NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I was thinking about it, and it seems like they do. For example, those types yelling slogans like "There's no such thing as consent! All penetration is violence!" and stuff like that. Doesn't that imply women are unable to make their own decisions, such as consenting?

Obviously, I'm only referring to the radical types.

So...

Discuss.

"There's no such thing as consent! All penetration is violence!"

Who the fuck is saying that?

I'd really like to meet one of these radical feminists that everyone's always going on about. I bet they're a hoot.

The meaning is not that women shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions, which would indeed be sexist and disempowering, but that the patriarchal culture that causes the problem in the first place should be eliminated.

Do you see any of them advocating the prohibition of heterosexual sex?

Well, I was thinking about it, and it seems like they do. For example, those types yelling slogans like "There's no such thing as consent! All penetration is violence!" and stuff like that. Doesn't that imply women are unable to make their own decisions, such as consenting?

Obviously, I'm only referring to the radical types.

So...

Discuss.

If by "radical feminists" you mean misandrists, then certainly.

Well, I was thinking about it, and it seems like they do. For example, those types yelling slogans like "There's no such thing as consent! All penetration is violence!" and stuff like that.

Who's saying that?

I've actually heard that saying before, and this is my opinion: They are loonies. They are basically protesting to be protesting, and have no idea what they are protesting about. Basically they're big fat lesbos who've never got any and never will, so they want to stop everyone else from having fun ;)

surely to be true it would have to be a current radical feminist saying things that unempower women.

i would like an example of what you have in mind.

Why don't you read my post?

And that phrase has been chanted by certain groups in the past, or at least something similar to it.

surely to be true it would have to be a current radical feminist saying things that unempower women.

i would like an example of what you have in mind.

Even if these so-called 'radical feminists' exist, how do they remove power from women exactly? Somehow 'normal' feminists won't be listened to because of the mythical 'uber-feminist'?

Well, I was thinking about it, and it seems like they do. For example, those types yelling slogans like "There's no such thing as consent! All penetration is violence!" and stuff like that. Doesn't that imply women are unable to make their own decisions, such as consenting?

Obviously, I'm only referring to the radical types.

So...

Discuss.

No. Rather, they move the argument so that what was once considered extreme is now considered centrist. Forty years ago, sexual harassment as a term didn't exist for all practical purposes. Now people of both genders are protected against undue harassment. That didn't happen because women sat meekly on the side and asked nicely for their rights. It happened because fringe movers and shakers got in people's faces about it and demanded change, and slowly but surely, you got change. Go back and read about how radical the suffragist movement was for some further insight into how this works. You also might look into the term "Overton Window." Fascinating stuff.

Which groups are you referring to in the poll when you say "anti-women's rights groups"?

surely to be true it would have to be a current radical feminist saying things that unempower women.

i would like an example of what you have in mind.

Indeed. SOURCE! I demand a source! [/Red Queen-Bender crossover]

And that phrase has been chanted by certain groups in the past, or at least something similar to it.

But most likely, even if this is true, you are mischaracterizing it... possibly unintentionally.

So it would be nice if you actually provided some specific examples.

Why don't you read my post?

And that phrase has been chanted by certain groups in the past, or at least something similar to it.

what makes you think i didnt read your post?

if you are going to talk about radical feminists i want to know who and when.

no i dont think that 2 year dead andrea dworkin is working against women's best interests from her grave.

no i dont think that things said 30 years ago count.

so. who are you talking about?

God...why is it so fucking hard to find a balanced source on anything?

100 people who are screwing up america by Bernard Goldberg has parts that aren't insane, and some of this is based on that.

Wouldn't it be disempower, or depower or something? I'm honestly curious.

what makes you think i didnt read your post?

if you are going to talk about radical feminists i want to know who and when.

no i dont think that 2 year dead andrea dworkin is working against women's best interests from her grave.

no i dont think that things said 30 years ago count.

so. who are you talking about?

It's also important to note what Dworkin actually said (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinno.htm):
"Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I'm not saying that sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point."
I don't see anything particularly radical about that point of view.

100 people who are screwing up america by Bernard Goldberg

Nice. ;)

Seriously... you actually read that shit?

Wouldn't it be disempower, or depower or something? I'm honestly curious.

Maybe. I'm not really sure, but "unempower" sounding right at the time.

Nice. ;)

Seriously... you actually read that shit?

Don't ask. He was on the Daily Show, so I figured he wouldn't be that nutso. I didn't actually know who he was until then. If you read it, it's sort of funny. He alternates between making good points and frothing-at-the-mouth rage. It's like what you would get if you combined Micheal Moore with George Will.

Besides a massive explosion.

I don't see anything particularly radical about that point of view.

You don't spend much time around teenagers, do you?

You don't spend much time around teenagers, do you?

What the FUCK does that have to do with anything?

You don't spend much time around teenagers, do you?

Actually, I teach mostly freshmen and sophomore college students, so yeah I do. Late teens, but still teens.

If you read it, it's sort of funny.

God, there are so many better things I can do with my time than read Bernard Goldberg.

(I mean, I haven't destroyed a traditional values-based marriage in months. I'm behind my quota, and if the Gay Feminazi Commie Agenda is to succeed, I must step up the pace.)

You don't spend much time around teenagers, do you?

Yeah... whether or not something is "radical" is contingent on where the center is.

radical feminism has various connotations. the sort of slogans you are talking about seem more to do with crazies that call themselves feminists but ultimately give feminism a bad name rather than actual radical feminists. radical feminism as an actual self-identifying 'movement' or philosophy is not crazy at all although it is far from homogenous. i would say that the radical feminists advocating the complete seperation of the sexes and the complete elimination of men from the repreductive process do more harm than good to the general feminist movement although i wouldn't say they are 'unempowering' women.

God...why is it so fucking hard to find a balanced source on anything?

100 people who are screwing up america by Bernard Goldberg has parts that aren't insane, and some of this is based on that.

well now i didnt read that book but as i recall he is talking about living people

so, who in that book qualifies and why?

What the FUCK does that have to do with anything?
It's not uncommon to hear teenagers refer to sex something that chicks more or less will consent to only when drunk.
Actually, I teach mostly freshmen and sophomore college students, so yeah I do. Late teens, but still teens.
I think I knew that.
Yeah... whether or not something is "radical" is contingent on where the center is.
My center is different than yours, probably.

radical feminism has various connotations. the sort of slogans you are talking about seem more to do with crazies that call themselves feminists but ultimately give feminism a bad name rather than actual radical feminists. radical feminism as an actual self-identifying 'movement' or philosophy is not crazy at all although it is far from homogenous. i would say that the radical feminists advocating the complete seperation of the sexes and the complete elimination of men from the repreductive process do more harm than good to the general feminist movement although i wouldn't say they are 'unempowering' women.

When I say "radical" I tend to mean "nutso". I know it's not exactly accurate, but it's just a habit.

well now i didnt read that book but as i recall he is talking about living people

so, who in that book qualifies and why?

I'm not sure, I don't have it with me. It's a couple feminists, but I don't remember the names in there.

Forgive me for failing to have everything on hand.

You know what. Fuck this. I will respond to this topic when people start talking about the topic at hand.

It's not uncommon to hear teenagers refer to sex something that chicks more or less will consent to only when drunk.

Yeah. Teenage boys are pretty stupid about sex sometimes. I remember what it was like--walking around like a raging hormone with a massive erection and no idea how to get someone to help you out with it.

I don't see anything particularly radical about that point of view.

I think it's because she declares that 'penetrative intercourse' - I assume she means fucking - is necessarily violent.

It's completely reasonable to judge that as a mischaracterization, and tending towards sophistry. It really isn't necessarily violent. Often it is quite the opposite in fact.

Maybe she was just trying to be provocative, or maybe she's working out her own issues on paper (a habit all to common these days in the academic community). Either way, disagreeing with that perspective is hardly being reactionary or hidebound. It's completely legitimate to argue that she is dead wrong about sex being a violent act per se.

back when i was in college...and i started college in 1975...there were women who self identified as radical feminists. as such they experimented with all sorts of ideas from political lesbianism to woman only communities (among other things that dont leap to my mind).


Could you explain "Political Lesbianism" to me? I don't exactly get the concept. Being a lesbian is hardly a political philosophy, as far as I know.

EDIT: I warped you to the goddamn next page.

EDIT AGAIN: I can't really comment on the teenage boys thing. I live in a liberal enough community and hung out with the hippie kids, so you never really heard stuff like that said seriously.

radical feminism has various connotations. the sort of slogans you are talking about seem more to do with crazies that call themselves feminists but ultimately give feminism a bad name rather than actual radical feminists. radical feminism as an actual self-identifying 'movement' or philosophy is not crazy at all although it is far from homogenous. i would say that the radical feminists advocating the complete seperation of the sexes and the complete elimination of men from the repreductive process do more harm than good to the general feminist movement although i wouldn't say they are 'unempowering' women.

back when i was in college...and i started college in 1975...there were women who self identified as radical feminists. as such they experimented with all sorts of ideas from political lesbianism to woman only communities (among other things that dont leap to my mind).

most of those radical ideas were tried and rejected or modified and are mainstream today.

i have no idea what might qualify as radical today. i am eagerly awaiting finding out.

back when i was in college...and i started college in 1975...there were women who self identified as radical feminists. as such they experimented with all sorts of ideas from political lesbianism to woman only communities (among other things that dont leap to my mind).

most of those radical ideas were tried and rejected or modified and are mainstream today.

i have no idea what might qualify as radical today. i am eagerly awaiting finding out.

well as far as i am aware radical feminism constitutes all those philosophies that consider the cause of female repression to be the fundamentally patriarchal nature of gender/power relations rather than limiting it their activism to economic or legal or religious aspects of society. the latter types of feminism get more specific names like Marxist feminism or whatever, i can't remember any others.

Could you explain "Political Lesbianism" to me? I don't exactly get the concept. Being a lesbian is hardly a political philosophy, as far as I know.


political lesbianism is where a straight woman only has sex with women so as to avoid the exploitation inherent in sex with a man. i suppose it lives on in the "mandatory" lesbian affair college women have today.

i dont suppose it worked out all that well since if you arent gay, you arent going to enjoy gay sex all that much.

Yeah. Teenage boys are pretty stupid about sex sometimes. I remember what it was like--walking around like a raging hormone with a massive erection and no idea how to get someone to help you out with it.
Yes, but its more depressing when chicks agree with the sentiment.

political lesbianism is where a straight woman only has sex with women so as to avoid the exploitation inherent in sex with a man. i suppose it lives on in the "mandatory" lesbian affair college women have today.


That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard in my life.

Why the FUCK would you have sex with someone you didn't want to just to "fight the power"? That's letting the power control you.

well as far as i am aware radical feminism constitutes all those philosophies that consider the cause of female repression to be the fundamentally patriarchal nature of gender/power relations rather than limiting it their activism to economic or legal or religious aspects of society. the latter types of feminism get more specific names like Marxist feminism or whatever, i can't remember any others.

do you know the names of any current radical feminists?

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard in my life.

Why the FUCK would you have sex with someone you didn't want to just to "fight the power"? That's letting the power control you.

lol

i didnt say they were GOOD ideas.

i guess there are some ideas that you dont know suck until you try them out.

do you know the names of any current radical feminists?

umm, well the head of geography at the university of edinburgh, Liz Bondi, is a radical feminist. i only really know geographers and archaeologists when it comes to feminism. margaret conkey is probably the best know feminist archaeologist and i'm pretty sure she'd come under the radical banner.

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard in my life.

Why the FUCK would you have sex with someone you didn't want to just to "fight the power"? That's letting the power control you.

Why the fuck would you stand around in a square having tear gas hurled at you by the pigs? To make a point!

(To be perfectly honest, I'd say engaging in consensual sexual relations with a member of the same sex isn't, comparatively, all that bad.)

umm, well the head of geography at the university of edinburgh, Liz Bondi, is a radical feminist. i only really know geographers and archaeologists when it comes to feminism. margaret conkey is probably the best know feminist archaeologist and i'm pretty sure she'd come under the radical banner.

oh now you reallyhave me curious. what makes a radical feminist geographer or achaeologist?

Why the fuck would you stand around in a square having tear gas hurled at you by the pigs? To make a point!

(To be perfectly honest, I'd say engaging in consensual sexual relations with a member of the same sex isn't, comparatively, all that bad.)

What point? That CS gas hurts and might make you puke?

Random thought:

Nothing gets better than Judith Butler and her "the nuclear bomb is a fallace that entrenches women" quote.

oh now you reallyhave me curious. what makes a radical feminist geographer or achaeologist?

just the application of radical feminist thought to the subjects in question. margaret conkey (with jill (i think) spector) wrote a very influential paper on the inherent invisibility of women in archaeological investigation, even where gender roles were considered. what usually happened accordng to them was simply a perpetuation of the man-the-hunter/woman-the-gatherer stereotype with no real problematisation of that stereotype. they basically pointed out to a self-identified positivist objectivist dicipline, as it was at the time, that modern gender ideology and stereotypes were shaping the interpretations of prehistoric social relations without ever being acknowledged. in the worst cases men were seen as the only agents of culture and change and women were attributed a constant subservient role throughout.

i haven't studied feminist geography for a good 18 months now so i'm a little hazy on it but i vaguely remember a paper by Bondi that i badly misinterpretted or something on the harassment faced by female residents living in edinburgh's designated red light district where police officially turned a blind eye to prostitution (my current neighbourhood as it happens). something to do with with gendered experiences of space anyway.

Yes, but its more depressing when chicks agree with the sentiment.
Yes, because teenage girls are also full of knowledge about sex.

The opinions of virgins or newly non-virgins on such a subject should never be taken seriously.

The opinions of virgins or newly non-virgins on such a subject should never be taken seriously.

"Taken seriously" as what?

I don't think anyone is saying that those opinions represent truth; merely that they are indicative of the prevalence of certain attitudes among certain groups of people.

I don't think anyone is saying that those opinions represent truth; merely that they are indicative of the prevalence of certain attitudes among certain groups of people.
I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

Anywho, the point is on topic, I think, because feminism still has a long way to go if any group of females, even virgins, look at sex as something that is primarily for the enjoyment of men.

Okay, for all of you who voted "yes":

Specifically, which radical feminist positions are you talking about, and how do they disempower women?

Demonstration that the positions are actually advocated by radical feminists would be helpful, too - preferably with the position in the person's own words, to avoid mischaracterization.

"Taken seriously" as what?

I don't think anyone is saying that those opinions represent truth; merely that they are indicative of the prevalence of certain attitudes among certain groups of people.
I'm just saying that these opinions likely exist becasue the parties in question have no clue what they're talking about. As soon as those kids get laid on a regular basis they'll realize how silly their earlier thinking about sex was.

I'm just saying that these opinions likely exist becasue the parties in question have no clue what they're talking about.

Yet, for some reason, this is the default that must be proven wrong.

Why?

Yet, for some reason, this is the default that must be proven wrong.

Why?
Because in the US, they like to tell teenagers these sorts of things.

I don't think I ever heard anything like that growing up here and I'm just over in Canada.

I'm just saying that these opinions likely exist becasue the parties in question have no clue what they're talking about. As soon as those kids get laid on a regular basis they'll realize how silly their earlier thinking about sex was.
Most of them. Some of them actually do stick to the "no sex before marriage thing." I imagine their lives must be so much more less than they could have been had sex-ed not been evangelical propaganda.
I don't think I ever heard anything like that growing up here and I'm just over in Canada.
To be fair, I am all the way over in Texas. That's quite a distance.

Go back and read about how radical the suffragist movement was for some further insight into how this works. You also might look into the term "Overton Window." Fascinating stuff.

been reading pz?

Who the fuck is saying that?

I'd really like to meet one of these radical feminists that everyone's always going on about. I bet they're a hoot.

One of my professors during my freshman year in college loved that one.. not so much that all sex is rape, but rather that all sex is the product of "society" forcing women to submit to something they might not otherwise have, through subliminal messages in the mass media, our legal system, etc... in other words, consent is not really consent. While that sounds a lot like the old "sex = rape" cliche, her thesis was that men don't ALL knowingly exploit women, but rather act as non-conspiratorial agents of "society." So it's "society" doing the raping, with men as agents.

So there's at least *one* person who believes in that logic.. though really, she's the only person in a place of authority I've ever heard it from. And while most of my female classmates of the time accepted the argument rather vocally in class, I doubt most really adopted that line of reasoning about "society." Made for a memorable lecture, though. :p

Does anyone who matters actually take that sort seriously?

I was under the impression radical feminists were a scourge exclusively on academia, and flatly ignored outside of that.

I for one intend to ignore them for the rest of my life, having had my thorough fill at university.

In this sense, I suppose they do damage 'the cause.'

One of my professors during my freshman year in College loved that one.. not so much that all sex is rape, but rather that all sex is the product of "society" forcing women to submit to something the might not otherwise have, through subliminal messages in the mass media, our legal system, etc...

Did she really say "all sex"?

Or did she just say something to the effect of "our sexist society sexually objectifies and pressures women to the point where seemingly consensual sexual relations are not always genuinely so"?

The two statements are different, and the second is fairer than the first.

Or did she just say something to the effect of "our sexist society sexually objectifies and pressures women to the point where seemingly consensual sexual relations are not always genuinely so"?

It may be fairer, but it still doesn't make much sense. Sex is something that humans instinctively want. If anything, for better or worse, society keeps women (and men) from having the amount of sexual relationships that we would in a state of nature.

It may be fairer, but it still doesn't make much sense. Sex is something that humans instinctively want.

Always? In all circumstances? With anyone? In all forms? Not at all.

Did she really say "all sex"?

Or did she just say something to the effect of "our sexist society sexually objectifies and pressures women to the point where seemingly consensual sexual relations are not always genuinely so"?

The two statements are different, and the second is fairer than the first.

She didn't quite frame the debate that way. She used her examples to describe the present social order as a "poisoned well," meaning that any water you draw from it is harmful and bad. I guess that most closely resembles the second statement, though she did broadly describe the problem as including all forms of interaction between men and women.

So, I'm not exactly sure. This was five years ago, give or take, and no one really pressed her to elaborate... probably because it was a GE English lecture.. kind of unexpected. If it had been an Ethnic Studies or philosophy class, maybe I'd have asked some questions. :p

She didn't quite frame the debate that way. She used her examples to describe the present social order as a "poisoned well," meaning that any water you draw from it is harmful and bad. I guess that most closely resembles the second statement, though she did broadly describe the problem as including all forms of interaction between men and women.

My understanding of this sort of argument is more or less along these lines:

"A given sex act may be free, and some relationships may be more or less genuinely egalitarian, but social interactions between males and females in the context of a patriarchal society will always be warped, to a greater or lesser degree, by sexism, because the sexism is a fundamental characteristic of the culture."

When we consider just how profoundly the way we tend to think of gender and gender roles is affected by our society's sexism, this position is not unreasonable... though I'm not sure I'd defend some of the stronger conclusions that have been drawn from it.

So, I'm not exactly sure. This was five years ago, give or take, and no one really pressed her to elaborate... probably because it was a GE English lecture.. kind of unexpected. If it had been an Ethnic Studies or philosophy class, maybe I'd have asked some questions. :p

Fair enough.

Those aren't feminists. Those are crazies. I'm a radical feminist, and I believe in consentual sex. I think we always tend to forget the definition of feminism, which is campaigning for sexual equality, not for female supremacy. It's like when people threaten to kill soldiers and call themselves pacifists. It's a whole lot of bullsh.t that only goes to make the road harder for those of us who are serious about feminism/pacifism.

Always? In all circumstances? With anyone? In all forms? Not at all.
Uh, no, but that's not how sex works in our society. At all. I don't really know what you're trying to say.

I think we always tend to forget the definition of feminism, which is campaigning for sexual equality, not for female supremacy.

Where are the female supremacists? Where?

And if they're a tiny, marginalized minority, as they seem to be... why do people obsess so much over them?

bullsh.t

That's a bit difficult to pronounce, hey.

Uh, no, but that's not how sex works in our society. At all. I don't really know what you're trying to say.

Look, the position you referred was this:

"our sexist society sexually objectifies and pressures women to the point where seemingly consensual sexual relations are not always genuinely so"

Your objection was that women, like all mature humans (excepting the tiny minority of asexuals), want sex.

I grant this. But that does not mean that is impossible for women (or men) to be pressured into sex... because while the vast majority of mature humans, male and female, desire sex, they do not necessarily desire sex at every opportunity.

Where are the female supremacists? Where?

And if they're a tiny, marginalized minority, as they seem to be... why do people obsess so much over them?

I dunno...ask the OP. I've never seen any crazed female supremacists, but I sure seem to hear about them alot. There's a pile of threads on here dedicated to them.

I dunno...ask the OP.

Well, the OP didn't say that they were female supremacists so much as that they disempowered women.

And I did ask him about that... so did other people. And I also asked all the "Yes" voters.

I'm still waiting for an answer.

I've never seen any crazed female supremacists, but I sure seem to hear about them alot. There's a pile of threads on here dedicated to them.

Yeah, because generally "female supremacist" or "feminazi" in effect means "feminist who doesn't quietly tolerate sexism."

they do not necessarily desire sex at every opportunity.
And in our society we encourage people (especially women) NOT to have sex at every opportunity. I'd be willing to bet that in a state of nature, people pretty much do.

That professors argument is that in our relatively conservative society (in terms of human history) we somehow pressure people into having more sex than they normally would. Pure lunacy.

That professors argument is that our relatively conservative society (in terms of human history) is that we somehow pressure people into having more sex than they normally would.

No. Stop thinking so quantitatively.

I would love to have a whole lot more sex than I do now... but not with Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter.

If I were somehow pressured to have sex with Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter, my decision to do so would not be a genuinely free one... even though, in the abstract, I do want more sex.

I don't know about "supremacist", but you seem to be able to find "extreme feminists" - for want of a better term - in many Western uni campuses... I recall a few rather vocal ones from my time in one here.

What's wrong with "extreme feminists"?

Specifically?

I dunno...ask the OP. I've never seen any crazed female supremacists, but I sure seem to hear about them alot. There's a pile of threads on here dedicated to them.

I don't know about "supremacist", but you seem to be able to find "extreme feminists" - for want of a better term - in many Western uni campuses... I recall a few rather vocal ones from my time in one here. One PhD student in particular almost perfectly fitted the stereotype of the dungeree-wearing, shaved headed feminist... she had a large red dragon tattooed on the side of her head. In case anyone's wondering, I know she was "extreme" from a rather public altercation she had on campus once. :)

I don't know about "supremacist", but you seem to be able to find "extreme feminists" - for want of a better term - in many Western uni campuses... I recall a few rather vocal ones from my time in one here. One PhD student in particular almost perfectly fitted the stereotype of the dungeree-wearing, shaved headed feminist... she had a large red dragon tattooed on the side of her head. In case anyone's wondering, I know she was "extreme" from a rather public altercation she had on campus once. :)

Extremists feminists and female supremacists are completely different. Feminists believe in equality, and are allowed to get a little crazy, if they like. There's no law against shaving your head or burning bras. Supremacists believe that women should be valued above men. To be honest, I haven't met any supremacists, but all I'm trying to do is say that feminism is about equality, not revenge.

No. Stop thinking so quantitatively.

I would love to have a whole lot more sex than I do now... but not with Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter.

If I were somehow pressured to have sex with Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter, my decision to do so would not be a genuinely free one... even though, in the abstract, I do want more sex.
Yeah, but nothing in society is pressuring you to have sex with those people. I don't get it. Is the professor saying that society pressures women to have sex with people they "normally" would not have sex with? Ridiculous. A reasonably attractive women has a huge range of men to choose from.

What's wrong with "extreme feminists"?

Specifically?

With them, personally, you mean? Nothing, apart from the professing or behaviour exposing nutty beliefs that happen to affect others.

People can believe the earth is flat or even that Hitler was God if they like; I don't care. But if those beliefs affect me or others, then I do care.

Yeah, but nothing in society is pressuring you to have sex with those people.

It was an analogy.

I don't get it. Is the professor saying that society pressures women to have sex with people they "normally" would not have sex with?

Not just "people" necessarily; it's broader than that.

Nor is it exactly a matter of society pressuring women to have "more sex" - it is a matter of society being sexist in such a way as to make men (individually, and as a group) the dominant partner.

Applied to sexuality, this means that there is often a power relation in sex (though quite possibly one unintended by the man) - and as always, inequity in power degrades genuine freedom of choice.

Ridiculous. A reasonably attractive women has a huge range of men to choose from.

Well, first, just on the surface, simple arithmetic suggests that this is not the case... unless "reasonably attractive" is restricted to a small minority of females.

Second, perhaps she does indeed have men to choose from... but who does she choose? And on what basis?

It is at least possible that sexist conceptions of femininity and a sexist valuation of herself make her choice less than perfectly free.

With them, personally, you mean?

With their ideology.

It was an analogy.
A pointless one.
Not just "people" necessarily; it's broader than that.

Nor is it exactly a matter of society pressuring women to have "more sex" - it is a matter of society being sexist in such a way as to make men (individually, and as a group) the dominant partner.

Applied to sexuality, this means that there is often a power relation in sex (though quite possibly one unintended by the man) - and as always, inequity in power degrades genuine freedom of choice.
Even if men were the dominant partner in a relationship, which I do not believe they are (outside of the ghetto and trailer parks anyway), I don't see how it's even the same issue. Plenty of men complain about how their wives and girlfriends aren't up for sex as often as they'd like.
Well, first, just on the surface, simple arithmetic suggests that this is not the case... unless "reasonably attractive" is restricted to a small minority of females.
Simple arithmetic doesn't work here.
Second, perhaps she does indeed have men to choose from... but who does she choose? And on what basis?

It is at least possible that sexist conceptions of femininity and a sexist valuation of herself make her choice less than perfectly free.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but that's something that will always exist. Maybe in this society she chooses the rich guy with the expensive hair cut and the ability to lie about his feelings. In a state of nature, she'd pick the guy who's best at hunting.

A pointless one.

Hardly, as long as you persisted in not understanding how anyone who wanted more sex could possibly not consent to sex.

Even if men were the dominant partner in a relationship, which I do not believe they are (outside of the ghetto and trailer parks anyway),

It's not as obvious as it once was.

I don't mean that men are ordering women around at whim. Just that there's something of a power relation there, often a subtle one.

I don't see how it's even the same issue. Plenty of men complain about how their wives and girlfriends aren't up for sex as often as they'd like.

What of it?

Sure, but that's something that will always exist. Maybe in this society she chooses the rich guy with the expensive hair cut and the ability to lie about his feelings. In a state of nature, she'd pick the guy who's best at hunting.

In a non-sexist society, she will choose according to her desires, and if she desires that she get the partner who is most wealthy or successful, fine.

In a sexist society, she may choose according to her desires, or she may choose for other reasons. She may choose someone because she recognizes that, in our sexist society, her status is dependent on her male partner... she may choose someone because she is afraid that if she doesn't, she will attain a bad reputation... and so on.

With their ideology.

Well, I'm not going to be drawn into defining people's belief systems for them, so I will only deal with the behaviours I have observed.

At my former varsity they have "career days" where a number of local organisations set up stalls in the central gathering area to promote themselves to students. The particular person who I mentioned earlier - basically attacked the stall belonging to a bank, throwing their pamphlets around and generally being disruptive. When the student representative organising the day approached her to ask her to stop, she basically accused him of assaulting her (he hadn't), and later said that she was "afraid he might attack her or rape her". The rep was not being aggressive in any way, he simply asked her to stop disrupting the stall.

Now there's no way any reasonable person could have drawn the PhD's conclusion - of a threat of assault or rape. So either she was being extremely manipulative or had fairly questionable beliefs surrounding men.

In a non-sexist society, she will choose according to her desires, and if she desires that she get the partner who is most wealthy or successful, fine.

In a sexist society, she may choose according to her desires, or she may choose for other reasons. She may choose someone because she recognizes that, in our sexist society, her status is dependent on her male partner... she may choose someone because she is afraid that if she doesn't, she will attain a bad reputation... and so on.
You aren't talking about a non-sexist society. You're talking about a non-judgmental society, which can't exist with humans. No matter how society is set up, there's always going to be people judging people based on their choice in partner (or partners) and there will always be people who care enough about what those other people think to let it effect their decisions. Whether those judgments are sexist or not, it doesn't really matter.

Besides, I know you know that men are judged on their partners as well.

And that phrase has been chanted by certain groups in the past, or at least something similar to it.

I have seen the phrase "All men are rapists" (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkwddZixGlZAA4phXNyoA?p=all+men+are+rapists) ..

I do not agree.. but I defend their right to free speech.

political lesbianism is where a straight woman only has sex with women so as to avoid the exploitation inherent in sex with a man. i suppose it lives on in the "mandatory" lesbian affair college women have today.

i dont suppose it worked out all that well since if you arent gay, you arent going to enjoy gay sex all that much.

Wouldn't that be called Heching it?

Wouldn't it be disempower, or depower or something? I'm honestly curious.

I seem to recall the word being disempower. :)

No real reason to post this, but I will anyway. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU)

Well, I was thinking about it, and it seems like they do. For example, those types yelling slogans like "There's no such thing as consent! All penetration is violence!" and stuff like that. Doesn't that imply women are unable to make their own decisions, such as consenting?

Obviously, I'm only referring to the radical types.

So...

Discuss.
Disempower much?

"There's no such thing as consent! All penetration is violence!"

At least anyone crazy enough to chant stuff like that won't be reproducing.

Well, I was thinking about it, and it seems like they do. For example, those types yelling slogans like "There's no such thing as consent! All penetration is violence!" and stuff like that. Doesn't that imply women are unable to make their own decisions, such as consenting?

Obviously, I'm only referring to the radical types.

So...

Discuss.
Concern trolling is soooooo last year.

Those aren't feminists. Those are crazies. I'm a radical feminist, and I believe in consentual sex. I think we always tend to forget the definition of feminism, which is campaigning for sexual equality, not for female supremacy. It's like when people threaten to kill soldiers and call themselves pacifists. It's a whole lot of bullsh.t that only goes to make the road harder for those of us who are serious about feminism/pacifism.
The tactic of referring to such crazies as "radical feminists" is a tidy way for anti-feminists to distract and divert discussion. It's a great way to insult and devalue feminism. It's a lovely way to make sure everybody is so busy agreeing with each other that those loud bitchy womenz are mean, mean, MEAN, that they don't actually get around to addressing feminism at all.

Oh, and while we're touching on the subject, "empowering" has got to be one of the least feminist words in our language these days. It's been thoroughly hijacked by people who use it to sell useless crap. Anybody who knows anything about radical feminism knows that "empower" is like totally not hip any more.

At least anyone crazy enough to chant stuff like that won't be reproducing.
Does IVF count?
Sad sad state of affairs that is.

The tactic of referring to such crazies as "radical feminists" is a tidy way for anti-feminists to distract and divert discussion. It's a great way to insult and devalue feminism. It's a lovely way to make sure everybody is so busy agreeing with each other that those loud bitchy womenz are mean, mean, MEAN, that they don't actually get around to addressing feminism at all.

I think the biggest problem with feminism is it has a silly name (and there's a subject close to my own heart). It looks like you're either discriminating based on femaleness (like "racism") or espousing femaleness as The One True Way (and I hate this use of -ism/-ist with a passion, but like "darwinism"), which is - I think - why the "feminists are evil, man-hating supremacists!" thing gets away with it. It's all etymology's fault.

If they'd just called it "sexual equality" in the first place it could've all been avoided. "You're a sexual equalitarian?! You want equality?!" is a lot harder to get away with than "You're a feminist?! You want female supremacy?!".

I think the biggest problem with feminism is it has a silly name (and there's a subject close to my own heart). It looks like you're either discriminating based on femaleness (like "racism") or espousing femaleness as The One True Way (and I hate this use of -ism/-ist with a passion, but like "darwinism"), which is - I think - why the "feminists are evil, man-hating supremacists!" thing gets away with it. It's all etymology's fault.

If they'd just called it "sexual equality" in the first place it could've all been avoided. "You're a sexual equalitarian?! You want equality?!" is a lot harder to get away with than "You're a feminist?! You want female supremacy?!".
*Shrug* I like "feminism," because it's a very efficient way to weed out the rookies who aren't yet ready for the Majors.

If somebody can't be bothered to learn the actual definition of a term before they scream about it, then I don't really think they'll be particularly helpful to me or any movement I'm involved in. If somebody is sooooooo put off by the "fem" prefix that they can't get behind social and political equality for all people, then they're not a feminist in the first place. So what's the loss?

Our language contains piles of gendered, sexist words. Meh. If a gendered word stops you in your tracks, or prevents you from believing in feminism, you're not ready to join The Revolution. :D

Our language contains piles of gendered, sexist words. Meh. If a gendered word stops you in your tracks, or prevents you from believing in feminism, you're not ready to join The Revolution. :D

Amen my masculist sister! :D

Amen my masculist sister! :D
Only one problem: to me, "masculist" makes me think of "masticate" rather than "masculine." So I end up thinking,

"Masculist? What, a radical chewing-and-salivating activist?"

If somebody can't be bothered to learn the actual definition of a term before they scream about it, then I don't really think they'll be particularly helpful to me or any movement I'm involved in. If somebody is sooooooo put off by the "fem" prefix that they can't get behind social and political equality for all people, then they're not a feminist in the first place. So what's the loss?

It's not the people you're fighting alongside that are the problem; it's the people you're fighting against.

Are you fighting against, and trying to reach, reasoned, rational people who are going to use your words as you define them, or are your opponents going to (mis)use anything they can against you? Cater to your audience!

It's not the people you're fighting alongside that are the problem; it's the people you're fighting against.

Are you fighting against, and trying to reach, reasoned, rational people who are going to use your words as you define them, or are your opponents going to (mis)use anything they can against you? Cater to your audience!
So, because my audience is full of people who will intentionally misuse anything they can, I should be sure to carefully choose my terms to please them?

Dude, if there's one thing I've learned from years of being a radical feminist, it's that anti-feminists are NEVER going to be happy. It doesn't matter how much you coddle them or how you fine-tune your words. It doesn't matter how much you tip-toe around. All you end up doing is hampering yourself and diverting your energy away from real issues and real progress, in your useless quest to win the hearts and minds of people who are only interested in hamstringing your efforts from the start.

I say again: somebody who is so hung up on the word "feminism" that they can't cope is a person who is not going to be any help to feminism anyhow. They will consume time and energy with their trivial semantic freak-outs. They are a distraction. They are not yet ready to be useful.

It is possible that they will grow up. Most people do. When that happens, I will be delighted to welcome them into the ranks of The Radical Feminist Army. But I'm not in the business of running some kind of happy-fun preschool for budding feminists.

So, because my audience is full of people who will intentionally misuse anything they can, I should be sure to carefully choose my terms to please them?

Please? No. Make it hard for them to use trivial wordplay to make you sound silly? Yes.

Face it, on your side you have a few people. The anti-feminists are also a few people (even fewer, I'd wager).
And then you have the 90%-plus of everyone - the people who, ultimately, hold the actual power - who don't really care. They're not going to do any significant thought or research on the issue you've spent years fighting for; they want it summed up short 'n' sweet. They're going to look at names and headlines, hear soundbites on the news.

Think about it; you've got a candidate who's "feminist", and a candidate who's "family values". People look, and think "Hmm, feminist. Sounds like racist. Racist bad. Hmm, family values. Family good. Vote family."
Never mind that 'feminist' means "We'd like men and women to be equal, ta." and 'family values' means "women: barefoot and pregnant, making dinner in kitchen*. Gays: executed for heresy."

See? The bad guys won because they look better to people who don't think. Which is almost everybody.

Dude, if there's one thing I've learned from years of being a radical feminist, it's that anti-feminists are NEVER going to be happy. It doesn't matter how much you coddle them or how you fine-tune your words. It doesn't matter how much you tip-toe around. All you end up doing is hampering yourself and diverting your energy away from real issues and real progress, in your useless quest to win the hearts and minds of people who are only interested in hamstringing your efforts from the start.

'Course they're not going to be happy, but they don't have to be do they? You just have to make them look dafter than you so the unthinking masses vote for you instead of them ;)

I say again: somebody who is so hung up on the word "feminism" that they can't cope is a person who is not going to be any help to feminism anyhow. They will consume time and energy with their trivial semantic freak-outs. They are a distraction. They are not yet ready to be useful.

But your one vote isn't worth any more than the one vote of someone who thinks "feminism" means "female supremacy"...
I'm not seriously suggesting the whole feminist movement goes on a massive rebranding exercise; it's way too late for that, and you've just about won already so there's no point. I was just saying that the whole "feminist == female supremacist" nonsense could've been avoided, and at the moment that seems more of a problem. When was the last time we saw a thread herabouts seriously suggesting that women shouldn't be equal?

*Reads post* Y'see? You see? One of my longest and most serious posts in nearly two years arguing over a point that, if you're someone who's actually thought about it, is utterly pointless, with someone whose basic position I agree with! On a day when I have far too much work to be doing anyway!
Dammit, Bottle, just watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU) (again, if necessary), and next time you join a political movement remember that Humans Are Stupid and make sure the name has some sensible etymology behind it ><

Edit:
* Not that I have any problems with making dinner in the kitchen; it's definitely the best room for it.

Dude, if there’s one thing I’ve learned from years of being a radical feminist, it’s that anti-feminists are NEVER going to be happy. It doesn’t matter how much you coddle them or how you fine-tune your words. It doesn’t matter how much you tip-toe around. All you end up doing is hampering yourself and diverting your energy away from real issues and real progress, in your useless quest to win the hearts and minds of people who are only interested in hamstringing your efforts from the start.
True dat.

I was utterly amazed this week at the amount of vitriol and resentment directed here in the UK against the first female football (soccer, to you crazy Colonists) commentator on prime-time BBC.

The Daily Mail was very vocal in its opposition (no surprise there), arguing that women get “too excited” to commentate on football. Though they’ve obviously never listened to the commentary on any international football game; when England scores a goal most male commentators orgasm.

To top it all off, a women somehow involved in the sports broadcasting industry was defending the female commentator, but started her spiel with, “I’m no feminist, but...”

Not a feminist? What sort of horribly brainwashed and numbed women isn't a feminist? Who doesn’t want equality between the sexes; who is against female suffrage?


Oh yeah, Ann Coulter.

Edit>> and yaay for lotsofposts!

Please? No. Make it hard for them to use trivial wordplay to make you sound silly? Yes.

They don't make me look silly when they choose to scream their own ignorance to the skies. :D


Face it, on your side you have a few people.

Actually, that's a common misperception, due largely to the efforts of anti-choicers who portray "feminism" as some Grrl Power Man Hater's Club.

The majority of average people in my country are feminist, they just don't identify that way because of how the term "feminism" is slurred by anti-feminists.

Personally, I'd prefer to educate people about the truth, rather than allowing anti-feminists to redefine reality however it suits them.


The anti-feminists are also a few people (even fewer, I'd wager).
And then you have the 90%-plus of everyone - the people who, ultimately, hold the actual power - who don't really care. They're not going to do any significant thought or research on the issue you've spent years fighting for; they want it summed up short 'n' sweet. They're going to look at names and headlines, hear soundbites on the news.

And, again, if they are still at that stage, then they aren't ready to join the ranks of the Radical Feminist Army.

Perhaps they're a budding new feminist. Lovely for them! Pretty much everybody these days (aside from a minority of real wackos) is a budding feminist. There are plenty of books, classes, groups, and websites they can check out to help them along their way.

But no, I'm not going to rename an entire movement just because new members question the name. Those questions are actually great ways to start real discussion and explain why "feminism" is named the way it is, and this can lead to fun talks about the history of feminism and how we've gotten to where we are.


Think about it; you've got a candidate who's "feminist", and a candidate who's "family values". People look, and think "Hmm, feminist. Sounds like racist. Racist bad. Hmm, family values. Family good. Vote family."

And again, anybody who's prepared to join a movement based on sound bites is NOT ready to be remotely helpful to feminism. Even if they "joined" feminism, they would be of no use whatsoever.

I prefer that they simply sit back and quietly reap the benefits feminism has brought them, until such time as they are prepared to put more than 30 seconds' worth of thought into their social 'orientation.'


Never mind that 'feminist' means "We'd like men and women to be equal, ta." and 'family values' means "women: barefoot and pregnant, making dinner in kitchen*. Gays: executed for heresy."

See? The bad guys won because they look better to people who don't think. Which is almost everybody.

People who don't think are useless to me. Feminism has done amazingly well without them for the last century, and I see no particular reason to change this.


'Course they're not going to be happy, but they don't have to be do they? You just have to make them look dafter than you so the unthinking masses vote for you instead of them ;)

They do look dafter than me, if they're walking around saying that "feminism" = pro-woman anti-male.

What the "unthinking masses" see is their business. Feminism has succeeded in bringing suffrage, legalized contraception, property rights, fundamental civil rights, and increased economic opportunity, among other things, despite its supposedly-unmarketable name.


But your one vote isn't worth any more than the one vote of someone who thinks "feminism" means "female supremacy"...

Which is why I correct anybody who holds that misconception. What, you want me to lie to them and agree that their misconception is accurate, and then re-brand my beliefs to fit whatever the current mood happens to be?

Nah, not worth the effort. Most people who think that "feminist" = "female supremacy" can simply be informed of the actual meaning of the term. They usually go, "Oh. I thought it meant something else."


I'm not seriously suggesting the whole feminist movement goes on a massive rebranding exercise; it's way too late for that, and you've just about won already so there's no point. I was just saying that the whole "feminist == female supremacist" nonsense could've been avoided, and at the moment that seems more of a problem. When was the last time we saw a thread herabouts seriously suggesting that women shouldn't be equal?

We see such threads and ideas all the time, unfortunately. My post history tends to run straight through most of them. I'm a masochist as well as a feminist. :D


*Reads post* Y'see? You see? One of my longest and most serious posts in nearly two years arguing over a point that, if you're someone who's actually thought about it, is utterly pointless, with someone whose basic position I agree with! On a day when I have far too much work to be doing anyway!
Forcing you to waste your time thusly is a devious strategy of the Radical Feminist Army. While you are distracted we are free to go about our nefarious business unimpeded. We have stolen your leg razors, replaced all your music with maudlin acoustic guitar pieces about our vaginas, and have burned Hugh Hefner as a sacrifice to the Goddess. Rawr.

Actually, that's a common misperception, due largely to the efforts of anti-choicers who portray "feminism" as some Grrl Power Man Hater's Club.

The majority of average people in my country are feminist, they just don't identify that way because of how the term "feminism" is slurred by anti-feminists.
Exactly! That was my point! Your name is easily abused*, and people who agree with you don't identify with it!

Well, that argument could've been more concise :s

*Ooh, unintentional pun. Excellent, I love ambiguity sometimes.

Forcing you to waste your time thusly is a devious strategy of the Radical Feminist Army. While you are distracted we are free to go about our nefarious business unimpeded. We have stolen your leg razors, replaced all your music with maudlin acoustic guitar pieces about our vaginas, and have burned Hugh Hefner as a sacrifice to the Goddess. Rawr.
But... My leg razor...

Most of them. Some of them actually do stick to the "no sex before marriage thing." I imagine their lives must be so much more less than they could have been had sex-ed not been evangelical propaganda.

Is waiting to have sex until marriage really such a bad thing? Personally, I've had two or three (depending on what you count) sexual partners and I'm about to get married. I don't intend on having any more sexual partners, and I could definitely have done without at least one of them.

Who the fuck is saying that?

I'd really like to meet one of these radical feminists that everyone's always going on about. I bet they're a hoot.

They're in the same place as the homosexuals who want to turn everyone gay and the millitant atheists who want to ban religion and shoot anyone who believes in god.

The imagination is a big place, there's room for all of them.

They're in the same place as the homosexuals who want to turn everyone gay and the millitant atheists who want to ban religion and shoot anyone who believes in god.

The imagination is a big place, there's room for all of them.

Yes, Valerie Solanas does not exist, and she never had even one follower...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas

just the application of radical feminist thought to the subjects in question. margaret conkey (with jill (i think) spector) wrote a very influential paper on the inherent invisibility of women in archaeological investigation, even where gender roles were considered. what usually happened accordng to them was simply a perpetuation of the man-the-hunter/woman-the-gatherer stereotype with no real problematisation of that stereotype. they basically pointed out to a self-identified positivist objectivist dicipline, as it was at the time, that modern gender ideology and stereotypes were shaping the interpretations of prehistoric social relations without ever being acknowledged. in the worst cases men were seen as the only agents of culture and change and women were attributed a constant subservient role throughout.

i haven't studied feminist geography for a good 18 months now so i'm a little hazy on it but i vaguely remember a paper by Bondi that i badly misinterpretted or something on the harassment faced by female residents living in edinburgh's designated red light district where police officially turned a blind eye to prostitution (my current neighbourhood as it happens). something to do with with gendered experiences of space anyway.


its kinda sad to me that that should be considered radical.

i looked the women you named up last night. it wasnt a very fruitful search but it did leave me with the impression that they are doing important work. leaving half the human race out of the study of archaeology is pretty stupid.

ive never known what geographers do no matter what their political slant. it sounds like bondi is also doing important work that shouldnt be considered radical.

(not that im dissing you for calling it radical. its wrong that it should be radical to take women's issues into consideration. that is IS considered radical says much about our culture.)

its kinda sad to me that that should be considered radical.

i looked the women you named up last night. it wasnt a very fruitful search but it did leave me with the impression that they are doing important work. leaving half the human race out of the study of archaeology is pretty stupid.

ive never known what geographers do no matter what their political slant. it sounds like bondi is also doing important work that shouldnt be considered radical.

(not that im dissing you for calling it radical. its wrong that it should be radical to take women's issues into consideration. that is IS considered radical says much about our culture.)

I see Valerie Solanas and her SCUM Manifesto as "radical feminism".

Yes, Valerie Solanas does not exist, and she never had even one follower...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas

Who died 19 years ago...

The OP seems to be suggesting that there are noticable numbers of these 'radical feminists' about, this is blatantly false.

Oh, and from your article:

"An interview with her was published in the Village Voice in 1977. She denied that the SCUM Manifesto was ever meant to be taken seriously."

So, there oesn't seem to be any radical feminists out there except Solanas.

No, I don't think that she is really affecting the feminist movement in one way or another. It looks to me like radical feminists are more of a bogeywoman for sacred men than an actual force for societal change.

EDIT: Whoops, that is supposed to read scared men

I wouldn't say that Solanas was alone - she just didn't get a lot of press outside of lesbian circles.

I've met plenty of lesbians who hold the same views that Solanas outlined - namely, that all men should be slaughtered.

So, there oesn't seem to be any radical feminists out there except Solanas.

No, I don't think that she is really affecting the feminist movement in one way or another. It looks to me like radical feminists are more of a bogeywoman for sacred men than an actual force for societal change.

EDIT: Whoops, that is supposed to read scared men

So, there oesn't seem to be any radical feminists out there except Solanas.

No, I don't think that she is really affecting the feminist movement in one way or another. It looks to me like radical feminists are more of a bogeywoman for sacred men than an actual force for societal change.

EDIT: Whoops, that is supposed to read scared men
Pretty much.

It's like how I'm sure you could find an example of a gay person, somewhere, who actually advocates forcing all straight people into gay relationships. But the gay pride movement really isn't remotely about that, and gay activists aren't going to take such crazies any more seriously than anybody else does.

Yes, there are women who say that all men are scum, etc etc etc. But these women are 1) not feminists and 2) not taken seriously by feminists any more than they are taken seriously by anybody else.

Oh, and I kind of like your original type-o with "sacred men." It fits. The only people who are actually scared by the Feminazi bogeywoman are men who are waaaay too used to their sacred male status and all the unearned perks that go with it.

Wouldn't that be called Heching it?

at the risk of dissing a fellow woman...

i think that affair had little to do with politics and everything to do with fucking her way to fame.

Whoever posted this thread obviously has no idea what a radical feminist is.

A radical is a person who believes with dealing with social problems by fighting their primary causes.
A feminist is any person who believes that women are human beings.
The OP presents a silly strawman of radical feminism.

Errr... bit of a tricky question, really.

A few so-called Radical Feminists are usually so wildly politicised in other areas in addition that it makes them absolutely impossible to listen to after about ten seconds of ranting, which certainly does undermine their cause.

On the other hand, some of them are genuinely dedicated, and although from time to time things might go a bit far and push over to women having the upper hand over men.

I can certainly see why this would be fair after thousands of years of men in charge, but being male myself, and hence born slightly bigoted *sighs*, equal rights is what I really support, rather than simply turning the status quo on its head.

I see Valerie Solanas and her SCUM Manifesto as "radical feminism".

excellent citation! yes, i would also consider valerie solanas as a radical feminist.

i didnt know anything about her but read your link

she is a radical feminst rather than a nutcase* because her scum manifesto wasnt meant to be taken literally. it is vitriolic hyperbole designed to shake the reader out of his/her complacent attitude toward gender politics.

http://gos.sbc.edu/s/solanas.html

its a fun read.

she is writing about a group that never existed. she didnt expect to strike fear into the hearts of men. she goes on a rambling discussion of gender politics hitting hard at many of the common conceptions popular back in '68 when it was written. it gives you a lot to think about.

*not that she didnt end up as a bit of a nutcase, just that the scum manifesto isnt an insane rant.

excellent citation! yes, i would also consider valerie solanas as a radical feminist.

i didnt know anything about her but read your link

she is a radical feminst rather than a nutcase* because her scum manifesto wasnt meant to be taken literally. it is vitriolic hyperbole designed to shake the reader out of his/her complacent attitude toward gender politics.

http://gos.sbc.edu/s/solanas.html

its a fun read.

she is writing about a group that never existed. she didnt expect to strike fear into the hearts of men. she goes on a rambling discussion of gender politics hitting hard at many of the common conceptions popular back in '68 when it was written. it gives you a lot to think about.

*not that she didnt end up as a bit of a nutcase, just that the scum manifesto isnt an insane rant.

Yes, that didn't stop some idiots from thinking the document was completely serious (a very small number of folks).

Agreed. Not that she didn't have a few followers (whom she did not organize) who thought the manifesto was serious.

To me, "radical" means someone willing to say or do something truly shocking.

Most feminists never come close.

If you want to get into some serious radical feminist shit, read Emma Goldman:cool:

If you want to get into some serious radical feminist shit, read Emma Goldman:cool:

and what would you consider her most radically feminist stance?

and what would you consider her most radically feminist stance?That question makes no sense. Her theory of feminism was a radical one in that she attacked the institution of patriarchy at it's root rather then simply railing against its individual effects.

Here's one of here more famous essays:

THE TRAFFIC IN WOMEN
by Emma Goldman

OUR REFORMERS have suddenly made a great discovery--the white slave traffic. The papers are full of these "unheard-of conditions," and lawmakers are already planning a new set of laws to check the horror.

It is significant that whenever the public mind is to be diverted from a great social wrong, a crusade is inaugurated against indecency, gambling, saloons, etc. And what is the result of such crusades? Gambling is increasing, saloons are doing a lively business through back entrances, prostitution is at its height, and the system of pimps and cadets is but aggravated.

How is it that an institution, known almost to every child, should have been discovered so suddenly? How is it that this evil, known to all sociologists, should now be made such an important issue?

To assume that the recent investigation of the white slave traffic (and, by the way, a very superficial investigation) has discovered anything new, is, to say the least, very foolish. Prostitution has been, and is, a widespread evil, yet mankind goes on its business, perfectly indifferent to the sufferings and distress of the victims of prostitution. As indifferent, indeed, as mankind has remained to our industrial system, or to economic prostitution.

Only when human sorrows are turned into a toy with glaring colors will baby people become interested --for a while at least. The people are a very fickle baby that must have new toys every day. The "righteous" cry against the white slave traffic is such a toy. It serves to amuse the people for a little while, and it will help to create a few more fat political jobs--parasites who stalk about the world as inspectors, investigators, detectives, and so forth.

What is really the cause of the trade in women? Not merely white women, but yellow and black women as well. Exploitation, of course; the merciless Moloch of capitalism that fattens on underpaid labor, thus driving thousands of women and girls into prostitution. With Mrs. Warren these girls feel, "Why waste your life working for a few shillings a week in a scullery, eighteen hours a day?"

Naturally our reformers say nothing about this cause. They know it well enough, but it doesn't pay to say anything about it. It is much more profitable to play the Pharisee, to pretend an outraged morality, than to go to the bottom of things.

However, there is one commendable exception among the young writers: Reginald Wright Kauffman, whose work The House of Bondage is the first earnest attempt to treat the social evil--not from a sentimental Philistine viewpoint. A journalist of wide experience, Mr. Kauffman proves that our industrial system leaves most women no alternative except prostitution. The women portrayed in The House of Bondage belong to the working class. Had the author portrayed the life of women in other spheres, he would have been confronted with the same state of affairs.

Nowhere is woman treated according to the merit of her work, but rather as a sex. It is therefore almost inevitable that she should pay for her right to exist, to keep a position in whatever line, with sex favors. Thus it is merely a question of degree whether she sells herself to one man, in or out of marriage, or to many men. Whether our reformers admit it or not, the economic and social inferiority of woman is responsible for prostitution.

Just at present our good people are shocked by the disclosures that in New York City alone one out of every ten women works in a factory, that the average wage received by women is six dollars per week for forty-eight to sixty hours of work, and that the majority of female wage workers face many months of idleness which leaves the average wage about $280 a year. In view of these economic horrors, is it to be wondered at that prostitution and the white slave trade have become such dominant factors?

Lest the preceding figures be considered an exaggeration, it is well to examine what some authorities on prostitution have to say:

"A prolific cause of female depravity can be found in the several tables, showing the description of the employment pursued, and the wages received, by the women previous to their fall, and it will be a question for the political economist to decide how far mere business consideration should be an apology --on the part of employers for a reduction in their rates of remuneration, and whether the savings of a small percentage on wages is not more than counterbalanced by the enormous amount of taxation enforced on the public at large to defray the expenses incurred on account of a system of vice, which is the direct result, in many cases, of insufficient compensation of honest labor."1

Our present-day reformers would do well to look into Dr. Sanger's book. There they will find that out of 2,000 cases under his observation, but few came from the middle classes, from well-ordered conditions, or pleasant homes. By far the largest majority were working girls and working women; some driven into prostitution through sheer want, others because of a cruel, wretched life at home, others again because of thwarted and crippled physical natures (of which I shall speak later on). Also it will do the maintainers of purity and morality good to learn that out of two thousand cases, 490 were married women, women who lived with their husbands. Evidently there was not much of a guaranty for their "safety and purity" in the sanctity of marriage.2

Dr. Alfred Blaschko, in Prostitution in the Nineteenth Century, is even more emphatic in characterizing economic conditions as one of the most vital factors of prostitution.

"Although prostitution has existed in all ages, it was left to the nineteenth century to develop it into a gigantic social institution. The development of industry with vast masses of people in the competitive market, the growth and congestion of large cities, the insecurity and uncertainty of employment, has given prostitution an impetus never dreamed of at any period in human history."

And again Havelock Ellis, while not so absolute in dealing with the economic cause, is nevertheless compelled to admit that it is indirectly and directly the main cause. Thus he finds that a large percentage of prostitutes is recruited from the servant class, although the latter have less care and greater security. On the other hand, Mr. Ellis does not deny that the daily routine, the drudgery, the monotony of the servant girl's lot, and especially the fact that she may never partake of the companionship and joy of a home, is no mean factor in forcing her to seek recreation and forgetfulness in the gaiety and glimmer of prostitution. In other words, the servant girl, being treated as a drudge, never having the right to herself, and worn out by the caprices of her mistress, can find an outlet, like the factory or shopgirl, only in prostitution.

The most amusing side of the question now before the public is the indignation of our "good, respectable people," especially the various Christian gentlemen, who are always to be found in the front ranks of every crusade. Is it that they are absolutely ignorant of the history of religion, and especially of the Christian religion? Or is it that they hope to blind the present generation to the part played in the past by the Church in relation to prostitution? Whatever their reason, they should be the last to cry out against the unfortunate victims of today, since it is known to every intelligent student that prostitution is of religious origin, maintained and fostered for many centuries, not as a shame, but as a virtue, hailed as such by the Gods themselves.

"It would seem that the origin of prostitution is to be found primarily in a religious custom, religion, the great conserver of social tradition, preserving in a transformed shape a primitive freedom that was passing out of the general social life. The typical example is that recorded by Herodotus, in the fifth century before Christ, at the Temple of Mylitta, the Babylonian Venus, where every woman, once in her life, had to come and give herself to the first stranger, who threw a coin in her lap, to worship the goddess. Very similar customs existed in other parts of western Asia, in North Africa, in Cyprus, and other islands of the eastern Mediterranean, and also in Greece, where the temple of Aphrodite on the fort at Corinth possessed over a thousand hierodules, dedicated to the service of the goddess.

"The theory that religious prostitution developed, as a general rule, out of the belief that the generative activity of human beings possessed a mysterious and sacred influence in promoting the fertility of Nature, is maintained by all authoritative writers on the subject. Gradually, however, and when prostitution became an organized institution under priestly influence, religious prostitution developed utilitarian sides, thus helping to increase public revenue.

"The rise of Christianity to political power produced little change in policy. The leading fathers of the Church tolerated prostitution. Brothels under municipal protection are found in the thirteenth century. They constituted a sort of public service, the directors of them being considered almost as public servants."3

To this must be added the following from Dr. Sanger's work:

"Pope Clement II. issued a bull that prostitutes would be tolerated if they pay a certain amount of their earnings to the Church.

"Pope Sixtus IV. was more practical; from one single brothel, which he himself had built, he received an income of 20,000 ducats."

In modern times the Church is a little more careful in that direction. At least she does not openly demand tribute from prostitutes. She finds it much more profitable to go in for real estate, like Trinity Church, for instance, to rent out death traps at an exorbitant price to those who live off and by prostitution.

Much as I should like to, my space will not admit speaking of prostitution in Egypt, Greece, Rome, and during the Middle Ages. The conditions in the latter period are particularly interesting, inasmuch as prostitution was organized into guilds, presided over by a brothel queen. These guilds employed strikes as a medium of improving their condition and keeping a standard price. Certainly that is more practical a method than the one used by the modern wage-slave in society.

It would be one-sided and extremely superficial to maintain that the economic factor is the only cause of prostitution. There are others no less important and vital. That, too, our reformers know, but dare discuss even less than the institution that saps the very life out of both men and women. I refer to the sex question, the very mention of which causes most people moral spasms.

It is a conceded fact that woman is being reared as a sex commodity, and yet she is kept in absolute ignorance of the meaning and importance of sex. Everything dealing with that subject is suppressed, and persons who attempt to bring light into this terrible darkness are persecuted and thrown into prison. Yet it is nevertheless true that so long as a girl is not to know how to take care of herself, not to know the function of the most important part of her life, we need not be surprised if she becomes an easy prey to prostitution, or to any other form of a relationship which degrades her to the position of an object for mere sex gratification.

It is due to this ignorance that the entire life and nature of the girl is thwarted and crippled. We have long ago taken it as a self-evident fact that the boy may follow the call of the wild; that is to say, that the boy may, as soon as his sex nature asserts itself, satisfy that nature; but our moralists are scandalized at the very thought that the nature of a girl should assert itself. To the moralist prostitution does not consist so much in the fact that the woman sells her body, but rather that she sells it out of wedlock. That this is no mere statement is proved by the fact that marriage for monetary considerations is perfectly legitimate, sanctified by law and public opinion, while any other union is condemned and repudiated. Yet a prostitute, if properly defined, means nothing else than "any person for whom sexual relationships are subordinated to gain."4

"Those women are prostitutes who sell their bodies for the exercise of the sexual act and make of this a profession."5

In fact, Banger goes further; he maintains that the act of prostitution is "intrinsically equal to that of a man or woman who contracts a marriage for economic reasons."

Of course, marriage is the goal of every girl, but as thousands of girls cannot marry, our stupid social customs condemn them either to a life of celibacy or prostitution. Human nature asserts itself regardless of all laws, nor is there any plausible reason why nature should adapt itself to a perverted conception of morality.

Society considers the sex experiences of a man as attributes of his general development, while similar experiences in the life of a woman are looked upon as a terrible calamity, a loss of honor and of all that is good and noble in a human being. This double standard of morality has played no little part in the creation and perpetuation of prostitution. It involves the keeping of the young in absolute ignorance on sex matters, which alleged "innocence," together with an overwrought and stifled sex nature, helps to bring about a state of affairs that our Puritans are so anxious to avoid or prevent.

Not that the gratification of sex must needs lead to prostitution; it is the cruel, heartless, criminal persecution of those who dare divert from the beaten track, which is responsible for it.

Girls, mere children, work in crowded, over-heated rooms ten to twelve hours daily at a machine, which tends to keep them in a constant over-excited sex state. Many of these girls have no home or comforts of any kind; therefore the street or some place of cheap amusement is the only means of forgetting their daily routine. This naturally brings them into close proximity with the other sex. It is hard to say which of the two factors brings the girl's over-sexed condition to a climax, but it is certainly the most natural thing that a climax should result. That is the first step toward prostitution. Nor is the girl to be held responsible for it. On the contrary, it is altogether the fault of society, the fault of our lack of understanding, of our lack of appreciation of life in the making; especially is it the criminal fault of our moralists, who condemn a girl for all eternity, because she has gone from the "path of virtue"; that is, because her first sex experience has taken place with out the sanction of the Church.

The girl feels herself a complete outcast, with the doors of home and society closed in her face. Her entire training and tradition is such that the girl herself feels depraved and fallen, and therefore has no ground to stand upon, or any hold that will lift her up, instead of dragging her down. Thus society creates the victims that it afterwards vainly attempts to get rid of. The meanest, most depraved and decrepit man still considers himself too good to take as his wife the woman whose grace he was quite willing to buy, even though he might thereby save her from a life of horror. Nor can she turn to her own sister for help. In her stupidity the latter deems herself too pure and chaste, not realizing that her own position is in many respects even more deplorable than her sister's of the street.

"The wife who married for money, compared with the prostitute," says Havelock Ellis, "is the true scab. She is paid less, gives much more in return in labor and care, and is absolutely bound to her master. The prostitute never signs away the right over her own person, she retains her freedom and personal rights, nor is she always compelled to submit to man's embrace."

Nor does the better-than-thou woman realize the apologist claim of Lecky that "though she may be the supreme type of vice, she is also the most efficient guardian of virtue. But for her, happy homes would be polluted, unnatural and harmful practice would abound."

Moralists are ever ready to sacrifice one-half of the human race for the sake of some miserable institution which they can not outgrow. As a matter of fact, prostitution is no more a safeguard for the purity of the home than rigid laws are a safeguard against prostitution. Fully fifty per cent. of married men are patrons of brothels. It is through this virtuous element that the married women--nay, even the children--are infected with venereal diseases. Yet society has not a word of condemnation for the man, while no law is too monstrous to be set in motion against the helpless victim. She is not only preyed upon by those who use her, but she is also absolutely at the mercy of every policeman and miserable detective on the beat, the officials at the station house, the authorities in every prison.

In a recent book by a woman who was for twelve years the mistress of a "house," are to be found the following figures: "The authorities compelled me to pay every month fines between $14.70 to $29.70, the girls would pay from $5.70 to $9.70 to the police." Considering that the writer did her business in a small city, that the amounts she gives do not include extra bribes and fines, one can readily see the tremendous revenue the police department derives from the blood money of its victims, whom it will not even protect. Woe to those who refuse to pay their toll; they would be rounded up like cattle, "if only to make a favorable impression upon the good citizens of the city, or if the powers needed extra money on the side. For the warped mind who believes that a fallen woman is incapable of human emotion it would be impossible to realize the grief, the disgrace, the tears, the wounded pride that was ours every time we were pulled in."

Strange, isn't it, that a woman who has kept a "house" should be able to feel that way? But stranger still that a good Christian world should bleed and fleece such women, and give them nothing in return except obloquy and persecution. Oh, for the charity of a Christian world!

Much stress is laid on white slaves being imported into America. How would America ever retain her virtue if Europe did not help her out? I will not deny that this may be the case in some instances, any more than I will deny that there are emissaries of Germany and other countries luring economic slaves into America; but I absolutely deny that prostitution is recruited to any appreciable extent from Europe. It may be true that the majority of prostitutes of New York City are foreigners, but that is because the majority of the population is foreign. The moment we go to any other American city, to Chicago or the Middle West, we shall find that the number of foreign prostitutes is by far a minority.

Equally exaggerated is the belief that the majority of street girls in this city were engaged in this business before they came to America. Most of the girls speak excellent English, are Americanized in habits and appearance,--a thing absolutely impossible unless they had lived in this country many years. That is, they were driven into prostitution by American conditions, by the thoroughly American custom for excessive display of finery and clothes, which, of course, necessitates money,--money that cannot be earned in shops or factories.

In other words, there is no reason to believe that any set of men would go to the risk and expense of getting foreign products, when American conditions are overflooding the market with thousands of girls. On the other hand, there is sufficient evidence to prove that the export of American girls for the purpose of prostitution is by no means a small factor.

Thus Clifford G. Roe, ex-Assistant State Attorney of Cook County, Ill., makes the open charge that New England girls are shipped to Panama for the express use of men in the employ of Uncle Sam. Mr. Roe adds that "there seems to be an underground railroad between Boston and Washington which many girls travel." Is it not significant that the railroad should lead to the very seat of Federal authority? That Mr: Roe said more than was desired in certain quarters is proved by the fact that he lost his position. It is not practical for men in office to tell tales from school.

The excuse given for the conditions in Panama is that there are no brothels in the Canal Zone. That is the usual avenue of escape for a hypocritical world that dares not face the truth. Not in the Canal Zone, not in the city limits,--therefore prostitution does not exist.

Next to Mr. Roe, there is James Bronson Reynolds, who has made a thorough study of the white slave traffic in Asia. As a staunch American citizen and friend of the future Napoleon of America, Theodore Roosevelt, he is surely the last to discredit the virtue of his country. Yet we are informed by him that in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Yokohama, the Augean stables of American vice are located. There American prostitutes have made themselves so conspicuous that in the Orient "American girl" is synonymous with prostitute. Mr. Reynolds reminds his countrymen that while Americans in China are under the protection of our consular representatives, the Chinese in America have no protection at all. Every one who knows the brutal and barbarous persecution Chinese and Japanese endure on the Pacific Coast, will agree with Mr. Reynolds.

In view of the above facts it is rather absurd to point to Europe as the swamp whence come all the social diseases of America. Just as absurd is it to proclaim the myth that the Jews furnish the largest contingent of willing prey. I am sure that no one will accuse me of nationalistic tendencies. I am glad to say that I have developed out of them, as out of many other prejudices. If, therefore, I resent the statement that Jewish prostitutes are imported, it is not because of any Judaistic sympathies, but because of the facts inherent in the lives of these people. No one but the most superficial will claim that Jewish girls migrate to strange lands, unless they have some tie or relation that brings them there. The Jewish girl is not adventurous. Until recent years she had never left home, not even so far as the next village or town, except it were to visit some relative. Is it then credible that Jewish girls would leave their parents or families, travel thousands of miles to strange lands, through the influence and promises of strange forces? Go to any of the large incoming steamers and see for yourself if these girls do not come either with their parents, brothers, aunts, or other kinsfolk. There may be exceptions, of course, but to state that large numbers of Jewish girls are imported for prostitution, or any other purpose, is simply not to know Jewish psychology.

Those who sit in a glass house do wrong to throw stones about them; besides, the American glass house is rather thin, it will break easily, and the interior is anything but a gainly sight.

To ascribe the increase of prostitution to alleged importation, to the growth of the cadet system, or similar causes, is highly superficial. I have already referred to the former. As to the cadet system, abhorrent as it is, we must not ignore the fact that it is essentially a phase of modern prostitution,--a phase accentuated by suppression and graft, resulting from sporadic crusades against the social evil.

The procurer is no doubt a poor specimen of the human family, but in what manner is he more despicable than the policeman who takes the last cent from the street walker, and then locks her up in the station house? Why is the cadet more criminal, or a greater menace to society, than the owners of department stores and factories, who grow fat on the sweat of their victims, only to drive them to the streets? I make no plea for the cadet, but I fail to see why he should be mercilessly hounded, while the real perpetrators of all social iniquity enjoy immunity and respect. Then, too, it is well to remember that it is not the cadet who makes the prostitute. It is our sham and hypocrisy that create both the prostitute and the cadet.

Until 1894 very little was known in America of the procurer. Then we were attacked by an epidemic of virtue. Vice was to be abolished, the country purified at all cost. The social cancer was therefore driven out of sight, but deeper into the body. Keepers of brothels, as well as their unfortunate victims, were turned over to the tender mercies of the police. The inevitable consequence of exorbitant bribes, and the penitentiary, followed.

While comparatively protected in the brothels, where they represented a certain monetary value, the girls now found themselves on the street, absolutely at the mercy of the graft-greedy police. Desperate, needing protection and longing for affection, these girls naturally proved an easy prey for cadets, themselves the result of the spirit of our commercial age. Thus the cadet system was the direct outgrowth of police persecution, graft, and attempted suppression of prostitution. It were sheer folly to confound this modern phase of the social evil with the causes of the latter.

Mere suppression and barbaric enactments can serve but to embitter, and further degrade, the unfortunate victims of ignorance and stupidity. The latter has reached its highest expression in the proposed law to make humane treatment of prostitutes a crime, punishing any one sheltering a prostitute with five years' imprisonment and $1O,000 fine. Such an attitude merely exposes the terrible lack of understanding of the true causes of prostitution, as a social factor, as well as manifesting the Puritanic spirit of the Scarlet Letter days.

There is not a single modern writer on the subject who does not refer to the utter futility of legislative methods in coping with the issue. Thus Dr. Blaschko finds that governmental suppression and moral crusades accomplish nothing save driving the evil into secret channels, multiplying its dangers to society. Havelock Ellis, the most thorough and humane student of prostitution, proves by a wealth of data that the more stringent the methods of persecution the worse the condition becomes. Among other data we learn that in France, "in 1560, Charles IX. abolished brothels through an edict, but the numbers of prostitutes were only increased, while many new brothels appeared in unsuspected shapes, and were more dangerous. In spite of all such legislation, or because of it, there has been no country in which prostitution has played a more conspicuous part."6

An educated public opinion, freed from the legal and moral hounding of the prostitute, can alone help to ameliorate present conditions. Wilful shutting of eyes and ignoring of the evil as a social factor of modern life, can but aggravate matters. We must rise above our foolish notions of "better than thou," and learn to recognize in the prostitute a product of social conditions. Such a realization will sweep away the attitude of hypocrisy, and insure a greater understanding and more humane treatment. As to a thorough eradication of prostitution, nothing can accomplish that save a complete transvaluation of all accepted values especially the moral ones--coupled with the abolition of industrial slavery.


1 Dr. Sanger, The History of Prostitution.

2 It is a significant fact that Dr. Sanger's book has been excluded from the U. S. mails. Evidently the authorities are not anxious that the public be informed as to the true cause of prostitution.

3 Havelock Ellis, Sex and Society:

4 Guyot, La Prostitution.

5 Bangert Criminalité et Condition Economique.

6 Sex and Society.

probably in setting up a boundary between men and women, true equality means relaxation, insecurities about gender just result in stupid thought patterns such as "Im a woman, ergo I must behave like this" or "Im a man ergo I must be macho." So people shouldnt make assumptions about each other and should just generally chill out about the whole issue.

That question makes no sense. Her theory of feminism was a radical one in that she attacked the institution of patriarchy at it's root rather then simply railing against its individual effects.

Here's one of here more famous essays:



no really, im not going to read an essay here. either you know enough about emma goldman to say what made her a radical feminist and can point to a stance or 2 that qualifies or you cant.

and more to the point...

does this mean that you voted "No, they help" on the poll?

Yes, that didn't stop some idiots from thinking the document was completely serious (a very small number of folks).

Agreed. Not that she didn't have a few followers (whom she did not organize) who thought the manifesto was serious.

To me, "radical" means someone willing to say or do something truly shocking.

Most feminists never come close.


I love how to illustrate the supposed scourge of radical feminists you are forced to drudge up a rather obscure example from about 40 years ago.

The fact that you can't point to anyone more current or significant shows that this whole thread is merely tilting at bogies.

I find active feminists to be obnoxious and I always ignore their opinion.

I am a chauvanist, I open doors for women, I refuse to allow them to open doors for me, I also have taught my daughters to never open a door for a man unless he is carrying something.

I address women by a title until told to do otherwise, older women who offer a first recieve the the title in addition to the first name.

I could go on, with all my little idiosycracies...but who cares.

I respect women. Not because some loud mouth says i have to, because I do.

If you are a woman who gets offended when a man holds a door for you, refuses to address you in a familiar way when he isnt familiar with you, offers to carry your load for you, lets you walk before him, opens your car door, and pushing in your chair then I pity you.

I have always been taught men are different then women, not better, just different. I have four children and I have never seen anything to indicate that men and women are indeed the same...not that either is a superior to other but merely different.

I dislike this topic because it lumps men like me into some category of hating women, or lording over them, or whatever...this is not the case.

But when asked, I am not a Feminist supporter, I am male chauvinist pig, or at least as I understand it to be. I have no shame for that.

its kinda sad to me that that should be considered radical.

i looked the women you named up last night. it wasnt a very fruitful search but it did leave me with the impression that they are doing important work. leaving half the human race out of the study of archaeology is pretty stupid.

ive never known what geographers do no matter what their political slant. it sounds like bondi is also doing important work that shouldnt be considered radical.

(not that im dissing you for calling it radical. its wrong that it should be radical to take women's issues into consideration. that is IS considered radical says much about our culture.)

well yes, i agree wholeheartedly. but i know at least bondi calls herself a radical feminist even if the issues they are trying to address seem rather obvious and natural to want to rectify.

I find active feminists to be obnoxious and I always ignore their opinion.

I am a chauvanist, I open doors for women, I refuse to allow them to open doors for me, I also have taught my daughters to never open a door for a man unless he is carrying something.

I address women by a title until told to do otherwise, older women who offer a first recieve the the title in addition to the first name.

I could go on, with all my little idiosycracies...but who cares.

I respect women. Not because some loud mouth says i have to, because I do.

If you are a woman who gets offended when a man holds a door for you, refuses to address you in a familiar way when he isnt familiar with you, offers to carry your load for you, lets you walk before him, opens your car door, and pushing in your chair then I pity you.

I have always been taught men are different then women, not better, just different. I have four children and I have never seen anything to indicate that men and women are indeed the same...not that either is a superior to other but merely different.

I dislike this topic because it lumps men like me into some category of hating women, or lording over them, or whatever...this is not the case.

But when asked, I am not a Feminist supporter, I am male chauvinist pig, or at least as I understand it to be. I have no shame for that.

people are different, not men and women. that's the thing you appear to miss.

not to say that there are not features more often associated with one sex or other, but that those features are not exclusive to those sexes and there is nothing to say that a person with entirely male physiology cannot embody all other features most commonly associated with individuals with entirely female physiological characteristics.

people are different, not men and women. that's the thing you appear to miss.

I didnt miss that at all.
As I never suggested that people were not different.
I am saying in my experience --which is all I can base my opinion on.
Men and Women are different, exceptions simply prove the rule.

You will note then simply accepting me as being what i am you felt the need to try and imply there was "something" I wasnt seeing. That somehow I am wrong, or less perseptive then a more intelligent or sensitive person, whatever I dont know.

The phrase was choosen to imply a lack in my mental capacity somewhere, why is this always, without fail, the response of feminists and thier supporters to someone who does not agree with, support, or pander to thier designs on how others should act?

I think the word feminist needs to be changed. It just has too many negative connotations to it (whether true or not).

Now there's no way any reasonable person could have drawn the PhD's conclusion - of a threat of assault or rape. So either she was being extremely manipulative or had fairly questionable beliefs surrounding men.

That sounds more like one particular person's problem than a problem with extreme feminism as such.

Whether those judgments are sexist or not, it doesn't really matter.

Why not?

There are at least two reasons that sexist judgments would be cause for concern even if judgments of that general sort are unavoidable for human society. First, sexism, at least, is not unavoidable, so at the very least eliminating sexism will make the choice more free. Second, the combined effect of a general trend of sexist judgments is to subordinate women to men, and that is morally unacceptable for obvious reasons.

If they'd just called it "sexual equality" in the first place it could've all been avoided.

The problem is that "sexual equality" fails to take into account the specific, substantive direction any movement for sexual equality must take in a society whose sexism is directed against women.

In practical terms, in such a society feminism's goal must be the achievement of equality for females... and to do so it must organize females and secure rights for females.

For the same reason, it is called the "gay rights movement" or the "LBGT rights movement" instead of the "sexual orientation equality movement"... it is LGBTs who have been disempowered and discriminated against, and it is their rights that must be secured.

I am a chauvanist, I open doors for women, I refuse to allow them to open doors for me, I also have taught my daughters to never open a door for a man unless he is carrying something.

So you're training your children to be rude? How interesting.

I didnt miss that at all.
As I never suggested that people were not different.
I am saying in my experience --which is all I can base my opinion on.
Men and Women are different, exceptions simply prove the rule.

You will note then simply accepting me as being what i am you felt the need to try and imply there was "something" I wasnt seeing. That somehow I am wrong, or less perseptive then a more intelligent or sensitive person, whatever I dont know.

The phrase was choosen to imply a lack in my mental capacity somewhere, why is this always, without fail, the response of feminists and thier supporters to someone who does not agree with, support, or pander to thier designs on how others should act?

perhaps it's the inappropriate use of non-sensical phrases like "the exception that proves the rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule)" that basically mark you out as someone who refuses to acknowledge that their opinions are based on worthless assumptions.

Men and Women are different

How? And how do those differences justify the examples of differing treatment you provided?

no really, im not going to read an essay here. either you know enough about emma goldman to say what made her a radical feminist and can point to a stance or 2 that qualifies or you cant.
It is not that I cannot state her positions. It is just that your request for me to do so was framed as a nonsequitor. None of her positions is more 'radical' then any other. They all stem from her radical analysis of society.

She was against marriage.
She believed in free love.
She demanded that men treat women as human beings.
She saw all forms of oppression as being connected-
She was against patriarchy, racism, militarism, capitalism, authoritarianism, and heteronormativity.

So you're training your children to be rude? How interesting.

Actually, opening doors for women is suppost to be a polite thing to do.

For the same reason, it is called the "gay rights movement" or the "LBGT rights movement" instead of the "sexual orientation equality movement"... it is LGBTs who have been disempowered and discriminated against, and it is their rights that must be secured.That's right. A vague description of a movement serves only to render the actual struggle oppressed inviable.

I think the word feminist needs to be changed. It just has too many negative connotations to it (whether true or not).

The reason for the negative connotations is not the word, but the ideology.

People who feel threatened by assaults on male privilege are not going to stop feeling threatened because of a name change.

It is not that I cannot state her positions. It is just that your request for me to do so was framed as a nonsequitor. None of her positions is more 'radical' then any other. They all stem from her radical analysis of society.

She was against marriage.
She believed in free love.
She demanded that men treat women as human beings.
She saw all forms of oppression as being connected-
She was against patriarchy, racism, militarism, capitalism, authoritarianism, and heteronormativity.

emma goldman is an interesting example of how what used to be radical has come to be widely accepted (or at least common enough that few would find the ideas shocking).

thats what a good radical DOES. especially radical feminists. they bring up all sorts of shocking ideas that get people thinking and talking. less radical people take up less radical versions of their ideas and in the course of a century (oftentimes less) these radical notions become so commonplace as to seem natural positions for anyone to take.

that is why radical feminists have helped women far more than any possible unempowerment might have hurt them.

Part of the whole discussion is a definition of the term 'radical feminism'.

Wiki has this definition:

Radical feminism is a branch of feminism that views women's oppression (which radical feminists refer to as "patriarchy") as a basic system of power upon which human relationships in society are arranged. It seeks to challenge this arrangement by rejecting standard gender roles and male oppression. The term Militant feminism is a pejorative term which is often associated with radical feminism. Often, radical feminism is seen by people other than adherents as a form of identity politics.

The term radical in radical feminism (from Latin rādīx, rādīc-, root) is used as an adjective meaning of or pertaining to the root or going to the root. Radical feminists locate the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations, as opposed to legal systems (liberal feminism) or class conflict (socialist feminism and Marxist feminism).

So, if this definition is correct, then I am somewhat of a radical feminist, as I do view women's oppression, and patriarchy, as a basic system of power upon which many, but not all, human relationships in society are at least partially arranged.

And I think feminists, such as myself, should devote ourselves to addresing root causes.

But that's not what the OP is getting at, as far as I can tell.

So you're training your children to be rude? How interesting.

No man should ever allow a woman to open a door for him if he is empty handed. Since no man should ever have to look at a woman offering a courtesy and say "No", my daughters will not offend a man with such an offering. Should a man need help my children know to help, as my post clearly said, if you are a man who thinks it is rude that women do not open doors for you then I would hardly count you as having manners.

And again, my point is proven, the moment one suggests they disagree with feminism they are attacked. Poorly attacked I might add.

No man should ever allow a woman to open a door for him if he is empty handed.

Why not?

Why, if men should not have doors opened for them by women, should women have doors opened for them by men?

The reason for the negative connotations is not the word, but the ideology.

People who feel threatened by assaults on male privilege are not going to stop feeling threatened because of a name change.

They are not the only people who view feminism negatively. I even know some women who view it badly.

They are not the only people who view feminism negatively.

Perhaps, but they are the ones who are responsible for its demonization.

No man should ever allow a woman to open a door for him if he is empty handed. Since no man should ever have to look at a woman offering a courtesy and say "No", my daughters will not offend a man with such an offering. Should a man need help my children know to help, as my post clearly said, if you are a man who thinks it is rude that women do not open doors for you then I would hardly count you as having manners.

And again, my point is proven, the moment one suggests they disagree with feminism they are attacked. Poorly attacked I might add.

what you are saying makes no sense. to be polite one should hold a door for anyone following you through, especially if they are carrying something, if you both reach the door at the same tme but you are in the easiest position to open it then you do so and let them go first. the other person's genetalia are irrelevant.

what you are saying makes no sense. to be polite one should hold a door for anyone following you through, especially if they are carrying something, if you both reach the door at the same tme but you are in the easiest position to open it then you do so and let them go first. the other person's genetalia are irrelevant.

Yeah, really... do you tell them to let it close in the face of the man behind them or something?

How? And how do those differences justify the examples of differing treatment you provided?

Justify?

Why would I justify my behavior to anyone? Or expect my children to justify their behavior to anyone?

Outside of illegal activity and the compulsion of the court I wouldnt ever justify my behavior to someone.

Especially not in a vain attempt validate my differnce of opinion to someone who already certain I am some type of lesser because I disagree with them.

But, for the sake of arguement.

I was raised with support certain ideas,
I treat men, as equals with a certain respect--respect that is displayed in a specific manner.
I treat women with a certain respect--respect that is displayed in a specific manner.

The fact that the manner of recognition is different is somehow offensive to certain people who believe that only they know how individuals in society should conduct themselves is not my problem.

That line of thinking is the same line of thinking taken by those who use terms like "Savages" or "Backwards" when referencing a culture that is foreign to them. Or to be specific it is closed minded.

I never asked for justification of anyones behavior, yet the feminist would have me justify mine. Funny.

Honesty and Courtesy are greeted with hostility, and inquisition.

Yet, a self named Feminist would then insist they dont understand where their bad reputation comes from.

Yeah, really... do you tell them to let it close in the face of the man behind them or something?

Yes.
And no man has ever responded poorly.

Even when I directly say "Let that door go."

Justify?

Why would I justify my behavior to anyone? Or expect my children to justify their behavior to anyone?

Outside of illegal activity and the compulsion of the court I wouldnt ever justify my behavior to someone.

Especially not in a vain attempt validate my differnce of opinion to someone who already certain I am some type of lesser because I disagree with them.

But, for the sake of arguement.

I was raised with support certain ideas,
I treat men, as equals with a certain respect--respect that is displayed in a specific manner.
I treat women with a certain respect--respect that is displayed in a specific manner.

The fact that the manner of recognition is different is somehow offensive to certain people who believe that only they know how individuals in society should conduct themselves is not my problem.

That line of thinking is the same line of thinking taken by those who use terms like "Savages" or "Backwards" when referencing a culture that is foreign to them. Or to be specific it is closed minded.

I never asked for justification of anyones behavior, yet the feminist would have me justify mine. Funny.

Honesty and Courtesy are greeted with hostility, and inquisition.

Yet, a self named Feminist would then insist they dont understand where their bad reputation comes from.

why do you treat all men as your equal? in what way is every other man you encounter equal to you? in what way is no woman your equal?

Perhaps, but they are the ones who are responsible for its demonization.

I'm not so sure. I think it's more from stereotypes protrayed in the media.

They are not the only people who view feminism negatively. I even know some women who view it badly.

My wife being one of those women.
My wife, who handles all the money, who attends college to receive her degree so she can get a good job while I do the grunt work, because she deserves her crack at it first, my wife who handles 80% of the legal matters in the house, who handles the taxes, wh oI asked directly to not place my name on the checks so i could not access them and ruin her system.

I hope that isnt too much male oppression on my part, you know turing over all the money, putting all the cars in her name, placing her education ahead of mine, that type of oppressive stuff.

Also for my daughters I can imagine the damage to thier mind upon seeing a man abuse his wife so.

No man should ever allow a woman to open a door for him if he is empty handed.


Why not?

Why would I justify my behavior to anyone? Or expect my children to justify their behavior to anyone?

Um... if you have a problem with feminist objections to the way you treat women, the rational response would be to justify it.

Otherwise, you are merely confirming the point: there is no justification, and the objection is what is justified.

Outside of illegal activity and the compulsion of the court I wouldnt ever justify my behavior to someone.

Sounds like you might have to deal with a whole lot of objections, then.

And likely justified ones, too... because if you won't discuss the justification of your behavior, it is likely that you will, perhaps unknowingly, persist in unjustified behaviors toward others.

Especially not in a vain attempt validate my differnce of opinion to someone who already certain I am some type of lesser because I disagree with them.

The fact that I disagree with you does not mean that I think you are inferior.

The fact that the manner of recognition is different is somehow offensive to certain people who believe that only they know how individuals in society should conduct themselves is not my problem.

"Different" or "unequal"?

Different treatment does not always constitute treating people as lesser beings... but generally when it does not, it references a relevant difference between them.

What is it in this case?

why do you treat all men as your equal? in what way is every other man you encounter equal to you? in what way is no woman your equal?

Point in case yet again, I never said women were not my equal--you read that as you saw fit to.

Is the fact that I make the distinction between men and women that confusing to you that you begin to see words that are not on the screen?

I say I disagree with Active Feminists and you infer through nothing I have said that i believe women to be my inferior, typical.

You demonize anything that doesnt support your narrow veiw of society.

Yes.

Yeah... I'd have to agree with Dempublicents then.

That's plain rude.

Actually, opening doors for women is suppost to be a polite thing to do.

But letting them slam in the face of any man who doesn't happen to be carrying something is not.

It is polite to open a door for anyone, especially if they are coming in after you.

Yes.
And no man has ever responded poorly.

Even when I directly say "Let that door go."In much the same way that a Christian in Tsarist Russia would find nothing offensive about a traditional easter Passion Play though a Jew would:rolleyes:

You do not tell the man to let it go simply because he is a man.

Point in case yet again, I never said women were not my equal--you read that as you saw fit to.

Is the fact that I make the distinction between men and women that confusing to you that you begin to see words that are not on the screen?

I say I disagree with Active Feminists and you infer through nothing I have said that i believe women to be my inferior, typical.

You demonize anything that doesnt support your narrow veiw of society.

no, i'm not seeing words that aren't there, i'm noting pointed ommission of words that should be there.


I was raised with support certain ideas,
I treat men, as equals with a certain respect--respect that is displayed in a specific manner.
I treat women with a certain respect--respect that is displayed in a specific manner.

no, i'm not seeing words that aren't there, i'm noting pointed ommission of words that should be there.

Words have a left-wing bias.

Okay, for all of you who voted "yes":

Specifically, which radical feminist positions are you talking about, and how do they disempower women?

I really would like an answer to this question... sooner or later.

Words have a left-wing bias.

so it seems.

But letting them slam in the face of any man who doesn't happen to be carrying something is not.

It is polite to open a door for anyone, especially if they are coming in after you.

I only hold doors for the visibly handicapped, or the elderly.

I gave up on being polite to those younger than me.

In much the same way that a Christian in Tsarist Russia would find nothing offensive about a traditional easter Passion Play though a Jew would:rolleyes:

You do not tell the man to let it go simply because he is a man.

I dont have to tell a man to let the door go, I tell my daughters to let the door the door go.

I have never had a man hold a door for me if I wasnt carrying a load.
If one did I would simply reach out and take hold of the door before passing through, hence holding the door for myself. I would however, not, ever, pass through the door first.

I really would like an answer to this question... sooner or later.

didn't vote yes, but i think the argument runs along the lines of: "radical" feminists (as the OP sees them, i.e. the crazies) undermine the cause of feminism by discrediting it in the eyes of many people who might otherwise agree with feminism. i have a certain sympathy with this argument because i know it to be true, sad as that is.

I only hold doors for the visibly handicapped, or the elderly.

I gave up on being polite to those younger than me.

Thats respectable.

I have never had a man hold a door for me if I wasnt carrying a load.

I, a man, hold doors for men (and women) all the time.

Other men (and women) hold doors for me all the time.

Try it sometime.

I hold doors for the ôther human beings who have to pass through them shortly before or after I do.

I guess I'm a radical feminist disempowering normal women.

didn't vote yes, but i think the argument runs along the lines of: "radical" feminists (as the OP sees them, i.e. the crazies) undermine the cause of feminism by discrediting it in the eyes of many people who might otherwise agree with feminism. i have a certain sympathy with this argument because i know it to be true, sad as that is.

Agreed. Things like pushing for causes such as changing woman to womyn would be viewed by most people as simply whining about something very trivial, undermining their cause slightly.

didn't vote yes, but i think the argument runs along the lines of: "radical" feminists (as the OP sees them, i.e. the crazies) undermine the cause of feminism by discrediting it in the eyes of many people who might otherwise agree with feminism.

But where ARE these "crazies"?

What "crazy" positions have they taken that turn people off?

And how do their "crazy" ideas disempower women?

I really would like an answer to this question... sooner or later.

Soheran, I dont honestly know what a radical feminst is so perhaps i should have voted differently.

I simply ignore all manner of people who bang away at others, like Feminists, so my vote would really be activists of most sorts who dismiss others simply because others differ from them.

I do not subscribe to the "If you are not with us you are against us" mentality that is required of most herd like movements.

Given the response to my honesty, Feminism most certainly counts as that, much like Racial Seperatism. It is simply beyond my understanding, I dont dislike people for not being like me.

I, a man, hold doors for men (and women) all the time.

Other men (and women) hold doors for me all the time.

Try it sometime.

No thanks.

didn't vote yes, but i think the argument runs along the lines of: "radical" feminists (as the OP sees them, i.e. the crazies) undermine the cause of feminism by discrediting it in the eyes of many people who might otherwise agree with feminism. i have a certain sympathy with this argument because i know it to be true, sad as that is.

which would be more right if it were more true.

the truth is that radical feminists put forth ideas that can be twisted by people of bad faith to seem to advocate positions that no reasonable person would ever espouse and then use those twists to discredit all feminists no matter how mild their positions.

I dont have to tell a man to let the door go, I tell my daughters to let the door the door go.
:rolleyes:
*holds door for Skibereen*

But where ARE these "crazies"?

What "crazy" positions have they taken that turn people off?

And how do their "crazy" ideas disempower women?

well i know people to believe that the idea that female oppression is rooted in the intrinsic patriarchal nature of gender/power relations of our society is a crazy idea. apparently it's too abstract a concept for many to comprehend and i'm no good at articulating it properly to anyone's satisfaction. so many people believe that the cause of feminism has been achieved and nothing more needs to be done.

the there are those who misinterpret feminist writing, such that SCUM manifesto as someone mentioned earlier.

there are also those who believe that the fact that women feel disproportionately afraid to be out alone at night is a simple unproblematic fact of life.

and other such things largely influenced by ignorance.

which would be more right if it were more true.

the truth is that radical feminists put forth ideas that can be twisted by people of bad faith to seem to advocate positions that no reasonable person would ever espouse and then use those twists to discredit all feminists no matter how mild their positions.
"The anarchists want to bomb everything, so they should keep their mouths shut. They're just making things difficult for the rest of us."

Soheran, I dont honestly know what a radical feminst is so perhaps i should have voted differently.

The definition Gift of god posted earlier seems pretty good to me:

"Radical feminism is a branch of feminism that views women's oppression (which radical feminists refer to as "patriarchy") as a basic system of power upon which human relationships in society are arranged. It seeks to challenge this arrangement by rejecting standard gender roles and male oppression. The term Militant feminism is a pejorative term which is often associated with radical feminism. Often, radical feminism is seen by people other than adherents as a form of identity politics.

The term radical in radical feminism (from Latin rādīx, rādīc-, root) is used as an adjective meaning of or pertaining to the root or going to the root. Radical feminists locate the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations, as opposed to legal systems (liberal feminism) or class conflict (socialist feminism and Marxist feminism)."

I simply ignore all manner of people who bang away at others, like Feminists, so my vote would really be activists of most sorts who dismiss others simply because others differ from them.

I do not subscribe to the "If you are not with us you are against us" mentality that is required of most herd like movements.

Given the response to my honesty, Feminism most certainly counts as that, much like Racial Seperatism. It is simply beyond my understanding, I dont dislike people for not being like me.

Feminists do not object to your behavior because it is different from ours.

Feminists object to your behavior because it is (or at least it seems to us to be) sexist.

If you view both men and women as your equal then you would treat them both equally.

I do.

I just dont treat them the same.

Because they arent.

A reasonably attractive women has a huge range of men to choose from.But what of women who aren't reasonably attractive?

Well, I'm not going to be drawn into defining people's belief systems for them, so I will only deal with the behaviours I have observed.

At my former varsity they have "career days" where a number of local organisations set up stalls in the central gathering area to promote themselves to students. The particular person who I mentioned earlier - basically attacked the stall belonging to a bank, throwing their pamphlets around and generally being disruptive. When the student representative organising the day approached her to ask her to stop, she basically accused him of assaulting her (he hadn't), and later said that she was "afraid he might attack her or rape her". The rep was not being aggressive in any way, he simply asked her to stop disrupting the stall.

Now there's no way any reasonable person could have drawn the PhD's conclusion - of a threat of assault or rape. So either she was being extremely manipulative or had fairly questionable beliefs surrounding men.What about her behavior relates to her feminism?

Point in case yet again, I never said women were not my equal--you read that as you saw fit to.

Is the fact that I make the distinction between men and women that confusing to you that you begin to see words that are not on the screen?

I say I disagree with Active Feminists and you infer through nothing I have said that i believe women to be my inferior, typical.

You demonize anything that doesnt support your narrow veiw of society.If you view both men and women as your equal then you would treat them both equally.

I do.

I just dont treat them the same.

Because they arent.

-
Time warp.

which would be more right if it were more true.

the truth is that radical feminists put forth ideas that can be twisted by people of bad faith to seem to advocate positions that no reasonable person would ever espouse and then use those twists to discredit all feminists no matter how mild their positions.

yes, i didn't mean i agree that those positions are necessarily putting people off themselves, just the ignorance that characterises many people's reactions to a summary offered by someone of bad faith.

i know it to be true because i have many female friends who say they are not feminists because they "don't want to be mechanics" or whatever. my skills in debate and explanation are not sufficient to persuade them that feminists aren't trying to force women into manual labour. mostly because i am softly spoken and i think slowly.

The definition Gift of god posted earlier seems pretty good to me:

"Radical feminism is a branch of feminism that views women's oppression (which radical feminists refer to as "patriarchy") as a basic system of power upon which human relationships in society are arranged. It seeks to challenge this arrangement by rejecting standard gender roles and male oppression. The term Militant feminism is a pejorative term which is often associated with radical feminism. Often, radical feminism is seen by people other than adherents as a form of identity politics.

The term radical in radical feminism (from Latin rādīx, rādīc-, root) is used as an adjective meaning of or pertaining to the root or going to the root. Radical feminists locate the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations, as opposed to legal systems (liberal feminism) or class conflict (socialist feminism and Marxist feminism)."



Feminists do not object to your behavior because it is different from ours.

Feminists object to your behavior because it is (or at least it seems to us to be) sexist.

To my direct behavior-
Sexist how?

I treat women with courtesy, and treat them as being equally capable, so where is the sexism?

If you are simply speaking generally then fine.

However citing how I treat men, is not proof of a sexist bias against women.
Anyone who has ever taken Logic 101 can tell you that.

As a radical feminist myself, I can tell you that the people that a large number of you describe as "radical feminists" are either not really radical, or not really feminists.

Basically, radical feminists want to see an end to patriarchy in a reasonable time frame, not whenever the market or the power elites feel fit to do something about it.

so many people believe that the cause of feminism has been achieved and nothing more needs to be done.

Yes... and often these people are people who do not really favor sexual equality at all.

"Fine! Women can have the vote, and jobs outside the home... but no more."

When the battle has not actually been won, it should not be conceded... even if carrying onward annoys some people.

Yes... and often these people are people who do not really favor sexual equality at all.

"Fine! Women can have the vote, and jobs outside the home... but no more."

When the battle has not actually been won, it should not be conceded... even if carrying onward annoys some people.

Can I ask you exactly, what you think needs to be changed?

...even if carrying onward annoys some people.

Even if? It's the best part.

:D

As a radical feminist myself, I can tell you that the people that a large number of you describe as "radical feminists" are either not really radical, or not really feminists.

Basically, radical feminists want to see an end to patriarchy in a reasonable time frame, not whenever the market or the power elites feel fit to do something about it.

Per this definition.
Radical Feminism means absolutely nothing to me.
My family has always been a Matriarchy, from before I was born women have run the Family, and men have provided the muscle. One, not able to function without the other.

The above definition I would be completely indifferent to, it has no bearing on my life. Nor on the lives of my children.

Yes... and often these people are people who do not really favor sexual equality at all.

"Fine! Women can have the vote, and jobs outside the home... but no more."

When the battle has not actually been won, it should not be conceded... even if carrying onward annoys some people.

what frustrates me is that most of the people i know who say that the battle has been won are women, women who have been through university and are now in fairly comfortable jobs. they just don't seem to consider anyone else's situation.

I treat women with courtesy,

Yeah, so?

You can treat people with courtesy and still see them as inferior... indeed, certain kinds of courtesy necessarily constitute treating someone as an inferior.

and treat them as being equally capable

No, you don't.

If you thought women were equally capable, you would not hold doors only for them.

Well, I was thinking about it, and it seems like they do. For example, those types yelling slogans like "There's no such thing as consent! All penetration is violence!" and stuff like that. Doesn't that imply women are unable to make their own decisions, such as consenting?

Obviously, I'm only referring to the radical types.

So...

Discuss.

They 'un'empower women the same way radical islamist 'un'empower your average muslim.
A feminist wants gender equality and equity. A 'radical' wants attention and is generally someone who prefer argument over debate.

Yeah, so?

You can treat people with courtesy and still see them as inferior... indeed, certain kinds of courtesy necessarily constitute treating someone as an inferior.



No, you don't.

If you thought women were equally capable, you would not hold doors only for them.

How mundane.
So trusting my instructors to be women, my bankers, my tax preparer, and indeed my Doctor is not treating them as capable because I open doors for them.

I think these women would feel slighted by your words not my actions.

Feminism can never have a victory, because people like you see everything as a battle until others behave exactly as you see fit.

You claim that isnt what you want, but ignore all the things I mentioned previously that clearly demonstrate I do indeed place a high value on women to focus on the holding of a door.

This is why Feminism deserves a forum on the comedy channel, everything is a battle.

How many Feminists does it take to change a light bulb?





One.




And there is nothing funny about it.

How mundane.
So trusting my instructors to be women, my bankers, my tax preparer, and indeed my Doctor is not treating them as capable because I open doors for them.

I think these women would feel slighted by your words not my actions.

So you're claiming that the only manner in which you treat women and men differently is the door opening? If so, that surely makes it even more ludicrous and illogical?

To my direct behavior-
Sexist how?

I treat women with courtesy, and treat them as being equally capable, so where is the sexism?

If you are simply speaking generally then fine.

However citing how I treat men, is not proof of a sexist bias against women.
Anyone who has ever taken Logic 101 can tell you that.Do you treat women the same way as you treat men? If not, there's sexist behavior there.

Do you treat women the same way as you treat men? If not, there's sexist behavior there.

Thats not true. I wouldn't go up to a group of women and have a massive converstation about football to them (for example) as they would most likely not be interested, that is treating them differently but that is not sexist.

So you're claiming that the only manner in which you treat women and men differently is the door opening? If so, that surely makes it even more ludicrous and illogical?

Not at all.

But I havnt said anything else, so what again is ludicrous and illogical the attack on what is imagined I do or my actions?

No one in this thread ever asked what I do in any given situation--all assumptions, not one bit of investigation. Typical, and behavior predicted just as I said. Close minded, and in condemnation of anything which does not fall in check to its own narrow veiw.

Thats not true. I wouldn't go up to a group of women and have a massive converstation about football to them (for example) as they would most likely not be interested, that is treating them differently but that is not sexist.

Why? Women certainly like football as much as men, its sexist to think otherwise. That is making a character assumption based on gender.

Is waiting to have sex until marriage really such a bad thing? Personally, I've had two or three (depending on what you count) sexual partners and I'm about to get married. I don't intend on having any more sexual partners, and I could definitely have done without at least one of them.

It is a bad thing when "no sex before marriage" becomes "get married when you're in your early twenties because you want to have sex and ruin the rest of your life."

Can I ask you exactly, what you think needs to be changed?

In short, patriarchy.

Gender relations based on gender roles that in their conception are fundamentally sexist and inequitable... notions of "masculinity" and "femininity" that not only imply "difference", but superiority and inferiority. (I also have problems with gender roles as such, but my position on that subject goes beyond my radical feminism.)

The expression of these conceptions, despite substantive progress in many areas, continues to do serious harm... in all sorts of inequity (in pay, in the sorts of social courtesies Skibereen keeps referencing, in whose opinion is paid attention to, and whose isn't) and in the way we conceive of sex, of relationships, of marriage... of all kinds of gender interaction.

Why not? Do women in the UK not enjoy sports, at all?

Generally. It's basically not worth trying it as there is to much of a risk of looking like a complete ass.

Thats not true. I wouldn't go up to a group of women and have a massive converstation about football to them (for example) as they would most likely not be interested, that is treating them differently but that is not sexist.Why not? Do women in the UK not enjoy sports, at all?

That is making a character assumption based on gender.

Correct.

In short, patriarchy.

Gender relations based on gender roles that in their conception are fundamentally sexist and inequitable... notions of "masculinity" and "femininity" that not only imply "difference", but superiority and inferiority. (I also have problems with gender roles as such, but my position on that subject goes beyond my radical feminism.)

The expression of these conceptions, despite substantive progress in many areas, continues to do serious harm... in all sorts of inequity (in pay, in the sorts of social courtesies Skibereen keeps referencing, in whose opinion is paid attention to, and whose isn't) and in the way we conceive of sex, of relationships, of marriage... of all kinds of gender interaction.

So it's really a cultural thing rather then a political thing?

How odd. I wonder if soccer just isn't interesting to women, or if there's something about your society that says that women aren't supposed to like it?

It's more likely to be the latter. I do know many women who love football, but is generally seen as strange to like football as much as most men do and be a women.

A 'radical' wants attention and is generally someone who prefer argument over debate.

Do you really think that no one can be radical out of sincere conviction?

If so, why?

How mundane.
So trusting my instructors to be women, my bankers, my tax preparer, and indeed my Doctor is not treating them as capable because I open doors for them.

I didn't say that.

Those are, indeed, all examples of treating them as capable. I ask you to extend this line of logic, and recognize that women, like men, are perfectly capable of opening the door themselves.

If you think you should go the extra distance and hold the door for them anyway, fine... but if you truly believe they are truly equally capable to men, you should have no trouble applying this logic to men as well.

Thats not true. I wouldn't go up to a group of women and have a massive converstation about football to them (for example) as they would most likely not be interested, that is treating them differently but that is not sexist.

If your judgment is based on experience and not on preconceived sexist assumptions, that is fair.

If a woman joined your conversation about football and actually was interested, would you respect her as an equal participant?

Generally. It's basically not worth trying it as there is to much of a risk of looking like a complete ass.How odd. I wonder if soccer just isn't interesting to women, or if there's something about your society that says that women aren't supposed to like it?

Why not?

There are at least two reasons that sexist judgments would be cause for concern even if judgments of that general sort are unavoidable for human society. First, sexism, at least, is not unavoidable, so at the very least eliminating sexism will make the choice more free. Second, the combined effect of a general trend of sexist judgments is to subordinate women to men, and that is morally unacceptable for obvious reasons.
Depends on the type of sexism. Men are going to treat women differently than women because women are not men and people treat those that are different differently. It doesn't have to be negative. I don't treat my grandmother or grandfather like I do to my friends, but that doesn't mean that either is inferior to the other.
But what of women who aren't reasonably attractive?
Same as men who aren't reasonably attractive. Less sex and sex of generally poorer quality.

If a woman joined your conversation about football and actually was interested, would you respect her as an equal participant?

Yeah.

So it's really a cultural thing rather then a political thing?

There is no such hard and fast distinction. There are manifestations of patriarchy in politics, and there are political solutions to some of the problems of patriarchy.

But, yes, the fundamental problem is not legal, but social and cultural.

I do.

I just dont treat them the same.

Because they arent.

then its not equality.
Its equity

Same as men who aren't reasonably attractive. Less sex and sex of generally poorer quality.
That's just not true.

How odd. I wonder if soccer just isn't interesting to women, or if there's something about your society that says that women aren't supposed to like it?

The latter, I think.
Men are "supposed" to like football, women aren't "supposed" to. It's becoming much less actually true now (although it's quite a recent thing); many of the women I know like it much more than me. That is to say, at all.

More money for the overpaid prats :rolleyes:

Men are going to treat women differently than women because women are not men and people treat those that are different differently.

This, in and of itself, need not be sexist.

But the crucial caveat here is that in our society, in large part, it is - and most protestations of "different, not unequal" are merely excuses for what amounts to gender inequality.

(And making assumptions based on gender roles that appear to be rather artificial isn't a very good idea anyway.)

Do you really think that no one can be radical out of sincere conviction?

If so, why?



Because I find that radicals are not looking to convert people to their line of reasoning or attempt to form a meaninful dialogue. They just want to show that they're right. I personally don't think this is constructive.

Whearas the people that make the most difference to a cause are the ones (in the case of feminism) to be treated with the respect that they are entitled too due to their achievements and don't want to be treated differently due to their sex in either a positive or negative way.

That's just not true.
Yeah, okay.
But the crucial caveat here is that in our society, in large part, it is - and most protestations of "different, not unequal" are merely excuses for what amounts to gender inequality.
I wholeheartedly agree.
(And making assumptions based on gender roles that appear to be rather artificial isn't a very good idea anyway.)
Not appear to be. Entirely are. I don't like our society's attitudes toward gender roles, but because they truly are not beneficial to society not because they are artificial.
Many artificial things are great. Our societies attitude towards romantic love, for instance, gives a great many people purpose who would otherwise be completely without direction in life. I imagine that in a State of Nature, such intimate relationships would be nearly impossible.

Do you really think that no one can be radical out of sincere conviction?

If so, why?



I didn't say that.

Those are, indeed, all examples of treating them as capable. I ask you to extend this line of logic, and recognize that women, like men, are perfectly capable of opening the door themselves.

If you think you should go the extra distance and hold the door for them anyway, fine... but if you truly believe they are truly equally capable to men, you should have no trouble applying this logic to men as well.


Being capable of opening a door, or waiting alone at night for a ride is common sense.

But her in lies another point.

While attending my training course to work as a CNA (Nurse assistant)
The classes were held in a very bad neigborhood. Now when the young man was left waiting for a ride I did not remain, nor did I ever walk him to his car.
He was my peer in the class.
The women with PhD who taught the class and was one ofthe last people to leave the building I did escort to her vehicle and did remain in the parking until all the women had left.

I did this specifically because of gender.

You are telling me this is wrong?

To quite frank, I find that to be a twisted snese of equality.
Women, are on the norm physically weaker then men, often victimized by men...in a real and genuine way not some imagined slight...like door holding.

As being physically larger, having greater muscle and bone density and being a loving son, grandson, husbad, and father--all masculine roles--I am obligated by my respect for the women who have effected my life to take responsibility and treat women I encounter with the some courtesy I would have those women I hold treated.

Me holding a door for woman is not implying she is incapable--and any woman to take it that way I would tell her flatly she was as dull as box of rocks-- it is respect I would hope is paid to the women of my life.

I do subscribe to gender roles, because like stereotypes there is some basis in reality for them. That basis also goes beyond some artificial construct by a patriarchial society.

If it makes you feel better I will indeed punch a woman in the face as quickly as I would a man. And for all the same reasons--or perhaps that might might be too equal.

I must however take my leave of this particular thread as I dont think I can take being told how horrible I am for being courteous to women in the way I feel is appropriate, and couteous to men in the way I feel is appropriate.

I must agree to disagree with you Soheran, at least on me being oppressive.

I do.

I just dont treat them the same.

Because they arent.In what ways are men and women different that they need to be treated differently?

Depends on the type of sexism. Men are going to treat women differently than women because women are not men and people treat those that are different differently. It doesn't have to be negative. I don't treat my grandmother or grandfather like I do to my friends, but that doesn't mean that either is inferior to the other. Of course men and women aren't the same, just as blonde-haired people aren't brunettes. What about the former implies that they should be treated differently?

Same as men who aren't reasonably attractive. Less sex and sex of generally poorer quality.Certainly. But does society view them the same way? I mean, does society view a woman who can't attract men the same way that it views a man who can't attract women?

The latter, I think.
Men are "supposed" to like football, women aren't "supposed" to. It's becoming much less actually true now (although it's quite a recent thing); many of the women I know like it much more than me. That is to say, at all.

More money for the overpaid prats :rolleyes:This would be an example of the cultural and social sexism that Soheran was referring to.

Because I find that radicals are not looking to convert people to their line of reasoning or attempt to form a meaninful dialogue. They just want to show that they're right.

"I support x radical position."

In what way does a statement like that indicate that a person is not looking for a meaningful dialogue, or to rationally convince people?

I'm a radical... on issues of gender, economic class, race, political organization, war, and a host of other things. Yet I have made plenty of attempts to do both, and have had at least some success.

This would be an example of the cultural and social sexism that Soheran was referring to.

I think Soheran was refering to things a bit more serious then this. If the feminist cause was all about trying to get more women to like football, then that does seem a bit trivial.

I think Soheran was refering to things a bit more serious then this. If the feminist cause was all about trying to get more women to like football, then that does seem a bit trivial.

Haha, yeah. But apparently there was a fuss about that football programme having a female presenter, so maybe it's not as daft as all that :D

You are telling me this is wrong?

Not necessarily. Indeed, you have not cited this example before... my objection was to others of your behaviors, which you have still refrained from justifying.

What we really need to see here is your standard.

If it is "I will escort any person to his or her vehicle if I judge that he or she may be in danger, and may need my protection," fine. You made the assumption that women, in our society, are generally more in danger than men... and since this is probably true, it is not objectionable in and of itself. (Now, if you learned that the woman was a capable fighter, and armed, while the young man was nothing of the sort, you would of course have to revise your initial gender-based judgments.)

If it is "Women are weak and need my protection", that is clearly sexist and unacceptable.

I imagine that in a State of Nature, such intimate relationships would be nearly impossible.

Why?

Pair-bonding is not something unique to humans.

Any kind of "ism" push inevitably lays the ground for a push-back in business, &c.

Racial activists engender this as much as feminist activists.

A responsible businessman has to take into account that a woman employee, especially a feminist woman employee, is more likely than a male employee to sue for sexual harassment, or to sue and claim sex discrimination if fired or paid less than she wants. It turns what should be an asset to the company into a potential liability.

The same is true of minorities, who are much more likely than white employees to sue for racial discrimination if fired, paid less, criticized, &c.

This doesn't stifle the movement for equality of races and sexes, and that's a good thing, but it does limit it to two steps forward, one step back.

I think Soheran was refering to things a bit more serious then this. If the feminist cause was all about trying to get more women to like football, then that does seem a bit trivial.You're stuck on the specific example. Feminism is about saying something like "Don't let anyone tell you you can't/must do/like X because you are a man/woman." It doesn't matter if X is work outside the home, run for president, or like soccer, feminism is about obliterating all such absurdities.

Of course men and women aren't the same, just as blonde-haired people aren't brunettes. What about the former implies that they should be treated differently?
Nothing really. Most people are idiots though. I try to treat women the same I do men, and I imagine you do as well, but then, we aren't idiots.
Certainly. But does society view them the same way? I mean, does society view a woman who can't attract men the same way that it views a man who can't attract women?
From my observations, I can tell you that the friends of unattractive women tend to ignore the fact that their friend is hopeless and compliment her on her outfits and such anyhow. It probably hurts them a great deal inside knowing that their friends are being dishonest.

From my personal experience, I can tell you that the friends of men who can't attract women constantly bring up the fact that their friend is a pile of shit. I can also tell you from personal experience that the ribbing never gets any less hurtful no matter how much one laughs at oneself.

I've witnessed unattractive people of both genders ignored or otherwise treated unkindly because of their appearance by both the same and opposite genders.

We live in a society that can be very cruel at times. Sexism is only a very small part of the problem and I think most of it is merely a result of materialism, though is certainly is its own thing at times.

Not that I think ugly people should get laid all the time, just not constantly reminded of what they are.

You're stuck on the specific example. Feminism is about saying something like "Don't let anyone tell you you can't/must do/like X because you are a man/woman." It doesn't matter if X is work outside the home, run for president, or like soccer, feminism is about obliterating all such absurdities.

Yeah, I guess you're right...

I think Soheran was refering to things a bit more serious then this. If the feminist cause was all about trying to get more women to like football, then that does seem a bit trivial.

While you are correct that football does not rank at the top of my list, it is important to recognize that much of culture is made up of what seem to be trivialities... and if fundamental cultural change is to be achieved, such seeming trivialities must be addressed.

Even casual, trivial things can expose a person's attitude towards gender, and recognizing and changing those attitudes can lead to broader, more substantive progress.

"I support x radical position."

In what way does a statement like that indicate that a person is not looking for a meaningful dialogue, or to rationally convince people?

I'm a radical... on issues of gender, economic class, race, political organization, war, and a host of other things. Yet I have made plenty of attempts to do both, and have had at least some success.

If history has taught us anything, it is that extremism is not the answer. That isn't to say that extremists can not be rational people capable of intelligent disocurse, but so many extremists are naive people who don't really know what they believe in or are formally rational people who have become so disillusioned due to their ideologies failures that they simply can not have a reasonable discussion with a moderate. Though, they are quite entertaining when put up against other varieties of extremists.

Not necessarily. Indeed, you have not cited this example before... my objection was to others of your behaviors, which you have still refrained from justifying.

What we really need to see here is your standard.

If it is "I will escort any person to his or her vehicle if I judge that he or she may be in danger, and may need my protection," fine. You made the assumption that women, in our society, are generally more in danger than men... and since this is probably true, it is not objectionable in and of itself. (Now, if you learned that the woman was a capable fighter, and armed, while the young man was nothing of the sort, you would of course have to revise your initial gender-based judgments.)

If it is "Women are weak and need my protection", that is clearly sexist and unacceptable.
Damn it, I wanted to leave.

That isnt really fair, because my standard is both.

Women are on the average pound for pound weaker then men, physical fact, that fact isnt open for debate.
Men, who commit crimes against women, espcially in my area tend to use very agressive violent attacks...if they want your car you are getting beaten, purse beaten, rape--beaten, and killed in all likelihood.

However, given the choice between walking aman to his car in dangerous area and a woman, I would walk the woman.

Because she is weaker, because she will be veiwed as an easier target alone then a man alone, and because well that about covers it.

So, again, since my standard is based on both...as in it is a shade of grey not Black and White....oddly like most issues.

Please tell me if this is wrong.

I dont really care if it is sexist, because I dont think sexist is wrong.

If history has taught us anything, it is that extremism is not the answer.

Except when it was "extreme" to believe that women are equal to men, or that slaves should be freed whatever the desires of their masters, or that the separation of church and state is a good thing, or that killing people because they don't share your religious views is wrong, or that entrusting a hereditary minority to power is unjust and foolish, and so on and on and on....

Yesterday's extremist is today's moderate.

Yesterday's extremist is today's moderate.
Indeed.
And
Yesterday's Liberal is todays Conservative.

Please tell me if this is wrong.

Like I said, the real test is what happens when your assumptions are proven wrong.

If you knew that a given woman was perfectly capable of self-defense, and a given man was not... would you reverse your behavior with regard to them?

lol

i didnt say they were GOOD ideas.

i guess there are some ideas that you dont know suck until you try them out.

But at least ideas like communism SOUND good on paper. That one doesn't even have that going for it.

Yes, because teenage girls are also full of knowledge about sex.

The opinions of virgins or newly non-virgins on such a subject should never be taken seriously.

Arguably, the opinion of plenty of long-time non-virgins shouldn't be taken seriously on it either.

Nothing really. Most people are idiots though. I try to treat women the same I do men, and I imagine you do as well, but then, we aren't idiots.Fair enough, although the goal with this, as any broad social change, is to get people to think about why they do things, even if these people aren't used to thinking about such things.

From my observations, I can tell you that the friends of unattractive women tend to ignore the fact that their friend is hopeless and compliment her on her outfits and such anyhow. It probably hurts them a great deal inside knowing that their friends are being dishonest.

From my personal experience, I can tell you that the friends of men who can't attract women constantly bring up the fact that their friend is a pile of shit. I can also tell you from personal experience that the ribbing never gets any less hurtful no matter how much one laughs at oneself.

I've witnessed unattractive people of both genders ignored or otherwise treated unkindly because of their appearance by both the same and opposite genders.

We live in a society that can be very cruel at times. Sexism is only a very small part of the problem and I think most of it is merely a result of materialism, though is certainly is its own thing at times.

Not that I think ugly people should get laid all the time, just not constantly reminded of what they are.Hm. This is different than both my personal experience and the stereotypes of popular culture, so in other words, wasn't quite the answer that I was expecting.

I do.

I just dont treat them the same.

Because they arent.

What inherent difference between men and women makes men (supposedly) insulted by having a door held open for them but makes women need to have it held open for them?

What inherent difference between men and women makes men (supposedly) insulted by having a door held open for them but makes women need to have it held open for them?

Please catch up, I am not rehashing things everytime some stragler wants to hop on the bandwagon.

What inherent difference between men and women makes men (supposedly) insulted by having a door held open for them but makes women need to have it held open for them?

Being dainty? :)

I do the same thing, though I try to correct myself. And I've never had a guy be insulted by me holding the door for him. It's usually either "thanks" or a guttural grunt.

Except when it was "extreme" to believe that women are equal to men, or that slaves should be freed whatever the desires of their masters, or that the separation of church and state is a good thing, or that killing people because they don't share your religious views is wrong, or that entrusting a hereditary minority to power is unjust and foolish, and so on and on and on....

Yesterday's extremist is today's moderate.
All those things were accepted by the majority of the populace when they were enacted, and only after decades and sometimes centuries of work, much of it being done by moderates. Ben Franklin is a prime example of this moderation on the issue of slavery.
Extremism sets oneself up for disappointment and is a pathway to intellectual dishonesty.
Why?

Pair-bonding is not something unique to humans.
Actually, sociological studies have shown that, given no outside societal pressure, things tend towards polygamy. It's only when you start getting a big enough population that there are an abundance of men dieing alone and not in war or the hunt that monogamy becomes a factor.

Thats not true. I wouldn't go up to a group of women and have a massive converstation about football to them (for example) as they would most likely not be interested, that is treating them differently but that is not sexist.

Would you go up to a group of men that you didn't know and assume that they were interested in football?

Yes, he would use football to break the ice witha group of men as sports is a good ice breaker with men.

Culturally women are not as interested in sprots as men, its called playing the odds.

Profiling based on demographic criteria, its only sexist because that is a buzz word for it.

It also an absurd point.

Profiling based on race, gender, age, economic status, is very effective.
Not perfect but effective.

But ooohhh its sexist. Weak.

I think the whole feminist movement unempowers women severely.

...how?

Well, I was thinking about it, and it seems like they do. For example, those types yelling slogans like "There's no such thing as consent! All penetration is violence!" and stuff like that. Doesn't that imply women are unable to make their own decisions, such as consenting?

Obviously, I'm only referring to the radical types.

So...

Discuss.

I think the whole feminist movement unempowers women severely.

Yes, he would use football to break the ice witha group of men as sports is a good ice breaker with men.

Culturally women are not as interested in sprots as men, its called playing the odds.

Profiling based on demographic criteria, its only sexist because that is a buzz word for it.

It also an absurd point.

Profiling based on race, gender, age, economic status, is very effective.
Not perfect but effective.

But ooohhh its sexist. Weak.

And I, as a guy, would stare at him blankly and return to talking about politics with the group of people I was talking to. While my friend (a woman) on the other side of the room would be discussing her fantasy baseball team with a few of her friends.

*shrug* I have no interest in sports. Many of my female friends do.

And I, as a guy, would stare at him blankly and return to talking about politics with the group of people I was talking to. While my friend (a woman) on the other side of the room would be discussing her fantasy baseball team with a few of her friends.

*shrug* I have no interest in sports. Many of my female friends do.

Wow.
I guess while you were busy quoting to make your statement you were busy to read the quote.

"Not perfect, but effective"

So your point would be what?

That profiling behavior based on gender isnt perfect...oh, like what I said.

Because I dont see you posting that women are equally as interested in football as men, because that isnt the case. And knowing that and acting on it isnt sexist, its called using common sense.

And, as long as that different treatment is based in an actual difference between the people in question, there is no problem. I wouldn't expect a person in a wheelchair to go up stairs, for instance (although I have seen such a person do it). I wouldn't expect a woman to pee standing up.

It's when there is no inherent difference between the people in question that the different treatment becomes sexist.



Yes.



"On the norm" and "in this particular case" are very different. Was the female instructor actually physically weaker than you? Were any of the men?



But apparently men are less worthy of respect and a physically weaker man is somehow less worthy of protection.



You shouldn't treat individuals as just another number in the midst of some group. Individuals are just that - individuals - and they should be treated as such.



The problem here is that you have absolutely no reason for thinking that being courteous to a man is any different than being courteous to a woman. You treat them differently just for the hell of it.

Could you repost your jibberish without all the breaks in it so I can respond.

I already know what I posted.

Depends on the type of sexism. Men are going to treat women differently than women because women are not men and people treat those that are different differently.


And, as long as that different treatment is based in an actual difference between the people in question, there is no problem. I wouldn't expect a person in a wheelchair to go up stairs, for instance (although I have seen such a person do it). I wouldn't expect a woman to pee standing up.

It's when there is no inherent difference between the people in question that the different treatment becomes sexist.


While attending my training course to work as a CNA (Nurse assistant)
The classes were held in a very bad neigborhood. Now when the young man was left waiting for a ride I did not remain, nor did I ever walk him to his car.
He was my peer in the class.
The women with PhD who taught the class and was one ofthe last people to leave the building I did escort to her vehicle and did remain in the parking until all the women had left.

I did this specifically because of gender.

You are telling me this is wrong?

Yes.

To quite frank, I find that to be a twisted snese of equality.
Women, are on the norm physically weaker then men, often victimized by men...in a real and genuine way not some imagined slight...like door holding.

"On the norm" and "in this particular case" are very different. Was the female instructor actually physically weaker than you? Were any of the men?

Me holding a door for woman is not implying she is incapable--and any woman to take it that way I would tell her flatly she was as dull as box of rocks-- it is respect I would hope is paid to the women of my life.

But apparently men are less worthy of respect and a physically weaker man is somehow less worthy of protection.

I do subscribe to gender roles, because like stereotypes there is some basis in reality for them. That basis also goes beyond some artificial construct by a patriarchial society.

You shouldn't treat individuals as just another number in the midst of some group. Individuals are just that - individuals - and they should be treated as such.

I must however take my leave of this particular thread as I dont think I can take being told how horrible I am for being courteous to women in the way I feel is appropriate, and couteous to men in the way I feel is appropriate.

The problem here is that you have absolutely no reason for thinking that being courteous to a man is any different than being courteous to a woman. You treat them differently just for the hell of it.

All those things were accepted by the majority of the populace when they were enacted, and only after decades and sometimes centuries of work, much of it being done by moderates.

Yes... because the extremists changed public opinion.

That's how political change works. It's not magic, and it's not random.

Would you go up to a group of men that you didn't know and assume that they were interested in football?

men do that all the time, my husband isn't very interested in sports, but inevitably no matter where we are, if a man he doesn't know well starts a conversation it's nearly always "did you see the game?" like my husband is supposed to know what sports season it is, much less which "game" that other guy is talking about. :rolleyes: for every female stereotype there is a male one, and it's starting to annoy me.

Why the fuck would you stand around in a square having tear gas hurled at you by the pigs? To make a point!

(To be perfectly honest, I'd say engaging in consensual sexual relations with a member of the same sex isn't, comparatively, all that bad.)

Well, it's hardly making a point unless you make an excessively large deal about it. Having sex in private is not "making a point".

Fair enough, although the goal with this, as any broad social change, is to get people to think about why they do things, even if these people aren't used to thinking about such things.
On an issue as subtle a sexism, that's nearly impossible.
Hm. This is different than both my personal experience and the stereotypes of popular culture, so in other words, wasn't quite the answer that I was expecting.
I would say it is perhaps because I'm young, but I've witnessed older people behave similarly. My experience could be different merely because I live and spend most of my time in central Texas and the hill-country; there really is no other place as uniquely culturally dead.

Yes, he would use football to break the ice witha group of men as sports is a good ice breaker with men.

Culturally women are not as interested in sprots as men, its called playing the odds.

Profiling based on demographic criteria, its only sexist because that is a buzz word for it.

It also an absurd point.

Profiling based on race, gender, age, economic status, is very effective.
Not perfect but effective.

But ooohhh its sexist. Weak.It's called sexist because that's what it is.

for every female stereotype there is a male one, and it's starting to annoy me.And feminism aims to deal with both. :D Isn't it wonderful?

Please catch up, I am not rehashing things everytime some stragler wants to hop on the bandwagon.

It wouldn't be rehashing, darling. You have yet to answer the question. Would you like to do so now? Or are you going to admit that you have no reason to give - that there is no inherent difference that necessitates or even suggests such behavior?


men do that all the time, my husband isn't very interested in sports, but inevitably no matter where we are, if a man he doesn't know well starts a conversation it's nearly always "did you see the game?" like my husband is supposed to know what sports season it is, much less which "game" that other guy is talking about. for every female stereotype there is a male one, and it's starting to annoy me.

Indeed.

It's called sexist because that's what it is.


Then sexism works very well for dealing with people.
As basing your assumptions on the reality of life rather then on the ideal of some group of treating people as if they dont have a gender, race or age distinction is simply ignorant.

I have no intention of wearing blinders because some woman is ashamed of being a woman in a given society.

You want to make changes, change yourself. Because the last time I checked imposing your will on others is oppression, and it is you(and those like you) doing this to others.

It makes women feel as if they are victims and need to "rebel" and what not.

Oh, those stupid, stupid women!

So cruelly manipulated by feminists into thinking that they shouldn't be subordinate, and shouldn't be narrowly restricted to the activities their gender role permits....

Clearly, this failure of judgment proves that we were right from the start... they should all be meek housewives, whatever they want.

:rolleyes:

...how?

It makes women feel as if they are victims and need to "rebel" and what not.

It's called sexist because that's what it is.


Thats a very extreme use of the word sexist. There is nothing wrong with making a well founded assumption, you shouldn't call it sexist as that has negative connotations with it.

Could you repost your jibberish without all the breaks in it so I can respond.

I already know what I posted.

The breaks are there to respond to specific points. If you don't like the way things work on a forum, don't post on a forum.

Yes... because the extremists changed public opinion.

That's how political change works. It's not magic, and it's not random.
The moderates changed public opinion. The extremists were invariably marginalized because of their own disability to compromise and only helped the cause when they because martyrs, if only because they weren't around to continue turning of the average idiot. The common man is repulsed by excessive change, and generally feels irrational resentment towards those that call for it.

I am quite extreme myself, in theory, but I would never back an extremist. They are counter-productive.