NationStates Jolt Archive

We all know them. They claim to be feminists, but they go against every ideal of the feminist goal: gender equality. They believe all men are inhernetly evil rapist pigs. They scream for women's rights and yet deny both genders very important rights. They want all the privelage and none of the duty that comes with gender equality.

We call them "feminazis". But wouldn't "femicommies" be a more appropriate title?

It all starts with a very real problem in society about which something certainly needs to be done. Perfectly well-meaning documents start to appear urging reform, violent if necessary. Some of these contain a few logical fallacies or pour research, but they certainly make a legitimate point.

The old order begins to crumble due to catastrophic conflict abroad. Provisional measures are introduced, but the scoial problem is still very much with us. A more radical system emerges... one that starts to teach that freeing one group requires the oppression of others...

Soon, all of society is once again being opressed, now more than ever.

Radical feminism or the USSR? Your comments, anyone?

Who is "we all"? Because I've honestly never met such a person.... :confused:

Your comments, anyone?

Your a fool, that is all.

Your comments, anyone?


Talk to a girl sometime. They're very nice.

Feminazis: The reason guys like me are still single. :upyours:

radicals in every group, what about it?

Feminazis: The reason guys like me are still single. :upyours:

Yea....ummm, are we sure about that?

Feminazis: The reason guys like me are still single. :upyours:

yeah, I'm sure that's it.

Tell me, what exactly is a "guy like you"?

Yea....ummm, are we sure about that?

I doubt it. But some people just need to blame others.

Yea....ummm, are we sure about that?
Yep.

yeah, I'm sure that's it.

Tell me, what exactly is a "guy like you"?

Oh comon Arthais, you know the kind. He wants a submissive woman who will kiss his feet and won't bitch to the police when he kicks dust into her face, or beat her ass. God forbid women should be considered equal! Silly Silly Arthais.

Oh comon Arthais, you know the kind. He wants a submissive woman

There is NOTHING wrong with that.

who will kiss his feet and won't bitch to the police when he kicks dust into her face, or beat her ass. God forbid women should be considered equal! Silly Silly Arthais.

Oh, that, well yeah, there's something wrong with that.

Yep.

Dude, I am probably going to be the ugliest person you'll ever meet. I then to tell off people who annoy me, it's pretty damn hard to get me to open up to anyone, much less trust them, and I think that all humanity sucks, however I have been able to land a girlfriend. What does that say about you?

Oh comon Arthais, you know the kind. He wants a submissive woman who will kiss his feet and won't bitch to the police when he kicks dust into her face, or beat her ass. God forbid women should be considered equal! Silly Silly Arthais.
Not THAT kind of submissive. :rolleyes:

Dude, I am probably going to be the ugliest person you'll ever meet. I then to tell off people who annoy me, it's pretty damn hard to get me to open up to anyone, much less trust them, and I think that all humanity sucks, however I have been able to land a girlfriend. What does that say about you?

You win this thread, both for sheer honesty, and one hell of a good point.

There is NOTHING wrong with that.


I prefer a relationship where no one is submissive, and where no one is controlling the other. So I guess I want an equal relationship. Meh.

Not THAT kind of submissive. :rolleyes:

there's submissive women and then there's doormats.

And I highly doubt that it's the women's fault you can't land a girl.

You win this thread, both for sheer honesty, and one hell of a good point.

Yea, I tend to be brutally honest, I've basically gave up lying all together, I mean what good does lying do? Even small white lies are pointless.

Honesty all the way baby.

and Thank you. *eats a slice of Cheese Cake*

I prefer a relationship where no one is submissive, and where no one is controlling the other. So I guess I want an equal relationship. Meh.

you equate control with equality, which is a rather dangerou assumption to make in the context of some relationships.

That, however, is a topic for an entirely different thread.

And I highly doubt that it's the women's fault you can't land a girl.
Try me. :p

Try me. :p

oh? go ahead, explain why it's the "feminazis' fault"

you equate control with equality, which is a rather dangerou assumption to make in the context of some relationships.

That, however, is a topic for an entirely different thread.

What I am trying to say, I like relationships where no one controls other, and that both parties are equal. I'm in that kind of relationship right now and I love it. I'm not submissive to Kay, and Kay is not submissive to me.

'Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included'. - Karl Marx

oh? go ahead, explain why it's the "feminazis' fault"

*sits back and open up a can of beer*

Beer? Cheese Cake?

What I am trying to say, I like relationships where no one controls other, and that both parties are equal. I'm in that kind of relationship right now and I love it. I'm not submissive to Kay, and Kay is not submissive to me.

which...is fine, cool for you. Some people ENJOY being a submissive partner, others ENJOY being a dominant partner.

If you don't like it, and she doesn't like it, neither one of you are missing out. However there are plenty of submissives, both men and women, who rather ENJOY submitting, and plenty of dominants who enjoy letting them. As long as everyone gets what they want and consents to activities done, there is really no place to judge anyone.

oh? go ahead, explain why it's the "feminazis' fault"
Party pooper. :p

Party pooper. :p

So....you got nothing?

So....you got nothing?

I'm guessing a B.A.C. above .08%

I'm guessing a B.A.C. above .08%

B.A.C.?

B.A.C.?

blood alcohol content.

So....you got nothing?
No. But I still blame them, 'cuz it entertains me. :p

blood alcohol content.

Ahh, well I got to admit, reading drunk posting is fun.

I'm guessing a B.A.C. above .08%
I don't drink. :p

All sober baby! :D

We all know them. They claim to be feminists, but they go against every ideal of the feminist goal: gender equality. They believe all men are inhernetly evil rapist pigs. They scream for women's rights and yet deny both genders very important rights.How about you provide a link so all of us who thinks you're making shit up can check for ourselves?They want all the privelage and none of the duty that comes with gender equality.Are you calling equality a privilege?We call them "feminazis". But wouldn't "femicommies" be a more appropriate title?Commies believe in equality, and you seem to claim one or more feminists don't, so no. It wouldn't really work.It all starts with a very real problem in society about which something certainly needs to be done. Perfectly well-meaning documents start to appear urging reform, violent if necessary. Some of these contain a few logical fallacies or pour research, but they certainly make a legitimate point.

The old order begins to crumble due to catastrophic conflict abroad. Provisional measures are introduced, but the scoial problem is still very much with us. A more radical system emerges... one that starts to teach that freeing one group requires the oppression of others...

Soon, all of society is once again being opressed, now more than ever.

Radical feminism or the USSR? Your comments, anyone?I'm impressed. Not in a good way, but impressed no less.

I don't drink. :p

All sober baby! :D

Drugs?

I don't drink. :p

All sober baby! :D

that's far more disturbing. You must be depressed since losing your planetary status.

Drugs?
Nope.

I prefer a relationship where no one is submissive, and where no one is controlling the other. So I guess I want an equal relationship. Meh.

I like the idea of being the goofball man who can't string together a sentence without stumbling over the words nervously while the confident woman just shakes her head and tells me she knows what I'm trying to say. ;)

I harbour no feelings of mysogyny. I do not descriminate or prejudge against women. But I do resent two certain types of women.

The first type are hippocrites. They believe in equality, and state a simple truth: that women should not have to be attractive to be successful. Yet then they turn around and go completely against this theory by obsessing about being as sexy as possible. Have you been in a clothing store recently? The women's section for just about anything is seriously at the very least five times bigger than anything offered to the men, and it's all because of these women.

The second type are feminists, or as I like to call them, "female supremacists." They believe women are immaculate and perfect and morally right in every way, and that men are...well...dirty rapist swine. These are the people who upset the balance of our very society. These are the people who go against everything the American dream stands for: liberty, equality, and opportunity.

There is also a third group of people that I disdain for these reasons, though they are not always women. I call them "socio-sanctists." They seem to believe that women deserve better conditions and more legal rights than men, simply because the social order has traditionally been the opposite, and they feel they are "equalising" everything. They also apply this sentiment to minorities, such as Latin-, African-, Native, and Asian-Americans. As a result of these radical reversals of the social order, a hostile environment is created for European Americans and men. At any moment a wrong wording can get one accused of racism, or even worse, sexism. It reminds me of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, except nowadays social ostracisation rather than the guillotine is the penalty for exercising the freedom of speech.

Radical feminists exist, yes, but so what? I don't go out of my way to listen to them any more than I go out of my way to listen to radicals of any stripe. I also strongly object to the term 'Feminazis' because it's an automatic Godwin AND was coined by Rush, which should tell ya all you need to know right then and there.

And on a related note, I can't wait for Bottle to see this one.

And on a related note, I can't wait for Bottle to see this one.
I love my infamy. :D

Honestly, though, I might have to disappoint on this one. Too many people seem freaked out by the fact that there happen to be jerks who are female. (I encounter this so often that I have a very hard time even pretending to care when the word "feminazi" is entered into a conversation.) A lot of people feel the need to come up with creative names for female jerks, and spend long hours pondering the ways of female jerks.

Personally, I just call them jerks.

Yes. There are women, and men, who are radically opposed to the idea that they be expected to follow the rules and behave like grownups. There are women, and men, who believe that their pee-pee or hoo-hoo should grant them special rights to act out. Meh. There are jerks in the world, and 50% of them are female.

I love my infamy. :D

Honestly, though, I might have to disappoint on this one. Too many people seem freaked out by the fact that there happen to be jerks who are female. (I encounter this so often that I have a very hard time even pretending to care when the word "feminazi" is entered into a conversation.) A lot of people feel the need to come up with creative names for female jerks, and spend long hours pondering the ways of female jerks.

Personally, I just call them jerks.

Yes. There are women, and men, who are radically opposed to the idea that they be expected to follow the rules and behave like grownups. There are women, and men, who believe that their pee-pee or hoo-hoo should grant them special rights to act out. Meh. There are jerks in the world, and 50% of them are female.

You mean you dont call them bigots or prejudiced or trolls or sexists?

which...is fine, cool for you. Some people ENJOY being a submissive partner, others ENJOY being a dominant partner.

If you don't like it, and she doesn't like it, neither one of you are missing out. However there are plenty of submissives, both men and women, who rather ENJOY submitting, and plenty of dominants who enjoy letting them. As long as everyone gets what they want and consents to activities done, there is really no place to judge anyone.
I agree with you about 95%. It's the last sentence that I can't agree with.

There is place to judge EVERYBODY. You should be judging everybody and everything. That's the wonder of your consciousness. (Unless you are currently in a meditative trance. Then all bets are off and I have no clue what's what.)

Being judgmental or arrogant or sticking your nose into somebody else's business are lousy things to do. But judging people and their actions is the responsible thing to do. Being critical is a very, very good thing.

If people choose to introduce their personal choices into public discussions, then we SHOULD judge them! Why not?! We can render personal judgments without in any way advocating that people be forbidden to act against our judgments. I can judge a person's choice to be lousy but still believe it's their personal choice and nobody should try to force them to do otherwise.

I think it is very important to look at dom/sub relationships and judge their merits and drawbacks. It is important to judge how they relate to the undercurrents of sexualized domination and submission in our culture. You can learn a lot. It's important to look at the choices that people actually do make in their own personal lives, to see how they square with the theoretical beliefs people espouse in public.

You mean you dont call them bigots or prejudiced or trolls or sexists?
Some jerks are bigots. Some are prejudiced. Some are trolls. Some are sexist.

Those terms are more than sufficient to identify the sub-species of jerk. I don't see any need to go around inventing cute new "femnazi" or "misogynazi" terms. The people who hold such beliefs are, at their core, not really about sexism for its own sake. They're just kids who don't like having to play by the same rules as everybody else. That's a very common jerk trait.

Some jerks are bigots. Some are prejudiced. Some are trolls. Some are sexist.

Those terms are more than sufficient to identify the sub-species of jerk. I don't see any need to go around inventing cute new "femnazi" or "misogynazi" terms. The people who hold such beliefs are, at their core, not really about sexism for its own sake. They're just kids who don't like having to play by the same rules as everybody else. That's a very common jerk trait.

The thing is I dont see any reason not to go making up terms like this. People do lots of useless stuff that isnt particularly useful. I dont see why this one matters that much. Its an idea which didnt really have a word before and is much more fun to say that something like female chauvinist. Granted its juvenile, but thats the whole point.

The thing is I dont see any reason not to go making up terms like this. People do lots of useless stuff that isnt particularly useful. I dont see why this one matters that much. Its an idea which didnt really have a word before and is much more fun to say that something like female chauvinist. Granted its juvenile, but thats the whole point.
Meh. And that's why I have trouble caring. I'm not vehemently opposed to such foolishness, I just see it as pointless and dull. I'm all for pointless entertainment, but I don't find this kind of stuff entertaining. It's been done to death, honestly.

One potential problem, in addition, is that using "feminazi" or similar terms may convey an impression you don't care for. Use the word "feminazi," and I'm going to start with the assumption that you're another of the lot who are angry and terrified that uppity womenz are talking for themselves and such. "Feminazi" is the word that misogynists use for feminists, after all, and they've taken it over so completely that I hardly ever see it applied to "female chauvinists" as you suggest. I take it as a compliment when somebody calls me a "feminazi," because it almost always means that they not only are aware I'm a feminist, they're also very scared of me. :D

Meh. And that's why I have trouble caring. I'm not vehemently opposed to such foolishness, I just see it as pointless and dull. I'm all for pointless entertainment, but I don't find this kind of stuff entertaining. It's been done to death, honestly.

One potential problem, in addition, is that using "feminazi" or similar terms may convey an impression you don't care for. Use the word "feminazi," and I'm going to start with the assumption that you're another of the lot who are angry and terrified that uppity womenz are talking for themselves and such. "Feminazi" is the word that misogynists use for feminists, after all, and they've taken it over so completely that I hardly ever see it applied to "female chauvinists" as you suggest. I take it as a compliment when somebody calls me a "feminazi," because it almost always means that they not only are aware I'm a feminist, they're also very scared of me. :D

Oh thank you very much for lumping me in with all of the guys who call all feminists feminazis because I really love rubbing shoulders with them, I'd be a feminist myself if I could actually be bothered to do anything about my personal politics apart from just debate them in a online forum. All I had a problem with were the women who take feminism too far, and granted there arent that many of them, but I kind of liked making fun of them. The word (feminazi) may have deviated from its original meaning, but then so do a lot of politically charged words like liberal, for instance.

Dude, I am probably going to be the ugliest person you'll ever meet. I then to tell off people who annoy me, it's pretty damn hard to get me to open up to anyone, much less trust them, and I think that all humanity sucks, however I have been able to land a girlfriend. What does that say about you?

Nah, I'm WAY uglier, I bet.

Oh thank you very much for lumping me in with all of the guys who call all feminists feminazis because I really love rubbing shoulders with them, I'd be a feminist myself if I could actually be bothered to do anything about my personal politics apart from just debate them in a online forum.

Hey, I'm just saying that certain word choices will lead people to make certain assumptions about you. I'm honestly not alone on this one. If you choose to adopt the language that anti-feminists use, can you really be surprised if people at least initially assume you're an anti-feminist?

If I go around calling black people "niggers," should I really be surprised if people tend to assume I'm racist?


All I had a problem with were the women who take feminism too far, and granted there arent that many of them, but I kind of liked making fun of them.

What do you mean, "take feminism too far"? If you are talking about women who advocate sexist oppression of men, then you aren't talking about women taking FEMINISM anywhere. Those women are anti-feminist, pure and simple.

Feminism is the belief in social and political EQUALITY between the sexes. Personally, I don't think it's possible to take that "too far." A person's sex or gender should not, in itself, ever be grounds for giving them special rights or status in society.

The word may have deviated from its original meaning, but then so do a lot of politically charged words like liberal, for instance.
People who don't like feminism often try to misuse the term "feminism," yes. Lots of people like to claim that "feminism" is about making women superior to men, or abusing men, or hating men.

These people are wrong. It's just that simple.

Just because some people don't understand feminism, or don't like it, doesn't mean that you have to shape your language to conform to their misperceptions.

It has to be one of the biggest conspiracy theories of all. Together with satanic homosexuals, demonic abortionists and ofcourse "the jew", the feminists are considered one of the greatest blights upon humanity. Correction: A blight on the male population.

Truelly how much power do feminists have in goverments and companies? Are not all the top jobs still male dominated?
And are we not quick to call a woman a feminist merely because she refuses to do all the chores in the house and refuses to have any children?
Or more sadly: Don't we just call women overly feminized merely because she doesn't want to have intercourse with such an obviously fertile man like you?

Perhaps you can say men and women have different roles in society but I for one believe that each human being is allowed to decide his or her own role.

Hey, I'm just saying that certain word choices will lead people to make certain assumptions about you. I'm honestly not alone on this one. If you choose to adopt the language that anti-feminists use, can you really be surprised if people at least initially assume you're an anti-feminist?

If I go around calling black people "niggers," should I really be surprised if people tend to assume I'm racist?

I still dont see anything wrong with the word though, and thats the whole point of this. People make up words for new concepts, especially if those concepts annoy them. The concept of a woman advocating oppression of men has got to annoy many men and women alike so a new word was invented for it. Like I said before, its juvenile, but its caught on and there we have it.

People who call black people niggers must be nearly invariably rascists, but I've met quite a few people in real life and more over the internet who are annoyed by 'feminazis' in the own words who I wouldnt describe as sexists.


What do you mean, "take feminism too far"? If you are talking about women who advocate sexist oppression of men, then you aren't talking about women taking FEMINISM anywhere. Those women are anti-feminist, pure and simple.

Feminism is the belief in social and political EQUALITY between the sexes. Personally, I don't think it's possible to take that "too far." A person's sex or gender should not, in itself, ever be grounds for giving them special rights or status in society.

Yeah I worded that wrong. I did mean women who advocated oppression of men. Not normal feminists.

can't say i've ever met a 'feminazi' or a 'femicommie'. i think they're an urban legend from the eighties when men finally started to realise they weren't in charge any more and decided to lash out with childish name-calling.

A few points, some to the OP, some based on a reading of the rest of the thread, and some that I just felt like writing:p

a) Radical feminists don't falsely "claim" to be feminists. They ARE feminists. Liberal, reformist feminism is simply one branch of a wider movement. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they're not feminists.

b) Comparisons to the USSR or Nazi Germany are fatuous and unhelpful. Separatist feminists doubt the capacity of men and women to live together in the same environment, but resolve this in suggesting they live in separate locations. I don't think I've come across many radical feminists who actively advocate putting men in Gulags or gas chambers.

c) Radical feminism is by no means a homogenous ideology, so some of the blanket criticisms here are a little invalid.

d) Although radicals' arguments are occasionally too extreme to be credible, much of the theory is quite legitimate, whether we choose to agree with it or not.

e) While female oppression is far from dead, there does perhaps need to be a greater recognition that men also suffer from restrictive and narrow gender roles in order for feminism to remain credible.

I take it as a compliment when somebody calls me a "feminazi," because it almost always means that they not only are aware I'm a feminist, they're also very scared of me. :D
You were making a pretty good neutral argument on this topic and I was rather surprised but the above comment reveals your true feelings.

I don't believe that true feminists want others to be afraid of them......they would rather have others embrace their equality.

can't say i've ever met a 'feminazi' or a 'femicommie'. i think they're an urban legend from the eighties when men finally started to realise they weren't in charge any more and decided to lash out with childish name-calling.

A couple of minutes of googling finds: http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

I dont know if its real, but I have met a couple of women like this.

I still dont see anything wrong with the word though, and thats the whole point of this.

Well, plenty of people don't see anything wrong with "******," either. Personally, I think everybody should be free to use whatever words they choose, and there's nothing "wrong" with that...I simply think people should also grow up and realize that choosing certain words is going to lead people to reach certain conclusions about you.

If you want to go around calling people "feminazis," you go right ahead. Just be prepared for the fact that people who are actually feminists and who actually care about equality are probably going to frequently assume that you are an anti-feminist.


People make up words for new concepts, especially if those concepts annoy them. The concept of a woman advocating oppression of men has got to annoy many men and women alike so a new word was invented for it. Like I said before, its juvenile, but its caught on and there we have it.

See, and that's where you're wrong. "Feminazi" wasn't invented for that purpose. Rush Limbaugh popularized the term, and his usage clearly shows that it refers to feminists much more frequently than it actually applies to women who advocate oppression of men. Indeed, Limbaugh's uses of the term are almost always in cases where he wants to cry oppression when women ask for EQUALITY with men, or when women have the gall to try to be independent human beings. (You could check out his June 22 2005 broadcast for a relatively recent example of this.)

You, personally, may want to use "feminazi" another way. That's up to you. I, personally, think the word "inflammable" should be used to mean the opposite of what it actually means.


People who call black people niggers must be nearly invariably rascists, but I've met quite a few people in real life and more over the internet who are annoyed by 'feminazis' in the own words who I wouldnt describe as sexists.

I haven't. I have never met one feminist who used "feminazi" seriously. It is a joke among actual feminists, albeit a very tired one.

The best case scenario is that the person using "feminazi" is simply ignorant, and doesn't know what feminism actually is. More commonly, they are actually quite sexist in many ways, though they are clued-in enough to know that sexism isn't a good thing so they try to disguise it (from others or from themselves).

For instance, a common behavior is for people to declare that they support "equality" but oppose "oppression," and then identify it as "oppressive" to have things like the Violence Against Women Act because it supposedly doesn't include enough concern for men. Far as I'm concerned, that's no different than complaining that hospitals don't reserve the same number of beds for healthy people as they do for the sick.


Yeah I worded that wrong. I did mean women who advocated oppression of men. Not normal feminists.
Honestly, stop using qualifiers. Not "normal feminists." Just feminists.

A person who does not believe in equality between the sexes is not ANY kind of feminist. They're not a "radical" feminist. They're not a "abnormal" feminist. They are the opposite of a feminist.

You were making a pretty good neutral argument on this topic and I was rather surprised but the above comment reveals your true feelings.

I don't believe that true feminists want others to be afraid of them......they would rather have others embrace their equality.
Why not? Feminism is about believe in social and political equality between the sexes. It's perfectly possible to also enjoy striking fear into the hearts of one's enemies!!! Mwa ha ha!!

Lighten up. Feminism doesn't require humorlessness.

I prefer a relationship where no one is submissive, and where no one is controlling the other. So I guess I want an equal relationship. Meh.

pssst I think he was making a joke about sexual role play not necessarily a relationship as a whole

Well, plenty of people don't see anything wrong with "******," either. Personally, I think everybody should be free to use whatever words they choose, and there's nothing "wrong" with that...I simply think people should also grow up and realize that choosing certain words is going to lead people to reach certain conclusions about you.

If you want to go around calling people "feminazis," you go right ahead. Just be prepared for the fact that people who are actually feminists and who actually care about equality are probably going to frequently assume that you are an anti-feminist.

See, and that's where you're wrong. "Feminazi" wasn't invented for that purpose. Rush Limbaugh popularized the term, and his usage clearly shows that it refers to feminists much more frequently than it actually applies to women who advocate oppression of men. Indeed, Limbaugh's uses of the term are almost always in cases where he wants to cry oppression when women ask for EQUALITY with men, or when women have the gall to try to be independent human beings. (You could check out his June 22 2005 broadcast for a relatively recent example of this.)

You, personally, may want to use "feminazi" another way. That's up to you. I, personally, think the word "inflammable" should be used to mean the opposite of what it actually means.

I haven't. I have never met one feminist who used "feminazi" seriously. It is a joke among actual feminists, albeit a very tired one.

The best case scenario is that the person using "feminazi" is simply ignorant, and doesn't know what feminism actually is. More commonly, they are actually quite sexist in many ways, though they are clued-in enough to know that sexism isn't a good thing so they try to disguise it (from others or from themselves).
So what you're arguing is that your life experience has led to your observation that all people who use the word feminazi are sexists. This is somehow more relevant than my life experience that has led me to observe that not all people who use the word feminazi are sexists. I dont see why this matters.


For instance, a common behavior is for people to declare that they support "equality" but oppose "oppression," and then identify it as "oppressive" to have things like the Violence Against Women Act because it supposedly doesn't include enough concern for men. Far as I'm concerned, that's no different than complaining that hospitals don't reserve the same number of beds for healthy people as they do for the sick.

A person who does not believe in equality between the sexes is not ANY kind of feminist. They're not a "radical" feminist. They're not a "abnormal" feminist. They are the opposite of a feminist.
Yes, I know this, you've said it repeatedly and despite what you may think I'm not completely stupid and I agree with what you're saying. From what I've read of the wikipedia article, the violence against women act isnt perfect (like the stuff that the ACLU objected to), but it has a lot of good points.

Radical feminism or the USSR? Your comments, anyone?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/cccp.gif

Here's my thoughts - I've actually been told that the people we call "feminazis" don't exist and were just made up by conservative talk radio people to make the rest of the feminist movement look bad. That, unfortunately, is a little like saying that Stalin never existed and was just made up by the American government to make the Soviet Union look bad.

Idiots exist all over. Take any cause at all, be it the feminist movement, the environmental movement- the anti-war movement, the pro-war movement, the anti-drugs movement, the anti-tobacco movement, the pro-tobacco movement, the anti-immigration movement...you get the idea. Name me any movement, and I can tell you that there exists a group of people who are just flat-out assholes about it and will tell you that, if you're not like what they want, then you should die, or you should be locked up, or you should be kicked out of the country, or you're going to hell.

Also, "feminazi" is a lot easier to say than "femicommie," which may be mistaken for some sort of hygiene product.

Meh. I personally can't be much bothered with the term "feminazi" or coming up with a term to replace it. It's true, women can be shmucks just as much as men can, but we already have perfectly good words to describe people like the one in the OP: jerks, assholes, jackasses, idiots, etc. No need to come up with a new phrase.

We all know them.
No, we actually don't. In fact, most people have never actually met a feminazi, they just imagine them, and get all goosepimply and outraged. Why? Because feminazis are the strict minority among feminists.




They claim to be feminists, but they go against every ideal of the feminist goal: gender equality. They believe all men are inhernetly evil rapist pigs. They scream for women's rights and yet deny both genders very important rights. They want all the privelage and none of the duty that comes with gender equality.

We call them "feminazis". But wouldn't "femicommies" be a more appropriate title?


Soon, all of society is once again being opressed, now more than ever.

Radical feminism or the USSR? Your comments, anyone?
Are all feminazis actually nazis? No. Would they ever actually refer to themselves as feminazis? No. Are they all communists? No. So let's stick with 'radical feminism'. I think that works just fine...the rest of what you've said here is a real stretch.

No, we actually don't. In fact, most people have never actually met a feminazi, they just imagine them, and get all goosepimply and outraged. Why? Because feminazis are the strict minority among feminists.

Actually, they're not, on account of not being feminists. Feminists want equality between the genders. And by "know", I mean "be aware of" They exist. They publish books. They have websites. I'm reasonably sure that the vast majority of people with access to NSG are aware of them.

Are all feminazis actually nazis? No. Would they ever actually refer to themselves as feminazis? No. Are they all communists? No. So let's stick with 'radical feminism'. I think that works just fine...the rest of what you've said here is a real stretch.

Did I say any of this was the case? No. So is there a problem with making a more accurate historical comparison? Also, why should we refrain from refering to a group by any one name just because they don't use it? A real Nazi, for example, is unlikely to refer to themself as a war-mongering murder-preaching bigot whose very existence reflects badly on the human race. Most other people take that as a given.

How about you provide a link so all of us who thinks you're making shit up can check for ourselves?

The kind of work I'm refering to (http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto)

The term itself, and use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi)

Are you calling equality a privilege?

Nope. Perhaps the phrasing does suggest that, So, I'll call it a right. All the rights and none of the duties. I seldom see anyone crying out about an all-male draft.

Commies believe in equality, and you seem to claim one or more feminists don't, so no. It wouldn't really work.I'm impressed. Not in a good way, but impressed no less.

Karl Marx believed in equality. Leon Trotsky may have believed in equality. Many individual communists believed in equality.

This does not change the fact that communist societies have invariably become oppressive and corrupt. In any case, the whole point of my OP was pointing out that from a standpoint of historical similarity, this movement was closer to communism. Comparing it ideologically to Nazism or Communism is just plain stupid, which is a shame, since everyone seems to think this is what I was doing.

Oh, and congratualtions on accusing me of criticising feminism. I knew it was only a matter of time. You'll note that paragraph one of the OP is stating that this movement is not feminsim. If a feminist is someone who wants gender equality, I am a feminist.

I'm not impressed. Come back with an argument which consists of more than misinperprating my sentences.

Your a fool, that is all.

That's the thing I love about this forum. The way I always get such deep and elaborate replies full of real criticisms.

This is flame. Please come back with an argument.

I harbour no feelings of mysogyny. I do not descriminate or prejudge against women. But I do resent two certain types of women.

The first type are hippocrites. They believe in equality, and state a simple truth: that women should not have to be attractive to be successful. Yet then they turn around and go completely against this theory by obsessing about being as sexy as possible. Have you been in a clothing store recently? The women's section for just about anything is seriously at the very least five times bigger than anything offered to the men, and it's all because of these women.

The second type are feminists, or as I like to call them, "female supremacists." They believe women are immaculate and perfect and morally right in every way, and that men are...well...dirty rapist swine. These are the people who upset the balance of our very society. These are the people who go against everything the American dream stands for: liberty, equality, and opportunity.

There is also a third group of people that I disdain for these reasons, though they are not always women. I call them "socio-sanctists." They seem to believe that women deserve better conditions and more legal rights than men, simply because the social order has traditionally been the opposite, and they feel they are "equalising" everything. They also apply this sentiment to minorities, such as Latin-, African-, Native, and Asian-Americans. As a result of these radical reversals of the social order, a hostile environment is created for European Americans and men. At any moment a wrong wording can get one accused of racism, or even worse, sexism. It reminds me of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, except nowadays social ostracisation rather than the guillotine is the penalty for exercising the freedom of speech.

Thanks. It's nice to find that at least one person shares my beliefes, and that people with a post count below 500 can spell and make legitimate arguments.

Pardon my ignorance, but what the heck is a "feminazi?"

I love my infamy. :D

Honestly, though, I might have to disappoint on this one. Too many people seem freaked out by the fact that there happen to be jerks who are female. (I encounter this so often that I have a very hard time even pretending to care when the word "feminazi" is entered into a conversation.) A lot of people feel the need to come up with creative names for female jerks, and spend long hours pondering the ways of female jerks.

Personally, I just call them jerks.

Yes. There are women, and men, who are radically opposed to the idea that they be expected to follow the rules and behave like grownups. There are women, and men, who believe that their pee-pee or hoo-hoo should grant them special rights to act out. Meh. There are jerks in the world, and 50% of them are female.

Yes! Yes! A legitimate counter-statement! It is possible!

Ahem...

My comments are more on the subject of a historical comparison of the development of the two groups. In actually society, yes, I'm not expecting people to go around saying Femicommie. I suppose using the nazi/commie device and reffering to nomenclature was a mistake, when really, that was just background to the historical point.

Pardon my ignorance, but what the heck is a "feminazi?"

See links above.

Nope. Perhaps the phrasing does suggest that, So, I'll call it a right. All the rights and none of the duties. I seldom see anyone crying out about an all-male draft.


Well, then, you seldom look. I don't know any feminists who support an all-male draft. Of course, I don't know very many feminists who support a draft, period.

Actually, they're not, on account of not being feminists. Feminists want equality between the genders. And by "know", I mean "be aware of" They exist. They publish books. They have websites. I'm reasonably sure that the vast majority of people with access to NSG are aware of them. You missed the point entirely.

Feminists, real feminists, are all around you, and you likely take no note of them...generally because we only get up in people's faces when necessary. But many people spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about the feminazis who, I'll agree, are not actually feminists. However this stunning point of simplicity is lost on many people who simply see the word, ''feminist" and read "female supremist". Why? Because they want to, and the feminazis provide them with fantastic justification. So many of us are mislabelled 'feminazis' that I frankly expect you to understand that when you use the term, despite your disclaimer, you are going to get a bunch of idiots in here going, 'yeah, those feminist bitches'.



Did I say any of this was the case? No. So is there a problem with making a more accurate historical comparison?
I am under no illusion that the term 'nazi' was intended to be applied in any accurate or historical manner. Your attempt to rename this radical group is as pointless.


Also, why should we refrain from refering to a group by any one name just because they don't use it? A real Nazi, for example, is unlikely to refer to themself as a war-mongering murder-preaching bigot whose very existence reflects badly on the human race. Most other people take that as a given.
The point was not 'we shouldn't call them by any name other than they themselves choose', but rather any label you are wont to apply is probably going to fall short, since reading the SCUM Manifesto doesn't actually tell you what all radical feminists think anyway. There is, shockingly enough, diversity even among the radicals. And some of the women getting labelled along with the radicals are, inevitably, not going to be radicals at all.

The label is meant to ridicule, not actually describe. And yours would be no different...and certainly no more accurate. So, maintain it as a term of ridicule, and drop the pretence of description.

Here's my thoughts - I've actually been told that the people we call "feminazis" don't exist and were just made up by conservative talk radio people to make the rest of the feminist movement look bad. That, unfortunately, is a little like saying that Stalin never existed and was just made up by the American government to make the Soviet Union look bad.

Idiots exist all over. Take any cause at all, be it the feminist movement, the environmental movement- the anti-war movement, the pro-war movement, the anti-drugs movement, the anti-tobacco movement, the pro-tobacco movement, the anti-immigration movement...you get the idea. Name me any movement, and I can tell you that there exists a group of people who are just flat-out assholes about it and will tell you that, if you're not like what they want, then you should die, or you should be locked up, or you should be kicked out of the country, or you're going to hell.

now, do they actual form any sort of coherent group or hold actual positions of power? or are we just supposed to clutch our pearls at the mere existence of random individuals?

Pardon my ignorance, but what the heck is a "feminazi?"

It's a Limbaugh-ism, which is based upon an army of straw men, and which claims that feminism is an extreme political position which has much in common with the beliefs of the National Socialist movement in Germany, only instead of Jews being the victims, it's men and manly things.

In other words, it's one of the dumber words Limbaugh has invented, and that's saying something.

now, do they actual form any sort of coherent group or hold actual positions of power? or are we just supposed to clutch our pearls at the mere existence of random individuals?

Damn, we're supposed to have pearls? I just clutch at my genitals. I hear they wither them.

It's a Limbaugh-ism, which is based upon an army of straw men, and which claims that feminism is an extreme political position which has much in common with the beliefs of the National Socialist movement in Germany, only instead of Jews being the victims, it's men and manly things.

In other words, it's one of the dumber words Limbaugh has invented, and that's saying something.

I stopped reading after "Limbaugh."

The man sickens me, to be frank.

I stopped reading after "Limbaugh."

The man sickens me, to be frank.
That just means you're human.

That just means you're human.

Thank you. Regretfully, I've met many individuals who profess admiration for Mr. Limbaugh. How they can admire a man so narrow-minded, hateful, and spiteful, I do not know. :(

Pardon my ignorance, but what the heck is a "feminazi?"

It's just a term to refer to feminists who happen to be on their period. I would say "bitch" but some anti-feminist women also fall into the category of "bitch."

In other words, it's one of the dumber words Limbaugh has invented, and that's saying something.

yeah, that man is an olympian when it comes to idiocy. also, viagra-fueled sex tourism.

yeah, that man is an olympian when it comes to idiocy. also, viagra-fueled sex tourism.

Limbaugh certainly's not a sharp chap. If I recall, is he not a high school dropout?

now, do they actual form any sort of coherent group or hold actual positions of power? or are we just supposed to clutch our pearls at the mere existence of random individuals?

As far as the list of movements in my post, it varies. However, whether or not the extreme individuals are in power, they are defined in the eyes of many by their most extreme factions.

Who defines animal rights advocates? The PETA wackos, of course.
Who defines the anti-war movement? People who spit on and threw rocks at soldiers returning from Vietnam.
Who defines religious conservatism? The 700 Club, people who said that gays and civil libertarians were responsible for 9/11, and sometimes people as off-the-scale certifiable as Fred Phelps.

Every well-known group has its insane factions, and the insane factions will make themselves known. It doesn't mean that they hold power or even that anyone takes them seriously. It does mean that it's easy to lump the sane people in with the idiots. That's what happened to normal, everyday feminists who think that things just aren't right between the sexes and want to repair that...they get grouped with the far-out wackos who want to enslave, subjugate, or even kill men. The people who think that the rape rate is too high and want to take measures to increase conviction rates and decrease how often rape is committed are grouped with the people who think that all sex, no matter how consensual, is a male-perpetrated crime against all women and that any single rape is a crime perpetrated by all men against all women, not one man against one woman.

The word "feminazi" is overused, yes. So is "fundie," and so is "baby killer." If people would stand back and listen to reason rather than the person who can say the most shocking thing possible, we might have a little sane debate.

Personally, I use "feminazi" to try and get people to distinguish between feminists and people who call themselves feminists but actually just hate men.

Yeah, feminazis are pretty rare in the grand scheme of things, and yeah, the term was created to try and crush gender equality, and yeah, there are perfectly good words such as "bigots", "jerks", "hypocrites" etc... but sometimes (for some reason) the word helps dense people make a distinction between the people they're bitching about and actual feminists.
And that can't be a bad thing. It's not ideal, but hey - making the distinction and learning about real feminism is a start.

Well, then, you seldom look. I don't know any feminists who support an all-male draft. Of course, I don't know very many feminists who support a draft, period.
Agreed/same here.

Who defines the anti-war movement? People who spit on and threw rocks at soldiers returning from Vietnam.
Side note: You might want to find a different example--there's no proof that this actually happened (http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=215)--and no, Eutrusca's testimony doesn't count, as he's far from a trustworthy voice in this.

Side note: You might want to find a different example--there's no proof that this actually happened (http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=215)--and no, Eutrusca's testimony doesn't count, as he's far from a trustworthy voice in this.

Whether or not that happened is a little inconsequential, though; it's still how the anti-war movement is defined. My wife's late stepdad attended Ohio State University thanks to the GI Bill after returning from a year in Vietnam, and a person in his class spoke about how all the soldiers in Vietnam killed babies and civilians and this and that just for the sheer fun of it, and he stood up and responded that none of that was true, and he knew because he was there (My Lai notwithstanding.) No one would speak a word to him for the rest of the time he was in that class. People had such a negative view of the soldiers in that war.

The bottom line is this: people think it happened. Therefore, when people think of the anti-war movement, they think of that. People also think of feminists as prone to burning bras; we know that didn't happen either, but the image is still there.

As far as the list of movements in my post, it varies. However, whether or not the extreme individuals are in power, they are defined in the eyes of many by their most extreme factions.

Who defines animal rights advocates? The PETA wackos, of course.
Who defines the anti-war movement? People who spit on and threw rocks at soldiers returning from Vietnam.
Who defines religious conservatism? The 700 Club, people who said that gays and civil libertarians were responsible for 9/11

of course, peta and the 700 club are major players in their respective movements, and there weren't any spittings on soldiers - it's a fictional rightwing smear that was made up more than a decade later. the idea of 'feminazis' mostly falls into the latter category as well.

the far-out wackos who want to enslave, subjugate, or even kill men...the people who think that all sex, no matter how consensual, is a male-perpetrated crime against all women

there are no such people. or rather, there are an absolutely insignificant number of such people, and you've never heard any of them because they have no platform and never did.

Side note: You might want to find a different example

it's actually a really good example. they follow the same pattern and come from the same sources. almost as if there was a movement following some sort of playbook on demonization...

so the all men are rapists thing never happened?

so the all men are rapists thing never happened?

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinno.htm

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinno.htm

Did I say that particular person?

During the 'Take Back the Night' marches back in the late 70's early 80's in Bradford you would encounter womin say just that...

sorry.

pssst I think he was making a joke about sexual role play not necessarily a relationship as a whole

Oh....well in that case, yes she has said she is submissive in bed..... :D . I love her lol :p

Did I say that particular person?

During the 'Take Back the Night' marches back in the late 70's early 80's in Bradford you would encounter womin say just that...

sorry.

dworkin and mackinnon are the people that are supposed to have said it. if we've now moved on to "some anonymous person i heard about back in 70s or 80s", i think it's safe to say that we've moved entirely into the realm of urban legend.

Did I say that particular person?

During the 'Take Back the Night' marches back in the late 70's early 80's in Bradford you would encounter womin say just that...

sorry.

Did you witness this or is it just a story you heard?

Did you witness this or is it just a story you heard?

what do you think?

Back then there were extremists in the feminist movement that really had some major hang ups to the point of not allowing men in the same house as them.

Nice huh?

Did you witness this or is it just a story you heard?

I know this - when I hear "Take Back the Night" I picture the annual rally at college. And when I picture college students...potential breeding ground for man-haters there. Maybe it's people blowing off steam or whatever, but the attitude of hating men and of backlash against all things male? On college campuses, it exists. And I don't just mean in the movies.

dworkin and mackinnon are the people that are supposed to have said it. if we've now moved on to "some anonymous person i heard about back in 70s or 80s", i think it's safe to say that we've moved entirely into the realm of urban legend.

Well seeing as I have meet and knew people involved in the marches I think I know where I stand.

it's their personal choice and nobody should try to force them to do otherwise.

I think it is very important to look at dom/sub relationships and judge their merits and drawbacks. It is important to judge how they relate to the undercurrents of sexualized domination and submission in our culture. You can learn a lot. Ugh...if I ever catch you peeking through my keyhole, you'll get a shot of bearspray in the eye.
It's important to look at the choices that people actually do make in their own personal lives, to see how they square with the theoretical beliefs people espouse in public Riiiiight...so you can make 'judgments' about those personal choices. So if I'm a sub in private, and espouse feminism, what does that mean? Do you get to decide what 'squares' with my publicly espoused theoretical beliefs? Because honestly, if you go off on another one of your 'it's just my opinion, but I think you're foolish and stupid BUT I'M NOT SAYING IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL SO GO AHEAD' rants then I think I'm going to puke.

Did I say that particular person?

During the 'Take Back the Night' marches back in the late 70's early 80's in Bradford you would encounter womin say just that...

sorry.

Do all "Take Back the Night" marches ban men from marching, or just the one at my campus? Even supportive men are barred from marching with them...way to attract supporters.

I know this - when I hear "Take Back the Night" I picture the annual rally at college. And when I picture college students...potential breeding ground for man-haters there. Maybe it's people blowing off steam or whatever, but the attitude of hating men and of backlash against all things male? On college campuses, it exists. And I don't just mean in the movies.

Yes and no.

The 'take back the night' marches were a reaction by women to Peter Sutcliffe...the Yorkshire Ripper. Remember that was also late 70's early 80's.

As for that I am wholly supportive of the objective of the marches.

Oh....well in that case, yes she has said she is submissive in bed..... :D . I love her lol :p

Arthais is female now?

Well seeing as I have meet and knew people involved in the marches I think I know where I stand.

and i don't believe you. so lets see some evidence that this position was held in anything like significant numbers and was ever put out in influential places.

there are no such people. or rather, there are an absolutely insignificant number of such people, and you've never heard any of them because they have no platform and never did.

From all my attempts at tracking stories down to the sources, I have come to the conclusion that there's somewhere between 10 and 100 of them. In the world. Absolutely insignificant doesn't even begin to cover something that low.

We all know them. They claim to be feminists, but they go against every ideal of the feminist goal: gender equality. They believe all men are inhernetly evil rapist pigs. They scream for women's rights and yet deny both genders very important rights. They want all the privelage and none of the duty that comes with gender equality.

We call them "feminazis". But wouldn't "femicommies" be a more appropriate title?

It all starts with a very real problem in society about which something certainly needs to be done. Perfectly well-meaning documents start to appear urging reform, violent if necessary. Some of these contain a few logical fallacies or pour research, but they certainly make a legitimate point.

The old order begins to crumble due to catastrophic conflict abroad. Provisional measures are introduced, but the scoial problem is still very much with us. A more radical system emerges... one that starts to teach that freeing one group requires the oppression of others...

Soon, all of society is once again being opressed, now more than ever.

Radical feminism or the USSR? Your comments, anyone?

What you are referring to are the very tiny number of seperatist feminists. They represent perhaps one half of one percent of people who consider themselves "feminists." Radical feminists, on the other hand, are radical in that they have no wish to wait for promises of equality, and would rather influence meaningful social change. I consider myself to be a radical feminist, even though I am a man. There is no reason for gender roles, stereotyping, or inequality.

And are we not quick to call a woman a feminist merely because she refuses to do all the chores in the house and refuses to have any children?

No. As far as I can tell the feminists and the people that buy into them are the only ones demanding that women get jobs. Is it really too much to ask that women take care of work at home in exchange for not having to work outside the home?

Feminists these days are all social engineers trying to make stuff work the opposite way it's supposed to. All of the laudable goals of feminism like getting women out of harsh factory jobs have already been accomplished. Maybe instead of bitching about not getting paid enough they should go to africa and try to stop female circumcision.

Feminists these days are all social engineers trying to make stuff work he opposite way it's supposed to.

and just how is it supposed to work?

I agree with you about 95%. It's the last sentence that I can't agree with.

There is place to judge EVERYBODY. You should be judging everybody and everything. That's the wonder of your consciousness. (Unless you are currently in a meditative trance. Then all bets are off and I have no clue what's what.)

Being judgmental or arrogant or sticking your nose into somebody else's business are lousy things to do. But judging people and their actions is the responsible thing to do. Being critical is a very, very good thing.

If people choose to introduce their personal choices into public discussions, then we SHOULD judge them! Why not?! We can render personal judgments without in any way advocating that people be forbidden to act against our judgments. I can judge a person's choice to be lousy but still believe it's their personal choice and nobody should try to force them to do otherwise.


What, precisely, is the value of making a "judgement" on someone's life, if you at the same time recognize it's not your place to determine it? What private parties do, in private, with consent, does not affect other people.

Now I may chose to judge that, as you say. But to make a judgement implies that I, in some way, care. Personally I really can't be bothered to care about what people do in their own lives. By what justification do you determine a choice to be "lousy"? With intellectual honesty at best you can say it would be lousy FOR YOU. But to make determinism as to what is good, or bad, for other people, requires you to believe that you know better than they do what is good for them.

personally I prefer to not be so arrogant.

I think it is very important to look at dom/sub relationships and judge their merits and drawbacks. It is important to judge how they relate to the undercurrents of sexualized domination and submission in our culture. You can learn a lot. It's important to look at the choices that people actually do make in their own personal lives, to see how they square with the theoretical beliefs people espouse in public.

Do you think it's important that we examine your relationships and judge them on their merits and drawbacks? Shall we invade your privacy and examine how you do things, so that we can see if it matches up to what you say?

How about it?

Or perhaps that we should just say that private relationships are private, and as long as nobody does anything they don't consent to, you really have no right to know, examine, or stick your nose into one bit of it. You don't get to "examine" people's relationships, you don't have the right to "look at" how people do things, any more than I have the right to peek into your bedroom.

If I want you to know something about my relationships, I will tell you. Other than that, you can quite happily leave my, and everyone elses, relationships the fuck alone.

and just how is it supposed to work?

Well, the women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. And lie back and think of England.

Arthais is female now?

the fuck?

Feminazis: The reason guys like me are still single. :upyours:

Uh-huh, that's why. :rolleyes:

What you are referring to are the very tiny number of seperatist feminists. They represent perhaps one half of one percent of people who consider themselves "feminists." Radical feminists, on the other hand, are radical in that they have no wish to wait for promises of equality, and would rather influence meaningful social change. I consider myself to be a radical feminist, even though I am a man. There is no reason for gender roles, stereotyping, or inequality.

If the number is 1/2%, keep this in mind:

It is my understanding that, throughout the Vietnam War, of all college students, 1/2% participated in a protest against the war.

My point? That's what defines college students of the day. That's what people remember. And unfortunately, that's what many people think of in terms of feminists is the radical ones who, while they may not call for the subjugation or murder of all men, definitely overstep the boundaries of what has been considered the feminist movement since its inception.

Well, the women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. And lie back and think of England.


I happen to like women in stockings thank you very much

No. As far as I can tell the feminists and the people that buy into them are the only ones demanding that women get jobs. Is it really too much to ask that women take care of work at home in exchange for not having to work outside the home?

Feminists these days are all social engineers trying to make stuff work the opposite way it's supposed to. All of the laudable goals of feminism like getting women out of harsh factory jobs have already been accomplished. Maybe instead of bitching about not getting paid enough they should go to africa and try to stop female circumcision.

That is good that you are against female circumcision. The rest of the post just makes no sense to me no matter how many times I read it. I just can't begin to start to explain how wrong you are about everything else.

Well, the women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. And lie back and think of England.

Oh, and be virgins on their wedding day so that they don't know how much their husband sucks in the sack.

We all know them. They claim to be feminists, but they go against every ideal of the feminist goal: gender equality. They believe all men are inhernetly evil rapist pigs. They scream for women's rights and yet deny both genders very important rights. They want all the privelage and none of the duty that comes with gender equality.

We call them "feminazis". But wouldn't "femicommies" be a more appropriate title?

It all starts with a very real problem in society about which something certainly needs to be done. Perfectly well-meaning documents start to appear urging reform, violent if necessary. Some of these contain a few logical fallacies or pour research, but they certainly make a legitimate point.

The old order begins to crumble due to catastrophic conflict abroad. Provisional measures are introduced, but the scoial problem is still very much with us. A more radical system emerges... one that starts to teach that freeing one group requires the oppression of others...

Soon, all of society is once again being opressed, now more than ever.

Radical feminism or the USSR? Your comments, anyone?

If I met one, I'd tell her to get a girlfriend.

If the number is 1/2%, keep this in mind:

It is my understanding that, throughout the Vietnam War, of all college students, 1/2% participated in a protest against the war.

My point? That's what defines college students of the day. That's what people remember. And unfortunately, that's what many people think of in terms of feminists is the radical ones who, while they may not call for the subjugation or murder of all men, definitely overstep the boundaries of what has been considered the feminist movement since its inception.

I dont' think anyone polls feminists, so I can't come up with an exact number. I was guessing based on my experience, which has a margin of error of about + or - 15%. With any luck, only negative fourteen percent are seperatists. ;)

I think someone should do a scientific poll of all of those radical groups. I'd really like to know what radical feminists, marxists and anarchists think.

No. As far as I can tell the feminists and the people that buy into them are the only ones demanding that women get jobs. Is it really too much to ask that women take care of work at home in exchange for not having to work outside the home?

Feminists these days are all social engineers trying to make stuff work the opposite way it's supposed to. All of the laudable goals of feminism like getting women out of harsh factory jobs have already been accomplished. Maybe instead of bitching about not getting paid enough they should go to africa and try to stop female circumcision.

Ahh...

A reminder that patriarchy has yet to be banished.

Was it all that bad for women before the feminist movement took off? It seems like in a lot of ways it's worse now. Since women are expected to get jobs outside of the house now, it gives them less time to spend with their families. A lot of women caught up in their jobs might never get to have children. And now we even have women getting killed and maimed in Iraq, all in the name of equality.

the fuck?

Don't know, I'm confused as well...Wilgrove referred to you, then to a female...not sure who he's talking about...he seems to be drinking after all.

Is it really too much to ask that women take care of work at home in exchange for not having to work outside the home?

Yes. They are not your slaves. You do not get to decide how they live their lives, or what kind of work they do.

Yes. They are not your slaves. You do not get to decide how they live their lives, or what kind of work they do.

It's not that it's too much to ask...but simply that it can not be a unilateral decision.

I love my infamy. :D

Honestly, though, I might have to disappoint on this one. Too many people seem freaked out by the fact that there happen to be jerks who are female. (I encounter this so often that I have a very hard time even pretending to care when the word "feminazi" is entered into a conversation.) A lot of people feel the need to come up with creative names for female jerks, and spend long hours pondering the ways of female jerks.

Personally, I just call them jerks.

Yes. There are women, and men, who are radically opposed to the idea that they be expected to follow the rules and behave like grownups. There are women, and men, who believe that their pee-pee or hoo-hoo should grant them special rights to act out. Meh. There are jerks in the world, and 50% of them are female.

I call them card-carrying members of the terrorist group known as LEZBOLLAH. Like Islamofascists, Lezbollah members tend to be unreasonable, belligerent and annoying. I had one telling me off when I commented that my then-girlfriend's adorable haircut reminded me of the the way a Cocker Spaniel's ears hang (I am a known dog-lover and a sharp analogist, she knew it was a compliment). Then one of her co-workers, the Lezbollah member in question, all bald-headed, multiple-face-ringed and snarly, came up to me, unbidden, and began to bitch at me for comparing my girlfriend to a dog. I was so stunned by the smug superiority and pointless rage that I did the only thing I can usually do when I'm befuddled. I started giggling...uncontrollably.

Needless to say, that was not the response she was expecting. Heh.

No. As far as I can tell the feminists and the people that buy into them are the only ones demanding that women get jobs. Is it really too much to ask that women take care of work at home in exchange for not having to work outside the home?
Finding a balance between the roles and responsibilty for partners makes perfect sense.
Suggesting that the only role a women should take is to work at home makes no sense.

Feminists these days are all social engineers trying to make stuff work the opposite way it's supposed to.
The way things should work is highly subjective.
But yes, all feminists want everything to be doomed to failure.

Maybe instead of bitching about not getting paid enough they should go to africa and try to stop female circumcision.
Preventing female circumcision is a very worthy cause, supported by many (if not all) feminists.

Was it all that bad for women before the feminist movement took off? It seems like in a lot of ways it's worse now. Since women are expected to get jobs outside of the house now, it gives them less time to spend with their families. A lot of women caught up in their jobs might never get to have children. And now we even have women getting killed and maimed in Iraq, all in the name of equality.

yeah and you know why they're off in Iraq?

Because they WANTED TO BE.

That's equality.

Was it all that bad for women before the feminist movement took off? It seems like in a lot of ways it's worse now. Since women are expected to get jobs outside of the house now, it gives them less time to spend with their families. A lot of women caught up in their jobs might never get to have children. And now we even have women getting killed and maimed in Iraq, all in the name of equality.

First off, yes it was. Can you imagine having no choice in what your career was, that you would either be a teacher, a factory worker, or a stay at home parent. Can you imagine being literally owned by your spouse, both in fact and legally? Can you imagine being raped, and then when you try to get justed, being blamed for "asking for it?" Of course you can't. It was a horrible world for womyn, and the legacy of this oppression lives on in the attitudes of people like you.

So what if a lot of women work or will never have families? It is their choice to make, not yours. Why is it any more tragic for a womon to die in Iraq then for a man? Isn't one human life worth the same as another?

It's not that it's too much to ask...but simply that it can not be a unilateral decision.

Usually "is it really too much to ask?" implies that you think you should get acceptance.

Usually "is it really too much to ask?" implies that you think you should get acceptance.

oh well of course people can ASK.

Anyone can ASK.

They just don't get to demand an answer of their chosing.

Usually "is it really too much to ask?" implies that you think you should get acceptance.

True, just trying to sweet talk him into not being a douchebag.

They just don't get to demand an answer of their chosing.

Exactly.

and i don't believe you. so lets see some evidence that this position was held in anything like significant numbers and was ever put out in influential places.

That is entirely up to you.

I am relating my personal experience.

Amazingly enough...here is a good start for you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/lefties2.shtml

Since men are expected to get jobs outside of the house now, it gives them less time to spend with their families. A lot of men caught up in their jobs might never get to have children. And now we even have men getting killed and maimed in Iraq.

See what I did there?

So what if a lot of women work or will never have families? It is their choice to make, not yours.

This is just proof of how screwed up the feminist movement is. Do men have a choice about getting a job? Hell no. All men are raised to know that they're supposed to support their families by working. And almost all men accept this. You know what they call the ones that don't? Lazy bums.

Whether you're born a man or woman is a flip of the coin. How is it that men that don't accept the result are considered worthless hobos, while women tat so the same are praised as progressive? Is this equality?

Why is it any more tragic for a womon to die in Iraq then for a man?

Because it is. When a man dies in battle it's a shame. When a woman or a child dies it's a tragedy.

Whether you're born a man or woman is a flip of the coin. How is it that men that don't accept the result are considered worthless hobos, while women tat so the same are praised as progressive? Is this equality?

Addressing this question is part of the feminist movement.

This is just proof of how screwed up the feminist movement is. Do men have a choice about getting a job? Hell no. All men are raised to know that they're supposed to support their families by working. And almost all men accept this. You know what they call the ones that don't? Lazy bums.

Whether you're born a man or woman is a flip of the coin. How is it that men that don't accept the result are considered worthless hobos, while women tat so the same are praised as progressive? Is this equality?

Because it is. When a man dies in battle it's a shame. When a woman or a child dies it's a tragedy.

I was never raised to be the sole supporter my family. Could be that my mom is a feminist, but you never know. Women get the same treatment as men in my family. No problem is that.

What is it a shame for a woman to want equality? What the fuck is wrong with you? Women were not made to be men's slaves or doting wives. There are individuals, and it is there choice what to do with their life.

This is just proof of how screwed up the feminist movement is. Do men have a choice about getting a job? Hell no. All men are raised to know that they're supposed to support their families by working. And almost all men accept this. You know what they call the ones that don't? Lazy bums.

Whether you're born a man or woman is a flip of the coin. How is it that men that don't accept the result are considered worthless hobos, while women tat so the same are praised as progressive? Is this equality?

No. This is why feminists generally support abolishing these sorts of artificial gender roles, and believe that stay-at-home dads should be just as respected as stay-at-home moms.


Because it is. When a man dies in battle it's a shame. When a woman or a child dies it's a tragedy.

"Because it is" - brilliant explanation there. Strangely enough, I don't believe anyone has advocated letting 6-year-olds join the army, but it's so nice that you think that women are similarly fragile and incapable of making their own decisions. :rolleyes:

"Because it is" - brilliant explanation there. Strangely enough, I don't believe anyone has advocated letting 6-year-olds join the army, but it's so nice that you think that women are similarly fragile and incapable of making their own decisions. :rolleyes:

I called my wife a fragile little child, once.



Once.

I called my wife a fragile little child, once.



Once.

how long before the stitches were out?

how long before the stitches were out?

I was still unconscious... it couldn't have been more than a couple of months later.

The only person I've encountered who I'd describe as any where near a "feminazi" (that I'm reasonably sure was serious) is a gay boy at my school.

I really want to know who died and made him queen of determining gender roles.

This is just proof of how screwed up the feminist movement is. Do men have a choice about getting a job? Hell no.

Yes, actually... there are a number of "stay-at-home" fathers.

All men are raised to know that they're supposed to support their families by working.

Really? I wasn't raised that way.

You know what they call the ones that don't? Lazy bums.

Then "they" are assholes who unfairly disrespect other people's choices. It's not the feminist movement that labels them such; to the contrary, much of it has long advocated men taking a more active role in the home.

Whether you're born a man or woman is a flip of the coin.

Indeed - arbitrary. So why the fuck should a person's lifestyle be determined by it?

Because it is. When a man dies in battle it's a shame. When a woman or a child dies it's a tragedy.

All bloodshed is a tragedy - male, female, child, adult.

The division of labor between men and women is both a division of privledge and a division of responsibility. This is something that has evovled concurrently with the evolution of humanity in the interest of utilitarian efficiency. Maybe instead blaming society on men you should blame it on God for making us sexually dimorphous.


Indeed - arbitrary. So why the fuck should a person's lifestyle be determined by it?

For te same reason your life is determined in part by the color of your skin and the social class you were born into. Life is full of absurdity. Learn to deal with it.

I think someone should do a scientific poll of all of those radical groups. I'd really like to know what radical feminists, marxists and anarchists think.

its sort of technically complicated - we're spread a bit thin on the ground, and it would take a lot of random calling to get a statistically significant sample. infoshop did a pretty good survey of the anarchist movement back in 2002 though.

The division of labor between men and women is both a division of privledge and a division of responsibility. This is something that has evovled concurrently with the evolution of humanity in the interest of utilitarian efficiency. Maybe instead blaming society on men you should blame it on God for making us sexually dimorphous.

Oh I busted on the floor laughing out loud copter.

its sort of technically complicated - we're spread a bit thin on the ground, and it would take a lot of random calling to get a statistically significant sample. infoshop did a pretty good survey of the anarchist movement back in 2002 though.

And why are we being lumped in with radical feminists?

The division of labor between men and women is both a division of privledge and a division of responsibility. This is something that has evovled concurrently with the evolution of humanity in the interest of utilitarian efficiency.

If it's really "natural," then we should assume that when the social enforcement of gender roles is abolished, the truly "natural" division of labor between males and females will assert itself - and you have nothing to worry about.

Of course, the real concern of most people opposed to feminism is not some "natural" division of labor, but the protection of male privilege - which is indeed threatened by feminism, as it should be.

For te same reason your life is determined in part by the color of your skin and the social class you were born into.

Because powerful, overprivileged assholes like keeping it that way, you mean?

Exactly.

Oh, that, well yeah, there's something wrong with that.

If women are so equal, why don't they fight back? ;)

If women are so equal, why don't they fight back? ;)

They do. And then they get to claim battered wife syndrome.

All is well.

This is just proof of how screwed up the feminist movement is. Do men have a choice about getting a job?
Yes they do.
If I thought I'd ever get a job decent enough to reasonably support a family on my income alone, I'd be perfectly happy if my hypothetical husband stayed home and minded our hypothetical house and offspring. There are actually a couple of profs at my school who are in such situations or similar ones. My astronomy prof is definitely the bread winner in her family, although her husband works too, but there's a prof I'm trying to get a summer job with whose husband stays at home and looks after the kids. From what I've heard, they determined that she'd make more than he would so it made more sense to go to a school that wanted her.

All men are raised to know that they're supposed to support their families by working. And almost all men accept this. You know what they call the ones that don't? Lazy bums.
I wouldn't, but if you would, then that's your problem. We aren't eliminating options for your gender, people like you are.

Whether you're born a man or woman is a flip of the coin. How is it that men that don't accept the result are considered worthless hobos, while women tat so the same are praised as progressive? Is this equality?
Neither working nor reproduction nor living in a particular society are necessarily the result of being born as a man or a woman. It's not my fault you have these stupid ideas about gender roles stuck in your head.

Because it is. When a man dies in battle it's a shame. When a woman or a child dies it's a tragedy.
I can see that about a child or any civillian, but when a solider knowingly enters a situation where they know they are in danger of death, then it's just unfortunate.

Oh I busted on the floor laughing out loud copter.

Good the interbutts can always use more roflcopter

OK I'm getting bored. You people have obviously been brainwashed by the feminists too much to have fun conversations with. BYE!

And why are we being lumped in with radical feminists?

generalized radicals survey, i suppose

generalized radicals survey, i suppose

Bah, we're not radical...we're just right. No, left. No, wait... :D

generalized radicals survey, i suppose

Bah, we're not radical...we're just right. No, left. No, wait... :D

Take something rich in anti-oxidants, that'll help get rid of all those free, generalized radicals. :D

generalized radicals survey, i suppose

you might have missed my reply so here is the link...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12300484&postcount=127

To those who don't take this serious, shame on you.

To those who think that by 'feminazis' he means 'every living female', shame on you.

To those who understand what he means in a realistic fashion, like myself, know exactly what he means and should actually be supportive of his position. Extreme left-wing feminisn is all too common these days. While it's good to have women's right and a sense of equality between both genders, some women will take it to great lengths to essentially place themselves above men, preaching how "Men are stupid" and "can't do anything right" and how society would be so much better without them.

Great idea, girls. Just go ahead and kill off the catalysts to all reproduction. Have fun killing off the human race.

Unfortunately, though I know some people will think I'm exagerrating, I sincerely am not. You have no idea how many times I can be called a sexist, chauvanist pig because I don't like it when a woman can get away with things just because she's a woman. A good example is women who sue employers because they are 'sexually biased' in their hiring strategies. In reality, the man who was hired over her could perhaps have a better education and be more qualified, so thusly is much more deserving of the job. Of course, if a man is chosen of a more highly qualified woman than that is a problem, but it hardly happens to any of the extent it used to.

In my opinion, both feminazis and femicommies are innapropriate terms. I'd simply call them feminists, since that word alone is enough to signify quite a corrupt plenty.

Oh fucking shame on YOU. Sheesh. Get a grip.

And you clearly don't know what a feminist is. For shame.

The OP himself doesn't even support your position.

To those who don't take this serious, shame on you.

To those who think that by 'feminazis' he means 'every living female', shame on you.

To those who understand what he means in a realistic fashion, like myself, know exactly what he means and should actually be supportive of his position. Extreme left-wing feminisn is all too common these days.
No, it isn't too common. And to shake your figner at your opponents before you even begin debating is a poor tactic.

While it's good to have women's right and a sense of equality between both genders, some women will take it to great lengths to essentially place themselves above men, preaching how "Men are stupid" and "can't do anything right" and how society would be so much better without them.
I really question whether these women actually exist. If they do they're a very small minority and probably smaller than the men who think that women are objects to be posessed and it's alright to beat them or kill them if they aren't useful to men.

Great idea, girls. Just go ahead and kill off the catalysts to all reproduction. Have fun killing off the human race.
Good thing they can fuse ovum for reproduction then isn't it?

Unfortunately, though I know some people will think I'm exagerrating, I sincerely am not.
Then you're living in a cave and get your information from silly people who like to pretend that a woman's demand for equal treatment means she wants to be superior.

You have no idea how many times I can be called a sexist, chauvanist pig because I don't like it when a woman can get away with things just because she's a woman. A good example is women who sue employers because they are 'sexually biased' in their hiring strategies. In reality, the man who was hired over her could perhaps have a better education and be more qualified, so thusly is much more deserving of the job.
Oh, so you have issues when women sue their employers who pass them over for raises because they write letters to them saying that they don't "appear feminine enough" to get a raise too then?

Of course, if a man is chosen of a more highly qualified woman than that is a problem, but it hardly happens to any of the extent it used to.
That depends and I think you underestimate how much it does happen.

In my opinion, both feminazis and femicommies are innapropriate terms. I'd simply call them feminists, since that word alone is enough to signify quite a corrupt plenty.
Too bad you lack access to a dictionary, otherwise you could see that feminism is, by definition, a belief in the equality of the sexes.

To those who don't take this serious, shame on you.

To those who think that by 'feminazis' he means 'every living female', shame on you.

To those who understand what he means in a realistic fashion, like myself, know exactly what he means and should actually be supportive of his position. Extreme left-wing feminisn is all too common these days. While it's good to have women's right and a sense of equality between both genders, some women will take it to great lengths to essentially place themselves above men, preaching how "Men are stupid" and "can't do anything right" and how society would be so much better without them.

Great idea, girls. Just go ahead and kill off the catalysts to all reproduction. Have fun killing off the human race.

Unfortunately, though I know some people will think I'm exagerrating, I sincerely am not. You have no idea how many times I can be called a sexist, chauvanist pig because I don't like it when a woman can get away with things just because she's a woman. A good example is women who sue employers because they are 'sexually biased' in their hiring strategies. In reality, the man who was hired over her could perhaps have a better education and be more qualified, so thusly is much more deserving of the job. Of course, if a man is chosen of a more highly qualified woman than that is a problem, but it hardly happens to any of the extent it used to.

In my opinion, both feminazis and femicommies are innapropriate terms. I'd simply call them feminists, since that word alone is enough to signify quite a corrupt plenty.

So you'd do exactly what you accuse feminists of doing, by tarring all women with the same brush? I don't happen to like it when men run companies in a 'sexually biased' manner, promoting men over equally or better qualified women simply because they're men. I don't like snide remarks about being 'on the rag' if I happen to be goruchy one day (though thankfully, that one hasn't happened in ages). It cuts both ways. A 'feminist" is someone who supports equal rights for both genders. As has been said more times than necessary above, the people the OP calls 'feminazis' or 'femicommies,' and that you call 'feminists' are simply radicals. You fail at reading the thread and getting the point.

If the number is 1/2%, keep this in mind:

It is my understanding that, throughout the Vietnam War, of all college students, 1/2% participated in a protest against the war.

My point? That's what defines college students of the day. That's what people remember. And unfortunately, that's what many people think of in terms of feminists is the radical ones who, while they may not call for the subjugation or murder of all men, definitely overstep the boundaries of what has been considered the feminist movement since its inception.

Not quite. All college students of that period are not looked at as protesters. The protest movement has always been recognized as a small percentage of the college student population as a whole.

Hey Free Soviets ....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12300484&postcount=127

listen...you said you did not believe me and asked for some sort of source. Well there you have it. I provided some source material for you. Remember...this was nearly 30 years ago...there was no google back then...

Why have you not responded?

Hey Free Soviets ....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12300484&postcount=127

listen...you said you did not believe me and asked for some sort of source. Well there you have it. I provided some source material for you. Remember...this was nearly 30 years ago...there was no google back then...

Why have you not responded?

That is only one fringe organization. It does not represent the views of the overwhelming majority of feminists.

That is only one fringe organization. It does not represent the views of the overwhelming majority of feminists.

No...sorry....that won't cut it. It has nothing to do with what I stated. Nice try though.

No...sorry....that won't cut it. It has nothing to do with what I stated. Nice try though.

it has everything to do with what you stated. He asked for a well known group with significant presence that respresented a mainstream belief.

You provided a fringe group, so you never provided the source he asked for.

I don't see what the big deal is.
You have "radical feminists" who are ...the opposite of misogynist, and plenty of "radical sexist" guys who are deeply misogynist. Train them equally, arm them equally, and put them in a cage. The winner gets to be the dominant gender for the next millennium or so.

it has everything to do with what you stated. He asked for a well known group with significant presence that respresented a mainstream belief.

You provided a fringe group, so you never provided the source he asked for.

Um....because at the time they were a significant group Doh!

The reclaim the streets campaigns you see these days are a direct decedent of the Take Back the Night campaigns.

Also I actually linked to a BBC documentary.

In that like there are the following groups...

Revolutionary Feminists aka the Revs

Women Against Violence Against Women

and

Angry Women

At the time they were not fringe groups. They had an effect that is still seen today.

As I was relating my personal experience from back then (when there was no google) and Free Soviets decided he did not believe me this is the best I can find on the net.

Maybe you ought to watch the documentary? You might find it enlightening.

Also I would like to mention that the group was founded in Leeds. I mentioned Bradford. Well Bradford is a stone throw from Leeds...and they held a number of marches there as well.

I don't see what the big deal is.
You have "radical feminists" who are ...the opposite of misogynist, and plenty of "radical sexist" guys who are deeply misogynist. Train them equally, arm them equally, and put them in a cage. The winner gets to be the dominant gender for the next millennium or so.

Actually, I think the feminazis are pretty Misogynistic as well, not to mention anti-male. They quite literally hate everyone except hippie lesbian woman who don't want any kids.

i don't really favor feminists. My ex-girlfriends best friend is one and that is the reason she is my ex. She got her to break up with me several times. So after these experiences i don't favor feminists, not all, just her friend. She seems to hate all men, espically me.

Hey Free Soviets ....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12300484&postcount=127

listen...you said you did not believe me and asked for some sort of source. Well there you have it. I provided some source material for you. Remember...this was nearly 30 years ago...there was no google back then...

Why have you not responded?

other things to do, perhaps?

anyway, weren't we talking about
so the all men are rapists thing never happened??

'cause that links just goes to good old fashioned separatism.

other things to do, perhaps?

anyway, weren't we talking about
?

'cause that links just goes to good old fashioned separatism.

Yeah well...I get impatient (and I was away cleaning the cooker...no seriously! when you posted your reply to me...I just wanted to make sure that this did not get dropped) :p

Like I said I was talking of personal experience from talking to people who were there. I have encountered that statement regarding all men are rapists.

If a group is so anti male that they even refuse to deal with their sons its not that much a leap to think that they could possibly say that all men are rapists as well...is it? Of course I am not able to provide a direct source and link it here. It was a long long time ago.

The groups were not just separatists but took their ideal to an extreme. I would hope that at the least you would give the benefit of the doubt. Getting material on what happened back then is pretty hard but I suspect that you might find the documentary to be interesting viewing.

These groups...from the Revs to Angry Women had a major impact on feminist thought.

I think we need to tell feminazis they can reproduce by themselves, and if they want the ability to they need to come to this fenced off area. Then we bombard the area with some sort of energy reducing them to fucking amoebas.

We did say they'd be able to reproduce themselves.

Since women are expected to get jobs outside of the house now, it gives them less time to spend with their families. A lot of women caught up in their jobs might never get to have children.
Health, Labor and Welfare Minister Hakuo Yanagisawa is that you?!

I think we need to tell feminazis they can reproduce by themselves

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.

It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction."

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.

It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. "
:(

Looks like I need to start on my suicide note. :p :(

Hey this is the first time I've used a forum thing so I'm a little new. Politics interests me and I find it fun to just watch people get pissed at each other. However I have heard of such people, these "feminazis" as you call them. Feminists I think fight for a real problem that needs to be fixed in our society, as it has been said. However I've also heard of these radical extremist groups who call themselves feminists, which has also been said. What this Free Soviets guy says makes sense too. I try to take everything I can into consideration. I think, from the course of history and how the woman has been under the man for so long, and how we hear of rapes and date rapes and crime from all over the news, I believe some of these extreme women might be considered paranoid. Could this be a factor perhaps? I'm only speculating and I don't want to piss anyone off or get people mad at me. I've faced the same problem with the news and paranoia myself. It's sometimes hard for me to feel safe on the streets because crime is so glamorized by the news. Maybe all this glamorization has caused some women to feel paranoid and thus think all men are bad, which has been said early on, ultimately leading to an extreme way of thinking. Sorry for talking so much. I just felt like contributing. Hey I lost my forum virginity!

We all know them.They claim to be feminists, but they go against every ideal of the feminist goal: gender equality. They believe all men are inhernetly evil rapist pigs.Translation: "Nova Boozia knows some feminists who criticize him for being sexist."

They scream for women's rights and yet deny both genders very important rights.Translation: "They assert their rights whenever Nova Boozia does something blatantly sexist."

They want all the privelage and none of the duty that comes with gender equality.Translation: "They want Nova Boozia to treat them as equals, but Nova Boozia wants to know what they're going to do for him."

We call them "feminazis". But wouldn't "femicommies" be a more appropriate title?Translation: "Nova Boozia has heard other sexists call them 'feminazis', but he doesn't think that goes far enough. 'Femicommies', he thinks, would prejudice people against them even more."

It all starts with a very real problem in society about which something certainly needs to be done.Translation: "Nova Boozia knows no one will pay attention to him if he doesn't pay lip service to feminism."

Perfectly well-meaning documents start to appear urging reform, violent if necessary.Translation: "Since Nova Boozia cannot actually produce documented evidence that women want to oppress men, he will invent an imaginary scare-mongering future in which they do."

Some of these contain a few logical fallacies or pour research, but they certainly make a legitimate point.Translation: "Nova Boozia takes an opportunity to express his real feelings about contemporary feminist thought. With a politically correct nod to feminist conclusions, he takes vague and unsupported pot-shots at their methodology."

The old order begins to crumble due to catastrophic conflict abroad.Translation: "Since the War of Female Dominance is so transparently unlikely, Nova Boozia introduces the dramatic device of an international upheaval so forceful that it turns the world on its head. He keeps this vague enough that people might associate it with contemporary world events."

Provisional measures are introduced, but the scoial problem is still very much with us. A more radical system emerges... one that starts to teach that freeing one group requires the oppression of others...Translation: "Since anything can happen after the imaginary catastrophe, Nova Boozia wants us to suppose that women decide to take over the world. As it happens, they preach exactly what he happens to believe, but they turn it against him."

Soon, all of society is once again being opressed, now more than ever.Translation: "By the way, women will be even worse oppressors than men. Because Nova Boozia says so."

Radical feminism or the USSR?Translation: "This isn't an argument, but Nova Boozia thinks it's a punchy way to go out."

Your comments, anyone?Translation: "Who agrees with Nova Boozia?"

Was it all that bad for women before the feminist movement took off?
Yes.

It seems like in a lot of ways it's worse now.
It seems like you dont have a clue what you are talking about.

Since women are expected to get jobs outside of the house now, it gives them less time to spend with their families.
Because unlike males, women suffer terribly from having the opportunity to seek fufillment from something outside their home.
A lot of women caught up in their jobs might never get to have children.
A lot of women dont want jobs and do want children and vice versa, many want both. Seems female kind cant win, either they shouldnt want all those babies without a job or are hard-done by because they have a job and no babies....:rolleyes:
And now we even have women getting killed and maimed in Iraq, all in the name of equality.
Bush's illegal war of aggression is the cause of the deaths you speak of, I can assure you the feminist movement is not the cause of Bush or his war. Maybe if his mother had spent more time working and less time making babies we wouldnt be in this mess now.

What, do you think you can read minds or something, AnarchyeL? It seems that NV's post was more about reverse sexism than about feminists. Notice how his comments seemed to be trying to distance feminists from "feminazis"
-Snip-

Yay equality! Looks like we already have it...oops.

Just adding that I know these Feminazis. I'm female and I'm supportive of womens rights but my mother is one of those feminazis and it sucks. She doesn't even know my current boyfriend exists because I don't want to put him through having to meet her.

My sympathies to you and your boyfriend. I can honestly say I've never met a "feminazi" (I'm a guy, by the way), and have absolutely no idea how I would deal with them, if it came down to it. I do generally at least try to be polite, though.

...at least until they piss me off. That's about when my malicious and spiteful sarcasm kicks in.

What, do you think you can read minds or something, AnarchyeL?If by "read minds" you mean "decipher the palpable subtext of written English," then I suppose the answer is yes. I "read NV's mind" in exactly the same way that I know your above-cited question does not stem from genuine curiosity about my psychic ability.

It seems that NV's post was more about reverse sexism than about feminists. Notice how his comments seemed to be trying to distance feminists from "feminazis."As I pointed out in my commentary, he does so because he has at least enough sense to know that he will not be taken seriously if he openly proclaims his sexism. It's a very common tactic for bigots. Evidence that he means to defame feminism in general? He does not provide any specific doctrinal difference with which to identify "feminazis." Apparently, by his usage, there are feminists... and then there are feminists who get in his face about it, and these he calls "feminazi."

Oh, and even more so, I noticed your repeated assumptions that NV is sexist. Prove it.It is not an "assumption," it's a reasonable guess based on what he had to say. His sexism is evident in his vague accusations and insults: he does not criticize a particular "feminazi" position, he slings mud at a convenient symbolic targer.

Notice how you say "he" to refer to him or her, automatically assuming that he or she is male... seems sexist if you ask me...Again, a reasonable guess. First of all, feminist women who criticize extreme or radical doctrines within feminism generally identify themselves as such. His overall attitude, moreover, appears more commonly in my experience in male rather than female critics of feminism. If I am incorrect about NV's gender, I will be happily corrected and admit an exception to the rule.

but still, it's not sexist to point out that discrimination against males is sexist.No, it's not. Had NV bothered to point out any actual discrimination, perhaps I could have taken his post more seriously.

At this point in time, I have neither the time nor the inclination to cite examples of reverse sexism (much like I have neither time nor inclination to adress NV's post) but I'm fairly sure you would've heard of much of it.Ah, how convenient for you. Just like your predecessor.

Just look up on Wikipedia things about men's rights...Hmm, interesting. Have you read this article? There is a lot here about men's attempts to overcome the very same packages of stereotypes that feminism has fought to destroy... That is, the ideas that men constructed as part of the oppression of women, but which necessarily constrained the psychological and emotional freedom of other men. Of course, it is still primarily men who insist on perpetuating those tired macho clichés. So, it appears that the men's rights movement is more at odds with traditional masculinity than with the feminist movement. In fact, I don't see a single example of feminists fighting for a policy or attitude that oppresses men in the way that traditional stereotypes do. Do you?


actually, what the heck. I'll mention an example.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/31929.html

"such a reaction would be unthinkable if the sexes were reversed. In 1993 in Virginia, a male teacher who had sex wit h three teenage female students was sentenced to 26 years in prison - while the next day, a female swimming coach who had an "affair" with an 11-year-old boy and sexual encounters with two others got 30 days."[/QUOTE]

Good example. Unlike you, it would seem, I read the whole article. The article concludes:In this instance, the bias against male victims stems from traditional sex stereotypes, not feminist ones. Indeed, before the feminist push for gender-neutral laws in the 1970s, sexual contact between a woman and an underage male did not legally qualify as statutory rape in most states.

Aha. So feminists have actually fought for these "men's rights," despite the article's later complaint that feminists "have not commented much" on the issue.


.... And we're still on the hunt for that elusive evidence of women oppressing men. Men oppress women--and, as it turns out, men oppress each other as well. Big surprise.

We all know them. They claim to be feminists, but they go against every ideal of the feminist goal: gender equality. They believe all men are inhernetly evil rapist pigs. They scream for women's rights and yet deny both genders very important rights. They want all the privelage and none of the duty that comes with gender equality.

We call them "feminazis". But wouldn't "femicommies" be a more appropriate title?
*snip*

Feminazi was coined by Rush Limbaugh.

That alone says it's a waste of time to discuss it.

Women can certainly oppress men. It doesn't need to be a result of radical feminism, the fact of the matter is that women, at least in my opinion, can be just as inclined to be oppressive, authoritarian, and absolutist as men can be, as well as as racist, bigoted and gender-biased without necessarily being feminists. And feminazi really sounds like nothing more than a loaded word. Until you can prove that there is a specific branch of feminism that is fascist and likes burning books, I doubt you can really call them feminazi's.

I harbour no feelings of mysogyny. I do not descriminate or prejudge against women. But I do resent two certain types of women.Translation: "Jacobaea does not hate all women, and he gives them a chance to prove themselves before condemning them. But he will condemn them as soon as they fail to live up to his personal standards of womanhood."

The first type are hippocrites. They believe in equality, and state a simple truth: that women should not have to be attractive to be successful. Yet then they turn around and go completely against this theory by obsessing about being as sexy as possible.Translation: "Jacobaea hates when women complain about needing to be attractive to be successful, but then they go ahead and make themselves attractive and successful anyway. He thinks that they should just give up on their dreams until after they manage to eradicate sexism in the workplace." Meanwhile, we don't see Jacobaea resigning in protest because his female coworkers are compelled to maintain a sexist standard of beauty.

Have you been in a clothing store recently? The women's section for just about anything is seriously at the very least five times bigger than anything offered to the men, and it's all because of these women.Translation: "Jacobaea wants a better selection of men's clothing, and he's upset that marketing focuses so heavily on women. He wants to make it perfectly clear that the women who criticize this industry are to blame rather than the men who perpetuate it."

The second type are feminists, or as I like to call them, "female supremacists."Translation: "Jacobaea is not sexist, but he does resent women who demand equal treatment. He likes to call them 'female supremacists'."

They believe women are immaculate and perfect and morally right in every way, and that men are...well...dirty rapist swine.Translation: "Jacobaea does not realize that this is a traditional sex stereotype used to oppress women more than men, so he thinks it makes a nice caricature of the very women's movement that opposes it. He has forgotten that the image of a man overcome by his own sexual desires has been used for centuries to mitigate the penalties for rapists."

These are the people who upset the balance of our very society. These are the people who go against everything the American dream stands for: liberty, equality, and opportunity.Translation: "Jacobaea really likes women--he does--but feminists are on a symbolic par with, say... Lex Luthor."

There is also a third group of people that I disdain for these reasons, though they are not always women. I call them "socio-sanctists."Translation: "Jacobaea hates some more people, but he cannot find a popular dysphemism to use against them, so he'll attempt to coin one of his own. He thinks it will sound technical, and therefore more legitimate, if he constructs a hyphenated compound.

They seem to believe that women deserve better conditions and more legal rights than men, simply because the social order has traditionally been the opposite, and they feel they are "equalising" everything.Translation: "Jacobaea does not like the idea that to achieve an equal society we actually have to remedy existing inequalities."

They also apply this sentiment to minorities, such as Latin-, African-, Native, and Asian-Americans.Translation: "By the way, Jacobaea is also just a little bit racist."

As a result of these radical reversals of the social order, a hostile environment is created for European Americans and men.Translation: "Jacobaea is concerned that women and minorities actually expect him to become less sexist and racist."

At any moment a wrong wording can get one accused of racism, or even worse, sexism.Translation: "Sometimes Jacobaea slips and makes a sexist remark. Worse, people don't laugh at his jokes so much anymore."

It reminds me of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, except nowadays social ostracisation rather than the guillotine is the penalty for exercising the freedom of speech.Translation: "Jacobaea doesn't have an argument per se, but he hopes you'll be impressed with his radical hyperbole.

I actually enjoy feminazis. I enjoy laughing at them, ridiculing them, and doing everything that enrages them, from using masculine pronouns collectively to watching The Man Show.

I have an absolute policy, however, of never dating one. The last thing I ever want to do is wake up some morning next to the hairy armpits, cactus-like legs and ugly facial features that characterize the typical feminazi--assuming said feminazi somehow strayed off the reservation and actually wanted to hook up with a male. So, in addition to avoiding excessive alcohol consumption that might result in the "2 am with a 10/10 am with a 2" situation, as soon as I detect the slightest indication of feminazism eminating from some female I'm talking to, the encounter ends immediately and I flee as if from Satan's pet Rottweiler.

I actually enjoy feminazis. I enjoy laughing at them, ridiculing them, and doing everything that enrages them, from using masculine pronouns collectively to watching The Man Show.

I have an absolute policy, however, of never dating one.

Sunshine, I don't think you're going to have a problem. With any woman.

Ever.

Idiots exist all over. Take any cause at all, be it the feminist movement, the environmental movement- the anti-war movement, the pro-war movement, the anti-drugs movement, the anti-tobacco movement, the pro-tobacco movement, the anti-immigration movement...you get the idea. Name me any movement, and I can tell you that there exists a group of people who are just flat-out assholes about it and will tell you that, if you're not like what they want, then you should die, or you should be locked up, or you should be kicked out of the country, or you're going to hell.

Also, "feminazi" is a lot easier to say than "femicommie," which may be mistaken for some sort of hygiene product.See, here's the thing.

Like most people infatuated with the term "feminazi," you make the respectable, politically correct move by pointing out that this does not apply to most feminists. Thanks, we appreciate it. Further, you make the very reasonable point that every movement is likely to have some "idiots," because idiots are everywhere--good enough, I think we can all agree on that one.

But if we're just talking about the usual "idiots" on the fringe of a movement, why all the concern? Why all the threads complaining that they will take over the world? Why all the fear?

Your fear is disproportionate to your (rational) assertion that the people who might genuinely fit your description are a narrow minority. If you really believed that, you would have little reason to fear. Your fear reveals that your real concern is with the successful and influential mainstream of the women's movement.

Your fear reveals, in other words, that you use the term "feminazi" symbolically to indict feminism as a whole. This is consistent with your tendency to use vague and unsupported accusations without specifying which particular doctrines you oppose.

I seldom see anyone crying out about an all-male draft.Rostker v. Goldberg (1981). The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the male-only draft is constitutional. Feminists heavily criticized the decision, conservatives applauded it. Once again you are choosing the wrong opponents: your quarrel is with the conservatives who uphold this system, not with the feminists who attack it.

You'll note that paragraph one of the OP is stating that this movement is not feminsim.If it's not feminism, then feminists are unlikely to support it. So if this is just a small population of non-influential radicals, why all the concern? Do you really need to build momentum to defeat them?

You don't see people building mass movements against Nazism anymore, because most of us are not concerned with the small minority who still espouse that ideology.

It is the fact that you seem so concerned to mobilize an opposition that suggests to your readers that you are concerned about more than a minor fringe group.

This reminds me of Reverend Ricky (http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=11465)

It seems to me that this thread has confused several distinct points.

1) There are women who are "not nice people."

Sure enough, but so what? Do we need a special name for them? Do we have a special name for men who are "not nice"? As Bottle pointed out earlier, "jerk" does well enough for everyone, so choosing a special name--and especially one associated with feminism--to apply to female jerks comes off as incredibly sexist.

2) There are women who are "not nice" toward men in particular, women who in some way espouse a theory of "female superiority."

Perhaps there are, but "sexist" seems to describe this attitude regardless of which direction it runs. From this perspective, there are two problems with the term "feminazi." First, it associates female sexists with the feminist movement for sexual equality. And secondly, it associates female sexists with Nazism, giving the impression that female sexists are somehow "worse" than male sexists. (An attitude that frequently appears in attempts to construe so-called "feminazis" as presenting the possibility of a catastrophic future tantamount to the end of human civilization--male sexists are symbolized as civilized, if perhaps a bit backward; while "feminazis" are supposed to bring about the end of history.)

3) Assuming there are such women, they pose a serious threat and right-thinking people should be on the watch for feminazi activities.

This blatantly contradicts the repeated assurance that feminazis are "not feminists." If they are not feminists, and they are not conservatives or reactionaries, then where are they going to find support for the pending revolution? Indeed, can you point to a single public policy that has been suggested or supported by a "feminazi" position... which has actually passed? Against the countless successes of mainstream feminism, do you have any evidence at all that suggests a "feminazi" ideology is on the rise?

I think not. And because there is no realistically threatening feminazi movement, I conclude that you are afraid of something else--probably mainstream feminism.

It's possible you cannot even admit this to yourself. It's not easy being a sexist brought up in a world that does not accept you... you need to reconstruct your ideology to make it more acceptable to a wider audience.

From the very fact that you feel compelled in every post to reassure your audience that you ARE feminist, that you support feminism, that you would never oppose feminism... from this very fact you should understand how powerful mainstream feminism has become. Do you really think it is going to be overthrown by an ideology as explicitly opposed to its ideals as "feminazism"?

4) "There are some feminist demands that I think put men at a disadvantage or arbitrarily marginalize maleness."

This is a very different claim, but I think it hits much closer to the concerns that really motivate your fear/suspicion/anger. Perhaps you think that restrictions on sexist language "go too far," or you don't agree with a particular feminist proposal regarding family leave. Fine, you are entitled to your opinion: but this is the sort of disagreement that occurs within feminist thought. Some feminists think that certain social/economic/political innovations represent a move toward equality; others think that the same policies would be ineffective, counterproductive, or even 'anti-male'. The important point is that we all agree on the abstract ideological goal--gender equality--but we disagree on the specific means and ends appropriate to that broader goal.

If this is the basis for your criticism, it is unfair to call your opponents "feminazis" unless they actually claim to support the dominance of women over men. If, on the contrary, they espouse sexual equality but maintain standards with which you disagree, then the term amounts to nothing more than childish mudslinging and name-calling: they are feminists; and you, perhaps, are a feminist.

You might try engaging them as partners in a feminist conversation rather than attempting to marginalize them as counter-feminist.

Some of these contain a few logical fallacies or pour research, but they certainly make a legitimate point.

You spelt poor wrong.

Let's say some feminazi oppresses you... what are you going to do? Cry about it? A real man would tip his hat to the lady and keep moving on, doing his man stuff in a manly way. It's time for you fellas to cowboy up and stop yer belly-aching, you're burning daylight and it's time to get the herd moving.

We call them "feminazis". But wouldn't "femicommies" be a more appropriate title?

No. Commies advocate equality above anything else. Nazis advocate different rights and separation based on race, gender etc.

You are all idiots.:eek:

You are all idiots.:eek:

Oh thanks!

Funny that there are people seem unwilling to admit that there is or at least was radical feminist movement. Of course we know how it works...like with the conservative movement or Blairs New Labour...palatable radical ideas become accepted dogma over time...

But of course it can't happen to the feminist movement...oh no. Not a chance. Not the wimmins movement...

There has been a lot of utter utter crap written on this thread by people who really ought to know better.

I have lost a fair amount of respect for a number of posters here on both sides of the fence. Shame that. Seems you are happy to bleat bleat bleat but actually debate...no..not a chance.

Ah well.

You don't see people building mass movements against Nazism anymore, because most of us are not concerned with the small minority who still espouse that ideology.

It is the fact that you seem so concerned to mobilize an opposition that suggests to your readers that you are concerned about more than a minor fringe group.

Sorry, what was that?

www.anl.org.uk

People get obsessed with all sorts of things. Just because some people have a problem with feminazis, as they call them, and still profess to beleive in gender equity and all that entails I hardly think you can read into that that they hate all feminists. Unless you like dismissing everyone who doesnt agree entirely with you for the smallest of reasons.

Sunshine, I don't think you're going to have a problem. With any woman.

Ever.

From your lips to Her (God's) ears. ;)

Translation: ...*snipped for length*

You rock my socks. The awesome in you post has reached dangerous levels. Readers beware: it may just blow your mind.

It seems to me that this thread has confused several distinct points.

...*snipped for length*

The continual rocking of my socks is going to create serious wardrobe problems, particularly given the current cold weather.

Sunshine, I don't think you're going to have a problem. With any woman.

Ever.
Perhaps not.......


http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ksm0169l.jpg

:D

Perhaps not.......


http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ksm0169l.jpg

:D
Yeah, you're gonna have to forgive me, but I'm not seeing the downside to New Mitanni's standard. I mean, he describes himself as somebody who watches The Man Show, for crying out loud. That means he's not only sexist, but he also has a lousy sense of humor. I watched that show for a bit because I thought the concept was going to be funny and original, and a great way to satirize a lot of popular bullshit, but instead it's just the same boring crap that humorless hacks have been using to sell beer to other humorless hacks for the last 30 years.

Frankly, if being a "feminazi" will guarantee me that no Man Show fans ever hit on me, then SIGN ME UP. RIGHT NOW.

Yeah, you're gonna have to forgive me, but I'm not seeing the downside to New Mitanni's standard. I mean, he describes himself as somebody who watches The Man Show, for crying out loud. That means he's not only sexist, but he also has a lousy sense of humor. I watched that show for a bit because I thought the concept was going to be funny and original, and a great way to satirize a lot of popular bullshit, but instead it's just the same boring crap that humorless hacks have been using to sell beer to other humorless hacks for the last 30 years.

Frankly, if being a "feminazi" will guarantee me that no Man Show fans ever hit on me, then SIGN ME UP. RIGHT NOW.
Does being a feminazi give you rights to flame me like you did in that thread of mine? If so, then *runs away*

Does being a feminazi give you rights to flame me like you did in that thread of mine?

Nobody on these forums has the "right" to flame anybody. Read the rules thread.

If you are referring to one of the many flame-free ass-kickings that I have handed out on these forums, however, then the answer is that me being feminist has nothing to do with my 'right' to kick ass. In my opinion, everybody has the right to kick ass around here (or, at least, to try), regardless of their political or social affiliations.

Nobody on these forums has the "right" to flame anybody. Read the rules thread.

If you are referring to one of the many flame-free ass-kickings that I have handed out on these forums, however, then the answer is that me being feminist has nothing to do with my 'right' to kick ass. In my opinion, everybody has the right to kick ass around here (or, at least, to try), regardless of their political or social affiliations.
Sorry. I'm just still bitter. :p

I'll leave ya alone now.

They're just kids who don't like having to play by the same rules as everybody else. That's a very common jerk trait.

!yaw siht eitrw pluohs ydobyrevE !gnitirw thgir ot tfel fo ynnaryt eht tsniaga gnithgif m'I esuaceb tsuj krej a ton m'I !yeH

!yaw siht eitrw pluohs ydobyrevE !gnitirw thgir ot tfel fo ynnaryt eht tsniaga gnithgif m'I esuaceb tsuj krej a ton m'I !yeH
That's actually pretty impressive work.

And is it just me, or does some of that look almost like Russian? Ydobyreve! Eht Tsniaga!

I prefer a relationship where no one is submissive, and where no one is controlling the other. So I guess I want an equal relationship. Meh.

Yeah, same here.

!yaw siht eitrw pluohs ydobyrevE !gnitirw thgir ot tfel fo ynnaryt eht tsniaga gnithgif m'I esuaceb tsuj krej a ton m'I !yeH

typo: should is written as shoulp.

Still, really damn impressive. You'd be DaVinci if you could paint.

Or if you could build crazy inventions far ahead of your time.

Or if someone wrote a book about your legacy a few hundred years from now.

...I'll stop.

Sorry, what was that?

www.anl.org.ukYes, yes: opposition to real Nazism.

Let us contrast them to "feminazis."

1) Nazis remain, in many parts of the world, an organized and sometimes quite popular party. They have even won electoral victories in recent memory. Indeed, in the not very distant past they ran entire nations; they caused almost unimaginable devastation to their enemies.... In contrast, I have repeatedly asked you to produce a single "feminazi" success story: what have they actually done to men? What are they actually threatening to do as members of an organized party?

2) Nazis represent an extreme version of very widespread ideologies: racism and anti-Semitism are very real, pervasive phenomena. I pointed out that you could hardly be afraid of a minor fringe group that cannot expect support from mainstream feminism... but when it comes to the Nazis, there may be a very real fear that, given the chance, conservatives and reactionaries and closet racists would leap on the bandwagon. Because it has a history, it has the potential for a future.

The only way that you can compare "feminazis" to the threat of Nazism is to suppose that they have a similar "silent wing." There is a similar possibility that they can pull mainstream feminists into their ranks. In other words, you accuse mainstream feminists of "sympathizing" with "feminazis."

Your equation of "feminazi" with "radical feminist" is very telling in this regard. A Nazi IS a "radical racist." That is a perfectly accurate descriptor. But what you describe as a "feminazi" is NOT a "radical feminist." In fact, the two are inherently opposed, because radical feminists demand radical equality.

So I ask you again, who are you really afraid of?

Yes, yes: opposition to real Nazism.

Let us contrast them to "feminazis."

1) Nazis remain, in many parts of the world, an organized and sometimes quite popular party. They have even won electoral victories in recent memory. Indeed, in the not very distant past they ran entire nations; they caused almost unimaginable devastation to their enemies.... In contrast, I have repeatedly asked you to produce a single "feminazi" success story: what have they actually done to men? What are they actually threatening to do as members of an organized party?

2) Nazis represent an extreme version of very widespread ideologies: racism and anti-Semitism are very real, pervasive phenomena. I pointed out that you could hardly be afraid of a minor fringe group that cannot expect support from mainstream feminism... but when it comes to the Nazis, there may be a very real fear that, given the chance, conservatives and reactionaries and closet racists would leap on the bandwagon. Because it has a history, it has the potential for a future.

The only way that you can compare "feminazis" to the threat of Nazism is to suppose that they have a similar "silent wing." There is a similar possibility that they can pull mainstream feminists into their ranks. In other words, you accuse mainstream feminists of "sympathizing" with "feminazis."

Your equation of "feminazi" with "radical feminist" is very telling in this regard. A Nazi IS a "radical racist." That is a perfectly accurate descriptor. But what you describe as a "feminazi" is NOT a "radical feminist." In fact, the two are inherently opposed, because radical feminists demand radical equality.

So I ask you again, who are you really afraid of?

Whats the difference between a radical racist and a non radical racist?

Body count

Whats the difference between a radical racist and a non radical racist?
Good question.

Perhaps it's about their methods or the ways in which they put their beliefs into practice? I mean, you could have a racist who just quietly believes racist things, but doesn't actually put most of their beliefs into practice, versus a racist who openly and actively campaigns to oppress people of other races.

I dunno. I view racism itself as an extremist viewpoint, so I might be totally off base with this one.

Body count

Nice.

Oh thanks!

Funny that there are people seem unwilling to admit that there is or at least was radical feminist movement. Of course we know how it works...like with the conservative movement or Blairs New Labour...palatable radical ideas become accepted dogma over time...

But of course it can't happen to the feminist movement...oh no. Not a chance. Not the wimmins movement...

There has been a lot of utter utter crap written on this thread by people who really ought to know better.

I have lost a fair amount of respect for a number of posters here on both sides of the fence. Shame that. Seems you are happy to bleat bleat bleat but actually debate...no..not a chance.

Ah well.


oh for god's sake.

YES there was a radical feminist movement. maybe there still is, if so its pretty sidelined.

you are bringing up examples from 25 to 30 years ago. back from when *I* was in college.

were radical things said at "take back the night" marches? yes. SO WHAT? how many of those women still think that way? how many got married (to men) had children and are now grandmothers? the vast majority!

feminism is a diverse and non heirachical movement. any woman can say or think anything, write books about it, give speeches about it, and there is no feminist ruling committee who can kick them out of the movement.

so yes, there have been women who have advocated all sorts of discredited things. some were completely disgusted with the way men acted in the 60s and 70s (and before, and after) and suggested that men might be unredeemable. some had had such bad experiences with men that they advocated seperatism. every kind of idea moderate, radical and reactionary has been kicked around by feminists over the years. that is just the way feminism works.

YOU have failed to grasp that. you have held comments made at "take back the night" marches 30 years ago against all feminists when the feminists themselves have long forgotten that they ever had such thoughts. notions that were kicked around and rejected decades ago still stick in your craw as if they were mainstream thought today.

maybe you should get over it. even andrea dworkin got married.

Whats the difference between a radical racist and a non radical racist?A contemporary racist accepts racial disparities in criminal prosecution and sentencing, as well as education and employment. He/she probably believes that minorities themselves are exclusively to blame for these conditions. A contemporary racist thinks of her/himself and members of her/his racial group as superior to members of other races and ethnicities. A contemporary racist thinks that racist jokes are funny; he/she may know quite a few.

A radical racist believes many of the same things, but he/she also believes that some radical measure or measures must be taken to preserve or establish racial hegemony. There are a wide range of such proposals, with the worst involving actual extermination of threatening minorities.

"Radical," as I understand it in this context, refers primarily to the kinds of measures required to attain a shared end or ideal--the shared ideal, in this case, being racial superiority or hegemony.

The shared ideal for feminists is sexual equality; "radical" feminists simply think that major changes are required to attain this. "Radical" feminists do NOT believe in "female superiority." That would make them sexist, a position they passionately oppose.

oh for god's sake.

YES there was a radical feminist movement. maybe there still is, if so its pretty sidelined.

you are bringing up examples from 25 to 30 years ago. back from when *I* was in college.

were radical things said at "take back the night" marches? yes. SO WHAT? how many of those women still think that way? how many got married (to men) had children and are now grandmothers? the vast majority!

feminism is a diverse and non heirachical movement. any woman can say or think anything, write books about it, give speeches about it, and there is no feminist ruling committee who can kick them out of the movement.

so yes, there have been women who have advocated all sorts of discredited things. some were completely disgusted with the way men acted in the 60s and 70s (and before, and after) and suggested that men might be unredeemable. some had had such bad experiences with men that they advocated seperatism. every kind of idea moderate, radical and reactionary has been kicked around by feminists over the years. that is just the way feminism works.

YOU have failed to grasp that. you have held comments made at "take back the night" marches 30 years ago against all feminists when the feminists themselves have long forgotten that they ever had such thoughts. notions that were kicked around and rejected decades ago still stick in your craw as if they were mainstream thought today.

maybe you should get over it. even andrea dworkin got married.

Nice rant. Shame you have no clue about what you are talking about. Maybe you should...oh I don't know...read the pertinent posts regarding why I posted what I did?

Also you are putting words in my mouth which is always an endearing trait of the ignorant, the extremist or the ranter....which are you?

Yes, yes: opposition to real Nazism.

Let us contrast them to "feminazis."

1) Nazis remain, in many parts of the world, an organized and sometimes quite popular party. They have even won electoral victories in recent memory. Indeed, in the not very distant past they ran entire nations; they caused almost unimaginable devastation to their enemies.... In contrast, I have repeatedly asked you to produce a single "feminazi" success story: what have they actually done to men? What are they actually threatening to do as members of an organized party?

2) Nazis represent an extreme version of very widespread ideologies: racism and anti-Semitism are very real, pervasive phenomena. I pointed out that you could hardly be afraid of a minor fringe group that cannot expect support from mainstream feminism... but when it comes to the Nazis, there may be a very real fear that, given the chance, conservatives and reactionaries and closet racists would leap on the bandwagon. Because it has a history, it has the potential for a future.

The only way that you can compare "feminazis" to the threat of Nazism is to suppose that they have a similar "silent wing." There is a similar possibility that they can pull mainstream feminists into their ranks. In other words, you accuse mainstream feminists of "sympathizing" with "feminazis."

Your equation of "feminazi" with "radical feminist" is very telling in this regard. A Nazi IS a "radical racist." That is a perfectly accurate descriptor. But what you describe as a "feminazi" is NOT a "radical feminist." In fact, the two are inherently opposed, because radical feminists demand radical equality.

So I ask you again, who are you really afraid of?

You seem to misunderstand were I'm coming from.

You said nobody build mass movements against nazism, and I provided a link to an organisation which is against nazism. I never claimed that 'feminazis' were a bigger threat than nazis. Only in the most fevered of imaginations would some beleive that 'feminazis' are the bigger threat.

My only contention in this thread has been that they exist (and numerous links have been provided to show this) and that its ok to use the word 'feminazi'. I have also never claimed that they constitute the majority of feminists, its probably a rather small minority. I still dont get why this is a huge deal to some people.

A contemporary racist accepts racial disparities in criminal prosecution and sentencing, as well as education and employment. He/she probably believes that minorities themselves are exclusively to blame for these conditions. A contemporary racist thinks of her/himself and members of her/his racial group as superior to members of other races and ethnicities. A contemporary racist thinks that racist jokes are funny; he/she may know quite a few.

A radical racist believes many of the same things, but he/she also believes that some radical measure or measures must be taken to preserve or establish racial hegemony. There are a wide range of such proposals, with the worst involving actual extermination of threatening minorities.

"Radical," as I understand it in this context, refers primarily to the kinds of measures required to attain a shared end or ideal--the shared ideal, in this case, being racial superiority or hegemony.

The shared ideal for feminists is sexual equality; "radical" feminists simply think that major changes are required to attain this. "Radical" feminists do NOT believe in "female superiority." That would make them sexist, a position they passionately oppose.

Wow. What a load of bollocks. I mean seriously. You are suggesting that there are radical feminists do not think that their gender is not superior? That this has not promulgated down to the commons?

http://www.menweb.org/paglsomm.htm

Nice rant. Shame you have no clue about what you are talking about. Maybe you should...oh I don't know...read the pertinent posts regarding why I posted what I did?

Also you are putting words in my mouth which is always an endearing trait of the ignorant, the extremist or the ranter....which are you?

so you wanted a response but you dont want to deal with the response

fine.

now stop bitching that no one "admitted" that there used to be radical feminists.

so you wanted a response but you dont want to deal with the response

fine.

now stop bitching that no one "admitted" that there used to be radical feminists.

I don't want to deal with the response...probably because your 'reply' had nothing to do with my posts but rather an ineffectual and pathetic potshot.

Which is pretty interesting seeing as I have not agreed nor disagreed to the rights or wrongs of feminism.

I find that quite telling. Its the kind of thing one finds with extremists. Or idiots. Or ranters for that matter.

Now how about you stop projecting your insecurities on me? Cheers! :)

I never claimed that 'feminazis' were a bigger threat than nazis.I never said you did. But you do persist in making the comparison, if only implicitly. What else could be the reason for your preferring the term?

I still dont get why this is a huge deal to some people.It is a "huge deal" because the term feminazi was invented to indict all feminists, it has been consistently used in this fashion, and its very construction tends to associate with both "feminists" and "nazis."

If you really care about feminism, you will find clearer language with which to criticize doctrines with which you disagree, whether these happen to be feminist (equality-seeking) doctrines that you believe are misguided, or whether they happen to be anti-feminist concepts of female superiority.

The assertion made by your opponents in this thread is simple: use of the term is itself detrimental to feminism as a whole, because of the associations it conjures--regardless of your own purportedly well-intentioned usage of the term.

Therefore, if you consider yourself a feminist, you should desist in using a term that damages the movement you claim to support.

Look, folks, I am a radical feminist.

Seriously. I'm probably as much of a radical feminist as you're ever going to really meet in your lifetime.

I am a living, breathing example, not some random anecdote or Rush Limbaugh rant that you heard this one time.

If you want to know about radical feminism, just ask me.

Let me start you off by clearing up what seems to be a huge sticking point:

No, I do not hate men. No, I do not think women are superior to men. No, I do not in any way believe that women should rule over men by virtue of being women. (Take those three sentences and swap the gender terms and they will remain equally true.)

All of the above ideas are antithetical to feminism. They are the opposite of feminism. To be radically feminist, one must really, really reject those ideas.

A person who believes that women are superior to men is not any kind of feminist at all. Please don't blame me (or other radical feminists) for the existence of such people. They annoy us. We do not agree with them.

Also, sexism is not feminism. The fact that feminists have not yet succeeded in doing away with various forms of sexism should not be considered evidence that feminists create sexism.

As for man-hating, I suppose it is technically possible for somebody to hate men and also be a feminist, in the way that a person could hate cats and dogs and still be an animal rights activist, but I've never met such a person. People who hate other people because of their gender tend to be unwilling/unable to embrace feminism, for obvious reasons. It is theoretically possible for somebody to support the political and social equality of the sexes even though they hate members of one of the sexes, but that would be like somebody who hates black people being involved in the Civil Rights Movement. I just don't see it happening in the real world.

Look, folks, I am a radical feminist.

Seriously. I'm probably as much of a radical feminist as you're ever going to really meet in your lifetime.
-Snip


Very well put. Isn't radical feminism just the desire to bring about true equality in a reasonably quick amount of time?

Look, folks, I am a radical feminist.

Does that empower you to somehow speak on behalf of every other person who considers herself a "radical feminist"?

Therefore, if you consider yourself a feminist, you should desist in using a term that damages the movement you claim to support.
Bingo. Somebody who is actually a feminist won't deliberately perpetuate stupid myths invented by anti-feminists. Somebody who really wants to see feminism succeed won't act in ways that directly sabotage feminism. At least not knowingly.

So if a person claims to be feminist and yet also does these things, there are two possibilities in my mind:

1) The person is uninformed, but well-meaning. They don't fully understand what they are doing or why it is in conflict with their stated feminist beliefs.

2) The person is lying about being a feminist.

3) The person simply doesn't know what "feminist" means, and is mistaken when they say they are feminist.

I tend to believe that the first is the most likely. But that's because I tend to assume that most people are well-meaning individuals who sometimes make mistakes, rather than assuming that they are liars. This may very well be naive of me.

Wow. What a load of bollocks. I mean seriously. You are suggesting that there are radical feminists do not think that their gender is not superior? That this has not promulgated down to the commons?

http://www.menweb.org/paglsomm.htmPerhaps you should point out to me where in that interview any feminist is criticized for thinking that women are superior to men.

What I see are two feminists who disagree with some other feminists about factual questions of inequality; about the methods appropriate to combating inequality; and, perhaps, about the definition of "equality" itself.

I do not see any accusation that the feminists they criticize believe women are (or should be treated as) "superior" to men. Instead, they criticize fellow feminists--who believe women and men should be treated equally--for making critical errors in attempting to achieve that goal.

Earlier I mentioned the possibility of robust debate within feminism. This is a part of it.

_____________________

As it happens, even as a "radical" feminist I think that some contemporary feminist thinking is counterproductive, especially the aspects that tend to construct masculinity as inherently violent, possessive, etc... and nothing more. (The same theories construct femininity as inherently submissive, not actually "better," and the aim is for both sexes to "overcome" or "transcend" gender rather than for one gender to "triumph.")

I am currently working with prominent feminist scholar Drucilla Cornell on a new book examining masculinity in the films of Clint Eastwood in which we argue--from a radically feminist perspective--that Eastwood wrestles with the contradictions of traditional white maleness in such a way as to redeem what is dignified in the concept of maleness itself.

Indeed, Drucilla and I are working to convince feminist scholars that we need to reconsider masculinity as something that needs to be saved from itself rather than something that needs to be wholly dismantled.

This is inspired, in part, by experiences with Third World feminism (or "womanism," as some prefer) that have convinced us that the "abstract" individual of Western liberal thought does not necessarily serve the interests of a global movement for sexual liberation. We are finding that "women want to be women," and men want to be men, and the challenge for feminism is to figure out how men and women can be together as men and women without trying to hurt each other.

The challenge for feminists, and especially for male feminists, is to discover what it means to be a truly feminist man.

Does that empower you to somehow speak on behalf of every other person who considers herself a "radical feminist"?
It empowers me to speak as a radical feminist. If you'd like to know about radical feminism, a good place to start would be to talk with a radical feminist.

(Of course, your recent behavior on the forum suggests that you would really prefer to tell radical feminists what they believe. In that case, actually having to deal with a real live radical feminist would probably put a wrench in the works. But you haven't let my actual words and beliefs stop you from telling me what I believe, so I'd imagine you will overcome this stumbling block. :D)

The fact that I also happen to know the definition of 'feminism' and 'radicalism' empowers me to rule out certain claims about radical feminism. I could do this even if I wasn't, myself, a radical feminist. You could do it. Anybody could do it. You just have to familiarize yourself with terms, and note when certain claims don't square with them.

A person who does not support the social and political equality of the sexes is not a feminist. Somebody who advocates women ruling over men by virtue of being female is, obviously, not a feminist. This really isn't a tough concept.

Oh, and just FYI: some of the most radical of radical feminists I've ever met were male. :D

This is inspired, in part, by experiences with Third World feminism
Have you looked at all at Fourth World feminism? Grace Oulette for example? Sometimes it is considered synonymous with Third World feminism, but that assumption is being resisted by indigenous women in particular.

Does that empower you to somehow speak on behalf of every other person who considers herself a "radical feminist"?
Goodness, it just gets lamer and lamer, if you've nothing to say, ask yourself "why am I typing?":rolleyes:

Very well put. Isn't radical feminism just the desire to bring about true equality in a reasonably quick amount of time?
Pretty much.

Of course, "equality" doesn't mean "sameness," the way the anti-feminists seem to think. But I am bracing myself for that freak-out anyhow, because I know it's coming.

Goodness, it just gets lamer and lamer, if you've nothing to say, ask yourself "why am I typing?":rolleyes:
I think it's kind of relaxing the way he always has exactly the same line of attack. It's like watching Old Faithful. Sometimes it's soothing to know that no matter what changes occur, some things will never change.

It empowers me to speak as a radical feminist.

The term "radical feminist" has no solid definition. Anyone can call themselves a "radical feminist", regardless of their belief. I can call myself a nazi, regardless of how true I am.

At best it empowers you to speak as someone who calls herself a radical feminist.

What if someone entirely opposite of your view desides to call HERSELF (or hell, himself) a "radical feminist". Now of course your standard response is "well that's not true feminism" and maybe, technically, that is correct.

it doesn't change the fact that this person refers to him/herself as a "radical feminist" and espouses views that run contrary to what you consider "radical feminism". It's easy to call yourself "the most radical feminist I'll ever meet" if you discount anything more radical as not true feminism.

But it doesn't change the fact that others do have views that you do not consider "feminism" who call themselves feminists.

Hell, I AGREE with you that a belief in other than gender equality across the board is not feminisim (one reason I dislike the term feminism at it's core, I prefer "humanism").

That doesn't however change the fact that there are people who would consider themselves "radical feminists" who would consider you rather Uncle Tomish. And regardless of whether you, or I, don't consider that feminism, you still don't get to speak for them.

Pretty much.

Of course, "equality" doesn't mean "sameness," the way the anti-feminists seem to think.

Equity is a better word I think, to avoid that stupid line of attack.

The term "radical feminist" has no solid definition. Anyone can call themselves a "radical feminist", regardless of their belief. I can call myself a nazi, regardless of how true I am.

The fact that anybody can claim to be a radical feminist doesn't have anything to do with whether or not there is a set definition of those terms.

If somebody who believes that women should rule over men claims to be a feminist, that person is either lying or wrong. If a person who supports slavery calls themselves an abolitionist, they are likewise either lying or wrong. It's not that difficult.


At best it empowers you to speak as someone who calls herself a radical feminist.

What if someone entirely opposite of your view desides to call HERSELF (or hell, himself) a "radical feminist". Now of course your standard response is "well that's not true feminism" and maybe, technically, that is correct.

I love this. Maybe I am "technically" correct. But let's just scoot right by that...


it doesn't change the fact that this person refers to him/herself as a "radical feminist" and espouses views that run contrary to what you consider "radical feminism". It's easy to call yourself "the most radical feminist I'll ever meet" if you discount anything more radical as not true feminism.

It's not about what I consider to be radical feminism. It's about what the terms are defined as meaning. I am not nearly as powerful as you seem to think...I do not get to single-handedly define "radical" and "feminism."


But it doesn't change the fact that others do have views that you do not consider "feminism" who call themselves feminists.

Yes, some people who are anti-feminists call themselves feminists. This is nothing new. There are people who call themselves "socialists" who actually oppose the fundamental principles of socialism. There are people who insist they are absolutely not racist, while believing profoundly racists things. There are people who insist that they are NOT GAY, even while they go around fucking people of the same sex.

So what?

You don't have to believe everything you hear. If you don't trust my definition of feminism, you go right ahead and pick up a dictionary and check it for yourself. Don't take my word for it. And if somebody else tries to tell you that a feminist is a person who hates men and wants women to take over the world, you go right ahead and fact-check them too.


Hell, I AGREE with you that a belief in other than gender equality across the board is not feminisim (one reason I dislike the term feminism at it's core, I prefer "humanism").

That doesn't however change the fact that there are people who would consider themselves "radical feminists" who would consider you rather Uncle Tomish. And regardless of whether you, or I, don't consider that feminism, you still don't get to speak for them.
I'm not debating that there are people who are lying or wrong when they claim to be feminists.

What I am saying is that you probably shouldn't let your world views be set by people who are lying or wrong. And, if you actually support feminism and the ideals it sets forth, you probably shouldn't adopt the language and tactics of people who you admit are not feminists at all. You probably also shouldn't choose to identify those non-feminists as "radical feminists," since you yourself admit that you know they aren't any kind of feminist at all.

But that's only if you want to avoid lying or being wrong, of course.

Equity is a better word I think, to avoid that stupid line of attack.
It makes me sad that you even have to worry about such arguments. It's like there are some people who simply cannot grasp the idea that it's possible to not want to oppress ANYBODY. :(

Yeah, you're gonna have to forgive me, but I'm not seeing the downside to New Mitanni's standard. I mean, he describes himself as somebody who watches The Man Show, for crying out loud. That means he's not only sexist, but he also has a lousy sense of humor. I watched that show for a bit because I thought the concept was going to be funny and original, and a great way to satirize a lot of popular bullshit, but instead it's just the same boring crap that humorless hacks have been using to sell beer to other humorless hacks for the last 30 years.

Frankly, if being a "feminazi" will guarantee me that no Man Show fans ever hit on me, then SIGN ME UP. RIGHT NOW.

Honey, you're safe as a church :D

The term "radical feminist" has no solid definition. Anyone can call themselves a "radical feminist", regardless of their belief. I can call myself a nazi, regardless of how true I am.

At best it empowers you to speak as someone who calls herself a radical feminist.

What if someone entirely opposite of your view desides to call HERSELF (or hell, himself) a "radical feminist". Now of course your standard response is "well that's not true feminism" and maybe, technically, that is correct.

it doesn't change the fact that this person refers to him/herself as a "radical feminist" and espouses views that run contrary to what you consider "radical feminism". It's easy to call yourself "the most radical feminist I'll ever meet" if you discount anything more radical as not true feminism.

But it doesn't change the fact that others do have views that you do not consider "feminism" who call themselves feminists.

Hell, I AGREE with you that a belief in other than gender equality across the board is not feminisim (one reason I dislike the term feminism at it's core, I prefer "humanism").

That doesn't however change the fact that there are people who would consider themselves "radical feminists" who would consider you rather Uncle Tomish. And regardless of whether you, or I, don't consider that feminism, you still don't get to speak for them.


who do you have in mind when you type these things?

Honey, you're safe as a church :D
Oh man, given the various church sex scandals, I can find soooooooooooo much double meaning in that! :D

Oh man, given the various church sex scandals, I can find soooooooooooo much double meaning in that! :D

Then let me put it so you can understand. If you were the last woman on earth, and I were the last man, then the extinction of the human race would be inevitable ;)

It makes me sad that you even have to worry about such arguments. It's like there are some people who simply cannot grasp the idea that it's possible to not want to oppress ANYBODY. :(

Ah people just like to quibble on semantics. "Equality!? What!? You mean...you want women to be JUST THE SAME AS MEN, GROW A PENIS AND EVERYTHING!?"

Yes. That's exactly what feminists want. For everyone to have a penis.

Yes. That's exactly what feminists want. For everyone to have a penis.

If that were so, I would fight feminism tooth and nail, to the death if need be. :p

A world where everyone has a penis... *shudder* :eek:

*sigh*...Where's BoZZy when you really want someone to fight over feminism with?

Ah people just like to quibble on semantics. "Equality!? What!? You mean...you want women to be JUST THE SAME AS MEN, GROW A PENIS AND EVERYTHING!?"

Yes. That's exactly what feminists want. For everyone to have a penis.
This made me laugh so hard I choked on my sip of water. :D

Then let me put it so you can understand. If you were the last woman on earth, and I were the last man, then the extinction of the human race would be inevitable ;)

this is one of the situations that defines the radical in radical feminist.

no radical feminist would ever feel insulted that a man like you would have no interest in fucking her.

Ah people just like to quibble on semantics. "Equality!? What!? You mean...you want women to be JUST THE SAME AS MEN, GROW A PENIS AND EVERYTHING!?"

Yes. That's exactly what feminists want. For everyone to have a penis.

Isn't that what Freud said?

Personally, I think having a penis would hamper my style....or something.

this is one of the situations that defines the radical in radical feminist.

no radical feminist would ever feel insulted that a man like you would have no interest in fucking her.

Oh come on...there are plenty of non-feminist women who would also be relieved.

Oh come on...there are plenty of non-feminist women who would also be relieved.

very true

but its a strange male notion that the ultimate insult he can give a woman is that he wouldnt be interested in fucking her. we are supposed to be CRUSHED that our politics puts us out of reach of his almighty penis.

very true

but its a strange male notion that the ultimate insult he can give a woman is that he wouldnt be interested in fucking her. we are supposed to be CRUSHED that our politics puts us out of reach of his almighty penis.

um, speaking for WHICH males, exactly? Exactly who are you speaking for here? Certainly not me, certainly not the vast majority of the males I know.

I'm pretty capable of accepting the fact that if I don't want to sleep with a woman, good odds she doesn't want to sleep with me either.

we are supposed to be CRUSHED that our politics puts us out of reach of his almighty penis.hey, we get CRUSHED sometimes too :D

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dreamworks_skg/norbit/norbit_posterbig.jpg

very true

but its a strange male notion that the ultimate insult he can give a woman is that he wouldnt be interested in fucking her. we are supposed to be CRUSHED that our politics puts us out of reach of his almighty penis.

Um, I kind of just assumed that was a strange New Mitinni notion, not necessarily a male notion.

By the way, I'm all in for a good male bashing, and engage in it often just for kicks...just like I sit around with my friends and diss Indians and Marxists. So I'd be in for that, don't get me wrong. But I assume it's best to keep that kind of joking separate from a discussion on feminism, lest it be taken out of context.

um, speaking for WHICH males, exactly? well.. I got CRUSHED at least a couple of times..

Hell, I AGREE with you that a belief in other than gender equality across the board is not feminisim (one reason I dislike the term feminism at it's core, I prefer "humanism").

Do you also dislike words such as 'potatoe', 'child' and 'surgeon', preferring 'vegetable', 'person', and 'health-care worker' (respectively)? Personally I like clarity and the ability to more precisely referrence particulars that belong to broader generalities.

While it's true that all feminists are humanists, it's not true that all humanists are feminists, just as all surgeons are health-care workers, but not all health-care workers are surgeons.

Do you also dislike words such as 'potatoe', 'child' and 'surgeon', preferring 'vegetable', 'person', and 'health-care worker' (respectively)? Personally I like clarity and the ability to more precisely referrence particulars that belong to broader generalities.

While it's true that all feminists are humanists, it's not true that all humanists are feminists, just as all surgeons are health-care workers, but not all health-care workers are surgeons.

clarification. I don't like the term "feminist" FOR ME. And I think your position is inverted. I think it's fair to say all humanists are feminists, not all feminists are humanists.

Humanists believe in equality for ALL PEOPLE. Feminists believe in gender equality. It's entirely possible to be, for example, a racist feminist (one who believes in equality on gender but not equality on race). Feminism and racism are not mutually exclusive. Humanism and racism are. All humanists are feminists, not all feminists are humanists.

I do not like limiting myself to the term "feminist", I prefer humanist, because I do not limit my position based on gender. Ergo I do not like refering to myself as a feminist, as feminist deals only with gender inequality.

um, speaking for WHICH males, exactly? Exactly who are you speaking for here? Certainly not me, certainly not the vast majority of the males I know.

I'm pretty capable of accepting the fact that if I don't want to sleep with a woman, good odds she doesn't want to sleep with me either.

im speaking of new mitanni, did you miss it?

he is not the only man who will try to "insult" a strong willed woman that way. luckily he is not in the majority.