe-m&-'nis-tik/ adjective

[astro]

*Originally posted by pokey *
** Personally, I think custody should be assigned according to who does the caregiving and when it is in dispute it should go to court. I think that a partner who flees with his or her children out of fear of physical violence should be given a window in which to legally do so without having to stand around a violent household wondering if they have enough or the right kind of evidence to hold up in court later because failure to prove it in a court of law is going to incur legal liabities later. I think, “I was afraid he/she was going to hurt us” should be enough reason to take the kids away until a judge can rule on it and that if there isn’t enough evidence of abuse to deny the accused his rights as a parent, that should not mean the accuser is lying and must be penalized, it simply means that in the long term, a claim of abuse in absence of other more concrete evidence is not enough to take away parental rights. That’s only a feminist position in light of the fact these are all issues that affect women more often than they do men and that the point of feminism is to make sure women’s interests are promoted as equal to men’s. **

I think the problem here is that the system is currently more or less arranged as your describe above, so that a woman’s “I fear” is a sufficient trigger almost in and of itself to initiate removal of a man’s custody and residence rights. Unfortunately in many cases divorce American style is often a hammer and tong battle over resources, assets and custody rights with few prisoners being taken. In real terms to essentially hand divorcing women a giant legal crowbar in the form of the hair trigger removal of the spouse based on “I fear” and presume she and her lawyer will only use it for truth justice and the American way in a contentious divorce and is both foolish and unjust.

Why do I say this with such certainty? I was on the receiving end that crowbar. I was divorced about 10 years ago. We certainly had our share of problems but domestic violence was not among them. On a Sunday night I was removed from my house by two large state troopers and given 20 minutes to collect my goods and hit the road. I was stunned beyond belief. I found lodging and consulted my lawyer who told me not to worry as there was nothing I could do until the hearing and that this was SOP in many divorces, and was such a popular tactic that it even had a name “Spouse of out the house” and was a tactic regularly used by divorcing women to gain sole posession of the house and kids. To say that I was disillusioned with the legal system at that point would be an understatement. At the hearing it was basically “he said-she said” and “she said” in this situations will always rule the day because the court will want to err on the side of caution.

About a year after the divorce when we back on relatively civil speaking terms I asked my wife when she pulled the “I fear” stunt when I had never given her anything to fear. She was quite matter of fact and told me that her lawyer advised her that gaining sole posession of the house and kids was critical strategic move that would make me more amenable to her financial demands. It was a negotiation tactic. Period.

In the end this virtual institutional presumption of “gulty until proved innocent” toward men in divorce and custody situations is both unfair and unjust. If you read some of the father’s rights groups stories this residence and custody rights removal scenario is repeated over and over and over again almost to the point of comedy. Some of these guys may be lying and might be violent nutcases, but in many cases there is tremendous abuse of the “I fear” presumption trigger woven in current domestic law codes.

[cowgirl]

SAL

You cited Zoe’s post as one that

claims … all feminists (are) pure and moral

Please spell it out for me. I missed it. And if it is what she’s saying, she’s not speaking for me.

cowgirl has nothing to say about anti-male stereotypes!

Anti-male stereotypes are just as bad as anti-feminist stereotypes. I do not perpetuate either.

Am I obliged to voice my disagreement with everyone I disagree with?

Oh, if only I had that much time.

It seems like you’re suggesting that feminists are obliged to say “I am not a man-hater. I do not agree with man-haters.” If they fail to do this they are “denying the existence of man-bashing.”

Okay, fine. I am not a man-hater. I do not agree with man-haters. Is this what it will take to make you happy? I see YoudNeverGuess has beat me to it. Now will you take back everything you have said on the subject?

Now, SAL, some men are abusive assholes. Since you have not condemned these men, can I conclude from this that you are an abusive asshole? Or that you endorse abusive assholes? Or that you deny that any men are abusive assholes?

(Note that I am not suggesting this. I am trying to clarify your logic.)

Feminism could address this problem and take a firm stand that man-bashing is counterproductive.

I’ll reiterate that “Feminism” isn’t taking any kind of firm stand. You can see from this thread that feminists don’t agree with each other. Just as Liberalism, or Americanism, or Conservatism, isn’t going to take a firm stand, neither is Feminism.

And, some feminists do take the precice stand you call for. The one I know best is bell hooks, whose works are not online and so whom I cannot cite directly. But if this thread is still active next week when I’m next online with my notes with me, I will provide it. If you want to check for yourself try Talking Back or Aint I A Woman. And I am quite sure that no one has ever accused her of being a “tool of the patriarchy.” (And please, don’t launch into any attacks on bell hooks for being a radical feminist, which she is, or based on her reputation as a man-hater, which she is not. I am being honest enough to provide you with a cite that I know you will disagree with, but she does profess the attitude that you are searching for. Please read and judge for yourself.)

Finally: why does it have to be a “major” feminist writer? Do you have to achieve some sort of success by some arbitrary standard before your views are considered “feminist?”

[Xema]

*Originally posted by astro *
About a year after the divorce when we back on relatively civil speaking terms I asked my wife when she pulled the “I fear” stunt when I had never given her anything to fear. She was quite matter of fact and told me that her lawyer advised her that gaining sole posession of the house and kids was critical strategic move that would make me more amenable to her financial demands. It was a negotiation tactic. Period.

I personally know of 3 cases in which another “negotiating” tactic was used: wife accuses husband of sexual abuse of the children. In all three cases, this was eventually shown to be false. In one case, the husband went to jail, but the wife later repented and admitted she’d made it up. In the second, wife had a falling-out with a co-worker to whom she’d confided the story, and who proceeded to spill the beans. In the third, the oldest daughter insisted long and loudly enough to a social worker that the accusation was untrue.

In the third case, there was some rapprochement after a couple of years, and the ex-husband asked why she’d made the false accusations. Her answer was much the same as the one astro got. Of course, the lawyer didn’t say “You should make up a story about sexual abuse.” What she said was “If there is any history of behavior such as physical or sexual abuse of the children, now would be the time to mention it – we can get your husband tossed out of the house and barred from the property, which would strengthen your position.”

In none of these cases did the false accusation have serious repercussions for the accuser. It weakened her case, but did not result in charges being filed.

[Lizard]

Wow. This thread has gone waay beyond what I originally envisioned, to become a Pit-worthy slugging match. I don’t have a lot to say about all these new entries, but I did want to respond to this:

*Originally posted by Zeldar *
**Main Entry: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1895
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

• fem·i·nist /-nist/ noun or adjective
• fem·i·nis·tic /"fe-m&-'nis-tik/ adjective **

No one can convince me that women are “socially equal” as long as women are essentially passive in the social realm. By that I mean, as long as men initiate most social activities (dating), as long as men are expected or required to pick up the tab most of the time for said activities, as long as men are ones risking rejection from women in the social arena, then we do not have true social equality.
And if you ask me, this makes any other kind of equality much harder to achieve. Politics and economics are abstract concepts to your average person. Social interaction is not; we all get a demonstration of it in action every time we go to our favorite bar.

[pokey]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
And I am pretty sure you made that last part up. Please provide some cites (etc)

It’s an assumption I have, yes, so I guess you could say I’m making it up. The fact of the matter is that I don’t know because it’s not really a pet interest of mine and I’m really just guessing that these are some of the reason NOW would want to keep its chapters informed. If you think they are out of line and truly believe it NOWs criticism and concern is only motivated by an intentin to make sure that good fathers get shafted by the system just for feminist jollies then that’s what you’re going to think regardless.

Astro I am sorry that I posted that simplistic story of how I think custody would ideally work because I know that it isn’t going to happen from hoping. I mean, even if things could happen that way and judges were impartial and nobody was greedy for money and houses, even then a false accusation would be abuse and it would leave the father sharing custody with a woman he knew was deeply corrupt. Then he would be irresponsible in not looking to keep his kids from her influence and so on and so on and so on.

At any rate I had not intended at all to take a position on either side. I am just trying to explain that NOW sees how the law protects female victims and that women do get hurt in bad divorces too and that NOW really does have a valid, non man-hating/baby eating reason to involve itself.

[Zoe]

Shodan, use seem to use the concepts women, feminists, strident feminists, NOW and individuals interchangeably. Although this linked website is not to my liking, it does indicate that anyone who generalizes is likely to be inaccurate:

http://www.roevwade.org/women.html

This is a website for feminists who are against pro-choice.

[drpepper]

Not to jump on the ‘me-too’ bandwagon but astro’s experiences with being falsely accused have also happened, to a tee, to two other men I know… in both instances for the sole purpose of giving the woman power over house and kids, and in both instances charges later rescinded and dropped by wife because at that point it didn’t serve her interests to show up in court and further the process.

Now, I realize these personal experiences are all anecdotal, I believe that there are already appropriate mechanisms in place to protect women who are in true danger from their violent mates, those mechanisms being immediate removal and no contact orders. Adopting stricter and stricter measures for the benefit of those in domestic abuse danger will always have the unintended consequence of netting more and more truly innocent folks into the system and branding them as guilty when they are, in fact, not. It’s a public policy tightrope act that, in my opinion, has swung a bit too far the wrong way.

Which is why NOW’s stated fear of

penalties for “false reporting” of domestic and child abuse

indicates to me that they are a disingenuous lot. Why wouldn’t anyone want penalties for false reporting? Isn’t false reporting a bad deal all around no matter which gender is doing the lying?

As for this comment:

And don’t kid yourself about tolerance for diverse opinions among hard core feminists. If you doubt this, trying joining the Ms. messageboards and then expressing pro-life sentiments, or questioning any of the sacred cows of the far Left, and see how long you last.

I have to agree. As an old-school feminist I hop over there to lurk once in awhile and the level of discourse there is indescribable. Every single time I mentally compare the quality of rhetoric there with SDMB Great Debates and it is absolutely pathetic. I shake my head in absolute horror at the amount of vitriol aimed toward dissent of the current “status quo” feminist view, careless claims, utter lack of citable evidence, and yes, male-bashing that goes on over there. It is almost a parody of itself. And I have seen numerous instances on those boards where a pro-life poster was viciously attacked and told that there was no way they could be considered a feminist.

One could argue that a few posters at ‘Ms.’ aren’t representative of feminism as a whole, but between ‘NOW’ and ‘Ms’ I’m guessing those are two organizations that many would concur, represent where “mainstream” feminism is at, and I would also guess that a lot of academics would agree (no cite, correct me if I’m wrong in that assumption). I am completely out of the organized movement loop; I think there are a lot of old-school feminists that don’t fit anywhere on the radar of those two organizations.

(Incidentally, Stoid if you’re out there I’d love to hear your contributions to this thread. She’s an old-schooler too)

[Zoe]

ShodanAnd don’t kid yourself about tolerance for diverse opinions among hard core feminists. If you doubt this, trying joining the Ms. messageboards and then expressing pro-life sentiments, or questioning any of the sacred cows of the far Left, and see how long you last.
[/quote]

I guess that depends on what you mean by hard core feminists. Were pro-choice sentiments removed from the MS message boards? If not, then their opinions were tolerated but frequently disagreed with.

[Zoe]

Shodan

Originally posted by Zoe

You and Shodan have perhaps had some very painful dealings with women. I am truly sorry that that has happened to you and that you are so bitter. I hope that things bode well for you in the future.

---

Would you object if someone posted to a lesbian “I am truly sorry that you hate men and are so bitter towards them”? Or is it possible that one can disagree with one side or the other based on rational thought, rather than emotion?

Did you notice my use of the word perhaps?

I do find this statement to be more logical:

[quote]
Shodan: Therefore, if NOW is arguing in favor of the mother as default custodial parent, and against the presumption of joint custody, they might be promoting women’s interests, but they are probably not promoting men’s interests as equal, and they are certainly not promoting children’s interests at all.

I did notice the word “if.”

[quote]
Lizard: No one can convince me that women are “socially equal” as long as women are essentially passive in the social realm. By that I mean, as long as men initiate most social activities (dating), as long as men are expected or required to pick up the tab most of the time for said activities, as long as men are ones risking rejection from women in the social arena, then we do not have true social equality.
And if you ask me, this makes any other kind of equality much harder to achieve. Politics and economics are abstract concepts to your average person. Social interaction is not; we all get a demonstration of it in action every time we go to our favorite bar.

I agree that we do not have true social equality and for some of the reasons you cited. Political and economic equality are not difficult to understand. Women don’t have the political clout that men do. (Look at our representation in government.) And we are still not paid on a par with men. In these areas we can also fault some of the women who have been anti-feminist.

[Zoe]

Now I’m going to go somewhere and practice concentrating on coding my posts. Damn.

[annaplurabelle]

*Originally posted by Lizard *
No one can convince me that women are “socially equal” as long as women are essentially passive in the social realm. By that I mean, as long as men initiate most social activities (dating), as long as men are expected or required to pick up the tab most of the time for said activities, as long as men are ones risking rejection from women in the social arena, then we do not have true social equality.

I would disagree. I think that ‘men as social activity initiators’ is a perception - that many women encourage, I grant you - because men seem to feel more comfortable with the idea.

Example: Online dating. I place an advert. You respond to it. I decide to reply to you. At your invitation, I agree to meet up…

But who is really the initiator in this case? Who has more control over what happens?

In any case, I guess I agree with the op article - the term feminist is outmoded. It’s just a hot button now, and since everyone’s got their own definition you use it at your peril. This thread just proves that, and I’d be willing to bet that the people disagreeing here on the basis of semantics (and some personality conflict perhaps), would more than likely end up agreeing on a case-by-case basis of what is equitable (in spite of personality differences!).

And anyway, just what are the issues that don’t concern women???

[Satisfying_Andy_Licious]

*Originally posted by Zoe *
You are way out of line in impuning my integrity in this forum. If you want to do that, take it to the Pit and have at.

This is IMHO, and IMHO your gripe is dubious. If this thread were to be kicked over to Great Debates, it would be a more oppropriate forum.

Saying that locking a women’s dormitory shows oppression of women is just so wrong on so many levels.
First off, who insisted the doors of the women’s dorm be locked? If it was the inhabitants, then this wasn’t some patriarchal pogrom to control womyn. Let me ask you, when you go to bed at night, are you or are you not locked in your home? So are you oppressed by being locked in?
Are women concerned about safety on campus? You betcha. Just google for “Take Back the Night,” etc. So more men were out galavanting around. Men usually think less about their safety. Meanwhile, various schools have installed hotline emergency phones across campuses because feminists demanded them. And some even instituted women-only buses so women wouldn’t have to worry about riding with – those beasts. (this stemming from the idea that “all men are potential rapists.”) And some have instituted parking-lot escorts – for women only.
And if it was parents who insisted on it, well, lets interview some of the mothers. I bet some of them were thinking, “I know how I was at that age, and I don’t want my daughter out catting around.” Judging from your suggested timeline, it looks like this policy was dropped about the time that The Pill became widely available. Hmmmm …

And the biggest irony about this is that your talking about women who had the privilege of being sent to elite institutions. And getting an education most likely paid for by hard-working fathers. Is there no issue too petty for a feminist to play victim over? At the time your privileged keister was warming a university chair, boys who were drafted in a male-only draft were getting the shit shot out of them in Vietnam.

Curfew in your dorm?
Boo fricken hoo.

Lina, welcome to SDMB.

You welcome her? And not one word of objection for her hate speech? She said men were oppressors, and all you do is welcome her? Well, birds of a feather …

You and Shodan have perhaps had some very painful dealings with women.

Not women – womyn. I’ve had a lovely time with women. But when I had to work with self-proclaimed, organized feminists, they did their best to make life hell for the rest of us. I’m talking about blatant discrimination, the refusal to let us even apply for jobs and advancement, and the policy that we do our jobs PLUS the work for feminists promoted beyond their level of competence. Once I tried to hand an application to one of these women and she simply gave me a hateful look, turned on her heel and walked away, humiliating me in front of a roomful of colleagues.

Then there were the threats, harassment, insults and reprisals they conducted right out in the open because the organization had defined them as a “protected group,” allowing them to get away with it. One of them would stroll in and refer to men standing there as apes and cavemen. Of course, if we responded in kind, we were sexists subject to in-channel and out-of-channel reprisal.

Overhearing their conversations and reading their literature, it was apparent that they were fueled by a belief that men were oppressors and women always victims. They kept their sense of self-righteousness stoked by constantly citing stories about women being victims – grievances that were real, exaggerated, imagined, or fabricated. (Remember the feminist hoax that wife-beating goes up on Super Bowl Sunday? Or that the phrase “rule of thumb” evolved from a law allowing men to beat their wives with sticks no bigger than their thumbs? Bogus stories, it turns out, but these and more were recited as gospel.)

These women stoked anti-male hatred with constant tales of women being victims. Of course, maybe some of them had endured real horrors.

Like, say, being a survivor of having a curfew in a dorm.