# womens voice **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 6, 2003, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860 "2003-09-06T01:42:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2003, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/41 "2003-09-07T22:13:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Honesty certainly has not been a core value of feminism. Misleading domestic-violence statistics, misleading sexual-assault statistics, the Super Bowl hoax, the “anorexia Holocaust” hoax, the “rule of thumb” hoax, the willfully blind eye turned to female and lesbian domestic violence, the credo that “all men a potential rapists,” false and misleading statistics on the “glass ceiling” and different wages, efforts to smear fathers and liken fathers’ custody to criminal behavior, plus the entire philosophy of claiming to opposed discrimination while advocating active, anti-male discrimination – it is just not a record of honesty. Yes, I’m aware those things are lies and urban legends, and I’m in agreement with you about the wrongs of propagating them. But the falseness of those things doesn’t impact the core values of feminism or reduce the necessity of equal rights for everyone. I’ve read “The Feminine Mystique,” thank you, and there’s more to it than one comparison to prison camp inmates. I think you’re overlooking the fact that the charges you’re making would likely apply to any movement in history as far as manipulation, dishonesty and bigotry. When I said “honesty is the core value,” I meant for _me_. You implied I was one of the people who’d like to cover up that kind of stuff; I was disagreeing. You’re right that manipulation is inherently dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/42 "2003-09-08T01:36:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blonde \* > \*\ ***Susanann:** please help me understand where you’re coming from - do you really think women are on par with men when it comes to wages, stature in politics, etc.? > Quasimodem!! Help!! \*\* I think women are not equal, the ERA did not pass, yet, but it will within a few years or so. I would say in less than 5 years. No, women are not on a par with men in politics, yet, but eventually they will be in the majority in power in a decade or two. Yes, I think women are on a par with men as far as wages, in union jobs, as physicians, as phamacists, nurses, computer programmers, etc. The fact is, that women outnumber men, both in numbers and in college attendance. Women far outnumber men in college today, which means that in the next decade or two, more women will be making more money than the men. Women will have the good jobs, and men will do the menial unskilled low paying jobs. College educated women will be in the majority of management positions. The average salary of college degeed women 10-20 years from now will be substantially above men, who will have fewer college degrees. As more and more currently higher paid american men are outsourced, and loose their jobs when their companies move to asia, it will be the skilled and educated women who will be making most of the money, and who will be lawyers, and then politicians. ## quote: Originally posted by Susanann ## By the time most white men finally got the vote themselves, 1840’s or so, they immediately [huh?] started giving the right to vote to women and minorities.] As far as my meaning “immediately”, I meant in the larger scheme of things. 10 or 20 years may be a long time for some, a long time if you are holding your breath, but if you look at human history, a decade or 2 is a very short time period in history. For thousands and thousands of years(and for evolutionists hundreds of millions of years) most men did not have the right to vote. Finally, in 1789, some men in the United States got the right to vote, if they were white, protestant, owned a certain amount of land, and were not on welfare, etc. Most white men did not get the vote until the 1830’s or so. In less than 2 decades, some states were allowing blacks and women to vote in some elections. Giving women and blacks the right to vote was given by white men. Who else? So in the larger scheme of things, after thousands and thousands of years of nobody being allowed to vote, some white men finally got freedom and the right to vote, they then extended it to more white men, to white men who did not own property, then to white men who were on welfare, then to black men and then to women, really rather quickly when looking at the total history of the human race, and how very few years that white men started voting themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/43 "2003-09-08T01:54:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Susanann \* > \*\*The fact is, that women outnumber men, both in numbers and in college attendance. \*\* Where are you counting these women? In women’s colleges? Please. Give me a cite. ---
**Author:** ![Ulterior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/85f322/32.png) [@Ulterior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulterior)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/44 "2003-09-08T02:35:33Z")
Ah, they’re 1840s Style “Voting Rights”. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/45 "2003-09-08T02:46:03Z")
> [@](#): > > I think women are not equal, the ERA did not pass, yet, but it will within a few years or so. I would say in less than 5 years. > > No, women are not on a par with men in politics, yet, but eventually they will be in the majority in power in a decade or two. Doubt it. About 13% of elected federal officials in the US are women. They won’t be a majority in 10 or 20 years. > [@](#): > > The fact is, that women outnumber men, both in numbers and in college attendance. Far as I know, **Q.E.D.** , **Susann** is right about that. There are indeed more women than men in the US, although worldwide it’s about even. > [@](#): > > Women far outnumber men in college today, which means that in the next decade or two, more women will be making more money than the men. Women will have the good jobs, and men will do the menial unskilled low paying jobs. College educated women will be in the majority of management positions. Bfft. That’s a generalization too broad (no pun intended) to be useful, aside from the fact that I think your assumptions are ridiculous. One man who goes to business school could become a CEO and outearn 500 women who go to college and become teachers. The flat number of people per gender who go to college doesn’t equal total wages. And anyway, how many heads of Fortune 500 companies are women right now? Last I heard, I thought it was about 2. Even if the wage issue is being blown far out of whack, I don’t think there’s even a CHANCE this will be fixed in a few years. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/46 "2003-09-08T02:47:09Z")
**Susanann** , the ERA is dead. I think it expired years ago? ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/47 "2003-09-08T02:56:28Z")
[PDF link](http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-544.pdf) The above has the US Census Bureau information for 2002 concerning statistics of men vs. women. Yes, there are slightly more women in the US than men, but the difference is tiny: 144 million vs 138 million. And this number varies by age, with males outnumbering females in the younger age groups. It also says that men are more likely than women to have attained a bachelor’s degree or better. So, if there really are more women than men in college, more women must be flunking out, according to **Susanann**. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/48 "2003-09-08T02:57:53Z")
> [@](#): > > I think women are not equal, the ERA did not pass, yet, but it will within a few years or so. I would say in less than 5 years. It would have to be reintroduced to Congress, pass, and be ratified by 38 states. Not a chance. **Guin** ’s right. The ERA is so dead it ain’t even funny. It passed Congress in 1972. I haven’t even heard anyone MENTION the thing as a real political possibility. If you ask me, **Susann** ’s glasses ain’t just rose-colored, they’re infra-red. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/49 "2003-09-08T03:05:17Z")
From [PBS Newshour report](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec02/college.html) > [@](#): > > ## The gender gap is widening on college campuses. Female students continue to outnumber male students, although men still hold more positions of power on campus. > > ## Women now make up 56 percent of the college population – and that number continues to rise. Within ten years, three million more women than men could be attending college > > While women earn a higher percentage of bachelor’s and master’s degrees, they earn fewer doctorate degrees than men. There are also fewer women in many careers, including math, engineering, science and computers. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/50 "2003-09-08T03:10:00Z")
Here’s another interesting set of [stats](http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00062243-E126-1C73-9B81809EC588EF21) > [@](#): > > American women now receive 55 percent of master’s degrees and about four out of 10 of first professional degrees and Ph.D.s; their share of all three types of degrees is rising. In bachelor’s and master’s degree programs, however, men still predominate in subjects that lead to high-paying jobs. In 1996, for example, women received only 16 percent of bachelor’s degrees in engineering and 28 percent in computer and information science. They were overrepresented in subjects that generally lead to lower-paying jobs, such as English (66 percent female) and education (75 percent). In 1998 women aged 25 to 34 with bachelor’s degrees working full-time had an average income 22 percent lower than similarly educated men. ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/51 "2003-09-08T03:36:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Marley23 \* > \*\*Yes, I’m aware those things are lies and urban legends, and I’m in agreement with you about the wrongs of propagating them. But the falseness of those things doesn’t impact the core values of feminism or reduce the necessity of equal rights for everyone. \*\* But feminists have, unfortunately, demonstrated time and again that anti-male attitudes _are_ a core value of feminism. That’s why so many people who agree with equality, equal pay, etc., are so hesitant to call themselves feminism. It comes with a lot of manbashing baggage attached. Also, there is no major feminist organization that advocates equal rights for everyone. They advocate women’s rights. And they will promote those rights – and privileges – at the expense of men. See, for example, NOW’s stance against equal rights for fathers. Note also that advocacy of anti-male discriminiation in the workplace is endemic in feminism. > [@](#): > > I’ve read “The Feminine Mystique,” thank you, and there’s more to it than one comparison to prison camp inmates. > > I think you’re overlooking the fact that the charges you’re making would likely apply to any movement in history as far as manipulation, dishonesty and bigotry. > \*\* Looking at the American Revolution, I find a remarkable and admirable dearth of such characteristics. See the Federalist Papers, etc. You can’t build an enduring system on a lie. It is impossible to have justice without truth. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/52 "2003-09-08T04:14:16Z")
**Andy** , you seem to have your legs crossed. I have found anti-_male_ attitudes only on rare occasions among feminists, and I don’t think it is very supportable to include either Morgan or French among those who harbor them. To start with, whether you accept the premise or not, feminist theory makes a distinction between “Man” as an institution (and they do this for “Woman” as well, btw) and individual male people. If you excerpt passages in which Morgan or French assail patriarchy, or Man, or make generalizations about men which (they believe to be) accurate _as generalizations_ as a consequence of patriarchy, and claim that those passages are anti-male, you are equivocating. Here, for example, is Morgan, from _The Anatomy of Freedom_: > [@](#): > > …what has been called feminism is a vision of extraordinary love–expressed in a necessarily purgative form of rage. If we don’t give one another the permission to rage, who will? Not Woman. Nor will Man grant us this permission. Nor will men. And what do we have to fear about our love? Why deny it? The feminist vision has always been about love–not a Hallmark Card sentimentalized, cheapened imitation (“When you care enough to send the very best revolution”), but the wild, furious enraged, cleansing, energetic love that _demands_ change–love equal to the belief that there _is_ a way out of the burning room, that women and men _can_ change, that we _can_ shed the dead skins of Man and Woman, that this small blue-and-green globe we share _can_ be saved into peace, plenty, and laughter. > p. 31 In a similar vein, here is French, from _Beyond Power_: > [@](#): > > The only true revolution against patriarchy is one which removes the idea of power from its central position, and replaces it with the idea of pleasure. Despite the contempt in which this quality has been held for several millennia, pleasure, felicity–in its largest and deepest sense–is actually the highest human good… > > To restore pleasure to centrality requires restoring the body, and therefore, nature, to value…If women and men were seen as equal, if male self-definition no longer depended upon an inferior group, other stratifications would also become unnecessary… > > The foregoing is a sketch of feminist beliefs…the movement is not aimed at overthrow of any particular government or structure, but at the displacement of one way of thinking by another…Feminism increases the well-being of its adherents, and so can appeal to others on grounds of the possibility of greater felicity. Integration of the self, which means using the full range of one’s gifts, increases one’s sense of well-being: if integration of one’s entire life is not always possible because of the nature of the public world, it is a desirable goal. Patriarchy, which in all its forms requires some kind of self-sacrifice, denial, or repression in the name of some higher good which is rarely (if ever) achieved on earth, stresses nobility, superiority, and victory, the satisfaction of a final triumph. Feminism requires the entire self in the name of present well-being, and stresses integrity, community, and the jouissance of present experience. > pp. 444-5 Either of these two people may or may not hate some men, and if you go through every single thing they’ve written I’m sure each of them has made statements about “men” that posit “men” as the “bad guy”. But neither of them espouses the theory that male people are inherently evil. These two, in fact, are among those within radical feminism who made the most specific strides away from binary us-versus-them type politics and moved the analysis of radical feminism to a place where all people immersed in the social system they call “patriarchy” are controlled, coerced, and forced to suffer attenuated lives. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/53 "2003-09-08T04:54:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Looking at the American Revolution, I find a remarkable and admirable dearth of such characteristics. The founders of this country talked about freedom for all men, and then granted the vote only to landowning men, disenfranchising poorer men, women, and non-whites in the process. These people owned slaves and specifically avoided taking a stand against slavery in the Constitution. And let’s not forget that business with the natives. There was no bigotry involved in the American Revolution? There was certainly a degree of hypocrisy. Yes, it was completely typical of the time period, but it’s hardly news. > [@](#): > > You can’t build an enduring system on a lie. It is impossible to have justice without truth. I agree with you, I really do. But I think it’s folly to say that this country was built solely on honesty, respect for others, and equality. ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/54 "2003-09-08T05:38:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AHunter3 \* > **Andy, you seem to have your legs crossed.** I don’t know what you mean by that, so I’ll just assume the _ad hominems_ have, typically, begun. > [@](#): > > I have found anti-_male_ attitudes only on rare occasions among feminists, At least you admit they exist. And on those, ahem, “rare” occasions, did you voice objections or condone them with your silence? I’m interested in specific answers. One of the innate characteristics of bigotry is that bigots do not recognize their own prejudices. Perhaps if the hatred were aimed at you, you might perceive it more clearly. As it is, I speculate that perhaps you are indifferent when the hate is directed at people like me. > [@](#): > > … and I don’t think it is very supportable to include either Morgan or French among those who harbor them. I will let other readers peruse the hate speech I’ve posted from Morgan and French and note the denial at work here. > [@](#): > > To start with, whether you accept the premise or not, feminist theory makes a distinction between “Man” as an institution (and they do this for “Woman” as well, btw) and individual male people. It’s an aspect of bigotry to hate a group of people while making individual exceptions. You are aware, of course, that many racists say they differentiate between black people in general and the ones they see as “n_gg_rs.” They tell those blacks whom they accept that “you don’t act like a black person.” I’ve also heard from Jews who say that someone will openly state the most anti-Semitic views, then say “but you’re not like that.” So with Morgan. And not to beat the Nazi analogy to death, but it was an embarrasment to the Third Reich that a good many loyal Party members had Jewish mistresses. Like any bigot, Morgan attempts to demonize a group of people. This “theory” you cite is a fig leaf trying to legitimize it. > [@](#): > > If you excerpt passages in which Morgan or French assail patriarchy, or Man, or make generalizations about men which (they believe to be) accurate _as generalizations_ as a consequence of patriarchy, and claim that those passages are anti-male, you are equivocating. This is a prime example of denial. Bigotry _involves_ generalizations. And _of course_ she believes her hate-patterns of thought to be true. All bigots do. > [@](#): > > Here, for example, is Morgan, from _The Anatomy of Freedom_: (quote)…what has been called feminism is a vision of extraordinary love–expressed in a necessarily purgative form of rage. (quote) Prime example of a hate-monger attempting to frame their hate in a positive light. She advocates that you go ahead and hate as a form of love. Paging George Orwell. Irrational, anti-male hatred was feminists’ bread and butter. They weren’t going to whip up the “oppressed” masses by saying “let’s appreciate the positive things men have done.” Hatred is a powerful political motivator. Morgan was giving her followers permission to hate. > [@](#): > > In a similar vein, here is French, from _Beyond Power_: Nice lip service. It’s unfortunate that such touchy-feely _talk_ differs so profoundly from feminisms’ anti-male _actions._ > [@](#): > > Either of these two people may or may not hate some men, and if you go through every single thing they’ve written I’m sure each of them has made statements about “men” that posit “men” as the “bad guy”. > > But neither of them espouses the theory that male people are inherently evil. You haven’t really read Morgan have you – just the self-serving Cliffs Notes. Ginette Castro’s history of American feminism points out that Morgan has a long history of statements proclaiming her hatred for men. Also, here is an excerpt from Ms. Magazine on Morgan’s “Demon Lover.” Ms. Magazine’s description contains what are obviously anti-male generalizations – but Ms. Mag of course doesn’t acknowledge that they are anti-male. (quote) "In her ground-breaking new book, “The Demon Lover: On the Sexuality of Terrorism,” Robin Morgan advances an analysis of terrorism in which the soldier (the State’s hero) and the terrorist (the Revolution’s hero) are mirror-image expressions of male nature, not human nature. A feminist writer who was once involved in small, pre-Weathermen, “armed propaganda” groups, Morgan opens a window of thought and action that lets us move out of a male-centered politics of Thanatos - the romance of death - into a feminist politics of Eros, a loving life force. The following excerpt, drawn from Chapters 1,5 and 6 of “The Demon Lover,” shows us how maleness itself becomes the weapon of destruction, and how women who seek political change are coerced, deceived, and seduced into fighting for manhood under the illusion that they are ending their own oppression and creating a humane world." — Ms. magazine, March 1989 (quote) (And other examples) From her “The Demon Lover” (NY: Norton & Co., 1989) – p. 138-9: The phallic malady is epidemic and systemic … each individual male in the patriarchy is aware of his relative power in the scheme of things… He knows that his actions are supported by the twin pillars of the State of man - the brotherhood ritual of political exigency and the brotherhood ritual of a sexual thrill in dominance. As a devotee of Thanatos, he is one with the practitioner of sado-masochistic “play” between “consenting adults,” as he is one with the rapist. – p. 224: My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others’ agony. > [@](#): > > These two, in fact, are among those within radical feminism who made the most specific strides away from binary us-versus-them type politics and moved the analysis of radical feminism to a place where all people immersed in the social system they call “patriarchy” are controlled, coerced, and forced to suffer attenuated lives. \*\* Oh, so they moved away from a binary system to patriarch vs. feminism, eh? They moved us from us-versus-them to … us-versus-patriarchy. That claim is not really making any sense. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/55 "2003-09-08T11:42:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by leander \* > \*\*Here’s another interesting set of [stats In 1996, for example, women received only 16 percent of bachelor’s degrees in engineering and 28 percent in computer and information science.](http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00062243-E126-1C73-9B81809EC588EF21) \*\* Women really dont need to/shouldnt go into the fields of computer science and engineering, those jobs are being outsourced to asia. I really dont expect many computer science nor engineering jobs to be available in the future in America. Women are now going into fields that will have plenty of high paying jobs in the future, law, medical science, dental, retailing, physical therapy, vetinary science, teaching, academics, government, etc. despite globlisation and despite the outflow of mens factory, computer, and engineering jobs to foreign lands. The American men in factories, computer science, and engineering, etc. will be out of their jobs in the next decade because asians can do those jobs much cheaper. * * * Who says the ERA is dead? It is being actively worked on in Missouri, Illinois, Florida, and North Carolina, and Nevada. It will be passed in those states within the next decade, perhaps as soon as 2004 if enough anti-bush voters turn out at the polls and change the state legislators. * * * May 21, 2003 Contact: Phil Craft ``` 212-860-0606 ``` MALONEY APPLAUDS ILLINOIS HOUSE FOR PASSING ERA Washington, DC – Today, in response to news that the Illinois House of Representatives passed the Equal Rights Amendment for equality of men and women, Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (NY) - the lead sponsor of the Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S. House of Representatives - made the following statement: “Passage of the long sought equality amendment for men and women by the Illinois House is cause for celebration. Hopefully today’s bold action by the Illinois House will be followed quickly by the Illinois Senate, because the nation still awaits the full Constitutional guarantee of equal rights for men and women.” ## [http://www.house.gov/maloney/press/108th/20030521ERA.html](http://www.house.gov/maloney/press/108th/20030521ERA.html) Florida Senate Committee Supports Ratification of ERA Feminist News April 7, 2003 Despite offensive remarks from Florida Governor Jeb Bush condemning the renewed movement for an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), Florida’s Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-3 to endorse ratification of the ERA. Along with Illinois, Arizona, and Missouri, Florida is one of four targeted states in a renewed drive to pass an amendment to the US Constitution that reads: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” In 1982, Florida was one of several states that narrowly rejected ratification of the ERA. [http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/status.htm](http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/status.htm) ## • Currently the E.R.A. has 203 bipartisan cosponsors, nearly as many as were gained in the full session of 107th Congress, which was the highest number of cosponsors in 20 years. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/56 "2003-09-08T17:08:41Z")
Cool news, **Susanann**! [Johnny Carson] I did not know that. [/Johnny] It’s been a national embarrassment to have such a simple and straightforward law rejected–and regardless of some folks’ argument that it is redundant and unnecessary at this point, especially embarrassing to the US because of the well-publicized silly-ass reasons given at the time by its opponents for voting it down. ---
**Author:** ![mojave66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mojave66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mojave66)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/57 "2003-09-08T23:54:59Z")
\>At least you admit they exist. And on those, ahem, “rare” occasions, did you voice objections or condone them with your silence? I’m interested in specific answers. Andy, I know you’re more open-minded than that. As an avowed feminist, mind if I say “fuck yeah”? I spent a good part of the late '80s arguing, writing letters, politicking and otherwise fighting with a handful other women about the politics of AIDS, their premise being “well if the shoe was on the other foot gay men wouldn’t be helping _us_.” If this kind of screwy moralizing was happening to straight men I’d have said the same things. Man-bashing is as much a fucking stupid bit of scapegoating as the gay bashing that goes on in fundamentalist circles as far as I’m concerned. If I judged the whole black liberation movement on a few quotes from Malcolm X or Eldridge Cleaver I’d have to conclude that it was based exclusively on hating white people. The truth was far more complicated than that, and much of it was based on finding a self-worth centered in an African-American context and challenging the very real violence toward black folks. Feminism was the same thing-- finding self-worth in _femaleness_, challenging violence against women. The fact that SOME feminists chose to conflate men with patriarchy doesn’t negate the core message of feminism, which was-- and is-- that women deserve the same rights, opportunities and freedom as men. And, for the record I volunteered a bit for a feminist anti-violence group that was as concerned about lesbian and woman-initiated domestic violence as it was against any other types of domestic violence, and helped educate the community about the issues until the money ran out. The whole basis of my own feminism is that the powers that be have a stake in portraying gender, sexuality and morality in very limited ways that grant power to certain people who are mainly male, mainly straight, mainly rich and mainly white. I don’t separate my desire for women’s equality with my desire for queer rights, minority rights or any other rights. I don’t have my books handy, but later I’ll see if I can dig out some Audre Lorde as a counter-response to your quotes. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/58 "2003-09-09T01:40:16Z")
**Satisfying Andy Licious** : > [@](#): > > quoting me: > > > [@](#): > > > > I have found anti-male attitudes only on rare occasions among feminists, > > At least you admit they exist. And on those, ahem, “rare” occasions, did you voice objections or condone them with your silence? I’m interested in specific answers. [Yeah](http://home.earthlink.net/~ahunter/RFvLitCrit/new_prologue.html), as a matter of fact, I did. Mostly though, as a male majoring in feminist studies, the reactions I got ranged from very-impressed “How totally cool that a guy would be interested in this stuff” to “You’re welcome to support us from the outside but we need our own ‘space’ and it needs to be female-only space for us to find our own voice”, with the best (IMHO) being the stopover in-between, “We don’t intrinsically trust males saying they want to get onboard with feminism, but we’ll judge you on your participation and if it appears you’re really onboard, way cool”. Did I meet individual feminists who either said they hated me for being a man or made it apparent in other ways that they did? Sure. Same as I ran into folks in the Black Students Organization who took a personal dislike to me because I’m white. Did I get crossways with feminists for generalizing and being close-minded and bigoted? Yes, although not towards males. I’m an anti-psychiatric activist (aka psychiatric inmates’ liberation movement) and a lot of times found groups of feminists who did _not_ want to consider the ways in which the psychiatric system is a major component of patriarchy, and the ways in which the “feminist therapy” counseling services some of them were supportive of were in turn supportive of coercive psychiatric practices as well as the medicalization of politically-defined “deviancy”. > [@](#): > > It’s an aspect of bigotry to hate a group of people while making individual exceptions It is when the group is one to which individuals belong without having any choice in the matter. And at first glance, sure, I can see how you might think of being a Man as something you’re born with and born into and have no choice about. But that isn’t how they are using the term. With (again) _rare_ exceptions they don’t hate people for being _male_. As John Stoltenberg has done, you can refuse the mantle and identity “Man”. I’ve done it too. I don’t like Men either. Never did. And I am not of them. (For my own reasons. They coincide in many many places with the reasons that feminists feel that way about it, so I use their terminology fluidly when I’m speaking with them or with people familiar with their terminology – why not? But for my own damn personal reasons and of my own damn initiative.) I don’t think it is bigotry to hate Catholicism, or even to hate Catholics (since you have the choice of not being one of them, of not lending your own allocation of legitimacy to them). I don’t think it is bigotry to hate autocracy, or autocrats. And in that same vein I don’t think it is bigotry to hate men. > [@](#): > > Prime example of a hate-monger attempting to frame their hate in a positive light. She [Robin Morgan] advocates that you go ahead and hate as a form of love. Where rage exists, you can express it honestly to those you love in an attempt to settle things and hash them out, or you can deal with the people who have enraged you as if their tendency to do these enraging things was just an innate characteristic of how they are, and thus view them as an alien Other not deserving of the expectation that they should treat you, and you them, as as they (and you) wish to be treated in turn. I’ve lived in the South, Andy, and while I can’t give you supporting citations, subjective experience says the “batting average” for genuine hostility towards men is a hell of a lot higher among women who disparage feminism and hide their rage towards men than among the feminist women who are open and forthright about it. ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/59 "2003-09-09T04:13:00Z")
(In reference to the racism of early suffragettes) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by j66 \* > \*\*The hell I wouldn’t rather know, and have every one else know, too. > > BTW, cite? > > I am truly interested. \*\* Here are some notes and a link on the bigotry of early feminists. Carrie Chapman Catt is so notorious in her bigotry that black students at the University of Iowa started a movment to have her name removed from a campus building. (I don’t know if they succeeded.) Angela Davis’ _Women, Race and Class_ quotes Catt as referring to the \*\*"…aggressive movements that with possibly ill-advised haste enfranchised the foreigner, the negro and the indian…" \*\* Catt was among suffragettes who campaigned to get white women the vote in order to dilute the votes of non-whites and “foreigners.” Her goal is overtly stated in the following (bolding mine). > [@](#): > > In 1894 she wrote, "This government is menaced with a great danger…that danger lies in the votes possessed by the males in the slums of the cities, and the ignorant foreign vote[sought by each party to ensure] political success…In the mining districts the danger has already reached this point–miners are supplied with arms, watching with greedy eyes for the moment when they can get in their deadly work of despoiling the wealth of the country… **There is but one way to avert the danger–cut off the vote of the slums and give it to women…the ballot." This sort of argument was extended to blacks as well.** See Paula Giddings, _When and Where I Enter_, for more. Class and race biases of suffragists must be treated as an integral part of the suffrage movement. I have taken pains to find citations from leftist sources, so they cannot be dismissed as right-wing inventions. One site – [marxist.org](http://marxist.org) – offers the following detailed analysis of feminism and bigotry as part of a [longer essay.](http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1984/women/04-19cusa.htm) > [@](#): > > A split occurred between the women’s movement and that for the abolition of slavery. The feminists were incensed at the injustice of the Fourteenth Amendment of 1866 which granted the vote to black men while denying it to all women, white as well as black. **Susan B. Anthony indignantly pledged: “I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work for or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman.” Elizabeth Cady Stanton made derogatory references to “Sambo”, and the enfranchisement of “Africans, Chinese, and all the ignorant foreigners the moment they touch our shore.”** > … > With the transformation of the American bourgeoisie from a progressive force to a reactionary force towards the end of the century, its women members, who shared opinions and values with its male members on every issue other than that of women’s suffrage, were bound to become racist, xenophobic, and viciously anti-working-class. Neither women nor men can escape the social, political and ideological milieu in which they live. > > Some factors strengthened the move to the right. One was the rise of a militant working-class movement from the 1870s onwards, which engaged in widespread strikes, one of which, the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, involved nearly 100,000 workers from the Atlantic coast to the Mississippi valley. Another was the spread of the women s movement to the South. Black women had almost always been excluded from the feminist movement. But **from the end of the nineteenth century the movement started organising white middle-class women in the south who were openly racist.** > > The right had a number of phobias: blacks, foreign-born people, slum dwellers, militant workers. Hence, while the demand of the feminists for women’s suffrage did not change over the decades, the arguments advanced in its support changed radically. They became racist and xenophobic.\*\* Thus Susan B. Anthony more and more stridently criticised the granting of the ballot to the “brutish and ignorant Negro man”. Carrie Chapman Catt, one of the leaders of the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) arraigned against “the ignorant foreign vote” and the slum-dwellers’ vote: “Cut off the vote of the slums,” she declared, “and give [it] to woman.” In the eyes of NAWSA the decisive attraction of giving the vote to women was that it “would ensure the permanency of white supremacy in the South”. \*\* > > Thus, as Aileen Kraditor writes: > > \*\*The woman suffrage movement had ceased to be a campaign to extend the franchise to all adult Americans. Instead, one important part of its rationale had become the proposal to take the vote away from some Americans – Negroes in the south and naturalised citizens in the north. \*\* Modern feminist came up with the canard that women were just as oppressed as minorities and had always stood in solidarity with them. In fact, many suffragettes hailed from privileged backgrounds and sought to perpetuate their elite status. Modern feminists created a mythology in such works as “Fried Green Tomatoes” showing white women on the side of blacks against the Klan. In reality, the Klan in the early 20th century had female members – and female leaders – and there were women’s groups affiliated with the Klan. For an excellent study of this, see “Women of the Klan: Raism and Gender in the 1920s” by Kathleen M. Blee. In the 1960s, feminists saw that it was to their advantage to piggy-back on the civil-rights movement, and started claiming they were as oppressed as blacks. In an effort to cement their new allegiance, they began depiciting bigotry and racism as a male thing. This is one of the most hateful slanders the man-bashing movement came up with. As for blacks, they don’t seem to be brimming over with memories of all the white women who stood up for them in the Jim Crow days. They do remember, however, the number of lynchings spurred by white women who, when they feared they were pregnant, claimed that a black man had raped them. ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2003, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860/60 "2003-09-09T04:44:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mojave66 \* > \*\*\>At least you admit they exist. And on those, ahem, “rare” occasions, did you voice objections or condone them with your silence? I’m interested in specific answers. > > Andy, I know you’re more open-minded than that. > > As an avowed feminist, mind if I say “fuck yeah”? I spent a good part of the late '80s arguing, writing letters, politicking and otherwise fighting with a handful other women about the politics of AIDS, their premise being “well if the shoe was on the other foot gay men wouldn’t be helping _us_.” If this kind of screwy moralizing was happening to straight men I’d have said the same things. Man-bashing is as much a fucking stupid bit of scapegoating as the gay bashing that goes on in fundamentalist circles as far as I’m concerned. Good for you, then. I’m glad to hear that you spoke your conscience and stood up for your beliefs. The only place I differ with you is on the prevelence of man-bashing and anti-male politics. Then again, perhaps I’m more conscience of them because you’ll always see such things in sharper relief when they are aimed at you. There are probably anti-lesbian sentiments or code phrases that would sail right past me. > [@](#): > > If I judged the whole black liberation movement on a few quotes from Malcolm X or Eldridge Cleaver I’d have to conclude that it was based exclusively on hating white people. Now, if you were judging the conservative movement in the United States, you’d see there are some overt racists, some covert racists, some who are anti-racist, and those who, while not being racists themselves, have no compunction about dealing with and supporting those who are. Feminism is being judged the same way. The anti-male hatred of people like Robin Morgan and Dworkin is right out in the open. This is compounded by a remarkable lack, in the movement, of any meaningful objection to anti-male hatred. Those who don’t openly practice it are passively condoning it with their silence. There is a notable dearth of anyone who is regarded as a major feminist _by other feminists_ who will speak out against it. The moment they do, they are labeled traitors. Sometimes you hear talk that man-bashing is bad for the movement. I think it’s bad in and of itself, and I’m glad whenever I hear someone state it unequivocally. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/womens-voice/199860.md?page=4)