NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

yet you refered to it as "a strange male notion".

How many males exactly have this notion? Is it a "male notion" if only a few people, who happen to be men, have it?

Is it exclusive to men? Don't women sometimes expect men to be upset if they don't want to sleep with them? Are you telling me that there aren't some women who think that all men want them and that these men will be hurt if the woman, in turn, doesn't want to sleep with them?

Why the hell is it, as you say, a "male notion"? Do you really believe it's exclusive to men?

if someone, who happens to be male, is being a jackass, it's quite fine to call him a jackass. It's not at all fine to say "being a jackass is a male trait" and call yourself a feminist at the same time. It is likewise not at all intellectually honest to refer to something as a "male trait" when referencing the activities of one individual, who happens to be male.

Do you also dislike words such as 'potatoe'
Well you have to admit that 'potatoe' is a horrendous word. I prefer 'potato' :P

And hey...something tweaked my memory...you're not Stephistan are you?

Wow...got so quiet around here...is there a party going on I wasn't invited to?

yet you refered to it as "a strange male notion".

How many males exactly have this notion? Is it a "male notion" if only a few people, who happen to be men, have it?

Is it exclusive to men? Don't women sometimes expect men to be upset if they don't want to sleep with them? Are you telling me that there aren't some women who think that all men want them and that these men will be hurt if the woman, in turn, doesn't want to sleep with them?

Why the hell is it, as you say, a "male notion"? Do you really believe it's exclusive to men?

if someone, who happens to be male, is being a jackass, it's quite fine to call him a jackass. It's not at all fine to say "being a jackass is a male trait" and call yourself a feminist at the same time. It is likewise not at all intellectually honest to refer to something as a "male trait" when referencing the activities of one individual, who happens to be male.


yes it is a male notion when a man thinks that his rejection of a woman on the basis of her politics should hurt her.

no i do not think that many women think about men rejecting women on a political basis.

i do think that men thinking it makes it something that men think about. odd eh?

yes it is a male notion when a man thinks that his rejection of a woman on the basis of her politics should hurt her. What...like a chick couldn't reject a woman on the basis of her politics and expect it to hurt her? Try being a bisexual around bi-hating lesbians!

no i do not think that many women think about men rejecting women on a political basis.

i do think that men thinking it makes it something that men think about. odd eh?
I think about what it would be like to have a penis, and how I'd never leave the house again. Is that a female notion?

What a weird line of thought this is....I'm thinking about white chocolate...lots of women do...female notion...

yes it is a male notion when a man thinks that his rejection of a woman on the basis of her politics should hurt her.

no i do not think that many women think about men rejecting women on a political basis.

i do think that men thinking it makes it something that men think about. odd eh?

only if you think women don't think about it. You don't, I wonder where such a misguided viewpoint comes from. Do you believe that all women think that a man would never refuse to sleep with her because he finds her political viewpoints repugnant?

So that's your viewpoints of men? We would never consider such factors as political compatability to be important? How unenlightened.

You think that there are SOME MEN who believe a WOMAN would be hurt because HE rejected HER because of HER politics.

You do not think that there are SOME WOMEN who believe a MAN would be hurt because SHE rejected HIM because of HIS politics?

You SURE that this is a position you want to be advocating?

So which one of you sweet cheeks are going to get me a cup of coffee?


*RUNS* :D

yes it is a male notion when a man thinks that his rejection of a woman on the basis of her politics should hurt her.

no i do not think that many women think about men rejecting women on a political basis.

i do think that men thinking it makes it something that men think about. odd eh?

Are you a comedian?

So which one of you sweet cheeks are going to get me a cup of coffee?


*RUNS* :D

It's about time...I've been waiting for DCD to interject with his familiar 'okay bitch, now go make me a sandwich' :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 ;)
Um, as comforting as that may be, it really doesn't address what I was saying.

If I publicly and loudly assert that I am a "feminazi," can you guarantee me that I will never have to put up with being hit on by anybody who finds The Man Show to be quality TV programming?

Because, not to be harsh or anything, but you're just one fellow. I am quite able to chase away unappealing individuals on a case-by-case basis. What I'm looking for is a catch-all means of insuring that I won't have to bother weeding the field of the humorless sexist crowd.

Well you have to admit that 'potatoe' is a horrendous word. I prefer 'potato' :P

And hey...something tweaked my memory...you're not Stephistan are you?
LOL, you say potato, I say potatoe, but either way I'm not Stephistan.:D

So which one of you sweet cheeks are going to get me a cup of coffee?


*RUNS* :D

my lateral equal at my firm is a female. We share an administrative assistant, who is female.

He (who is the best damned assistant I have EVER had, seriously, I'm gonna be working for him some day) usually brings coffee for the three of us in the morning.

One day I'm in her office, he comes in. We're talking case material and he typically doesn't like to interrupt work so he puts our coffees on her desk and walks out. My lateral equal looks at me after he walks out, grins, and says "you can tell who wears the pants in our relationship".

I couldn't stop laughing the entire morning.

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.
You think wrong. The first French revolution qualifies as humanist, it was not in way feminist, in fact females were explicitly and intentionally excluded from improvements in equality during the French Revolution. The abolitionist movement was humanist, yet many abolutionists were ardently sexist, and the abolishment of slavery had no particular provision that required or faciliated the equalisation of the positions of males and females.

Humanists believe in equality for ALL PEOPLE.
Some humanists might, but many humanist movements either didnt include females in any particular way, or actively excluded them.

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.
It seems you misunderstand the word 'humanism'. It is entirely possible to be humanist by supporting the abolition of slavery while being sexist against either gender. On the other hand it is not really possible to support and believe in the equality and optimisation of the female condition while supporting any form of oppression against any group of people that includes females, for instance particular ethnic groups.

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.
Feminism is a particular kind of humanism, feminism specialises in or particularly refers to the areas of humanism related to gender equality, it doesnt exclude other concerns.

You think wrong. The first French revolution qualifies as humanist, it was not in way feminist, in fact females were explicitly and intentionally excluded from improvements in equality during the French Revolution.

snip

You're refering largely to classical, secular humanism. I'm refering to modern humanism, or Humanism (my fault, modern convention says the H should be capitalized, to clarify my brand of Humanism from your discussion).

The general gist of modern Humanism can be summed up in the Humanist Manifesto II (http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html)

Note article 7:

To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies. This includes freedom of speech and the press, political democracy, the legal right of opposition to governmental policies, fair judicial process, religious liberty, freedom of association, and artistic, scientific, and cultural freedom. It also includes a recognition of an individual's right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide. We oppose the increasing invasion of privacy, by whatever means, in both totalitarian and democratic societies. We would safeguard, extend, and implement the principles of human freedom evolved from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, the Rights of Man, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Modern humanists (or Humanists) are not directly comparable to more classical humanism. Modern Humanism is traced back to the 50s with the formation of the International Humanist and Ethical Union in Amsterdam. the IHEU recognizes Manifesto II as the current stance of mdern Humanism.

The IHEU's vision is one of a Humanist world; a world in which the human rights of minorities are respected and everyone is able to live a life of dignity. The mission of IHEU is to build and represent the global Humanist movement that defends human rights and promotes Humanist values world-wide. IHEU sponsors the triennial World Humanist Congress and publishes International Humanist News

In 2002 during it's 50th anniversary the IHEU officiall adopted the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 which was a restatement of the general principles of modern Humanism, and clarrified general principles. It is considered the guiding principles of modern Humanism.

So when I refer to Humanism, I refer to modern humanism, not the more classic humanism.

Under that context it is fair to say that any Humanist is a feminist, but not all feminists are Humanists.

It seems you misunderstand the word 'humanism'. It is entirely possible to be humanist by supporting the abolition of slavery while being sexist against either gender

Only if you take me to mean more classical humanism originating in the 18th and 19th century. I am not. I am refering to modern Humanism which had its birth in the 1950s.

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

A "n00b" with over 9000 posts? o_O

You're refering largely to classical, secular humanism. I'm refering to modern humanism, or Humanism (my fault, modern convention says the H should be capitalized, to clarify my brand of Humanism from your discussion).
I'm referring to humanism, not to some particular interest group that liked the word and applied it to themselves and their activities.

The general gist of modern Humanism can be summed up in the Humanist Manifesto II (http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html)

Note article 7:



Modern humanists (or Humanists) are not directly comparable to more classical humanism. Modern Humanism is traced back to the 50s with the formation of the International Humanist and Ethical Union in Amsterdam. the IHEU recognizes Manifesto II as the current stance of mdern Humanism.
The appropriation of the word in this manner makes as much sense as Protestant Church being the only referrent of Christian. The humanist group or movement (as you prefer) to which you refer is simply one manifestation of humanism, it's existence does not obliterate the proper meaning of the word.

The IHEU's vision is one of a Humanist world; a world in which the human rights of minorities are respected and everyone is able to live a life of dignity. The mission of IHEU is to build and represent the global Humanist movement that defends human rights and promotes Humanist values world-wide. IHEU sponsors the triennial World Humanist Congress and publishes International Humanist News
Rather the IHEU's vision is one humanist vision of a particular humanist world. The existence of this group/movement and its vision does not redefine or alter the meaning of the word humanist.

In 2002 during it's 50th anniversary the IHEU officiall adopted the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 which was a restatement of the general principles of modern Humanism, and clarrified general principles. It is considered the guiding principles of modern Humanism.
'Modern Humanism' being a particular movement, not a redefinition or annexation of the meaning of the word humanism.

So when I refer to Humanism, I refer to modern humanism, not the more classic humanism.
In other words, you dont refer to humanism, but rather to an ideology that is humanist.

Under that context it is fair to say that any Humanist is a feminist, but not all feminists are Humanists.
Under the logic you're using it's fair to say that 'Cats' refers only to ginger cats (as opposed to 'cats') and so all cats are ginger. Under the logic of 'let's redefine words half-way through a conversation based on whether or not the new definition would make what I say true' all conversation becomes a waste of time really.

Only if you take me to mean more classical humanism originating in the 18th and 19th century. I am not. I am refering to modern Humanism which had its birth in the 1950s.
Er, I am taking humanism to refer to humanism, you are taking it to refer to a particular movement that happens to be and refers to itself as humanist.

for the purposes of avoiding confusion, let us clarify that my use of humanism refers specifically to the modern Humanist movement, not anything broader. Thus I consider myself a Humanist, and when refering to myself, prefer that word, over feminist.

while it is true "humanist" has broader terms, my use of it both in the context of this thread, and in the context of describing my political philosophy, refers to the modern Humanist movement

It's not overt rampant feminism which chases the MAN away, it's more any kind of deep-voiced Thatcher-like domineering unfeminity. Ann Coulter's single, and she's no feminist.

Er, I am taking humanism to refer to humanism, you are taking it to refer to a particular movement that happens to be and refers to itself as humanist.

Nonono, Humanist! =)

Nonono, Humanist! =)

you joke, but you're quite correct, the capital H is intended for the specific purpose of seperating Humanism from humanism.

To use the example above, you say it's using "cat" to refer to as "ginger cat". It is not. It is using the word "Cat" to refer to a person named Cat, not refering to felines.

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

Very true. I posted that same thing before, but no one paid attention to it. Seperatist feminism is what the OP and these people decrying "feminazis" are talking about, which is a lot different then radical feminism or liberal feminism.

you joke, but you're quite correct, the capital H is intended for the specific purpose of seperating Humanism from humanism.

To use the example above, you say it's using "cat" to refer to as "ginger cat". It is not. It is using the word "Cat" to refer to a person named Cat, not refering to felines.
Firstly my example didnt use the word 'cat' to refer to only a specific sub-group of cats, but rather the word 'Cat'. Secondly you didnt use the word 'Humanist' to refer to 'Humanists' but rather the word 'humanist', so it' more like using the word 'cat' to refer to the ginger Cat whose name happens to be Cat, and only later suggesting you mean something other than the most obvious and apparent referent of the word 'cat'....:p

A "n00b" with over 9000 posts? o_O
Some people like to use their voice to converse. Others use theirs to complain. The former grow; the latter stagnate. 'tis the way of the world.

I don't care about Female Rights any more than I do Male Rights or Racial Rights or Religious Rights. You are a person and contributor to society, regardless of which gender you are, and rights should be granted to people, as a collective entity, rather than selectively distributed by classification.

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?

Sounds like a desperate cry for female attention. Something tells me this is resultant from sexual frustration.

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

Because they WANTED TO BE.

That's equality.

Actually they could be forced into that situation by their male counterparts.

Sounds like a desperate cry for female attention. Something tells me this is resultant from sexual frustration.

Actually they could be forced into that situation by their male counterparts.

What?

Feminazis.
Femicommies doesn't work right.

What?

Didn't you know? Women lack free will.

Didn't you know? Women lack free will.

The shoe faeries stole their brains, didn't they?

Didn't you know? Women lack free will.

It's not that they lack free will, its that most of the middle east is a male dominated culture, meaning women have few if any rights.

It's not that they lack free will, its that most of the middle east is a male dominated culture, meaning women have few if any rights.

They were talking about US soldiers in the Middle East.

Isn't that what Freud said?Freud was threatened by women because he just couldn't figure out how to make a person feel guilty if he couldn't threaten her with castration.

:cool:

The general gist of modern Humanism can be summed up in the Humanist Manifesto II (http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html)I notice that in that entire detailed manifesto the authors make only two unremarkable nods to feminism.

I think the fear of feminists is not so much that people identifying themselves as "Humanist" are in some way anti-feminist, but rather that universalizing terms and attitudes have traditionally privileged a male perspective, marginalizing women's critical agenda. While this manifesto at least acknowledges the value of feminist ideals, it does nothing at all to address women's concerns per se. Thus, it hardly mitigates the need for a sustained feminist analysis independent from whatever other noble goals Humanists may have.

Secondly, this does not explain your apparent hostility to the label "feminist." Your Humanist platform describes a movement--in essence, a kind of political party. Now, ordinarily one does not complain that her party identification excludes or precludes other political descriptors: one might be a Democrat and a feminist, for instance. That you cringe from the feminist label altogether is suggestive of a deeper hostility to feminist ideas.

The IHEU's vision is one of a Humanist world; a world in which the human rights of minorities are respected and everyone is able to live a life of dignity.That is a noble ambition, and I think few in this discussion would disagree with its broadly stated goals. However, the historical experience of feminists has been that gender concerns get buried in the grand projects of such movements. It would be impressive indeed if your Humanist movement can answer every concern at once, but the burden of proof is certainly theirs. It is hard to simply take their word for it.

IHEU sponsors the triennial World Humanist Congress.Do we have a program of events for such a Congress? It would go a long way toward answering my doubts if I could see a program that includes feminist panels or roundtables, lectures or workshops.

Only if you take me to mean more classical humanism originating in the 18th and 19th century. I am not. I am refering to modern Humanism which had its birth in the 1950s.Funny, the document to which you linked us does not draw any similarly sharp lines. It notes:Humanism traces its roots from ancient China, classical Greece and Rome, through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

Seriously, am I the only one who actually reads anything in this forum? How many times have people posted sources that undermine their own positions? Personally, I blame Google: you kids think you can just pop in some search terms and post the first thing that appears to support your view, without actually taking the time to analyze carefully whether it does or not.

On second thought, I blame the teachers. Who the hell is teaching genuine research skills these days, anyway?

[By the way, you're behind the times. There is now a Humanist Manifesto III... not that I think you'll actually read that, either.]

Also, you say modern humanism had its birth in the 1950s. Wasn't the first Humanist Manifesto published in 1933?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/images/400/alloallo_3.jpg

Childish.I know I know.

Personally, I blame Google: you kids think you can just pop in some search terms and post the first thing that appears to support your view, without actually taking the time to analyze carefully whether it does or not.

I don't think selective reading began with the Internet.

Indeed, it's even easier when you're referencing a book in a casual argument... you can reasonably expect that nobody is going to go out and buy it, so unless someone else has actually read it, you can willfully distort as you see fit.

At least with Google and Wikipedia and the like, it's pretty easy for people to call you on it.

I don't think selective reading began with the Internet.No, but subjectively the problem seems to be getting worse.

Indeed, it's even easier when you're referencing a book in a casual argument... you can reasonably expect that nobody is going to go out and buy it, so unless someone else has actually read it, you can willfully distort as you see fit.Perhaps, but it's also true that if you go to the trouble of checking it out from the library, you might actually take the time to read it.

Thus, while perhaps the Internet makes it easier for people to check your facts, Internet research itself favors a very "casual" review of the literature in the first place.

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.
Same here, although in the bedroom switching roles of dominance/submission would be fun.

Perhaps, but it's also true that if you go to the trouble of checking it out from the library, you might actually take the time to read it.

Thoroughly? Carefully? That's very questionable.

I bet most people skim over the links they post on political forums, too.

Thus, while perhaps the Internet makes it easier for people to check your facts, Internet research itself favors a very "casual" review of the literature in the first place.

"Internet research" is a bad idea.

Use of the Internet for quick fact-checking or for a quick link to support your statement is a different matter entirely.

"Internet research" is a bad idea.Not if you know how to do it. It can be immensely useful.

The problem, I think, is that it's so superficially easy that many people do not recognize the need to learn how to do it.

_______

Not wanting to further hijack the thread, I will not respond to any further posts on this topic. Please do not misinterpret my silence if you choose to respond again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/images/400/alloallo_3.jpg

Childish.I know I know.
Jeebus christ she's ugly! :eek:

Funny, the document to which you linked us does not draw any similarly sharp lines. It notes:

Seriously, am I the only one who actually reads anything in this forum? How many times have people posted sources that undermine their own positions? Personally, I blame Google: you kids think you can just pop in some search terms and post the first thing that appears to support your view, without actually taking the time to analyze carefully whether it does or not.

On second thought, I blame the teachers. Who the hell is teaching genuine research skills these days, anyway?

[By the way, you're behind the times. There is now a Humanist Manifesto III... not that I think you'll actually read that, either.]

Also, you say modern humanism had its birth in the 1950s. Wasn't the first Humanist Manifesto published in 1933?

The first Humanist Manifesto was published in 1933. Modern Humanism is considered based more on Manifesto II, which came from the organization from 1952.

Additionally you are right, reading comprehension is critical. Many historians know, and the founders themselves admit that the US constitution and the philosophy behind it had its roots in movements and writings that preceded it.

it doesn't mean that the constitution existed before it existed.

The first Humanist Manifesto was published in 1933. Modern Humanism is considered based more on Manifesto II, which came from the organization from 1952.*sigh*

First of all, according to whom is Modern Humanism "considered" to originate more from Manifesto II than from the first Manifesto? Manifesto II explicitly acknowledges the first... as, in fact, does Manifesto III.

Secondly, Manifesto II was published in 1973, not 1952. So, take your pick: 1933 or 1973. In no case do you appear to have had any idea what you were talking about when you picked the "1950s" as a founding.

Third, these Manifestos explicitly espouse Secular Humanism as opposed to Religious Humanism. "Modern Humanism" is a term that embraces both.

So, exactly how confused are you? :confused:

Hey, everybody, listen up! Sexist men are called misogynists, and sexist women are called misandrists. Let's please use these terms in order to avoid further confusion.

This post made me laugh and laugh.

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."

Pretty accurate translation.

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.

I'm only fifteen. I don't have a job, so this does not apply. And if they were real equalitarians, they would fight against these cultural standards of beautification.

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 first part is completely true. I would like better fashion for men. The second part is untrue. I would just like to say that while men perpetuate the industry, it is women who constitute the demand instead of the necessary resistence.

Translation: "Jacobaea is not sexist, but he does resent women who demand equal treatment. He likes to call them 'female supremacists'."

I used the wrong term. I didn't mean "feminist," I meant "misandrist." I call misandrists "female supremacists." I am proud of anyone who fights for equality.

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."

I was saying that misandrists think men are all rapists, I wasn't in any way condoning rape. I thought that pretty obvious.

Translation: "Jacobaea really likes women--he does--but feminists are on a symbolic par with, say... Lex Luthor."

Misandrists are Lex Luthor, misandrists. Not feminists. Once again, I apologise for using the wrong term.

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.

The opposite of a socio-sanctist is a socio-judist, who believes that people have intrinsic social value. I invented these terms a very long time ago, and only just now applied them to misandry.

Translation: "Jacobaea does not like the idea that to achieve an equal society we actually have to remedy existing inequalities."

Yes, we have to remedy them, but it is wrong to reverse them, because one is not propagating equality by doing so.

Translation: "By the way, Jacobaea is also just a little bit racist."

No. I brought up the race aspect of socio-sanctism because I have noticed it, and because it is wrong in the same way as misandry. I believe it is called "reverse racism," and it is not an observation specific to myself.

Translation: "Jacobaea is concerned that women and minorities actually expect him to become less sexist and racist."

I am not sexist or racist. That is why I condemn both discrimination and reverse-discrimination.

Translation: "Sometimes Jacobaea slips and makes a sexist remark. Worse, people don't laugh at his jokes so much anymore."

I don't talk to many people, on account of my autism, and I generally have no sense of humour. Nor do I think racism or sexism funny.

Translation: "Jacobaea doesn't have an argument per se, but he hopes you'll be impressed with his radical hyperbole.

Translation: "Anarchyel didn't understand what Jacobaea said per se, but hopes you'll be impressed with his/her witty responses."

Seriously, am I the only one who actually reads anything in this forum? How many times have people posted sources that undermine their own positions? Personally, I blame Google: you kids think you can just pop in some search terms and post the first thing that appears to support your view, without actually taking the time to analyze carefully whether it does or not.

On second thought, I blame the teachers. Who the hell is teaching genuine research skills these days, anyway?


This is incredibly rich coming from you. All you have done so far is construct nice sentences with nice words but really are pretty much devoid of any meaning. Or at least are an utter inability to actually comprehend what people are saying.

Really you think you have some kind of intellectual upper hand...but the reality is that all you do is mouth the usual empty talking points that most brain dead activists parrot ad infinitum.

I find it amusing that you deny the existence of radical feminists that espoused a belief in female gender superiority. Of course you do this by saying that they are not feminists. Not extremists. Oh no...feminists can't be that extreme so what we'll do is...rename them so they are no longer part of the feminist movement. Or revise history...or ignore it altogether... but still take some of the 'teachings'.

The best parts are when you decide that anyone who dares question anything regarding the feminist movement are immediately catagorised as non thinking males with x amount of issues. One cannot question doctrine...oh no! Never question doctrine.

You remind me of the gimme gimme gimme Socialist Workers boi wonders who had the debating ability of a gnat.

Hey, everybody, listen up! Sexist men are called misogynists, and sexist women are called misandrists. Let's please use these terms in order to avoid further confusion.I agree absolutely.

Indeed, had you used a word like "misandrist" in the first place, people might not have accused you of being anti-feminist. As I have already pointed out in this thread, since we have perfectly useful and non-offensive terms with which to refer to sexist human-beings, grabbing at new, intentionally inflammatory terms suggests that your agenda involves something more than merely an objective description.

And if they were real equalitarians, they would fight against these cultural standards of beautification."They" surely do. But they also have families to feed, career aspirations, and so on. In order to pursue these things in a sexist world, they may find themselves putting on make-up every day and wearing the "right" kind of clothing.

Yes, there are some women who bravely refuse--and they usually pay a price for their courage. They should be commended for their selfless contributions to the fight against sexism.

But--and this is a BIG but--unless you are willing to extend your criticism to every feminist man who does not resign in protest when an employer expects a certain "standard" from women; unless you are prepared to condemn every man as a "hypocrite" who has criticized the beauty standard but has not paid a price for opposing it; then you cannot condemn feminist women without admitting to a sexist double-standard of your own.

Like far too many "feminist" men, you seem to be perfectly comfortable with feminism so long as it is only women who have to pay the price of fighting injustice.

I would just like to say that while men perpetuate the industry, it is women who constitute the demand instead of the necessary resistence.While it is absolutely true that large numbers of women perpetuate the double standards of the fashion industry through active demand, it takes a decidedly "blame the victim" attitude to attack the feminist opposition rather than the industry itself.

I used the wrong term. I didn't mean "feminist," I meant "misandrist." I call misandrists "female supremacists."Two problems with this:

1) This is a terrible mistake to make, and you should seriously reevaluate your feelings about feminists if you so easily "confuse" them with misandrists. Again, had you used the more appropriate term in the first place, people would be much less inclined to think you are a closet sexist.

2) "Misandrist" is NOT synonymous with "female supremacist," no matter how much you would like that to be the case. "Misandrist" means "a person who hates men." "Female supremacist" means "a person who thinks that women should be treated as superior to men."

Now, this is an important difference. Misandry is an attitude, and it may have emotional rather than intellectual roots. People may be misandrists for many reasons, which of course include the ideological but which may also involve repeatedly bad experiences with men... or simply some especially negative, abusive experiences. (Similarly, misogyny may be related to psychological factors that do not comport with a person's conscious belief system.)

This means that there may be many people who have internalized a very negative image of masculinity--people we would rightly call misandrists--who nevertheless believe that it would be unjust or inappropriate to institute public policies that treat men worse than women.

At the same time, there may be "female supremacists" who do not hate men--indeed, they may love men very much. If this is hard to imagine, remember that sexist men who have (for centuries) felt that women should be treated as inferior have rarely expressed any hatred of women. Instead, they have "loved" women by subduing them.

If that doesn't help, I just saw an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation in which the Enterprise visited a society ruled by women. These women were not, however, misandrists--they loved their men, they just treated them as inferior.

Conflating terms like these can lead to all sorts of theoretical confusion.

I was saying that misandrists think men are all rapists, I wasn't in any way condoning rape. I thought that pretty obvious.I didn't claim you were.

What I was pointing out is the fact that the prejudice that "all men are rapists" is actually a version of the traditional sexist stereotype that men are "controlled by their penises," that men are "more sexual" than women, that men have "urges" for which they cannot be blamed, etc. These stereotypes have been used (and are still used) to mitigate penalties for rape, and also to restrict the kinds of sexual encounter that "count" as rape.

Feminists have forcefully rejected such stereotypes. Feminists insist that men are, after all, able to control themselves--and men should therefore be held responsible for their actions.

While some misandrists may believe that "all men are rapists," or something of the sort, it seems like an unlikely platform for "female supremacy." Whereas female supremacists would, presumably, hold men to a higher standard than women (just as traditional sexism held women to a higher sexual standard than men), the theory that "all men are rapists" suggests that men cannot be blamed for their sexual aggressiveness--that is, after all, how they are made.

Again, confusing misandry with feminine supremacy has led to theoretical muddiness. You attribute to a theory of female supremacy what is actually an attitude of some misandrists.

Yes, we have to remedy them, but it is wrong to reverse them, because one is not propagating equality by doing so.This is an ongoing discussion within feminism (vis-a-vis affirmative action), but not "female supremacy." Surely you don't believe that advocates of affirmative action want to make women superior to men? No, you wouldn't be so naive. Rather, many feminists believe that affirmative action measures are necessary to achieve equality; their feminist critics believe that these measures are ineffective or counterproductive. None of them wants to make women superior to men.

If you are talking about some policy other than affirmative action as we know it, please specify. Otherwise, I still don't know exactly what these "female supremacists" that you fear are actually trying to do.

As long as you talk about them in generic terms without specifying any particular policies that they espouse, I am left to believe that these female supremacists are more a figment of your overactive imagination than a serious threat to sexual equality.

Feminazis: The reason guys like me are still single. :upyours:
Yes... obviously it's because of "feminazis" and not because you use middle-fingering to show your discontent, as well as not looking at yourself and your own issues before questioning why women don't find you attractive.

Nice one there...

This is incredibly rich coming from you. All you have done so far is construct nice sentences with nice words but really are pretty much devoid of any meaning.You mean like the one you just wrote?

Really you think you have some kind of intellectual upper hand...but the reality is that all you do is mouth the usual empty talking points that most brain dead activists parrot ad infinitum.Speaking of which... still waiting for you to make a point to which I can respond.

I find it amusing that you deny the existence of radical feminists that espoused a belief in female gender superiority.First of all, I have denied neither the existence of radical feminists nor the existence of people who believe in female superiority. Some others in this thread may have, but not I. Thus, I find the personal nature of your attack somewhat perplexing.

Indeed, earlier I proclaimed quite clearly that I am a radical feminist.

Moreover, I have repeatedly stated that I am well aware that a minority exists of people who believe in female superiority. I have merely questioned whether the scope and force of the attacks on them is proportionate to their actual size and influence. I have suggested that perhaps the people behind these attacks really fear aspects of feminism more generally, using a scare-mongering "female supremacist" target as a convenient stand-in for their vague and unsupported pot-shots at feminism.

I have questioned why such attackers, who claim to have no quarrel with feminism, should nevertheless insist upon incoherent labels that associate the supposed threat with feminism.

I have, as yet, received no real answers to these criticisms of the "beware the feminazis" position.

Of course you do this by saying that they are not feminists.They are not. This, at least, should be clear. Feminism is a word with a very established, agreed upon definition: "person who believes in (and may fight for) sexual equality." A person who does not believe in sexual equality--one way or the other--is NOT a feminist.

The possibility that some "female supremacists" might attempt to co-opt the term does not change anything. If a group holding that women should (after all) stay in the home insisted on calling themselves "feminist," would that make them right? Would we have to criticize "feminists" for espousing male supremacy, just because some group decided to so name themselves?

The funny thing is that, in my experience, the same people who insist that a person is a feminist "because he/she says so" are almost invariably the same people who insist that North Korea is NOT a "republic" no matter what they decide to call themselves. I happen to agree with them, but I'd like them to admit that they cannot have it both ways: either female supremacists are NOT feminists and dictatorships are NOT republics... or female supremacists are "feminists" because they say so, and dictatorships around the world are entitled to the same definitional privilege. Either words have definitions, or they don't.

Oh no...feminists can't be that extreme so what we'll do is...rename them so they are no longer part of the feminist movement.The point is that "extreme" feminism is necessarily "extreme" equality. As soon as you start enjoying something other than equality, you are NOT an "extreme" feminist, because you are no longer a feminist. Just like North Korea is NOT a republic, because it does not espouse the goals or adopt the structural features of republicanism.

The problem with falsely identifying an ideology of "female supremacy" with "extreme feminism" is that it suggests we should be feminist... but not "too" feminist.

It suggests that we should be sympathetic to female demands for equality, but we should be "careful" because we might "go too far."

The problem is that there is no "too far" when it comes to fighting for equality. There is only "not far enough," until men and women are actually equal.

Yes, we should oppose any doctrine that favors women over men, just as we oppose any doctrine that favors men over women. But such doctrines do NOT--cannot--represent a movement for equality "gone too far." They do NOT represent an "extreme" of an egalitarian position.

Attempting to paint them as such can only be an intentional attempt to call the movement for equality itself into question.

__________

If you consider yourself a feminist, look at it this way: think of these "female supremacists" that you so fear. Now ask yourself, "Is this an 'extreme' version of my own ideals as a feminist?" If the answer is "no," then either they are not feminists, or you are not. Take your pick, but you can't have it both ways and still claim to be using the term "feminist" in a consistent way.

Yes... obviously it's because of "feminazis" and not because you use middle-fingering to show your discontent, as well as not looking at yourself and your own issues before questioning why women don't find you attractive.

Nice one there...
Back at ya. :p

Back at ya. :p

How? She didn't use a middle-finger emoticon.

This makes no sense. Was your intent to sound intelligent? If so, you fail.

"They" surely do. But they also have families to feed, career aspirations, and so on. In order to pursue these things in a sexist world, they may find themselves putting on make-up every day and wearing the "right" kind of clothing.

Yes, there are some women who bravely refuse--and they usually pay a price for their courage. They should be commended for their selfless contributions to the fight against sexism.

If I were a woman oppressed by this almost feudal system, I would think it the right of every so oppressed woman to rise up against it. I'm imagining a "March on Washington" type rally.

But--and this is a BIG but--unless you are willing to extend your criticism to every feminist man who does not resign in protest when an employer expects a certain "standard" from women; unless you are prepared to condemn every man as a "hypocrite" who has criticized the beauty standard but has not paid a price for opposing it; then you cannot condemn feminist women without admitting to a sexist double-standard of your own.

Like far too many "feminist" men, you seem to be perfectly comfortable with feminism so long as it is only women who have to pay the price of fighting injustice.

I don't think anyone should have to pay a price for fighting something so unfair.

While it is absolutely true that large numbers of women perpetuate the double standards of the fashion industry through active demand, it takes a decidedly "blame the victim" attitude to attack the feminist opposition rather than the industry itself.

Right, and I apologise for the way I said that, but I do believe more people should oppose this system than already do. Only then can anything be accomplished.

1) This is a terrible mistake to make, and you should seriously reevaluate your feelings about feminists if you so easily "confuse" them with misandrists. Again, had you used the more appropriate term in the first place, people would be much less inclined to think you are a closet sexist.

I don't confuse feminists with misandrists, it's just that where I live, the term "feminist" more often refers to the radical kind. Usually true feminism is just referred to as "women's rights" around here.

2) "Misandrist" is NOT synonymous with "female supremacist," no matter how much you would like that to be the case. "Misandrist" means "a person who hates men." "Female supremacist" means "a person who thinks that women should be treated as superior to men."

Ahhh, I see what you mean. Sorry about that. I didn't see the difference at first.

What I was pointing out is the fact that the prejudice that "all men are rapists" is actually a version of the traditional sexist stereotype that men are "controlled by their penises," that men are "more sexual" than women, that men have "urges" for which they cannot be blamed, etc. These stereotypes have been used (and are still used) to mitigate penalties for rape, and also to restrict the kinds of sexual encounter that "count" as rape.

Feminists have forcefully rejected such stereotypes. Feminists insist that men are, after all, able to control themselves--and men should therefore be held responsible for their actions.

I didn't know that. I haven't thought about it like that before. It is interesting and useful to know.

If you are talking about some policy other than affirmative action as we know it, please specify. Otherwise, I still don't know exactly what these "female supremacists" that you fear are actually trying to do.

As long as you talk about them in generic terms without specifying any particular policies that they espouse, I am left to believe that these female supremacists are more a figment of your overactive imagination than a serious threat to sexual equality.

Strangely, even though my state always tends to be way too conservative, I've noticed that my peers are heavily influenced by the media and adopt an over-the-top, liberal, "socio-sanctist" attitude. There are too many radical feminists among my fellow students, so I tend to think these people are more common than they really are.

too many radical feminists

impossible

Y'know, there's a really dirty comment I could make involving the middle finger emote and radical feminists...

I'm only fifteen. I don't have a job, so this does not apply. And if they were real equalitarians, they would fight against these cultural standards of beautification.
The impact on career if you dont play has already been addressed, but more to the point you first mentioned (when you criticised these 'hypocrites') females that think you shouldnt have to look a certain way to get ahead, describing them as hypocrites because of how they try to look themselves. This is poor reasoning.
I believe you shouldnt have to wear lipstick for any reason at all, but I also believe you should be able to wear it if you wish and I sometimes do choose to wear it myself. This isnt hypocracy, it's just plain fair mindedness. I dont believe that what I wish to do with my personal appearance ought to be the required standards for others, anymore than I wish to be subjected to the standards of others. You are in essence expecting that if people like to look a certain way, unless they think everyone else should have to look that way too, they either dont dress/groom themselves as they want or they are hypocrites. That's just silly.

The first part is completely true. I would like better fashion for men.
[QUOTE]
I used the wrong term. I didn't mean "feminist," I meant "misandrist." I call misandrists "female supremacists." I am proud of anyone who fights for equality.
As pointed out by another poster, this is not accurate.

My best friend is a female supremacist. She does not dislike, much less hate males (in fact she is very fond of them), she just happens to think females are superior to males (in fact she views males very much as she views children and is very fond of both).


I don't talk to many people, on account of my autism, and I generally have no sense of humour. Nor do I think racism or sexism funny.
No sense of humour! How grim.:eek:

You must have some sense of humour if one of Anarchyel's posts made you laugh and laugh.;)

First, I would like to comment that after reading this post, together with your previous post, I believe that you are a much more reasonable and well-meaning individual than I had at first believed. I apologize for the harshness of some of my earlier remarks.

If I were a woman oppressed by this almost feudal system, I would think it the right of every so oppressed woman to rise up against it. I'm imagining a "March on Washington" type rally.It is the right of every woman--and every man--to rise up against the system; and, of course, such Marches on Washington happen fairly regularly. I would encourage you to join us, when you can.

I don't think anyone should have to pay a price for fighting something so unfair.Nor do I. Unfortunately, the reality is that there are usually prices for resistance... and the even more unfortunate reality is that it is harder for some people to resist than others, often due to peculiarities of circumstance. A single woman with kids to feed may hate the system and its beauty standards; she may speak out against it when she can; but can she simply refuse to conform? Probably not. If she does, the price may be painfully high--for her and for her children.

Thus, I think it is a little too easy to call her a "hypocrite" for putting on her make-up in the morning. She is doing the best she can in a less-than-ideal world.

Right, and I apologise for the way I said that, but I do believe more people should oppose this system than already do. Only then can anything be accomplished.That's certainly true. It is also true that more women as well as men need to wake up to the realities of a sexist world. But blaming the victims rarely accomplishes anything.

I don't confuse feminists with misandrists, it's just that where I live, the term "feminist" more often refers to the radical kind.Again, there's nothing wrong with "radical" feminism--we just want change faster and more dramatically than most. But remember that radical feminism is only radical in its quest for equality. If someone uses the term "feminist" to apply to anything other than an egalitarian position, you should be quick to correct them.

One very useful way to combat such misconceptions is to persistently "own" the term. If you believe in gender equality, proudly declare yourself a feminist. If someone mistakenly equates feminism with "female superiority," be quick to shoot them down and point to yourself as an example of a feminist. You will turn a few heads, you will change a few minds... and you may also find out who your real friends are.

Usually true feminism is just referred to as "women's rights" around here.While there is nothing inherently wrong with the term "women's rights," I am afraid that on some level it may be part of the problem. It suggests that feminism is all about "getting things" for women, when it is really about changing the world for both men and women. Feminists realize that men are trapped by gender stereotypes as well, so that a thoroughly feminist view of the world ultimately frees men and women alike from a sexist world that many of us--men and women--no longer desire.

Strangely, even though my state always tends to be way too conservative, I've noticed that my peers are heavily influenced by the media and adopt an over-the-top, liberal, "socio-sanctist" attitude. There are too many radical feminists among my fellow students, so I tend to think these people are more common than they really are.It would help if you would discuss some of the specific proposals or doctrines that you consider "radical" or "socio-sanctist." In ignorance of such specifics, it is difficult for me to respond.

I suspect that you are concerned about such things as "speech codes" requiring gender-neutral language, as well as various forms of gender-specific affirmative action. There are, as I have maintained throughout, reasonable feminist objections to such policies, so I will save my counter-arguments for the moment. If you consider yourself genuinely feminist, however--that is, genuinely devoted to sexual equality--my advice to you would be too at least take these proposals seriously. Do not simply dismiss them as "radical" or (worse) as aiming for "female superiority." I do not know any advocate of such policies who espouses such a doctrine.

Rather, try to understand the real concerns that produce people who favor such positions. If you think their solutions to those concerns are inappropriate or counterproductive, try to think of alternatives that would produce better results. Then you can meet with such people with respect in order to discuss the future of feminism--that is the only way progress will happen, not through name-calling and mud-slinging.

The problem with falsely identifying an ideology of "female supremacy" with "extreme feminism" is that it suggests we should be feminist... but not "too" feminist.

It suggests that we should be sympathetic to female demands for equality, but we should be "careful" because we might "go too far."

The problem is that there is no "too far" when it comes to fighting for equality. There is only "not far enough," until men and women are actually equal.

Yes, we should oppose any doctrine that favors women over men, just as we oppose any doctrine that favors men over women. But such doctrines do NOT--cannot--represent a movement for equality "gone too far." They do NOT represent an "extreme" of an egalitarian position.

Attempting to paint them as such can only be an intentional attempt to call the movement for equality itself into question.

__________

If you consider yourself a feminist, look at it this way: think of these "female supremacists" that you so fear. Now ask yourself, "Is this an 'extreme' version of my own ideals as a feminist?" If the answer is "no," then either they are not feminists, or you are not. Take your pick, but you can't have it both ways and still claim to be using the term "feminist" in a consistent way.
EXACTLY.

It hurts my brain that there are so many people who can't grasp this.

If there is anybody who opposes "extreme feminism," I challenge you to write up a list of examples of what "extreme feminism" would push for. Quit with the vague blathering and give concrete, clear, specific examples of what it is you think "extreme feminism" would look like.

I challenge you to write up a list of examples of what "extreme feminism" would push for.

it's not so much what they'd push for, but the fact that they'd be skating a half pipe or bungee jumping while doing the pushing.

it's not so much what they'd push for, but the fact that they'd be skating a half pipe or bungee jumping while doing the pushing.

Cool. Skater chicks have a tendency to be hawt! =)

Shockingly i did not read all umpteen pages in this thread however I have a few thoughts.

The first one is the Mystandrous (spelling) seems to be more and more acceptable in this day and age. Comments like "fucking men, all the same, typical men all stupid" etc etc seem to be more and more common. The flip side of that would be that similar comments made about woment would be totally unacceptable (rightly so).

I don't think these comments mean the "end of man" or anything radical but i do feel that do such behaviour is acceptable. I also believe that If a women was to strike me and I were to hit her back in self defense, I would be the one "in the wrong". Just personally I doubt I could ever hit a woman but to me this is how i see the world changing. I'm not sure if it is moving in the right or wrong way but I personally feel this change.

If I publicly and loudly assert that I am a "feminazi," can you guarantee me that I will never have to put up with being hit on by anybody who finds The Man Show to be quality TV programming?

Ah, now I understand.

Yes, I believe I can state with 100% certainty--not 50/50, not 95%, not even 99%, but absolute 100% certainty--that if you advertise that you are a feminazi, you will never be hit on by any man who finds The Man Show to be quality TV programming. And not only by them, but by any man who has ever enjoyed a single episode of The Man Show.

Now by "hit on" I mean sincere interest. I'm not counting men who might try it on a dare, or who might pretend not to loathe feminazis in order to seduce them, use them, kick them to the curb when they're done with them and then laugh at them ;)

I could almost guarantee that you will never have to put up with being hit on by any man in general, but there does seem to be an irreducible percentage of our sex who are self-hating weaklings or who enjoy being PW'd. So if you're interested in male companionship, or a roll in the hay for that matter, I'm sure you can find it among that group.

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.

Not an insult, merely a statement of fact.

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.

Ah yes, of course. "Feminazi" = "strong willed woman".

Er, no, they're not the same thing. Try again, Dworkin.

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?

I don't care for them to be honest, I don't like feminists either. They don't seem to behave as they should and I would never be in a relationship with one.

I don't care for them to be honest, I don't like feminists either. They don't seem to behave as they should and I would never be in a relationship with one.

You're right. A feminist woman would not put her life in danger just because her husband might beat up a doctor. She also wouldn't be your beck-and-call girl and follow instructions like a puppy. You wouldn't like her at all.

Of course, a feminist (or anyone with any respect for themselves or women in general) wouldn't like you much, either.....

Ah, now I understand.

Yes, I believe I can state with 100% certainty--not 50/50, not 95%, not even 99%, but absolute 100% certainty--that if you advertise that you are a feminazi, you will never be hit on by any man who finds The Man Show to be quality TV programming. And not only by them, but by any man who has ever enjoyed a single episode of The Man Show.

Well that's reason enough for me!


Now by "hit on" I mean sincere interest. I'm not counting men who might try it on a dare, or who might pretend not to loathe feminazis in order to seduce them, use them, kick them to the curb when they're done with them and then laugh at them ;)

Um, can you see how, from my perspective, that's entirely unhelpful, then? I still have to deal with these tasteless creatures talking to me, and I still have to take the time to individually shred whatever slivvers of ego they may still have. That's time I could be using to drink myself stupid or beat the next level of Zelda.


I could almost guarantee that you will never have to put up with being hit on by any man in general, but there does seem to be an irreducible percentage of our sex who are self-hating weaklings or who enjoy being PW'd.

Oh, that much I know is completely false. My male friends are all a bunch of sporting lads who love a good row, and they flock to feminist ladies like bees to honey. I've gotten more dates by being a loud and obnoxious feminist than any other way, in fact! :D

The weird thing is that being a loud obnoxious feminist seems to get the most attention from anti-feminist guys. It's like they just can't handle the thought of a woman who has no interest in their penis...they feel compelled to prove to me that a "real man" will have me begging to submit and do his laundry for him. It's weird. Like they're gluttons for punishment or something.


So if you're interested in male companionship, or a roll in the hay for that matter, I'm sure you can find it among that group.
Why would I bother with that sort, when I could just sleep with witty blokes who have enough spine to deal with me?

Or, for that matter, witty damsels. ;)

How? She didn't use a middle-finger emoticon.

This makes no sense. Was your intent to sound intelligent? If so, you fail.
*is actually male*

While some misandrists may believe that "all men are rapists," or something of the sort, it seems like an unlikely platform for "female supremacy." Whereas female supremacists would, presumably, hold men to a higher standard than women (just as traditional sexism held women to a higher sexual standard than men), the theory that "all men are rapists" suggests that men cannot be blamed for their sexual aggressiveness--that is, after all, how they are made.

While your posts so far have been pretty nonsensical, this is far more so.

So allow me to say...what the fuck? A female supremacist would hold men to a higher standard than women? The hell? The whole idea of an attitude of "supremacy" is that not only are you better, you're CAPABLE of being better.

History has shown repeatedly that supremacy groups tend to treat targets they believe inferior to a LESSER standard, out of the belief that their targets are not capable of being as "good" as they are.

British colonial history of "bringing civilization to the savages" sound even vaguely familiar? White man's burden? We have to help these poor brown people because they're just incapable of doing it themselves.

The idea that a hypothetical female supremacist would hold men to a HIGHER standard is just stupid. Just as "we the white men have the burden to bring civilization to those uncivilized brown folks, because they just can't do it themselves" has been repeated throughout history, "all men are rapists, they just can't help themselves" is easily forseeable comment from someone who holds men inferior.

I don't care for them to be honest, I don't like feminists either. They don't seem to behave as they should and I would never be in a relationship with one.
"As they should"?

And how's that?

Submissive because, as women, they are immediately inferior to any man on the planet and that they should take it to keep the status quo?

Can't say I agree with you at all if you think that's the case.

I don't care for them to be honest, I don't like feminists either. They don't seem to behave as they should and I would never be in a relationship with one.

How should they behave, then?

Oh, that much I know is completely false. My male friends are all a bunch of sporting lads who love a good row, and they flock to feminist ladies like bees to honey. I've gotten more dates by being a loud and obnoxious feminist than any other way, in fact! :D

I've noticed that too among my female feminist friends. My team debate partner, for example, has men literally lining up around the block to get a shot with her, and she is a very big time feminist. The I-Won't-Take-Any-Crap-From-Men kind of feminist.

Coincidently, I'm waiting in this long line myself. ;)

The weird thing is that being a loud obnoxious feminist seems to get the most attention from anti-feminist guys. It's like they just can't handle the thought of a woman who has no interest in their penis...they feel compelled to prove to me that a "real man" will have me begging to submit and do his laundry for him. It's weird. Like they're gluttons for punishment or something.

I think that most men think they need a certain amount of punishment in their lives from women. That's why they put up with a lot of crap quite gladly. I guess it's kind of sexy to find a girl who is as tough or tougher than you.

Why would I bother with that sort, when I could just sleep with witty blokes who have enough spine to deal with me?

Or, for that matter, witty damsels. ;)

:p

"As they should"?

And how's that?

Submissive because, as women, they are immediately inferior to any man on the planet and that they should take it to keep the status quo?

Can't say I agree with you at all if you think that's the case.

Am I the only one who gets the feeling any relationship Soviestan has will involve heavy bondage?

You're right. A feminist woman would not put her life in danger just because her husband might beat up a doctor. She also wouldn't be your beck-and-call girl and follow instructions like a puppy. You wouldn't like her at all.

Of course, a feminist (or anyone with any respect for themselves or women in general) wouldn't like you much, either.....

Inspired post....:D

In truth, I don't really object to moderate feminism, or most such equality issues. Positive discrimination, political correctness and the like are an abhorrence, but ideological equality is gooooooood.

I'd date a feminist as well. Not the feminazis we discuss, but a girl with ambition, drive and resolve is always good.

How should they behave, then?

Presumably, in a variety of domestic roles.:rolleyes:

Am I the only one who gets the feeling any relationship Soviestan has will involve heavy bondage?"

I hope he falls madly in love with a radical feminist who has a dominatrix fetish. That should straighten him out a bit.

Presumably, in a variety of domestic roles.:rolleyes:

Close your eyes and think of Merry Ol' England, my dear. :rolleyes:

I hope he falls madly in love with a radical feminist who has a dominatrix fetish. That should straighten him out a bit.

Literally or metaphorically?:D

I hope he falls madly in love with a radical feminist who has a dominatrix fetish. That should straighten him out a bit.

That'd be pretty funny actually.

Literally or metaphorically?:D

Very funny.

While your posts so far have been pretty nonsensical, this is far more so.

So allow me to say...what the fuck? A female supremacist would hold men to a higher standard than women? The hell? The whole idea of an attitude of "supremacy" is that not only are you better, you're CAPABLE of being better.

History has shown repeatedly that supremacy groups tend to treat targets they believe inferior to a LESSER standard, out of the belief that their targets are not capable of being as "good" as they are.

British colonial history of "bringing civilization to the savages" sound even vaguely familiar? White man's burden? We have to help these poor brown people because they're just incapable of doing it themselves.

The idea that a hypothetical female supremacist would hold men to a HIGHER standard is just stupid. Just as "we the white men have the burden to bring civilization to those uncivilized brown folks, because they just can't do it themselves" has been repeated throughout history, "all men are rapists, they just can't help themselves" is easily forseeable comment from someone who holds men inferior.
Really? Notice that every example you use is not a gender example? Of course this probably only matters if we dont find a consistent divergence in the case of gender examples, from the kinds of examples you chose.

But oh-looky there is a consistent divergence. Why do you think that where males have social and legal superiority it's the females who are held to stricter standards of conduct in their behaviour, demeanor, dress, sexual practises, etc? Do you think this is some bizaare and novel means of giving them extra lee-way? :rolleyes:

So allow me to say...what the fuck? A female supremacist would hold men to a higher standard than women? The hell? The whole idea of an attitude of "supremacy" is that not only are you better, you're CAPABLE of being better.Perhaps I am mistaken in assuming that a "female supremacist" might adopt ideas that parallel the traditional thinking of male sexists. Or perhaps you are unaware that throughout the history of masculine "superiority," women were idealized as "chaste" and "pure"--and they were held to a sexual double-standard that insisted they live up to these ideals even as male sexual promiscuity was an accepted fact of life?

History has shown repeatedly that supremacy groups tend to treat targets they believe inferior to a LESSER standard, out of the belief that their targets are not capable of being as "good" as they are.No, history has shown that supremacy groups tend to claim "rights" for themselves while insisting on "duties" of one sort or another for dominated groups. The attitudes that support this ideology vary: sometimes the "superior" group is idealized, at other times it applies a double-standard that gives a significant degree of moral "slack" to the dominant group.

To figure out which attitude supremacists should hold, you have to identify its actual function in their ideology. But you only deal in vague abstractions, so it is impossible for you to see this.

British colonial history of "bringing civilization to the savages" sound even vaguely familiar? White man's burden? We have to help these poor brown people because they're just incapable of doing it themselves.Yes, and these negative idealizations served a function in legitimating oppression.

But what you fail to admit is that negative idealizations of men serve an ideological function in the oppression of women. This is not speculation: it is so obvious you must be willfully blind not to see it.

The idea that a hypothetical female supremacist would hold men to a HIGHER standard is just stupid.Because male sexists do not hold women to a higher sexual standard than men? Please.

Really? Notice that every example you use is not a gender example? Of course this probably only matters if we dont find a consistent divergence in the case of gender examples, from the kinds of examples you chose.

But oh-looky there is a consistent divergence. Why do you think that where males have social and legal superiority it's the females who are held to stricter standards of conduct in their behaviour, demeanor, dress, sexual practises, etc? Do you think this is some bizaare and novel means of giving them extra lee-way? :rolleyes:


you think gender superioritists are in any way in practice a different breed from the race/religion/ethnicity superioritists whose behavior we have thousands of years of historical analysis for?

That's pretty stupid.

It is not entirely inconsistant or untenable for someone who believed in female superiority to believe that men are incapable of controlling their sexual urges but women are. That's what a superiority attitude MEANS. It means ones belief in the ability to do things better than others. Female supremacy is the belief that women are better than men, and the belief that women are better than men would naturally make the conclusion that women are better at doing things than men. If someone believes men are inferior, it's not at all inconceivable that this person would believe that men have inferior control (or total lack thereof) of their sexual urges.

But fine you want a traditional gender example? Alright.

Through "traditional" american society, before the feminist movement and the more enlightened era, has housework, the staying home and looking after kids, cleaning, cooking and all that been considered as diffcult and demanding as "real work"? Has society traditionally viewed the job of a stay at home parent as difficult as a more "regular" job? Or has it been the view point that housekeeping wasn't as difficult and comparable as a salaried job? That stay at home parents didn't work "as hard" as those who had an "actual job"?

And what gender was expected to stay at home?

In earlier society has the male dominated society held women to a HIGHER standard, expecting them to work HARDER than men, or has the attitude traditionally been "don't worry wife, you stay home and take care of the house, don't worry about supporting the family, I'll go out and get a real job, you just stay here"?

What gender has been considered the sexual aggressor, who is expected to be the one who initiates sex, initiates courtship, who is the one who traditionally proposes marriage? Who has been traditionally seen as the "breadwinner" who goes out and earns an income while the other spouse does not?

Who has traditionally been refered to as "the weaker sex?"

Who, exactly?

And let's look at those roles of women traditionally when they DID work. Nurse? traditionally women. And who did that tradtionally woman nurse assist? A traditionally male doctor.

Secretary? Tradtionally woman. Working for a traditionally male executive. Traditionally female school teacher, but male administrator.

When women did work they were traditionally envisioned in a role subserviant to a male supervisor. In not to llong ago society, when a woman was envisioned working at all, it was in a capacity under a male, where the male made sure she was doing it right.

Consistant divergance my fucking ass. In every single society, EVERY SINGLE ONE that has a power disparity based on supposed superiority that disparity has been maintained by an attitude of the privlidged that they deserve to be in charge because only they can be in charge. They are in charge because they're the best, and thus deserve to be. That's what superiority MEANS. Belief in ones superiority means the belief that one is BETTER, more capable. It's nonsensical to expect someone to believe both in their superiority and hold the "inferior" to a higher standard than they do themselves. To hold someone to a higher standard is implicit recognition that they can do it better than you.

Those savage brown people can't take care of themselves, we have to do it for them. We will remove the jews from our society so they do not pollute our Aryan blood. All those damned niggers are on welfare because they're too lazy to get a job. Women should stay at home, they're not cut out for the working world.

Men are rapists, they just can't help it.

All positions held under one basic principle "I am better than them, therefore I don't expect them to be as good as me".

It is not entirely inconsistant or untenable for someone who believed in female superiority to believe that men are incapable of controlling their sexual urges but women are.No, it's not "entirely inconsistent or untenable" to believe that someone advocating female dominance would believe that men are incapable of controlling their sexual urges but women are. However, one has to ask oneself what the practical result of such a belief would be. In this case, if we believe that men are "incapable" of controlling themselves, then it would be irrational to expect them to, no? Thus, men would remain free to sleep around to the extent that this behavior "cannot" be controlled, and they are therefore excused.

This is, after all, the function this belief has always served.

That's what a superiority attitude MEANS. It means ones belief in the ability to do things better than others.Ah, here we find the real source of our confusion.

Generally speaking, when we talk about a "supremacist" political movement, we mean that a group seeks political, economic, or social dominance over other groups on the basis of an asserted superiority. This superiority, however, only necessarily refers to politically, economically, or socially relevant categories. Thus, for instance, white men claim that they are more "rational" than women or racial minorities, and since reason is a prerequisite for political life white men should have political dominance.

Rarely has a dominant group claimed that they are superior in every conceivable way to the people they dominate. (Nazism may be the exception). Indeed, often asserting certain types of "superiority" for the oppressed class serves the ends of the dominant group.

The example of traditional sexual standards has already been explained, but there are others. Aristotle, for instance, held that slaves were "suited" to manual labor because they had superior bodies but inferior minds. This basic attitude persists into modern racists: many racists still believe that black men are necessarily "more physical" than white men. Hence they are suited to play sports and do manual labor, but not to compete in the corporate workplace or, perhaps, elected office.

Female supremacy is the belief that women are better than men, and the belief that women are better than men would naturally make the conclusion that women are better at doing things than men.Yes, some things, relevant to their particular concerns. If an supposed superiority does not suit their purposes, do you really believe they will persist in it?

But fine you want a traditional gender example? Alright.

Through "traditional" american society, before the feminist movement and the more enlightened era, has housework, the staying home and looking after kids, cleaning, cooking and all that been considered as diffcult and demanding as "real work"?No, but it was also supposed that women were "better" at this kind of work, hence the term "women's work." To this day I hear men assert that they simply do not "see" dirt--as a means to explain the fact that they leave the bulk of the cleaning work to their female partners.

Men believe they are superior when it suits them, and they conveniently claim an inability when it doesn't. Change a diaper? Suddenly these experts of commerce can't figure out which end is up. Do the laundry? Suddenly men can't tell the difference between "colored" and "white."

No, it's not "entirely inconsistent or untenable" to believe that someone advocating female dominance would believe that men are incapable of controlling their sexual urges but women are. However, one has to ask oneself what the practical result of such a belief would be. In this case, if we believe that men are "incapable" of controlling themselves, then it would be irrational to expect them to, no? Thus, men would remain free to sleep around to the extent that this behavior "cannot" be controlled, and they are therefore excused.

To justify the hatred of them?

Duh?

To justify the hatred of them?

Duh?Have you really been reduced to this? :rolleyes:

you think gender superioritists are in any way in practice a different breed from the race/religion/ethnicity superioritists whose behavior we have thousands of years of historical analysis for?
I know so, as would you if you had a clue. Evidently we have a much greater trove of knowledge with regards to practises and behaviours that emerge in the context of 'gender-superiority complexes'. A fact that should be obvious given the ubiquity of gender stratification throughout time and space.

Gender stratification is by it's nature in-group and the categories of people are not seperated from each other in the way they are seperated from 'the other' in the kind of situations you are positing. How one views their mother, wife, daughter, sister that they feel innnately, by virtue of sex, superior to, is not how one views the slave, 'native', 'infidel', 'inferior race', they believe they are superior to.

That's pretty stupid.
As stupid as you might find the fact, it's reality.

It is not entirely inconsistant or untenable for someone who believed in female superiority to believe that men are incapable of controlling their sexual urges but women are.
No one said it was, the point is it's not necessary that they do hold the view you describe and even if they didnt, that doesnt exclude males being held to higher standards. For instance, if males have self-control issues, it might seem sensible to compell them to avoid temptation and impose grave sanctions for any failure to comply with a strict code of conduct, dress, etc (designed to minimise their urges and eliminate opportunities for them to act on potential urges).

That's what a superiority attitude MEANS. It means ones belief in the ability to do things better than others.
No, it is a belief that one is better than others. I'm fairly certain most planation owners who considered themselves vastly superior to their slaves, none the less were not suffering under the dellusion that they would be able to match them out in the fields. On the contrary, the physical strengths of African slaves compared to their white masters, was held out as one aspect of proof that blacks were inherently inferior to whites.

Female supremacy is the belief that women are better than men, and the belief that women are better than men would naturally make the conclusion that women are better at doing things than men.
This is of course a very silly thing to say even granting a complete lack of any historical, anthropological or sociological knowledge. Plenty of male supremists do not for a moment think they are better at toilet cleaning than females, on the contrary, the belief that females are better at and better suited to such tasks than males is very rarely missing from the male-supremist's world-view.

If someone believes men are inferior, it's not at all inconceivable that this person would believe that men have inferior control (or total lack thereof) of their sexual urges.
It's not necessary either, and holding males to a higher standard than females in regards to their sexual conduct is not necessitated or excluded by either possibility.

But fine you want a traditional gender example? Alright.

Through "traditional" american society, before the feminist movement and the more enlightened era, has housework, the staying home and looking after kids, cleaning, cooking and all that been considered as diffcult and demanding as "real work"? Has society traditionally viewed the job of a stay at home parent as difficult as a more "regular" job? Or has it been the view point that housekeeping wasn't as difficult and comparable as a salaried job? That stay at home parents didn't work "as hard" as those who had an "actual job"?
The example doesnt evidence the point either way. The point in contention is the standards to which a subordinate gender would be held relative to the standards to which a dominate gender would be held. Your example is completely off-base either way. The fact is, the females in your example, although in subordinate in the gender stratification, was considered better than males at housework, caring for children and similar tasks and was absolultely held to higher standards than males in regards to these things. All you've really done is show that the gender deemed superior isnt necessarily believed to better at everything, and can be held to higher standards in particular spheres than their supposed superiors.

And what gender was expected to stay at home?
The one that was held to stricter strandards in regards to appearing in public.

In earlier society has the male dominated society held women to a HIGHER standard,
In many regards, absolutely.
expecting them to work HARDER than men,
In many contexts and situations, yes.

or has the attitude traditionally been "don't worry wife, you stay home and take care of the house, don't worry about supporting the family, I'll go out and get a real job, you just stay here"?
No it hasnt.

What gender has been considered the sexual aggressor, who is expected to be the one who initiates sex, initiates courtship, who is the one who traditionally proposes marriage?
The believed to be superior male, because while initiating sexual encounters was deemed fine for a male, females were held to a higher standard in regards to their sexual behaviour. You've completely lost the plot, you are in fact highlighting the greater lee-way males were allowed in their conduct, and the higher standards females were held to in a case where the male was assumed supreme. Well done.

Who has been traditionally seen as the "breadwinner" who goes out and earns an income while the other spouse does not?
By traditionally, do you mean for short spurts within recent time in limited areas as opposed to the far more ubiquitous circumstances in which your question just doesnt make sense?

Who has traditionally been refered to as "the weaker sex?"
The one held to the higher standard of sexual conduct, the one held to the higher standard of public conduct, the one held to the higher standard of having to obey, please and suffer the physical displeasure of the other.

Who, exactly?

And let's look at those roles of women traditionally when they DID work. Nurse? traditionally women. And who did that tradtionally woman nurse assist? A traditionally male doctor.
And who was held to the standards of the other? Mmm, that's right, the presumed superior male doctors were not held to the standards of the nurses, but the nurses most certainly had to adhere to whatever standards any passing doctor imposed....think about it.

Secretary? Tradtionally woman. Working for a traditionally male executive. Traditionally female school teacher, but male administrator.
And again, the secretary meets the standards of the executive without imposing any in return, same again re teachers and principals. You are doing a great job of providing examples in which the gender deemed inferior is held to standards that the supposed superior group is not held to.

When women did work they were traditionally envisioned in a role subserviant to a male supervisor. In not to llong ago society, when a woman was envisioned working at all, it was in a capacity under a male, where the male made sure she was doing it right.
No kidding. The female was required to meet the standards imposed on her by her superior while no such standards were imposed by the female subordinate on the male....in another words the female was being held to standards that didnt apply to the male.

Consistant divergance my fucking ass. In every single society, EVERY SINGLE ONE that has a power disparity based on supposed superiority that disparity has been maintained by an attitude of the privlidged that they deserve to be in charge because only they can be in charge.
Nothing I have stated is contrary to this.

They are in charge because they're the best, and thus deserve to be. That's what superiority MEANS.
It doesnt mean that the superior group are deemed better at everything than the other. It doent tell us which group is held to which standards, or how that correlates to supposed comparitive strengths, weaknesses, skills and propensities.

Belief in ones superiority means the belief that one is BETTER, more capable.
So do you contend that the average male supremisist thinks males are better at cleaning toilets and changing poo-filled nappies than females? Do you contend that plantation owners believed that white folk could work as long, as hard, produce as much while living in the same conditions as their slaves, or maybe you think this means the slave owners actually thought the slaves were superior to them?

It's nonsensical to expect someone to believe both in their superiority and hold the "inferior" to a higher standard than they do themselves.
Nonsense or not, it is well-evidenced throughout history.
Do you really think that in certain strict interpretations of Islam women are held to a higher dress standard, higher standard of conduct than any male, in addition to being held to whatever standard any of thier close male relatives impose on them, because they are deemed superior to males? Think about it.

To hold someone to a higher standard is implicit recognition that they can do it better than you.
No. It is not impossible, but far from necessaryily so. In many cases, holding someone to a higher standard than oneself is a direct result of having authority over them - authority that stems for instance from being their superior. Think about it.

Those savage brown people can't take care of themselves, we have to do it for them. We will remove the jews from our society so they do not pollute our Aryan blood. All those damned niggers are on welfare because they're too lazy to get a job. Women should stay at home, they're not cut out for the working world.
All kinds of standards were imposed by white people on the 'savage brown people' which the white peole didnt apply to themselves, and the 'savage brown people' didnt get to impose any standards in return. I can assure you that while it was perfectly fine for the white person to talk rudely at, cuss or physically abuse the 'savage brown people' they imposed their authority on, vice versa was a grave and punishable offence. "What was a crime for the plantation master was definately a crime for the slave, but not all that was a crime for the slave was a crime for the plantation master. Throughout the history of white-authority being imposed on 'non-whites' the standards applied to non-whites were harsher.
As for the case of the attempted genocide of the Jewish people, that is absurd. That was not a case of a one group asserting superiority on another group intended to form part of the social structure of the superior group. What standards do you impose on extinct people? Genocide is about killing a group off, not imposing standards on it.
As for your ideas about women and work, it is a rarity and even an aberrance for it to be a widespread practise in a society that one gender earns money outside the home while the other only attends to housework within it. Even so, this indicates nothing about the standards each was being held to.

Men are rapists, they just can't help it.
Again, taking this veiw wouldnt require that one not hold men to higher standards in regards to their conduct, dress, location, and sexual practises. In fact the inability of men to control themselves could be easily construed as justifying the imposition of strict and harshly enforced standards not applicable to females, the point being that since females can control themselves such standards are unnecessary in their case.

All positions held under one basic principle "I am better than them, therefore I don't expect them to be as good as me".
The notion is far more likely to be "I am better than you, therefore I will impose standards on you that dont apply to me both because I have the right to impose authority by virtue of my superiority and because your inferiority requires that you to be held to far stricter standards if you are not to cause or get into trouble."

One very useful way to combat such misconceptions is to persistently "own" the term. If you believe in gender equality, proudly declare yourself a feminist. If someone mistakenly equates feminism with "female superiority," be quick to shoot them down and point to yourself as an example of a feminist. You will turn a few heads, you will change a few minds... and you may also find out who your real friends are.

It's just that most of my peers do think they're feminists. My friend Harri said he thought that women should dominate over men, and I scoffed simply, "I think we should be equal." It shut him up pretty fast, but the point was clear. Most feminists in my region believe in female supremacy and misandry. That's why I am reluctant to use the term synonymously with "equalitarianism."

While there is nothing inherently wrong with the term "women's rights," I am afraid that on some level it may be part of the problem. It suggests that feminism is all about "getting things" for women, when it is really about changing the world for both men and women. Feminists realize that men are trapped by gender stereotypes as well, so that a thoroughly feminist view of the world ultimately frees men and women alike from a sexist world that many of us--men and women--no longer desire.

I guess I've never met a true feminist then. (Except perhaps myself and my friend Forrest.)

It would help if you would discuss some of the specific proposals or doctrines that you consider "radical" or "socio-sanctist." In ignorance of such specifics, it is difficult for me to respond.

I suspect that you are concerned about such things as "speech codes" requiring gender-neutral language, as well as various forms of gender-specific affirmative action. There are, as I have maintained throughout, reasonable feminist objections to such policies, so I will save my counter-arguments for the moment. If you consider yourself genuinely feminist, however--that is, genuinely devoted to sexual equality--my advice to you would be too at least take these proposals seriously. Do not simply dismiss them as "radical" or (worse) as aiming for "female superiority." I do not know any advocate of such policies who espouses such a doctrine.

Rather, try to understand the real concerns that produce people who favor such positions. If you think their solutions to those concerns are inappropriate or counterproductive, try to think of alternatives that would produce better results. Then you can meet with such people with respect in order to discuss the future of feminism--that is the only way progress will happen, not through name-calling and mud-slinging.

The policies I most disagree with are the ones proposed by so-called "feminists" that completely contradict the concept of gender equality. I agree with someone else on here who said "we are equal; we are not equivalent." When I say "socio-sanctist," I am referring to people who believe it is wrong to say "Merry Christmas" because it "offends" non-Christians, or people who jump to defend women or minorities who have been victimised but never care an iota for men and whites because they see them as the predators. There's an editorialist in our state (who, interestingly enough, is conservative), who once made a cartoon depicting the first amendment to the American constitution. In the first panel, an American flag was waving under the caption, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." In the second panel, there was a milk carton with a "missing person" alert on it which read, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It was a satire on the "Merry Christmas" thing, but I think it applies to racism and sexism as well.

What about attitudes and policies against pornography as a whole?

How does that reinforce traditional male stereotypes?

The objective of the anti-porn feminists is not to force men to fulfill the male stereotypes, but to protest the sexist stereotyping of WOMEN as sexual objects.

You may disagree over the extent to which pornography is actually sexist; for what it's worth I tend to agree with you, though obviously it varies. But the fact remains that the intended objective here is perfectly in line with the feminist goals of sexual equality and non-stereotyping - for males and for females.

Emphasis mine. I didn't say it did.

True, but you used it in reply to a question asking you to find examples of that - since after all the original issue, if I recall correctly, was a supposed feminist failure to oppose the stereotyping of men.

By the way, whether or not someone's a "sexual object" isn't an issue of stereotyping at all,

Yes, it is - it's a reflection of the sexist stereotype of women as sexually subordinate to men.

You say anti-porn feminists aren't trying to force men to fulfill male stereotypes, and I know that... what I'm referring to more so is the apparent stereotyping of porn and/or its fans...

The issue is not so much how sexist the viewers of pornography are as it is how sexist pornography itself tends to be. Indeed, one of the concerns is that the sexual objectification in pornography might encourage its viewers to sexually objectify women elsewhere.

So how exactly is porn sexist against women in itself?

I don't believe that most anti-porn feminists maintain that pornography in and of itself is sexist; rather, they argue that pornography in our society overwhelmingly portrays females in sexist ways. Nor are all feminists anti-porn.

I don't really disagree with you, though I have no strong stance on this question; my main point is simply that it doesn't amount to the "reverse sexism" that is supposed to be such a threat.

It's just that most of my peers do think they're feminists. My friend Harri said he thought that women should dominate over men, and I scoffed simply, "I think we should be equal."Given that your friend is male, one suspects (as best one can at a distance) that his remark may have been somewhat tongue-in-cheek... but, who knows?

It shut him up pretty fast, but the point was clear. Most feminists in my region believe in female supremacy and misandry.Then they are not feminists and you should tell them so. When you do, remember that you will be the one with a broad, relatively successful international movement at your back. More importantly, you will be using the term correctly, and you will be contributing materially to the feminist movement for equality by resisting attempts to give it a bad name.

The policies I most disagree with are the ones proposed by so-called "feminists" that completely contradict the concept of gender equality.You need to be specific here, and again it will help if you admit that other feminists are (like yourself) well-meaning individuals who intend to promote an egalitarian society. You may disagree with their means, but if so you need to be specific so we can have a discussion about those means rather than about vague generalizations.

I agree with someone else on here who said "we are equal; we are not equivalent."The implication of that statement is usually that you think an egalitarian society will, nevertheless, necessarily treat men and women "differently." This may be a very sensible point, since men and women do have immutable physical differences which may require, among other things, different approaches to medicine, working conditions, or other factors susceptible to social control. On the other hand, the "equal, not equivalent" assertion is often used in a reactionary way to maintain wholly separate fields of "men's work" and "women's work," or otherwise to attack legitimate feminist goals.

If you want to evaluate specific proposals or policies, please name them. Otherwise, "equal not equivalent" does little to describe your real position.

When I say "socio-sanctist," I am referring to people who believe it is wrong to say "Merry Christmas" because it "offends" non-Christians,If you are referring to restrictions on religious displays in government buildings, then you have to admit that there is a legitimate argument here--and it is not about "offense," it is about sending a message that a supposedly religion-neutral government actually prefers one religion to others, behavior explicitly (and strongly) prohibited by the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. While you might make an argument that the phrase "Merry Christmas" is relatively innocuous, it is unfair to characterize your opponents as concerned merely with "offense."

On the other hand, perhaps you are referring to the complaints in recent years vis-a-vis private businesses such as Wal-Mart or Target. Here I would probably agree (even as an atheist) that the issue has been blown out of all proportion. But you need to be specific.

or people who jump to defend women or minorities who have been victimised but never care an iota for men and whites because they see them as the predators.Again, this strikes me as a perception colored more by reactionary propaganda about feminists than by the proposals of feminists themselves. But, again, it would help if we could talk about specific kinds of victimizations.

Perhaps you are thinking of spousal abuse. Truly, feminists have been for a long time waging a war against men's abuse of women (and children) in the home, and only recently are we waking up to the fact that women often abuse men (and children) also. But we should be quick to point out that men have kept this "secret" so well precisely because of traditional gender stereotypes. Indeed, male victims have only felt comfortable coming forward because feminism has a) given men and women greater room to wiggle free of oppressive gender roles; and b) feminism has insisted that government takes seriously the possibility of a crime occurring in the private sphere of the home.

Do many feminists still believe that man-on-woman abuse is the greater problem? Certainly, and perhaps with some justification. While some critics cite studies claiming that women abuse men just as often as men abuse women, the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence is that men are still disproportionately the abusers.

In any case, I am not aware of any feminists who turn a blind eye to male victims "because they see them as the predators." Feminists have favored government intervention into abusive relationships regardless of who is the aggressor, and to reiterate the central point: the social and ideological framework that silences male victims is decidedly anti-feminist. It is directly because of the feminist movement that male victims have started to come forward.

There's an editorialist in our state (who, interestingly enough, is conservative), who once made a cartoon depicting the first amendment to the American constitution. In the first panel, an American flag was waving under the caption, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." In the second panel, there was a milk carton with a "missing person" alert on it which read, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It was a satire on the "Merry Christmas" thing, but I think it applies to racism and sexism as well.So you're saying that the government should not support racism or sexism, but that feminists shouldn't care if individuals remain committed racists and sexists? If only it were that easy!!

Feminism necessarily demands a cultural as well as a political and economic revolution. This means that individual men and women must change their behaviors and their attitudes if we are going to live in real freedom.

... not meaning to say you could even be so sure that it didn't, but that's different, because I wasn't even calling you psychic, if anything it's closer to saying that you weren't.Now, you're about to write an entire paragraph "explaining" the irony of your question, which is precisely what I was pointing out in my tongue-in-cheek response. You like to skim-read other people's posts, don't you? That's not a very good way to get at their meaning.

He/she said they "claim to be feminists". He/she DID NOT actually say they were feminists.Right, and the entire point of my original post was to argue that this was his subtext. If he had come right out and said it, I would hardly have needed a whole post to offer my between-the-lines interpretation.

We are involved, necessarily, in the interpretation of texts, whether spoken or written. Some are composed primarily for the purpose of direct, honest communication. Others are composed more for rhetorical effect. I suggest you make an effort to learn the difference.

*snip* Your history of "feminist" posts. *snip*Your personal qualifications as a feminist, whatever their merits, have absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand--namely, NB's own dubious feminist credentials.

In these cases, I consider the main thing I found offensive about your post similar to one of the worst (albeit not quite the worst) problems with sexism; Both seem to be too quick to judge people, both apparently without looking carefully enough at those who are being judged.I did not judge NB quickly. Indeed, as you can see I made a very careful, line-by-line analysis of his written work. Considering that scholars have pulled much, much more from the tiny fragments of ancient Greek philosophers, I actually had a great deal of material to work with!

Now for a more recent example... how about, let's say, the last post I made just before making the one you were responding to?

... *snip* ...

As recently as that... the very post close before the one where I challenged your accusation, towards NV, of being sexist...I'm sorry, I just don't see the relevance of your posts to my analysis of NB. :confused:

...what the hell? Ok so people can be very sexist without making sexist comments... but this doesn't mean that those who don't make sexist comments should necessarily be assumed to be sexist.No, that would be absurd: I would be assuming that everyone is necessarily sexist. While there may be some merit to the theoretical position that within a sexist society no one can claim to be completely free of internalized sexist attitudes, clearly the intention of my remarks was not to claim that NB should be "assumed" to be sexist on the basis of an abstract principle. Rather, I offered an analysis of NB's text comparing it to the popular rhetoric of feminism's most active critics.

If it helps you, imagine my method as this: I line up rhetorically similar statements of people I know to be sexists, and I compare them to NB's. Finding a strong similarity, I feel comfortable classifying NB's remarks as sufficiently like them to suspect that he is making a very sexist point dressed up in politically correct language.

Is interpretation not allowed such a methodology?

Emphasis mine... wouldn't that still technically qualify as an assumption?Not really. To assume is to take for granted. I do not take it for granted that NB is a sexist: rather, I put it forward as a hypothesis--a hypothesis which I proceed to defend through a careful analysis of his work. As with any hypothesis, I remain open to its being disproved: if NB would respond to me or continue to post in the thread, you might point to evidence that my analysis is incorrect. But so far he has not responded to my assertions, so I am left to make a judgment based on the evidence at hand.

What insults? What specific quotes are you referring to, and what exactly about them do you consider evidence of sexism? Be specific...I was quite specific the first time, and I see no reason to completely rehash that post here. As one example, I recall that he made vague assertions of "poor research" in feminist theorizing.

Fair enough. I probably got the wrong impression because my standards are different; I tend to usually say "he/she" though granted often forget to.I habitually say "he/she" when the gender of a person is unknown or when making abstract statements that are neutral with respect to gender. When I feel I have a good reason to believe I can predict a person's gender, however, I do not hesitate to do so; with the proviso that this is also, obviously, a hypothesis subject to falsification.

So you're judging by personal experience more so than by worldly understanding? In this case, you seem to associate his/her attitude with a gender... wouldn't that be at least somewhat sexist?If it were, then political scientists should just put down our pens and give up on doing generalizable social research. It may be that at some point in the future attitudes will not predict (with a reasonable degree of accuracy) the gender of the person holding them, but for the time-being it is reasonable to recognize empirical correlations between the two. This may not be sufficient grounds to make a prediction on any single attitude (although sometimes it is, depending on the strength of the correlation), but in this case I pointed to several indicators of probable maleness.

... what if NV meant more so to start a debate than necessarily to be one of the main debaters in it?Given that he did not provide any particular issues to debate, but only vague generalizations and insults, my suspicion is that he did not mean to start a "debate" at all. The purpose of his rhetoric is, on my analysis, rather more to silence debate by mustering prejudice against his ideological opponents. This is, after all, the usual rhetorical purpose served by a term like "feminazi"--by associating a legitimate political ideology (feminism) with something as unthinkably repulsive as Nazism, the rhetorician hopes to encourage his audience to unreflectively reject the arguments of (at least some) actual feminists.

*snip*...need I mention specifc examples, or have you noticed this as well?You should know by now that I always need specific examples. You use the term "reverse sexism" at least five times in that paragraph, but I don't know what you're attacking unless you tell me. It's very easy to condemn "reverse sexism" because whatever it is, if it's "sexism" we know it must be bad.

What about attitudes and policies against pornography as a whole?First of all, why do you think such policies oppress men in particular, if they oppress anyone at all? Surely there are not feminists out there who think that women should be allowed to consume pornography, but not men!! No, rather their argument appears to be that there is something wrong with pornography per se. Whether they are right or wrong, I'm not sure how such a view could be seen as oppressive toward men.

I would also like to note that while feminists are divided on the issue of pornography--some think it should be banned, others regard it as a civil liberties issue, and some even believe that it is a good thing--sexist conservatism seems to be more united in its opposition to pornography: apparently, women belong in the kitchen, not making sex tapes.

Ok, granted, this doesn't oppress men in the same way, let alone to the same extent, I appreciate that... but I don't think porn deserves to be as hated by feminism as it seems to be, though granted things aren't always as they seem...I think that if you actually seek out feminist views on porn, you will find that they are much more nuanced and interesting than the reactionary conservative response that sees explicit sex as inherently immoral. Yes, many feminists criticize pornography, but usually you will find that their criticisms are specific to particular content or industry practices. For instance, many feminists complain that most contemporary pornography objectifies women in the way it scripts and films sex acts: they envision a "feminist" porn which would be more empowering to women--and, in fact, they have gone about producing it. I happen to own some feminist pornography and (as it happens) my feminist girlfriend and I actually found each other, in part, through a shared interest in such feminist attempts to redeem pornography.

Other feminists criticize pornography not so much on the basis of its content but because they believe the porn industry objectively victimizes vulnerable young women. Indeed, many feminists argue that the solution is not to attempt an inevitably ineffectual ban on pornography, but rather to insist on increased transparency in the industry and improved government oversight.

Then again there are other nuanced critiques of porn, such as Naomi Wolf's argument that porn does not (as many have argued) "whet men's appetites" in such a way that pornography fans run around looking for a chance to coerce a real woman into similar sexual activities... but rather that porn "turns men off" to the real thing by presenting unrealistic (and usually unattainable) images of sex.

Where does any of this oppress men? I'm not sure. Perhaps you could be more specific. Even if you are referring to some feminists who would ban pornography entirely, surely they are no more oppressive toward men than toward women... and surely they are no more oppressive toward men than sexist conservatives who demand the same thing? In any case, the intention of such feminist critics is not to oppress anyone--they believe that such a policy would increase sexual equality overall, and while you may criticize this view as mistaken or counterproductive, you can hardly call the intent "oppressive."

By the way, you took your sample out of context as well.No, I chose to emphasize the one point in the article that referred to objective, generalizable facts.

The article also says that SOME feminists have expressed "guarded sympathy" for female paedophiles...Actually, as I recall the article provided an example of one feminist who expressed guarded sympathy for a particular woman guilty of statutory rape. No doubt there were many non-feminists who expressed even greater sympathy (since the view that a woman cannot victimize a young man is a traditionally sexist opinion), and no doubt there were many more feminists who disagreed.

Perhaps more importantly, it may be that this particular feminist is also sympathetic toward some cases of male-perpetrated statutory rape. We don't know, because the article did not cite her general view on the crime of statutory rape, but only her specific judgment of a particular convict.

The article as a whole made the same logical error with respect to its comparisons in general. It compared the sentence of an individual male offender with an individual female offender... but this tells us NOTHING about general trends. NOTHING. See? The only general trend that it mentions is the once I cited, namely that the sex stereotypes involved are held more by traditional sexists than by feminists. That is the only generalized fact in the entire article.

Individual sentences vary widely, depending both on the facts of the case and the sympathies of particular judges. Except for a few radical (usually conservative) extremists, most people are willing to admit that there is a difference between adult-adolescent romantic entanglements and, say, Internet predators seeking out encounters with teenagers. Legally minors may not be able to "consent," but realistically we can still distinguish between "predatory" and "non-predatory" statutory rape.

Is it a problem that female-perpetrated statutory rape is more likely to be assumed non-predatory even when the facts do not bear this out? Yes. Absolutely. But feminists have done far more to dismantle this assumption than they have done to perpetuate it. Indeed, in my experience the more "radical" the feminist, the more he/she cares about breaking these ideas down. I do not know any radical feminists who attempt to perpetuate such notions.

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

I live with one: my mother.

*I'm 16 BTW*

Am I the only one who hates it when all the posts in a thread become long-winded microessays?

Am I the only one who hates it when all the posts in a thread become long-winded microessays?

No, not at all.

I'd much prefer short, to-the-point bits of info as opposed to dissertation-worthy material.

Edit: I generally just glance over the micro-essays, and wait for someone to reply to them in a slightly more...brief manner.

I live with one: my mother.

*I'm 16 BTW*Would you perhaps care to elaborate on what beliefs or behaviors of your mother serve to define her as one of "them"?

Considering the personal tensions between the average sixteen-year-old and her/his mother, it is a little difficult to feel confident that your evaluation is sufficiently objective to mean anything... unless, that is, you tell us exactly what you mean.

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?


No, not really, Communism is at least *supposed* to be equal. Total equality. Total forced equality. They are obviously not that, so the facist/Nazi ideals go closer to that in which they desire.

the facist/Nazi ideals go closer to that in which they desire.

What, specifically, is it that "they" desire?

What, specifically, is it that "they" desire?

Hitler.

Hitler.

I meant the alleged "Feminazis."

I'm well aware that not everyone on the Internet is genuine in their beliefs. However, at some point in time we should be willing to take someone's word for something.You're building a straw man.

Of course we should be willing to take "someone's" word for "something." In fact, we should be willing to take people at their word most of the time. This is the principle I have been urging with respect to feminists who stress a seemingly radical or contradictory point: rather than accuse them of being "feminazis" who want to dominate men, take them at their word when they say they are seeking equality and then you can have a respectful discussion about your mutual end (equality) and the best means to achieve it.

Actually, your accusations against me vis-a-vis my read on NB stress the opposite extreme: you seem to be saying that we cannot tell dishonesty when we see it, so that we should just take everyone at her/his word. But there are ways to "spot" a liar. They are not perfect: many people get away with dishonesty undetected, and occasionally we may get a false positive--someone we think is lying, but who really tells the truth.

Still, to claim that we should not put some faith in our ability to detect deception is to assert that when we think someone is lying we are only right about half of the time--that is, about as much as we would be if we were guessing randomly. The people we think are lying actually lie about as much as the people we think are NOT lying. That would be surprising indeed.


What? I never even claimed to be a feminist. In fact, in one of the posts I linked to, I mentioned that I thought feminism referred to the belief that women are oppressed more so than men...Feminists seek gender-equality, believing that historically society has excluded and subjugated women. The movement toward gender-equality has been one that attempts to inject the feminine into accounts of public life, to find ways to make women the equals of men in every sphere of life.

Ironically--and this may be what you don't understand--even the stereotypes and policies that disadvantage men are part of the ideology of a traditional sexism instituted for the oppression of women.

Consider the example of gender disparities in punishments for statutory rape. As already noted, until feminism began to deconstruct this disparity, it was not a crime at all for a woman to have a sexual relationship with a minor male. Why? Because masculinity was constructed as aggressive, especially sexually; while femininity was constructed in the opposite way as submissive--especially sexually. Why these particular constructions? Surely not because they disadvantage masculine sexual predators! No, it was because men were supposed to be aggressive and women were supposed to be submissive as part of the oppression of women. The ideological system simply could not permit public deviations from this norm, so that a man simply could not be victimized by a woman.

It should not be surprising that at least some men need to pay a price for the oppression of women as a class. Oppressors must often bear certain costs of their dominance. Consider the case of an imperial power that conquers foreign territory: the citizens must support an occupying army, meaning some of them may fight and die to support their nation's dominance. Is it at all unlikely that some of the citizens will protest their oppression by their own government? Indeed, might they not wonder why so many self-declared progressives are concerned about the oppression of a foreign territory when they are being oppressed themselves?

What such protesters fail to realize is that the fight to liberate their own country from itself is the same fight as the one to liberate their subjects. In other words, the best way to end their own slavery is to oppose their country's imperial dominance.

Similarly, the best way to fight the male disadvantages of male dominance is to fight to end women's oppression. That is, the best way to fight for gender-equality for everyone is to proclaim oneself a feminist.

I thought feminism as a word referred to either that or women's rights... if neither, then why do they call it feminism?I just answered that. Feminism is the movement for gender equality.

In terms of gender equality in general, wouldn't "gender egalitarianism" (SP?) be a better name for it?If you treat words as mere abstractions, then yes. But when you start thinking in terms of historical movements, you realize that "gender egalitarianism" is too abstract in the same way that a "color-blind" public policy is too abstract to overcome racism. It gives us no way to diagnose race problems, no "lens" through which to see those aspects of our society and our ideology that were racist without our even knowing it. The same is true of "gender egalitarianism"--it proclaims a noble abstract ideal, but what does it tell us to do?

Of course, it can answer some kinds of problems. It takes a very legalistic view to equality: we wait for issues to arise, and then we can apply the "gender equal" rule to figure out what the best resolution should be. This is precisely how courts operate.

The problem is that if we just wait for issues to arise, they never will. Some aspects of sexism are so ingrained in our culture that unless we know how to look for them, we will never find them.

As I have already shown, the disadvantages for men of traditional sexism only exist for the sake of oppressing women. This gives us a way to look for them where we might not have expected to find them: by analyzing and overcoming women's oppression, we find that we liberate men in the process.

This sounds abstract, but it is quite concrete historically: again, it was feminism--the "women's movement"--that made female-perpetrated statutory rape a crime.

Doesn't seem very careful to me. NB complained about individuals who seem to regard men as "inherently evil rapists" and from this you seem to interpret that he means to complain about people who don't like NB's supposed sexism?Yes, by the method of comparison already described. Finding in general that when the "feminazi" diatribe has certain features--e.g. vague generalizations without any specific complaints--it is made by a certain kind of person, I concluded that NB's post was very, very likely to be one of them.

If someone said something that was similar, in tone, to a Hitler speech, does that mean that they're trying to advocate a fascist approach?Not by itself, but think of it this way: would a speech similar in tone to a Hitler speech be more or less likely than a speech dissimilar in tone to actually advocate fascism? It is an empirical indicator: not every speech similar in tone to Hitler's will be a fascist speech, but I am reasonable to suspect that a Hitleresque speech is fascist.

You're saying something without being completely sure if it's true. However evident it may seem, TECHNICALLY it's an assumption.No, there is TECHNICALLY a difference between an assumption and a hypothesis, which you ignore. When I make an assumption, I take it for granted: I say, "let's suppose X," and then we proceed in discussion as if we knew that X were true.

When I put forth a hypothesis, I cannot be sure that it is true. If it turns out to be false, I will accept that. However, I will put forth evidence to test my hypothesis: in this case I will compare a text to other, similar texts; or I will use any variety of interpretive methods to attempt to make my case.

An assumption is purely argumentative, while a hypothesis is more scientific in nature.

That said, even though NB's post albeit seems to have a rather accusing tone, yours seems to as well... though if your tone was in retaliation to NB's, I guess it isn't really hypocrisy...Exactly. Notice that you are presenting a hypothesis: my tone was accusing because I was attacking NB's post, which is precisely what I said I was doing. The data that I set out to explain was the fact that aspects of NB's tone DID NOT comport well with his stated purpose; I put forward the hypothesis that this was because he was not being completely straight-forward, and I mustered evidence for this hypothesis by providing an interpretation of his post that better explain its tone and devices.

... what? THAT'S the goal of the term feminazi? I didn't think it was supposed to associate feminism itself with fascism at all!As others have pointed out, it was coined by the most vocal opponents of mainstream feminism. It's effect is usually to do so, at any rate, and it is strange for supposed feminists to persist in using a term that tends to prejudice people against feminism.

I figured "feminazi" referred to the pretentiousness and/or simultaneous extremism of Nazis. While I'm by no means a religious person, I do believe that often looking back many have thought of the Nazis as being religious extremists who weren't really religious... I thought that's what the term feminazis was supposed to mean... feminist extremists who aren't really feminists.Well, that would explain some of the confusion. But you're trying to make logical sense of a word that was never meant to appeal to reason.

To be fair, I haven't heard much of the term within context so I guess I wouldn't be an expert on what it meant... but the fact that it was a different word than "feminist" made me assume that it was supposed to actually DISTANCE "feminists" from "feminazis".Indeed, people who use the term often claim they are using the term in this way--that is what makes it so rhetorically appealing. But when you analyze how they actually use the word, you discover that they never give us any way to tell the difference--they never name the specific proposals of "feminazis". And if there is no way to tell the difference, then operationally they mean the same thing.

See, the problem is not just leftover stereotypes from the past that weren't addressed, though I do agree that's part of the problem. The problem could also have a bit to do with collective retaliation... getting back at a group for the historical direction of discrimination.If you cannot tell me what specific proposals would accomplish this "retaliation," then I must persist in my belief that it is really a collective guilt-fantasy on the part of people who still working out their own relationship to sexism. It makes perfect sense that the guilt people experience due to their own participation in sexism should manifest itself as a fear of punishment.

However, problems with attacking pornography as a whole aside, even when it comes to pornography with a questionable portrayal of women, this doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually trying to make people think of women as such.That's what is so nice about ingrained sexism: you don't have to "try" to perpetuate it, you do it without thinking. The pornographers insist that they are only responding to demand, but the problem is that demand in a sexist society is shaped by sexism.

Sometimes portraying girls, as, let's say, really wanting to give boys blow jobs, would make it more exciting, more so than send that message.Yes, but part of the question that feminists ask is why boys find some things exciting and girls don't; or vice-versa. I recently read an article examining the reasons that men like pornography and women (in general) don't; and the author concluded that women do have "pornography," we just don't recognize it as such. Women are much more likely to read "romance" novels which are less sexually explicit than "male" pornography, but which women read to "get themselves excited" or to enjoy erotic fantasy.

Now, is this difference in taste when it comes to the sexual imagination innate to our sexuality, or is it structured by a sexist society? That's still more or less an open question, but a preponderance of the evidence points rather strongly toward sexist society as the most important value.

Actually, at this point in time I can't help but be convinced. This is probably because of your comments about the term "feminazi"... see above...I had hoped we might be coming together, because you seemed reasonable in your own views--though still, I think, a bit unreasonable in your passionate defense of NB. ;)

By the way, did NB stay around and post after his original post or did he or she just post and leave?As far as I can recall, he just left.

I think some men are just ashamed of having fanstasies involving a dominatrix. Or two. ;)

I meant the alleged "Feminazis."

I think he did too. He means something incredibly obvious: That feminazis have a deep desire for the long, erect, member of Adolf Hitler. The long, erect, jui-

I'm going to stop now.

I think some men are just ashamed of having fanstasies involving a dominatrix. Or two. ;)

Or twenty.

*Whistles innocently*

I meant the alleged "Feminazis."
They wouldn't be very good Nazis if they didn't like Hitler, now, would they?

Or maybe one of the Strasser brothers, I suppose, although one of them quit the party, and one of them was killed in the Night of the Long Knives, I suppose. So they weren't very good Nazis.

Urmm although if they're Feminazis, Goebell's wife would be a good example.

You're building a straw man.

:D Hay is building a straw man

Then they are not feminists and you should tell them so. When you do, remember that you will be the one with a broad, relatively successful international movement at your back. More importantly, you will be using the term correctly, and you will be contributing materially to the feminist movement for equality by resisting attempts to give it a bad name.

Yes. (I'm autistic; I don't know how to word agreement with a command.)

You need to be specific here, and again it will help if you admit that other feminists are (like yourself) well-meaning individuals who intend to promote an egalitarian society. You may disagree with their means, but if so you need to be specific so we can have a discussion about those means rather than about vague generalizations.

I put the word feminist in quotation marks to indicate that they are not true feminists.

As for the specifics you keep asking for, I must profess I've always been bad at giving examples. The best I can do is say something along the lines of "If a woman did this thing nobody would be allowed to say anything bad about it, but if a man did the same thing everybody would get mad." Masturbation and homosexuality are the first things that come to mind, even though I know a lot of people condemn both acts regardless of the gender of the one who does them. I suppose a better example would be employment. Even if a woman is an incompetent worker, it is a bad no-no to fire her, yet a boss will not hesitate to fire an unsatisfactory male employee. Unfortunately, I don't even know where I could find statistics to back up that claim. It's just the impression I am getting, I guess.

The implication of that statement is usually that you think an egalitarian society will, nevertheless, necessarily treat men and women "differently." This may be a very sensible point, since men and women do have immutable physical differences which may require, among other things, different approaches to medicine, working conditions, or other factors susceptible to social control. On the other hand, the "equal, not equivalent" assertion is often used in a reactionary way to maintain wholly separate fields of "men's work" and "women's work," or otherwise to attack legitimate feminist goals.

Hmmm.... Okay, "equal, not equivalent" applies more to racism than sexism, I suppose. (Different people have different religions, and all should be allowed to practise these religions, and that's why I oppose reluctance to say "Merry Christmas.") It's sorta out of place when applied to sexism, especially considering my belief that anyone can do anything if they set their mind to it. You know what, forget I said it.

If you are referring to restrictions on religious displays in government buildings, then you have to admit that there is a legitimate argument here--and it is not about "offense," it is about sending a message that a supposedly religion-neutral government actually prefers one religion to others, behavior explicitly (and strongly) prohibited by the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. While you might make an argument that the phrase "Merry Christmas" is relatively innocuous, it is unfair to characterize your opponents as concerned merely with "offense."

On the other hand, perhaps you are referring to the complaints in recent years vis-a-vis private businesses such as Wal-Mart or Target. Here I would probably agree (even as an atheist) that the issue has been blown out of all proportion. But you need to be specific.

I am referring to corporate neutrality. If you want to be religiously neutral, you do not ban "Merry Christmas." You keep "Merry Christmas" and add "Happy Channukah" (and other such holidays). It's better to pander to all religions than to refuse to acknowledge one.

Again, this strikes me as a perception colored more by reactionary propaganda about feminists than by the proposals of feminists themselves. But, again, it would help if we could talk about specific kinds of victimizations.

Perhaps you are thinking of spousal abuse. Truly, feminists have been for a long time waging a war against men's abuse of women (and children) in the home, and only recently are we waking up to the fact that women often abuse men (and children) also. But we should be quick to point out that men have kept this "secret" so well precisely because of traditional gender stereotypes. Indeed, male victims have only felt comfortable coming forward because feminism has a) given men and women greater room to wiggle free of oppressive gender roles; and b) feminism has insisted that government takes seriously the possibility of a crime occurring in the private sphere of the home.

Do many feminists still believe that man-on-woman abuse is the greater problem? Certainly, and perhaps with some justification. While some critics cite studies claiming that women abuse men just as often as men abuse women, the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence is that men are still disproportionately the abusers.

In any case, I am not aware of any feminists who turn a blind eye to male victims "because they see them as the predators." Feminists have favored government intervention into abusive relationships regardless of who is the aggressor, and to reiterate the central point: the social and ideological framework that silences male victims is decidedly anti-feminist. It is directly because of the feminist movement that male victims have started to come forward.

I didn't really mean spousal abuse, though it is a problem and feminism is helping to solve it. I was talking more about employment and gender roles both at home and in the workplace. The "socio-sanctists" are the people who say men should work at home but would never dare to say women should work at home, and thus propagate the very gender roles they claim to oppose.

So you're saying that the government should not support racism or sexism, but that feminists shouldn't care if individuals remain committed racists and sexists? If only it were that easy!!

That's not really what I meant at all. I was referring to the attitude of pandering towards the disenfranchised that "socio-sanctists" take towards religion, which they also apply to races and sexes. You're right, it requires individual change to create collective acceptance.

As for the specifics you keep asking for, I must profess I've always been bad at giving examples.This is something you should work on, and not just because it will make your arguments more convincing. It is also because we often believe things that turn out not to be based on concrete facts, and keeping ourselves to a certain standard of specificity helps to put a check on our most unreasonable prejudices.

The best I can do is say something along the lines of "If a woman did this thing nobody would be allowed to say anything bad about it, but if a man did the same thing everybody would get mad."That is a common caricature of a feminist society, but again without specifics it is difficult for me to comment.

Masturbation and homosexuality are the first things that come to mind, even though I know a lot of people condemn both acts regardless of the gender of the one who does them.Actually, historically women's masturbation has been more taboo than men's, and I am unfamiliar with any feminist (or even self-proclaimed feminist) who would reverse that judgment. Indeed, feminism has worked together with a broader liberalization of sexual awareness to make ordinary auto-erotic stimulation acceptable across the board.

As for homosexuality, it is true that in many ways society is more accepting of lesbian relationships than romantic attachments between men--but, once again, it is conservatism and male homophobia that perpetuates this double-standard. Can you point to a self-proclaimed feminist who opposes male homosexuality but not lesbianism?

I suppose a better example would be employment. Even if a woman is an incompetent worker, it is a bad no-no to fire her, yet a boss will not hesitate to fire an unsatisfactory male employee. Unfortunately, I don't even know where I could find statistics to back up that claim. It's just the impression I am getting, I guess.It is a very dangerous impression to hold without statistics to back it up. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that it will help you to insist on specificity and verifiability in your own beliefs. If you find yourself believing something without a good reason, you should actively look for a good reason; if you cannot find one, you should seriously consider revising your belief.

As for the facts, this is a common misconception about affirmative action and, perhaps, workplace harassment law. First of all, no contemporary (legal) affirmative action program results in the hiring of unqualified minority or female applicants--not since the rulings against quota systems. Today's affirmative action programs MUST hire from within a qualified pool of applicants.

Regarding an manager's reluctance to fire an unsatisfactory female employee, there are three ways to look at this:
1) Some employers misinterpret the laws, or exaggerate in their own minds the likelihood of a harassment lawsuit; they are afraid of what might happen without having an accurate picture of what will probably happen.
2) These fears may be bolstered, in part, by the occasional frivolous harassment or discrimination suit. As with virtually any law, there are a handful of unethical individuals who will abuse it by trying to get something they do not deserve. But certainly I do not know any self-proclaimed feminist who advocates unmeritorious lawsuits, and it would be a severe injustice to condemn the policies themselves because a few jerks try to abuse them. This happens with every kind of law. (Yes, if you want specific examples, I will be happy to provide them).
3) In some ways, employers should at least "second-guess" themselves. After all, we do still live in a sexist society with ingrained sexual stereotypes and sexual double-standards. This means that even a reasonably feminist man should, if he finds himself in a position of power over a woman, examine himself from time to time to decide whether he is being fair. If he is dissatisfied with her performance, can he point to specific incidents or faults? Is it something else--is he maybe just dissatisfied with how she dresses, and he is subconsciously translating that into an evaluation of her work? Answering these questions to himself as honestly as he can, he should not hesitate to let her go if he can tell himself it is because of her work--but it is perfectly appropriate for him to do some simple self-examination first, self-examination which may not be as critical in the case of a male employee against whom he is unlikely to have any deep sexual prejudice. (He should, of course, perform such a self-examination when evaluating minority employees.)

I am referring to corporate neutrality. If you want to be religiously neutral, you do not ban "Merry Christmas." You keep "Merry Christmas" and add "Happy Channukah" (and other such holidays). It's better to pander to all religions than to refuse to acknowledge one.Yes, I'm not so much concerned with this kind of corporate behavior. I would probably protest a corporation that actively and intentionally makes some minority feel unwelcome, but I'm not concerned about corporations developing a self-identification with the religion of their choice.

Personally, I think that people who insist Wal-Mart should say "Happy Holidays" or add other religious holidays should ask themselves whether they would be as comfortable insisting that the local Jewish deli should do the same thing. The fact that Wal-Mart is much larger than the ethnic business down the street does not, in my opinion, change anything.

Nevertheless, I would point out again that I do not know a single advocate of such changes who wants to "oppress" Christianity. They believe--whether they are right or wrong--that such measures improve liberty and/or equality overall; and we are much more likely to get them to change their minds if we meet them on the same ground rather than just invent derogatory terms to hurl at them.

The "socio-sanctists" are the people who say men should work at home but would never dare to say women should work at home, and thus propagate the very gender roles they claim to oppose.While it would (as always) help if I had a specific example to work with, I suspect that you are exaggerating the reaction.

As a feminist, do I stress that men can respectably be the primary homemaker while women work outside the home? Yes, because our society still requires stress on that point to drive it home against unfair sexual stereotypes. Do I also stress that men should participate in household chores even when they work outside the home? Yes, because our society still requires stress on that point to drive it home.

Now, if someone says that women "may" choose to be homemakers, I readily agree: women may do whatever they want. If, on the other hand, someone says something along the lines that women "should" work in the home, my red flag goes up. At the very least, I am--and I think I should be--suspicious that this person is trying to defend traditional sex-roles, and I will press that person to elaborate on her/his position.

If people feel that this means they have to tread lightly when it comes to gender issues around me, they are probably correct. They should second-guess themselves when they think about women's roles. We all should, because we are still living in a society that needs to root out age-old stereotypes.

This is a part of that "individual change" I am talking about. Genuine feminists cannot walk around thinking that it is "enough" if the government changes its laws and corporations change their policies. We must all engage in a thorough examination of ourselves, our prejudices, and our personal lives.

What's that supposed to mean? You say I'm saying that we can't tell dishonesty when we see it, and I'm saying we can't tell for sure...Perhaps I did not explain things simple enough last time.

Your straw man caricature of my position was this: you claimed I thought we could never trust "anyone."

I admit that we can't tell "for sure"--at least not most of the time--but there is virtually nothing that we know "for sure." Even scientific epistemology has learned to live with this one, and it would be absurd to put a higher burden of proof on social interactions than on scientific inquiry.

Personally, I got the impression that NB was commenting more so on extremist "feminists" who weren't really feminist and/or was voicing fear that feminism would eventually go beyond equality.You are simply rehashing what you have already said; my previous posts should serve as ample reply. From here on out I simply will not respond to points repeated without additional support or a new argument.

Given the similarity between reverse sexism and reverse racism that I later pointed out, I wouldn't think of this fear as being completely unfounded.To draw that conclusion, first you would have to establish that "reverse racism" is a reasonable fear--an argument facing just as many problems as this one about "reverse sexism."

And as I mentioned before, the belief that women were oppressed more so would have a different meaning in the past than now.Let's be clear: are you suggesting that men and women are currently "equal"?

Again, earlier I figured from the name that feminism would suggest primarily focusing on women's rights, and that something like "gender equality" would focus on that for both genders.I have already explained why feminism remains the more appropriate term, both theoretically and historically.

It would've made more sense in the past, to associate women's rights with gender equality, but there's inequality in both directions, and now that against men is probably becoming more noticeable than in the past.Yes, but as I have already shown the oppression of women is the cause of the (relatively rare) sex-disadvantages of men; and it makes more sense to root out the cause than to attack the symptoms.

More importantly, it seems that your real feelings are coming out: you believe that women are no longer "really" disadvantaged more than men, so that the "women's movement" is (or should be) over. Any attempt to continue the women's movement appears (to you) to be a move away from equality, since you think we are pretty equal today. Is that an accurate description of your position?

Wait, so you're saying current generations of males should pay for the oppression by previous generations of males?No, I'm saying that every generation of men has been made to pay a price for the oppression of women. When the oppression of women ends, the price paid by men will end as well.

This is not a "price" imposed in retaliation for women's oppression. Rather, it is a price imposed on men as an integral part of women's oppression.

You're not reading my "empire" analogy very carefully. It is not the victims of imperialism that force imperial citizens to train and die in the armed forces; it is not the people they dominate that force them to endure stringent security measures that violate civil liberties. It is their own empire: these are costs of oppression, not costs for oppression.

Indeed, as soon as the oppression of the Other ends, the oppression of the Self ends as well.

Not quite. What if, hypothetically, a very permissive, progressive, socially libertarian candidate for a high-power office, waited a few minutes in a waiting crowd before starting a speech and started their speech with something like "We don't want to lie and we don't want to cheat, therefore we are not going to resort to cheap promises..." or something like that?What of it? I'm not sure what you're on about here. You have not responded in any way to my assertion that a Hitleresque speech is more likely to express a fascist position than a non-Hitleresque speech. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the phrase "more likely," and how it differs from words like "definitely"?

Actually, I thought a hypothesis was a form of rational assumption, and still therefore assumption...Well, then you were wrong. As assumption is taken for granted, a hypothesis is subject to falsification. It is a very important difference.

I remember learning in Economics class about some policies designed to even out the employment ratios, between men and women, for certain jobs. In trying to balance out the employment ratios, however, they're looking for female employees more than for male employees. This would probably qualify as reverse discrimination.Why? They are not turning away qualified male candidates, they are simply making an effort to find qualified female candidates.

In this sense, one is disadvantaged to be male in the same way that they would be disadvantaged to be white; In trying to correct previous discrimination, reverse discrimination is making it harder for people who are merely part of the same "group" that historically discriminated.Of course affirmative action makes it "harder" for white men than it was before!! They are losing "white privilege" and "male privilege." They have to compete with people they formerly excluded--thus, there is more competition, and it is harder to get a job.

Did you really think it was possible to recognize minority rights without abandoning white privilege?

It's questionable, at best... it's like saying whites should be punished for other whites being racist, when that's a racist approach in itself... granted, though, at this point in time, it's hard to tell which side to lean on...Who is being "punished"? If you want to get into a debate about affirmative action, we can go there: but I'll warn you in advance that it is a peculiar passion of mine, so I know all the details[/QUOTE] and I generally win this one. ;)

Affirmative action policies do not "punish" anyone for being anything. This is especially true since the demise of quota systems and the firm requirement that hiring/admissions decisions must be made within a fully qualified applicant pool.

If anything, it's more of a paradox to associate traditionalism with capitalism.There you are correct. For most of American history they were committed adversaries.

and yet the likes of Patrick Robertson associate feminism with socialism...He's not being completely unreasonable here. Many feminists argue that unless the public takes a more active role in certain traditionally "private" matters--e.g. childcare--we can never effectively escape the legacy of traditional sexism; similarly they argue that market forces persistently reinforce unrealistic beauty standards, among other things. But certainly there are other feminist visions which are much more compatible with capitalism.

though the view that social permisiveness and economic permissiveness help each other more so than being mutually exclusive extends to many more things than women's rights, but I'll go into those things in another thread...Actually, I would argue that the apparent permissiveness of a market society is more illusory than most people allow. Even if it frees us from one set of constraints, it inevitably introduces others.

One of my favorite examples is the market for SUVs. Ten years ago, a majority of Americans hated the things--unsafe, gas-guzzling, difficult-to-drive behemoths. Mothers of young children, in particular, resisted the SUV, preferring more traditional "family cars."

Today? Those people still [I]hate SUVs, and they are more than happy to say so in interviews and surveys. But they all own them. Why? Because when a few SUVs crept onto the highways, they made driving even more dangerous for people in smaller cars who might get hit by them. Mothers started to think, "My god, I may hate SUVs... but how would I feel if one ran me down and crushed my children in the back seat?" And so, they bought them defensively--not because it's what they wanted to do, but because it's what they felt compelled to do to survive in this market. And the more of them that cave, the harder it becomes for the hold-outs, because there are more and more death-machines on the road.

Does this make us free? I think not. I think it just reduces the potential democratic control over the forces that rule our lives.

But this is a different argument.

In which case, the problem is sexism, not pornography.Yes, but if contemporary pornography tends to perpetuate sexism, you cannot simply turn a blind eye to it. You may argue that there are more effective (or more justifiable) ways to combat sexism than to regulate porn, but you cannot simply ignore the possibility that pornography is "a problem."

I'd say it's a little bit of both. I'm not sure if you read the posts I linked to earlier, but in one of the posts of mine which I linked to, I mentioned the possibility of a chicken-egg kind of scenario in sexism and apparent gender tendencies.Yes, and it's that chicken-egg relationship that means we cannot simply "decide" to stop being sexist. It takes actual intervention into the way we live our lives--and I think it is this intervention that men fear so much and which stirs up labels like "feminazi." Men like to live in a fantasy world in which feminism does not mean they have to change.

I do recall reading about misandry among many radical feminists, though.Maybe, but it seems to me that women are much more likely to hold misandrist views under traditional sexism than through a feminist lens. Think about it. Traditionally, women might complain that men are "dirty," that men are "pigs," that men are "inconsiderate"... you name it, those old complaints are nothing new. The difference between traditional sexism and feminism is that feminists insist that men don't have to be dirty, inconsiderate pigs. Those are not "inherently" male characteristics--they are the characteristics of some men who need to grow the hell up.

It seems to me that the latter approach treats men with much more dignity than the traditional assumption that "that's just what men are."

Do you mean to say there are some "individual" women who "are" sexual objects and somehow they "set a bad name for women" or something like that?I'm not exactly sure what you're responding to, but certainly it is true that in sexist society there are many, many women who treat themselves as objects--and certainly this does not advance the feminist movement.

For example, (ok I hope I don't get in too much trouble for mentioning this) I know some drawings of Zelda porn where for one of the pics they have young Link and adult Zelda with pretty much the same facial expression, neither are on top of another and it seems fairly mutual, and the only thing that could possibly indicate sexism was how much taller Zelda was.That's your judgment, and without seeing the video it is difficult for us to respond. Naturally your description here leaves out many details that another eye might detect. Nevertheless, it may be that this particular video is innocent and inoffensive; even so, an anecdote does not make a case. The question is whether pornography as a whole or for the most part has certain common characteristics about which feminists should be rightly concerned.

Well, then they should look for ways to target the more sexist porn and encourage the less such.This is, in fact, the most common feminist approach to pornography.

One of the difficulties of analysis is that our analytical categories themselves may be shaped by the long history of sexism. I am currently teaching a course titled "Gender and Political Theory," a large part of which is to stress just this point.

For instance, the accusation that feminists think "all men are rapists" is--besides a blatant straw man and scare-mongering attack--at least partly structured by a real confusion over feminist critiques of heterosexual sex.

The accepted framework for analyzing sexual coercion speaks the language of "consent," and this is a very black-and-white affair: either sexual relations are "consensual," or they are not--and in the latter case the act is clearly a crime. Thus, men tend to see sex in terms of "consensual=okay" or "non-consensual=crime." From this, when feminists start to criticize aspects of normal heterosexuality and to point out its often coercive nature, their male audience wrongly assumes that they are trying to put normal sex into the "crime" category.

This is not the case at all, but the problem is that feminists could not state their point in the consensual/non-consensual frame: it led to inevitable confusion. What they needed was a new mode of analysis.

One way to re-conceptualize the problem is to stress the difference between willingness and consent. People may often consent to or allow things that they nevertheless do not want--that they do not will for themselves.

Consider the following example. You are driving down the highway, minding your own business, when a state trooper pulls you over. For whatever reason, he decides there is something suspicious about you and he asks you to consent to a search of your vehicle. Now, you may reason that if you don't consent you can rely on Fourth Amendment protections... but if you reflect on the history of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, you might also realize that he wouldn't need much pretext at all to search the car without your consent. Indeed, if he's so inclined he can probably twist your refusal itself into a "reasonable suspicion" that you have something to hide.

So, you decide it might go a lot easier for you if you just consent. You don't have anything incriminating in the car, but you may have much that is embarrassing--and in any case, no one wants someone rifling through their stuff. No one would will this for themselves--but they might consent.

That should give you some idea of the difference between doing something willingly--that is, wanting to do it--and doing or allowing something consensually.

This is very significant for analyzing how men, in particular, think about sex. Men regard sex as something to "get," and they are excited if they can "get" it. They are not very deeply concerned with the desires of their partners--they are usually quite satisfied if a woman will "let" them have sex with her.

This is not just a matter of attitude: it affects how men behave with regard to sex. Men have at least grown up enough to understand that "No means no," but they are still pretty sure that it does mean "maybe." When a woman says she's not in the mood, how many men persist in trying? How many think that they can "get" her in the mood? How many stroke her or poke at her while she's trying to do something else? How many lie next to her while she's trying to sleep, hoping to get her "excited"?

How many men beg and plead, how many complain?

How many men are perfectly happy when a woman finally relents and lets them have sex with her?

Feminism is about asking men to care about more than "not forcing" a woman. Feminism is about men honestly caring about what women want--and acting like they do.
Feminism is about "consent" not being enough. If women don't want to have sex with us, then we should not be so eager to have sex with them. It should be a woman's desire, not merely her consent, that "turns us on."


When you start to realize this, you begin to understand that there is an entire range of "consensual" sex which, while certainly not "rape"--not criminal--is nevertheless concerning to a person who imagines a world of sexual equality.

WOW.......25 pages on the topic of "Feminazis"!!!!

* Checks list of posters.....

WOW.......25 pages on the topic of "Feminazis"!!!!

* Checks list of posters.....

I decided that I'm going to read it when it comes out in paperback.

I decided that I'm going to read it when it comes out in paperback.

readers digest version - feminists (including your typical nsg anarchists) dispute the existence of feminazis both as a legitimate category and as holding any actual prominence that requires all the fuss and bother on the part of the totally-not-misogynist-at-all-i'm-just-concerned-about-uppity-women-destroying-the-world types.

readers digest version - feminists (including your typical nsg anarchists) dispute the existence of feminazis both as a legitimate category and as holding any actual prominence that requires all the fuss and bother on the part of the totally-not-misogynist-at-all-i'm-just-concerned-about-uppity-women-destroying-the-world types.

Those latter types are pretty nutty.

I decided that I'm going to read it when it comes out in paperback.

don't bother...75% of it consists of mental masturbation.

I do recall reading about misandry among many radical feminists, though.

Without specific examples, it is difficult to respond to this.

Generally speaking, most of the actual inequities favoring females over males are staunchly opposed by feminism, and while sometimes it is easy to misrepresent the stances of feminists and radical feminists on some questions (like affirmative action) as misandrist, usually a look at why these policies are advocated shows that their objective remains genuine sexual equality.

They probably don't speak for feminists, but you never know what impression NB got.

That is the problem with "impressions," especially on questions like this one, where the reactionary backlash against change has been very strong.

Again, that's not an issue of mere stereotyping. Do you mean to say there are some "individual" women who "are" sexual objects and somehow they "set a bad name for women" or something like that? It doesn't make sense.

As AnarchyeL said, there are indeed women who sexually objectify themselves, in a sexist society that pervasively objectifies women... but that is not the point. The point is that our sexist male-dominated society portrays women in this manner, and in so doing, molds male perceptions of females and female perceptions of themselves (this is, of course, self-reinforcing.)

in this case, some specific examples of porn aren't near as macho as what they reference.

Perhaps not, and I think it would be very difficult to claim that ALL pornography is sexist, or that pornography in and of itself is sexist. The problem is that pornography in general may nevertheless be sexist.

Ah. Well, then they should look for ways to target the more sexist porn and encourage the less such.

Certainly, and they do, but the efficacy of any such campaign is questionable. Most men are more concerned with the sexual pleasure they get from pornography than the social implications of its content.

That's why I admitted that it wasn't a good example and mentioned the example of balancing out employment ratios.

But that is not a good example, either, because this is not motivated by prejudice against males or by female supremacism. It is motivated by a desire to counter sexism.

don't bother...75% of it consists of mental masturbation.Oh, is that what you got all over your face? Damn.

Maybe, but it seems to me that women are much more likely to hold misandrist views under traditional sexism than through a feminist lens. Think about it. Traditionally, women might complain that men are "dirty," that men are "pigs," that men are "inconsiderate"... you name it, those old complaints are nothing new. The difference between traditional sexism and feminism is that feminists insist that men don't have to be dirty, inconsiderate pigs. Those are not "inherently" male characteristics--they are the characteristics of some men who need to grow the hell up.

It seems to me that the latter approach treats men with much more dignity than the traditional assumption that "that's just what men are."
Absolutely.

One of the main reasons I fully embrace feminism is because I simply don't have a low enough opinion of men to do otherwise.

Anti-feminist arguments virtually always end up degenerating into claims that men "just are" one way while women "just are" another way, and it almost always turns out that men "just are" incapable of behaving like grown ups in any way, while women "just are" destined to be life-long mommies to adult men.

Just a few of the anti-feminist claims:

Men can't cook. Men can't clean. Men can't control themselves when they see a woman dressed that way. Men can't think about something other than sex. Men can't help being rude and crude. Men can't control their emotions (yes, anger is an emotion). Men can't have good manners or common courtesy. Men are homophobic. Men are insecure and cannot love a woman unless she is dependent upon Manly Support. Men are "dogs." Men "need" sex more than women, which is why men cannot control their sexual behavior, and why women must be in charge of controlling it for them.

It goes on and on.

Pretty much every single man-hating bullshit line I've ever heard is rooted in sexism and traditionalism. I can't think of a single example that is rooted in feminism.

Feminism insists that men are every bit as intelligent, honorable, and capable as women, and expects that men be held to the same standard of conduct as women are. If a man chooses to be a jackass, feminism says, "Knock it off, jackass. You can do better." Traditionalism says, "It's okay, you're just a man, and men can't do any better. Have her clean it up for you."

Absolutely.

One of the main reasons I fully embrace feminism is because I simply don't have a low enough opinion of men to do otherwise.

Anti-feminist arguments virtually always end up degenerating into claims that men "just are" one way while women "just are" another way, and it almost always turns out that men "just are" incapable of behaving like grown ups in any way, while women "just are" destined to be life-long mommies to adult men.

Just a few of the anti-feminist claims:

Men can't cook. Men can't clean. Men can't control themselves when they see a woman dressed that way. Men can't think about something other than sex. Men can't help being rude and crude. Men can't control their emotions (yes, anger is an emotion). Men can't have good manners or common courtesy. Men are homophobic. Men are insecure and cannot love a woman unless she is dependent upon Manly Support. Men are "dogs." Men "need" sex more than women, which is why men cannot control their sexual behavior, and why women must be in charge of controlling it for them.

It goes on and on.

Pretty much every single man-hating bullshit line I've ever heard is rooted in sexism and traditionalism. I can't think of a single example that is rooted in feminism.

Feminism insists that men are every bit as intelligent, honorable, and capable as women, and expects that men be held to the same standard of conduct as women are. If a man chooses to be a jackass, feminism says, "Knock it off, jackass. You can do better." Traditionalism says, "It's okay, you're just a man, and men can't do any better. Have her clean it up for you."

I don't think you could make it any clearer to the other side.

They are willfully ignorant. Great debate, though.

I don't think you could make it any clearer to the other side.

They are willfully ignorant. Great debate, though.

Not all people who call themselves feminists are the same though.

The one big problem I have with many (not all!) feminists is their tendency to insist that men and women are almost completely biologically the same, and totally the same mentally speaking.

This is the left-wing version of creationism - the rejection of the Copernican revolution that actually, nature doesn't think we're special and doesn't care about our ideologies.

Not all people who call themselves feminists are the same though.Just like not all people invoking the infamous "I'm not a racist, but..." line aren't racists.

I could call myself French 'til I'm blue in the face. It doesn't make me French, and it doesn't mean anything I say or do can be attributed to or has any implications for the French.

Feminism is a clearly defined concept, and it's in opposition to a great many things. Being in opposition to it yet claiming to strive for it doesn't work. It's oxymoronic.

Just like not all people invoking the infamous "I'm not a racist, but..." line aren't racists.

I could call myself French 'til I'm blue in the face. It doesn't make me French, and it doesn't mean anything I say or do can be attributed to or has any implications for the French.

Feminism is a clearly defined concept, and it's in opposition to a great many things. Being in opposition to it yet claiming to strive for it doesn't work. It's oxymoronic.

But the problem with this thread is that people are assuming that the OP is against actual feminism when he never said that, he just labelled a certain group of people as feminazis which may be the wrong term but doesn't mean they do not exist.

The one big problem I have with many (not all!) feminists is their tendency to insist that men and women are almost completely biologically the same, and totally the same mentally speaking.

Men and women are almost completely biologically the same, but there certainly are differences, and I've never met or heard of a feminist who will deny them. What a feminist will deny is the idea that the "average" man or woman is the same as a given individual.

A feminist will have no problem acknowledging the fact that men, on average, have more muscle mass and muscle strength than women. This is a simple fact of biology. What a feminist will take issue with is the idea that, because the average man will be physically stronger than the average woman, an individual woman should be barred from a job that requires physical strength even if she meets the requirements and is physically stronger than the average man.

The one big problem I have with many (not all!) feminists is their tendency to insist that men and women are almost completely biologically the same, and totally the same mentally speaking.
I think (hope) few feminists would deny the physical and biological differences between the genders (or trends of differences between genders), or deny the mental trends.

The main focuses would probably instead be:

a) That you are in control of your behaviour, you are able to resist biological impulses and just because we might have a natural instinct towards something, that doesn't necessarily mean we should follow that instinct. Complex logic and reasoning is a great quality of humans, and we should use it! Finding food for survival, obviously makes sense, and we can back up the impulse with logic. Violent impulses often don't, and our ability to reason and be compassionate should be used. Everyone has the ability to resist impulses, so it cannot be an "excuse" or "justification".
b) The way we have evolved was based around situations which no longer exist to the same extent, and perhaps we don't need to follow the roles they set out, and perhaps they aren't desirable roles. It is also clear that things have changed over time. As society changes, so do the individuals inside it. For example, compulsory education for females has greatly improved their intellectual abilities and knowledge and skills.
c) Even in biology, there are great individual variations, and even with strong trends, there are exceptions. Because nothing is absolute (eg we cannot say "men always have this much of this hormone and it always causes this" and we cannot say "all men are better at visuo-spatial skils, while all women are better at language and communication skills"), it makes a lot more sense to judge people by their own individual traits. Yes, we can recognise trends, but they should not go against common sense, and are not always relevant or useful.

Not to say that you disagree with any of those things, just providing the general view of feminists* on biology/evolution etc of gender.

*I'd like to think I got it about right, but I don't want to claim I speak for every feminist, so anyone can feel free to comment, adjust, whatever :)

Men and women are almost completely biologically the same, but there certainly are differences, and I've never met or heard of a feminist who will deny them. What a feminist will deny is the idea that the "average" man or woman is the same as a given individual.

A feminist will have no problem acknowledging the fact that men, on average, have more muscle mass and muscle strength than women. This is a simple fact of biology. What a feminist will take issue with is the idea that, because the average man will be physically stronger than the average woman, an individual woman should be barred from a job that requires physical strength even if she meets the requirements and is physically stronger than the average man. No, what I mean are the contentious ideas. Like…
Women are more suitable for raising children than men.
Women have a narrower IQ range leading to less female geniuses (and retards)
Women are inherently more emotional.
Larry Summers.

That kind of thing. If, for instance, the thing about women having less IQ variation (though the same mean average) is true, then serious thinking about the glass ceiling is in order.

No, what I mean are the contentious ideas. Like…
Women are more suitable for raising children than men.

And that falls into precisely the description I gave. It might be true that women, on average, are more suited to be the main caregivers for children (although we really have no way to test this outside of our society - which has relegated them to that job for centuries). What we do know is that a specific woman may not be well-suited. A specific man may be well-suited. So there is no reason that society should push women to be the caregivers and men to not do so. A given couple should be able to work it out for themselves.

Women have a narrower IQ range leading to less female geniuses (and retards)

I've not seen any evidence of this, although the IQ test itself has been shown to have problems. But again, the issue is not whether or not this is true, but how an individual is treated.

Women are inherently more emotional.

See above.

Larry Summers.

Huh?

That kind of thing. If, for instance, the thing about women having less IQ variation (though the same mean average) is true, then serious thinking about the glass ceiling is in order.

Not really. When we objectively look at something like hiring practices, it isn't simply a matter of looking at numbers. Quite a few studies have been done in which applicants for a job who were equally qualified were sent in for interviews, or the files of different possibilities for a raise or promotion were reviewed.

You're trying too hard to look at averages. Feminists are concerned with individuals. If men, on average, are physically stronger, fine. If women, on average, are more emotional, fine. But that doesn't matter. What matters is how a given individual is treated. If a man and a woman have equal qualifications for a job, they should each have a 50/50 chance of getting it. This doesn't seem to be the case, however. In some jobs, a man is more likely to get hired. In others, a woman. The same goes for promotions and raises. The problem isn't the capabilities of the average man or woman. The problem is that individual men and women are often treated differently based on averages that they don't match up to.

If, for instance, the thing about women having less IQ variation (though the same mean average) is true, then serious thinking about the glass ceiling is in order.Umm, only if it were also to turn out that men holding high government and corporate offices are there because of their "genius."

I should think that the example of our current commander-in-chief so totally debunks that theory that it should never raise its ugly head again.

Absolutely. *snip*Well said, Bottle.

Umm, only if it were also to turn out that men holding high government and corporate offices are there because of their "genius."

I should think that the example of our current commander-in-chief so totally debunks that theory that it should never raise its ugly head again. Right, and the existence of Mugabe proves blacks are inherently violent racists. :rolleyes:

And that falls into precisely the description I gave. It might be true that women, on average, are more suited to be the main caregivers for children (although we really have no way to test this outside of our society - which has relegated them to that job for centuries). What we do know is that a specific woman may not be well-suited. A specific man may be well-suited. So there is no reason that society should push women to be the caregivers and men to not do so. A given couple should be able to work it out for themselves. Averages, Watson, averages. See, I'm displaying male, logical thinking, whereas you are displaying female process and relationship-based thinking.

Right, and the existence of Mugabe proves blacks are inherently violent racists. :rolleyes:

Averages, Watson, averages. See, I'm displaying male, logical thinking, whereas you are displaying female process and relationship-based thinking.

Actually, you seem to be displaying a complete inability to comprehend what you read. I believe such a trait is neither inherently male nor female.

Feminazis are absolutely ridiculous. Feminism (equal rights for both men and women) is legitimate, but female chauvinism is not.

Right, and the existence of Mugabe proves blacks are inherently violent racists.No.

Let me put it into terms I think you might understand: if this moron can be leader of the free world, then it's a little ridiculous to claim that the glass ceiling exists because fewer women than men have a 160 IQ (assuming arguendo that the latter hypothesis is correct).

No.

Let me put it into terms I think you might understand: if this moron can be leader of the free world, then it's a little ridiculous to claim that the glass ceiling exists because fewer women than men have a 160 IQ (assuming arguendo that the latter hypothesis is correct).

I don't know if it's just because I haven't been reading the thread, but the logic doesn't follow in this statement.

Right, and the existence of Mugabe proves blacks are inherently violent racists. :rolleyes:

Averages, Watson, averages. See, I'm displaying male, logical thinking, whereas you are displaying female process and relationship-based thinking.

Wow...just wow. So you're defending an anti-feminist pov with sexism? Way to go.

Oh, is that what you got all over your face? Damn.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/overhead.gif

Right, and the existence of Mugabe proves blacks are inherently violent racists. :rolleyes:

.

That might prove that racists can achieve high office.

I don't know if it's just because I haven't been reading the thread, but the logic doesn't follow in this statement.

I believe he/she is suggesting that the statement that women are less likely than men to be geniuses, even if true, cannot be seen as a significant cause of the fact that women are less likely than men to be elected President, given that being a genius is in no way a prerequisite for being elected President.

Averages, Watson, averages. See, I'm displaying male, logical thinking, whereas you are displaying female process and relationship-based thinking.

Averages are irrelevant when determining whether or not a given applicant is qualified. The average person probably couldn't meet the requirements to begin Navy Seal training. Does that mean no human beings should ever be allowed to enter the training?

There is nothing at all logical about attempting to treat all persons of a given group in a certain way based off their average abilities or attributes.

If women, on average, are better at a given job than men, then we would expect to see more women excelling in said job. However, that is not a basis to discriminate against men or to discourage men who wish to take on such job from doing so. An individual man may excel above and beyond most women at that job, regardless of what the average man may do. The illogical thing to do would be to call it "women's work" and try to keep him from it.

I believe he/she is suggesting that the statement that women are less likely than men to be geniuses, even if true, cannot be seen as a significant cause of the fact that women are less likely than men to be elected President, given that being a genius is in no way a prerequisite for being elected President.

:) that makes slightly more sense.

Right, and the existence of Mugabe proves blacks are inherently violent racists. :rolleyes:
You could only arrive at such an interpretation by failing at basic reading/comprehension or by failing at logic, or though some admixture of such failings.

Averages, Watson, averages. See, I'm displaying male, logical thinking, whereas you are displaying female process and relationship-based thinking.
You are not displaying logical thinking, based on the 'relationship-based' comment, it appears you dont even understand logical thinking. All logic is relationship-based.

The one big problem I have with many (not all!) feminists is their tendency to insist that men and women are almost completely biologically the same, and totally the same mentally speaking.

Biologically speaking, we are almost completely the same. "Mentally speaking" would fit under the heading of biology, since our brains are parts of our (biological) bodies.

It's not "feminists" who should be telling you this, it's any qualified biologist, male or female, liberal or conservative, feminist or anti-feminist. Any person who tells you different is either grossly unqualified or lying.


This is the left-wing version of creationism - the rejection of the Copernican revolution that actually, nature doesn't think we're special and doesn't care about our ideologies.
Huh?

You're right, nature doesn't think you're special. Just because you have a particular personality type, and just because your particular culture has influenced your personality in a particular way, doesn't mean that "Nature" is going to fall in line with your idea that these things are "biological." Nature doesn't care what behaviors you are trying to make excuses for.

No, what I mean are the contentious ideas. Like…
Women are more suitable for raising children than men.
Women have a narrower IQ range leading to less female geniuses (and retards)
Women are inherently more emotional.
Larry Summers.

That kind of thing. If, for instance, the thing about women having less IQ variation (though the same mean average) is true, then serious thinking about the glass ceiling is in order.
Yes, it's true, thinking people will reject those ideas. Many feminists are thinking people, and many thinking people are feminists.

Of course, even anti-feminists don't actually believe those lines, if you take a real long look at it.

For the first one, anti-feminists will frequently be of the "men's rights" stripe, and will cry about how unfair it is that women are more likely to get custody of kids following a divorce. If women were actually innately better at rearing children, why would anti-feminists cry about this? Anti-feminist men frequently cry about the loss of fathers, but if women are so much better than wouldn't lesbian couples be the best situation for kids? Then they have TWO ideal parents!

Anti-feminists also constantly argue that women are most capable, more mature, and more intelligent than men. Men are just too dumb to be able to clean house, cook, or care for themselves, so they need women to do it for them. Men are too stupid to know that "no means no," so women need to be the ones who take responsibility for preventing rape. Men don't like talking and all that silly "communicating" that higher primates engage in, and it's women who use words instead of hitting things with rocks. Etc.

Anti-feminists also tend to argue that men are more emotional, though they don't phrase it that way. Indeed, they may insist that women are "emotional," even while arguing that men are incapable of controlling EMOTIONS like rage and lust. They will tell you how women are "emotional," and turn around and laugh about how men have uncontrollable thoughts of lust every 13 seconds. They will say that women are "emotional" right before they insist that no woman can understand the manly "rush" of sports or combat. Etc.

Oh, and Larry Summers was just a d-ball. Nothing special. He made a bullshit assertion, and he had the bad judgment to make it within hearing of some of the most educated and intelligent people in the country. He also was a completely inept administrator. I lived right across the river from Harvard during some of the last years of his stint there, and let me tell you...the students and faculty of Harvard thought he was a loser. He was a bully who chased away some of the best administrators on the staff, and who used bluster and rudeness to shut up people who tried to present sincere constructive criticisms. I don't think you should really hold up Larry Summers as a shining example to your cause. He was just another pompous windbag administrator who did a lousy job and said some stupid things. Those are a dime a dozen.