NationStates Jolt Archive

The blame only goes on the victim AS WELL AS THE perpetrator if the victim too is to blame, which would be in cases where the victim in some way encourages the perpetrator. In other cases where the victim doesn't encourage and attack the rapist is purely to blame. You didn't seriously believe that what I meant was that in 100% of the time its is the victim's fault as well as the rapists?

Next time you somehow deem it fit to claim that "only some" rape victims are to blame based on what they wear, do us all a favor and go read, well, ANYTHING, before posting such tripe.

There you are twisting my words again. It should be obvious that blame is circumstantial, always was and always is. You make it sound like I was saying that it is ALWAYS the ALL the victims fault. You couldn't be more incorrect which is why you begin to amuse me. The fallacies you spout out about me grow more hilarious with each post and so does the forum's blindness to obvious facts.

The blame only goes on the victim AS WELL AS THE perpetrator if the victim too is to blame, which would be in cases where the victim in some way encourages the perpetrator. In other cases where the victim doesn't encourage and attack the rapist is purely to blame. You didn't seriously believe that what I meant was that in 100% of the time its is the victim's fault as well as the rapists?
The victim is never to blame. That's why they are called "victims" and not "participants." Your pathetic attempt to "explain" your "reasoning" behind your desire to make rape be a just punishment for what you have decided is female immorality fails. Again.

I doubt he'll bother answering you, Heikoku.

He still has to answers if he would consider himself to be partly responsible if he ever got raped by a gay man when on his way to a date with a ladyfriend he fancies, having dressed up in sexy clothes.

Obviously he has double standards, or else he would have told us what he thought of the issue.

Next time you somehow deem it fit to claim that "only some" rape victims are to blame based on what they wear, do us all a favor and go read, well, ANYTHING, before posting such tripe.

Preferably something long, like War and Peace.

Do you still say that part of the blame is the victim's in rape cases?

You make it sound like I was saying that it is ALWAYS the ALL the victims fault.

This has got to be one of the funniest responses to a quoted passage I have ever seen.

Again, I ask you, if you really believe this - have the guts to tell me, personally, that I deserve "less sympathy" for being sexually assaulted because I had certainly tried to attract the guy who assaulted me, given that he was my boyfriend. Tell ME, personally, that the fact that he'd seen me naked meant he couldn't help himself and that I should be held partially accountable for his behavior. If that's what you really believe, surely you won't mind saying it to someone who's been assaulted, right?



So, like this, then:

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2005/11/23/photos/fleiss.jpg

?

Interesting choice of words, by the way. It really lends a ton of credibility to the idea that you're not just imposing your arbitrary standards on women and declaring certain of them "bad" and deserving of abuse and assault. :rolleyes:



Of course she should be held accountable for her actions. "Getting raped" is not an action, however. But you can totally hold her accountable for "walking around town." Of course, given the complete lack of moral or legal ramifications to walking around town, that doesn't mean a damn thing.



....yeah, people who drive cars all deserve to get in accidents! Those bitches!



Really? Because a few pages back, you declared men to be analogous to dogs and toasters, neither of which are sentient beings with free will. I'm glad you've decided to upgrade them to being at least partially responsible for their own behavior. How enlightened of you.

1) Hypothetically you attracted him so he must have assumed that it was ok.

3) LOLWUT? This is getting so ridicules that no moderate-minded average joe would take this thread seriously at all whatsoever.

4) Falling is not an action we choose to take but walking off a cliff is. Cause and effect.

5) Driving a car poorly leads to accidents whilst driving safely leads to safety just as acting a certain way will cause some rapist to choose you whilst acting differently may deter it entirely.

Preferably something long, like War and Peace.

Preferably the Tokyo Area Phone Book.

I doubt he'll bother answering you, Heikoku.

He still has to answers if he would consider himself to be partly responsible if he ever got raped by a gay man when on his way to a date with a ladyfriend he fancies, having dressed up in sexy clothes.

Obviously he has double standards, or else he would have told us what he thought of the issue.

Fine I have a confession to make.

I uglify myself on purpose to prevent that from ever happening.

And if Heko wants to go, its on.

I doubt he'll bother answering you, Heikoku.

Then I'll repost it. Over, and over, and over again, just to humiliate the kind of person that somehow sees some rapes as partially the victim's fault.

Fine I have a confession to make.

I uglify myself on purpose to prevent that from ever happening.

What a cute little troll you are.

This is so ridiculous I'm not going to be bothering with you from now on.

And if Heko wants to go, its on.

By all means:

I told you I'd be back to entertain the people here.

At your expense.

Since you seem to have made no attempts to recant yourself from what you said - which boils down to "part of the blame is on the woman if she dresses in a way men find enticing" - I'll play with you a bit.

You try to make a case that men are creatures of instinct, that can't control themselves. In fact, that's at the very core of your attempted argument.

So, let's examine that premise - a premise you use out of a need to have SOMETHING to blame women with, or, in short, as an excuse - more closely, shall we?

Your appeal to instinct, argumentum ad instinctum if you will, isn't supported by the fact that we have several technologies - bungee jumping, skydiving, airplanes - and developed several concepts - abstinence, castration, celibacy, vegetarianism - that run counter to the "instincts" you claim that govern us. If instincts ruled us that much, would we have these things? If so, why?

Secondly, you don't seem to be using argumentum ad instinctum to make the case that if a handyman is killed for entering someone's house - their territory, which they didn't delimitate with urine but still - that person is just giving in to their territorial instincts. You don't seem to be using argumentum ad instinctum to make the case that we all should live in a natural society, in which money is not a concept, like monkeys do. You don't seem to want to use argumentum ad instinctum to make any case other than "it's partially their fault if someone rapes them", which has ramifications such as "let's reduce the rapist's jail time, or allow him parole, depending on how his defense attorney makes the case that she was wearing/behaving like a slut".

You use argumentum ad instinctum to make a case of a notion you already hold - and it's not a reasonable notion by any measure, it's just the "that bitch deserved it" notion. People like you is why some defense attorneys in rape cases try to smear the victim to get the jury to release the rapist so the rapist can strike again and again.

You use it to make no other equally absurd case because it doesn't fit your worldview. And the fact that you use it, the fact that people like you use it, propagate this lie just so they can have an excuse to blame the victim, results in more rapists being left out.

You used an argument that doesn't hold water as the only basis to defend an assertion that is not true while neglecting to own up to any other things the argument you used would result in.

You further tried to use that argument to defend a view which is not only wrong, but dangerous, disingenuous and rape-inducing as well.

And I decided to - along with just about everyone here - show you and the spectators why you're so utterly, absolutely and completely WRONG.

Next time I offer you my mercy in arguments, you'd do well to take it.

1) Hypothetically you attracted him so he must have assumed that it was ok.

That was not a hypothetical. I believe I made that quite clear. Thank you for at least having the courtesy (sort of) to tell me that I, personally, was "asking for it." If I respected your opinion at all, I'd probably go be sick now; luckily, I find you laughable enough that the fact you believe I deserved to be assaulted doesn't bother me as much as it might otherwise.

3) LOLWUT? This is getting so ridicules that no moderate-minded average joe would take this thread seriously at all whatsoever.

That woman is a whore, o brilliant one. Logically, I do believe that means she is currently dressed like a whore. I do agree that this thread has gotten pretty ridiculous, though.

4) Falling is not an action we choose to take but walking off a cliff is. Cause and effect.

....this is true. So rape victims typically just walk their orifices onto someone's penis, then?

5) Driving a car poorly leads to accidents whilst driving safely leads to safety just as acting a certain way will cause some rapist to choose you whilst acting differently may deter it entirely.

Yup, it's true - locking yourself in your house and never ever having contact with human beings will almost certainly decrease your chances of being raped. Therefore, anyone who leaves their house totally has it coming to them, right?

No. People dress like they want and aren't held accountable. You're claiming getting raped is some sort of accountability and you HAVE YET TO ANSWER THE POINTS I MADE, WHICH I WILL REPOST IF I SEE FIT!

The blame for a rape is only the rapist's. PERIOD. FINITO. END OF DISCUSSION. SHUT-UP-AND-GET-OFF-MY-LAWN MOMENT.

Why not? They chose to dress a certain way and it will yield certain results. If someone chooses to dress like a slob and go out for an interview it's his/her fault that he/she didn't get hired. If someone dresses If someone chose to dress up like a nazi and they'd get beat up its their fault. Their choice. If someone decided to dress like a terrorist and gets arrested or shot it's their fault.

Why not? They chose to dress a certain way and it will yield certain results. If someone chooses to dress like a slob and go out for an interview it's his/her fault that he/she didn't get hired. If someone dresses If someone chose to dress up like a nazi and they'd get beat up its their fault. Their choice. If someone decided to dress like a terrorist and gets arrested or shot it's their fault.

If you EVER go to a costume party dressed as something anyone finds objectionable, by your logic, it'll be fine for them to beat the crap out of you.

Good to know.

Now feel free to answer the post I re-posted at the top of this page.

If you EVER go to a costume party dressed as something anyone finds objectionable, by your logic, it'll be fine for them to beat the crap out of you.

Good to know.

Now feel free to answer the post I re-posted at the top of this page.

Thats why I would choose not to and why I'd also have a weapon concealed for self defense.

Thats why I would choose not to and why I'd also have a weapon concealed for self defense.

Answer the post at the top of this page.

Answer the post at the top of this page.

Patience is a virtue I'm working on it.

Patience is a virtue I'm working on it.

And if you try to go "I only claimed SOME women are partially to blame", I'll simply say, and with good reason, that you're not worthy of me talking to you.

Thats why I would choose not to and why I'd also have a weapon concealed for self defense.

This horse has been dead for days, guys. It's obvious from SL's expressed views (this one is particularly lolworthy) that he's a paranoid shut-in who's probably only seen women other than his mother on the internet.

I'm sure he accepts the blame for being lambasted in this thread, though, since he was asking for it by expressing his views.

By all means:

I told you I'd be back to entertain the people here.

At your expense.

Since you seem to have made no attempts to recant yourself from what you said - which boils down to "part of the blame is on the woman if she dresses in a way men find enticing" - I'll play with you a bit.

You try to make a case that men are creatures of instinct, that can't control themselves. In fact, that's at the very core of your attempted argument.

So, let's examine that premise - a premise you use out of a need to have SOMETHING to blame women with, or, in short, as an excuse - more closely, shall we?

Your appeal to instinct, argumentum ad instinctum if you will, isn't supported by the fact that we have several technologies - bungee jumping, skydiving, airplanes - and developed several concepts - abstinence, castration, celibacy, vegetarianism - that run counter to the "instincts" you claim that govern us. If instincts ruled us that much, would we have these things? If so, why?

Secondly, you don't seem to be using argumentum ad instinctum to make the case that if a handyman is killed for entering someone's house - their territory, which they didn't delimitate with urine but still - that person is just giving in to their territorial instincts. You don't seem to be using argumentum ad instinctum to make the case that we all should live in a natural society, in which money is not a concept, like monkeys do. You don't seem to want to use argumentum ad instinctum to make any case other than "it's partially their fault if someone rapes them", which has ramifications such as "let's reduce the rapist's jail time, or allow him parole, depending on how his defense attorney makes the case that she was wearing/behaving like a slut".

You use argumentum ad instinctum to make a case of a notion you already hold - and it's not a reasonable notion by any measure, it's just the "that bitch deserved it" notion. People like you is why some defense attorneys in rape cases try to smear the victim to get the jury to release the rapist so the rapist can strike again and again.

You use it to make no other equally absurd case because it doesn't fit your worldview. And the fact that you use it, the fact that people like you use it, propagate this lie just so they can have an excuse to blame the victim, results in more rapists being left out.

You used an argument that doesn't hold water as the only basis to defend an assertion that is not true while neglecting to own up to any other things the argument you used would result in.

You further tried to use that argument to defend a view which is not only wrong, but dangerous, disingenuous and rape-inducing as well.

And I decided to - along with just about everyone here - show you and the spectators why you're so utterly, absolutely and completely WRONG.

Next time I offer you my mercy in arguments, you'd do well to take it.

First of all we are wired to both preserve and benefit the species, instincts are such programs but so are (in humanity's case) innovation and ingenuity.

Territorial instincts still exist but since our brains are highly evolved we can discern friend from foe. A serviceman is not a threat until he gives you a reasonable reason for him to be considered one a burglar on the other hand is something your territorial instincts will react to unless of course your Ned Flanders.

I do not understand why you say that I beleive all rapists should go scott free, yes they are always to blame and ALWAYs deserve punishment yet you cannot deny that there are cases where the rapists are provoked.

I do not see men in general as mindless cavemen who act on instinct but in my opinion most rapists are antisocial, impulsive maniacs who listen to none other than the id.

And to correct you about what I was defending lets start with what I wasn't I wasn't defending the rapists, and that world view you speak of is what the horde immediately assumed was, not what it really was.

However now hat you've explained how this argument extricates these animals from justice I can understand why NSG labeled those men pigs and why you put up a strong fight. It seems I stand corrected.

What a cute little troll you are.

This is so ridiculous I'm not going to be bothering with you from now on.
Not so cute, with cracks like this to his credit:
1) Hypothetically you attracted him so he must have assumed that it was ok.

Seriously, I think we can all write him off, finally.

This horse has been dead for days, guys. It's obvious from SL's expressed views (this one is particularly lolworthy) that he's a paranoid shut-in who's probably only seen women other than his mother on the internet.

I'm sure he accepts the blame for being lambasted in this thread, though, since he was asking for it by expressing his views.
I didn't think I could get more disgusted with him, but these last two pages have pretty much done it for me with this troll.

Food for thought:

Why do people argue animal instincts when it suits the arguement?


If we humans had those instincts intact, we'd learn when to shut our mouths, when to back off, when to diet, what foods not to eat based on smell, when to run, when to fight, how to independently live at a very early age.

Since we do none of these....I think it's really safe to assume humans no longer have animal instincts and thus, acting on such said instincts is a load of crap spawned of a guilty conscious. :P

We haven't evolved those instincts, a thousand years ago if it tasted, smelled or felt good it indicated something essential for survival. Now we can scientifically modify things to feel, smell, taste good when they are indeed detrimental to our health. Take fast food and drugs for example.

This is getting so ridicules that no moderate-minded average joe would take this thread seriously at all whatsoever.

On this, at least, I believe SL is correct.

First of all we are wired to both preserve and benefit the species, instincts are such programs but so are (in humanity's case) innovation and ingenuity.

Territorial instincts still exist but since our brains are highly evolved we can discern friend from foe. A serviceman is not a threat until he gives you a reasonable reason for him to be considered one a burglar on the other hand is something your territorial instincts will react to unless of course your Ned Flanders.

I do not understand why you say that I beleive all rapists should go scott free, yes they are always to blame and ALWAYs deserve punishment yet you cannot deny that there are cases where the rapists are provoked.

I do not see men in general as mindless cavemen who act on instinct but in my opinion most rapists are antisocial, impulsive maniacs who listen to none other than the id.

And to correct you about what I was defending lets start with what I wasn't I wasn't defending the rapists, and that world view you speak of is what the horde immediately assumed was, not what it really was.

However now hat you've explained how this argument extricates these animals from justice I can understand why NSG labeled those men pigs and why you put up a strong fight. It seems I stand corrected.

1- Claiming rapists are provoked by a woman dressed nicely being there is like claiming a tee-pee-ing is provoked by a beautiful house being there: Both are idiotic, both are baseless and both will end up with you picking up toilet paper from trees. A rape is an act of power, and even if it weren't, the blame is still not on the victim. It's like claiming "well, you had a good house, it was bound to get burned to the ground by a thug one day, his fault for fixing the roof". It just doesn't work that way.

2- If rapists only listen to the id, do you think they'd need any incentive to rape?

1- Claiming rapists are provoked by a woman dressed nicely being there is like claiming a tee-pee-ing is provoked by a beautiful house being there: Both are idiotic, both are baseless and both will end up with you picking up toilet paper from trees. A rape is an act of power, and even if it weren't, the blame is still not on the victim. It's like claiming "well, you had a good house, it was bound to get burned to the ground by a thug one day, his fault for fixing the roof". It just doesn't work that way.

2- If rapists only listen to the id, do you think they'd need any incentive to rape?

2) Human nature is what motivates them. Having power fells good, the Id tells the one it's embedded in to acquire pleasure. Power=sense of security which covers a few primitive needs and impulses the id desires to satiate.

3)You won so why are we still at this?

You won so why are we still at this?

Holy sh*t, that's the first time an opponent of mine admits defeat! :eek:

*Makes a pose*

No hard feelings, I hope? :D

Ya know, we women work hard. We deal with our husbands problems, we cook, clean, we raise children and some still sell themselves to keep men happy and stay alive. Hey if it wasn't for us, there would be no human life, life goes through us women, so the next time men complain that something is our fault, I want them to remember what we go through to keep life going, and men happy. I'm sick of being mens' scapegoats, and I'm 100% all of the worlds other women are also

Holy sh*t, that's the first time an opponent of mine admits defeat! :eek:

*Makes a pose*

No hard feelings, I hope? :D

Why should there be?

We deal with our husbands problems, we cook, clean,

I managed to make dinner and do laundry all by myself today, thank you very much.

Hey if it wasn't for us, there would be no human life

Good luck doing that without a penis being involved somehow.

Ya know, we women work hard. We deal with our husbands problems, we cook, clean, we raise children and some still sell themselves to keep men happy and stay alive. Hey if it wasn't for us, there would be no human life, life goes through us women, so the next time men complain that something is our fault, I want them to remember what we go through to keep life going, and men happy. I'm sick of being mens' scapegoats, and I'm 100% all of the worlds other women are also

Fine words, now go bring me my chicken pot pie.

...and congratulations to Heikoku for taking candy from a baby.

Also, given the last post responding to me, congratulations Muravyets for turning into your mother.

* all in jest :)

EDIT: In relation to that post though Mur, you might find this an interesting read (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/03/america/college.php)

Good luck doing that without a penis being involved somehow.

Give us five more years and we'll be able to splice two eggs together.

Good luck doing that without a penis being involved somehow.

Oh, come on. That, at least, is easy. All you need is a couple of syringes.

Give us five more years and we'll be able to splice two eggs together.

I was going to say "but then there'd only be women!", but I guess that wouldn't really matter anymore would it.
*quietly becomes obsolete in the corner*

Give us five more years and we'll be able to splice two eggs together.

What was that Anime? where the Females and Males ended up at war with eachother, lol...

Good luck doing that without a penis being involved somehow.

I might need to be corrected on this but, I think, you can make a new life from an egg alone but not from a sperm alone.

Hence, given technology, men are superfluous to requirements.

I might need to be corrected on this but, I think, you can make a new life from an egg alone but not from a sperm alone.

Hence, given technology, men are superfluous to requirements.

No, it requires a Sperm, you just dont need a Penis to put there...they can use a needle, lol...

Ya know, we women work hard. We deal with our husbands problems, we cook, clean, we raise children and some still sell themselves to keep men happy and stay alive. Hey if it wasn't for us, there would be no human life, life goes through us women, so the next time men complain that something is our fault, I want them to remember what we go through to keep life going, and men happy. I'm sick of being mens' scapegoats, and I'm 100% all of the worlds other women are also

Find me one prostitute who sells themselves to "keep men happy".

Some men cook and clean and nearly all who have them help to raise children. Just because we can't lactate does not mean we don't play an important part of the development of a child. Some people grow up without moms.

You can't produce a baby without a man, so life goes through us too.

On another note, rape is only the woman's fault if she consented and then lied in court. Don't tell me women are above that or that it doesn't happen, 'cause it does. Women can play innocent much easier than a man. Especially if there are a lot of men in the jury.

I might need to be corrected on this but, I think, you can make a new life from an egg alone but not from a sperm alone.

Hence, given technology, men are superfluous to requirements.

actually given current stemcell research it may be possible to take any human cell and revert it back to the first cell created in fertilization, which will then begin to divide all again as it did at the moment of conception.

Which makes it both superfluous.

On another note, rape is only the woman's fault if she consented

There appears to be an error in your logic.

actually given current stemcell research it may be possible to take any human cell and revert it back to the first cell created in fertilization, which will then begin to divide all again as it did at the moment of conception.

Which makes it both superfluous.

YES then we can finally make Humans in Factories...lol...

Im willing to bet there will be a significant increase in Genetic Disorders though....

actually given current stemcell research it may be possible to take any human cell and revert it back to the first cell created in fertilization, which will then begin to divide all again as it did at the moment of conception.

That's freakin' awesome. Why isn't he US funding this kind of thing?
Oh, right. Because it was freakin' awesome.

No, it requires a Sperm, you just dont need a Penis to put there...they can use a needle, lol...

unless you find a man willing to have his semen removed from him via a hypodermic needle to his testicles, I'm pretty sure the way you're going to get the sperm to use in insemination is going to involve a penis to some extent.

There appears to be an error in your logic.

Come on man, read the whole sentence only like 5 more words.

unless you find a man willing to have his semen removed from him via a hypodermic needle to his testicles, I'm pretty sure the way you're going to get the sperm to use in insemination is going to involve a penis to some extent.

True, i was just saying thats how they do it in a lab...

Come on man, read the whole sentence only like 5 more words.

rape is the fault of the woman if she consents....

If she consents there's no rape. Period.

Your rant about them lying bitches really does nothing to change that.

rape is the fault of the woman if she consents....

If she consents there's no rape. Period.

Your rant about them lying bitches really does nothing to change that.

Wait what? Wasnt that another thread, lol...

Or did i dream about getting slaughtered, lol...

unless you find a man willing to have his semen removed from him via a hypodermic needle to his testicles, I'm pretty sure the way you're going to get the sperm to use in insemination is going to involve a penis to some extent.

If you woke up in a bathtub full of ice, I wonder how you'd be able to check if your semen was missing?

Don't answer that.

rape is the fault of the woman if she consents....

If she consents there's no rape. Period.

Your rant about them lying bitches really does nothing to change that.

I suppose you're right, but ther have been wrongful convictions which is what I was talking about. Still, I know, wrongful conviction=not rape.

Why aren't anymore feminazis here, I want to argue!

I managed to make dinner and do laundry all by myself today, thank you very much.

Congratulations! :p

*snip reply to Neo Art*

Why aren't anymore feminazis here, I want to argue!

That's not going to work!

I mean, if the opponent you want is "a feminazi" who the hell would want to argue with you? That request amounts to "I want to argue unfairly based on my prejudice against my opponent. Expect me to misrepresent, misread and put words in your mouth. Look! I've called you a bad name already! Come on, it will be fun!"

Nonetheless, I'm tempted. South Liz seems to have slapped the mat. Without all that "but that's not what I said!" the thread is probably over.

I'll tell you what. I'll argue with you if you want to defend this statement:

Wait people are pigs for saying that women are partially responsible when wearing revealing clothing?! The whole point of wearing revealing and sexy clothes is to show off your sex appeal. They're basically saying, "hey guys I want you all to think I'm hot and desire to have sex with me" then when some sick bastard decides to listen to this desire they say they had nothing to do with it? It's like someone sticking their hand in a toaster then suing the company that made the toaster for burning his hand.

South Lizasauria made 36 posts (by my count) before admitting that this statement was wrong. I don't expect you would manage more than ten or so, but go for it if you like.

the mouse in my pocket loves everybody. i don't know what other wee the op might be refering to, other then an offering made to the ceramic diety in the little room with the mirrors.

=^^=
.../\...

the mouse in my pocket loves everybody. i don't know what other wee the op might be refering to, other then an offering made to the ceramic diety in the little room with the mirrors.

=^^=
.../\...

By 'we' I specifically meant the mouse in your pocket actually, it's a hateful little rodent.

I suppose you're right, but ther have been wrongful convictions which is what I was talking about. Still, I know, wrongful conviction=not rape.

Why aren't anymore feminazis here, I want to argue!I'll have to do.
As far as wrongful accusations of rape, false rape reports happen at the same rate that false reports for other crimes. About 2%. But do we see many people screaming about how often false mugging reports happen? No.

Yes, irrationality is way funner than rationality. The problem would strive in the guilt as an after-effect of that fun irrationality. I suffer from that malady. It's a nuisance.

But irrational thought is no crime in itself. When it leads to actions, and those actions harm another person, the actions are the problem.

Whether statements based in irrationality are "harmful actions" I suppose depends on the context. Being a jackass probably isn't, but deliberately lying to someone about a matter which is their business probably is a harmful action.

Most interesting case of all is follie a deux, shared madness. When two or more people co-operate in a mutually-satisfying delusion, are they guilty of harming each other? Or is it like the individual case, "failure but not wrongdoing" ...?

I read somewhere, and if you laugh at the ridiculousness of it, go ahead, that men do go through a kind of "male menopause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andropause)". This affects them as hard as menopause affects women. In moodiness, we're unjustified and not too different.

Absolutely men have a significant reduction of testosterone (and some other hormone I can't spell the name of) in their forties, though they generally remain fertile long after that. It's nowhere near as dramatic as the menopause, though I just wred that it can have similar symptoms.

But here's a shocker: I love it. I attribute my middle-age bliss (relative to my anguished twenties and my despairing thirties) to getting this yoke of masculinity off my soul, at least partially. It was never a happy thing for me.

I could go on and on about this, it's a core feature of my character. But I'll stick to the facts: the only thing which kept me from cutting my own testicles off was the concern that I might one day want to father children (there are health costs as well, osteoporosis and a tendency to put on weight, but I'd cope.) As an exploratory step towards neutering myself, I had the "snip" -- vasectomy -- at about age 30. I have never fathered children (that I know of, and there is only one incident which I'm ignorant of the consequences of) ... but I probably still have the option.

Truth is stranger than fiction. I imagine a few jaws hitting desks. ;)

Menopause is much harsher that way (the option of genetic parenthood.) Men have a relatively forgiving "biological clock."

That's why pointed out that we're capable of committing the worst, acts that lack or seem to denote an uncapability to reason. Of course, we're animals, not completely human and not completely irrational, although thinking ones according to science and such.

Here I must disagree. I could kill a person, but only under very special circumstances. Other than "killing lots of people" I find it hard to imagine anything more vile and beyond my rights than that.

No, wait, I see what you mean. Not you or I, nor South Liz, are capable of committing the worst, the most irrational acts. But "we" in the sense "all humans." Some humans may be utterly irrational.

And I still disagree. There must be some reason that I know no person who is evil, nor totally irrational. I have read about such, but ... I ... don't ... KNOW ... them. Nor, I will gambit, do you.

Upon thinking a bit about your post, I understood something about the death that can be gleaned from gender difference. Perhaps tried and common; breast cancer, uterine cancer, cervical cancer, for example, death, it's dictated by a specific sex condition. This is a condition that only affects women.

For men there is prostate cancer. Dang that prostate (next against the wall when the revolution comes lol).

I wouldn't worry too much about the connection. I suspect there are good reasons (evolutionary) why the reproductive organs of both sexes work best in youth, and are relatively fallible compared to other organs.

I doubt it's the reproductive system trying to kill us for not reproducing. That's kind of ... Catholic? (Yeah, that's mean. And an invitation to hijack. And wrong. And it stays in. Irrationality ftw!)
We could both read lots about it ... or should we cry out for our B0ttle ... ;)

Of course, this is just a trivial example and under no circumstance does it encompass half of what I think you were trying to convey.

I was drunk, my mind was wandering. (A word I like: woolgathering.)

And not so much with the being nice. This petulant fop is not going to hit you again :)

Yes, annoying to a degree, but fair. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I would have it some other way. But dreaming of the impossible is my chosen way to be irrational. I inherited it from my mother (the faraway look, the tuneless humming of some old song, so rounded-down and unpunctuated as to no more than 'all the old songs.')

And "fair" I agree with. We don't whine about the rules which we cannot change.

I'll have to do.

Hey! I offered first. (Well, with limited terms of engagement, but ...)

We could tag-team ...?

As far as wrongful accusations of rape, false rape reports happen at the same rate that false reports for other crimes. About 2%. But do we see many people screaming about how often false mugging reports happen? No.

Hey. :( That's the exact issue Beartown offered to debate. You're going to fight fair???

Oh, well. If you need an airstrike of complete chaos, just TG me. I've got your back. :p

Hey! I offered first. (Well, with limited terms of engagement, but ...)

We could tag-team ...?



Hey. :( That's the exact issue Beartown offered to debate. You're going to fight fair???

Oh, well. If you need an airstrike of complete chaos, just TG me. I've got your back. :p
We can take turns. I suppose it'd be sexist to assume only a woman could be a feminazi.
And I only fight fair when I can afford to lose.

I suppose it'd be sexist to assume only a woman could be a feminazi.

I just like the uniform. When it's time to herd Them into the showers "for delousing" I will probably defect.

the mouse in my pocket loves everybody. i don't know what other wee the op might be refering to, other then an offering made to the ceramic diety in the little room with the mirrors.

=^^=
.../\...

If you follow the links in the OP, it's clear the subject is 'hate speech' against women, with a side order of rape.

I'm not blaming you, I made at least one long post addressing instead the question "Do I hate women?"

Surprisingly to me, the answer was "yes, a bit." With two qualifications:

I don't hate any actual woman, each is person and deserving of respect for that. Individuality trumps gender, always.
I hate men more, but there's no point in saying that. (a) Each man is a person and deserving of respect for that, and (b) Being a man, I cannot isolate my hate of other men from what may be hate of my own condition.

The thing I don't know, and may never know, is this: was I already a boy, formed differently from any girl, when I thought I was Generic Human (genderless, unblinkered, immaculate) ... and is that ideal state unattainable to me, ruled out by my experience of masculinity, though I may hope for it as a nearly-sexless Old Geezer?

I'm OK with dualisms, when I can stand outside them. Or alternate between sides (even if only in my mind, by empathy.) But I am very unhappy with being cast onto one side of a dualism, with no way to sanity-check my assumptions or conclusions made as "generic human."

Now, tell me about the mouse. Do you really have a mouse which you carry around in your pocket?

Is your mouse (living and squeaking, or allegorical) a rudiment of dualisms you have fought but chosen not to vanquish?

And ... ;) ... what's her name?

What was that Anime? where the Females and Males ended up at war with eachother, lol...

Vandread I believe.

Hey, Non-Aligned States: I demand to see the post you deleted as "Pointless."

Us Feminazis don't like points. If it was pointless, I would like to interface with it in an un-pointed way.

We aren't friends (though this has never been tested with replies to each other, I'm pretty sure you dislike my opinions as I do yours. But we have a communality of "why bother?" I think.)

Yeah, so repeat your comment, the one you deleted, or I will mercilessly mock you as "the one without a point" every time I see one of your posts which seems a little vague.

Grrrr.
TG is good, too. %-)

Waaay back someone asked why we hate women. In my experience the people who hate women most are women and the people who hate men most are women and most overt sexism I hear comes from women. In fact casual misandry, is to me, more common than casual misogyny.

The Feminist movement loves to whine about the under-representation of women in Government. However these bastions of sexism were the ones who allowed equality in the first place by allowing women to vote, by allowing sexual discrimination laws, by allowing equality of opportunity.

But equality of opportunity is not enough is it? It's not enough to compete on a level playing field for some feminists. No, the rules have to be changed to benefit their side.

Good luck to them I say. I wish them all the best in their struggles to work when the feel like it since they have greater responsibilities like family. I hope they kick up a storm about mens clubs being discriminatory while increasing their female only gyms. I'm looking forward to the day when they decide that anyone who has a bit of paper to say they are "safe" can look after their children as well as they, except the father. Or that the termination of the fetus is the business of everyone but the father or that a boyfriend or dead husbands sperm is their property.

This is not sarcasm. If women really want this then I say fight for it. Fight hard and you may well win. One day all us men could be kept in camps for your safety and the safety of your perfect eve clone children, you can return to the homeostasis of your projected eden in which we are the snake. Masculinity itself could be eradicated with good breeding programmes which ensure only homosexual but fertile males are produced as breeding stock and any dangerous heterosexual males are terminated in utero.

But please, please please please, stop pretending that it's about equality. Be honest. You think we've had our turn made a bad job of it and want control.

Snip.

Who's this "The Feminist Movement" hivemind you talk about?

Who's this "The Feminist Movement" hivemind you talk about?
Yeah, I wasn't aware I had been mind-melded with all these other chicks. And when we do get control, will the Hive Queen issue new dominatrix outfits, or do we have to buy our own?

Yeah, I wasn't aware I had been mind-melded with all these other chicks. And when we do get control, will the Hive Queen issue new dominatrix outfits, or do we have to buy our own?

DOM OUTFITS!!! YES!!!

>.>

<.<

What? I have needs!

Well, there's always nostrils, and eye sockets for some. And ears. I don't think i'll be posting any links, though.

:) Good point I am sure if people really want to read up on the many different slots on a human body they can go look it up for themselves.

Why do we hate women?

It's the boob's all men hate boob's!

I know a few men who hate theirs ;)

Hey, Non-Aligned States: I demand to see the post you deleted as "Pointless."

Us Feminazis don't like points. If it was pointless, I would like to interface with it in an un-pointed way.

We aren't friends (though this has never been tested with replies to each other, I'm pretty sure you dislike my opinions as I do yours. But we have a communality of "why bother?" I think.)

Yeah, so repeat your comment, the one you deleted, or I will mercilessly mock you as "the one without a point" every time I see one of your posts which seems a little vague.

Grrrr.
TG is good, too. %-)

It involved logical extensions of an argument, a number of locations and times where a certain person on this thread is known to frequent, identifying characteristics, increased probabilities of high velocity, high density, particulate pollution, and a means of generating said particulate pollution. Do you wish to continue?

Why the double standards here, take a look at the language...

Look at the terminology and then think of all the men who took drugs, slept with a lot of women and were also manipulated by agents and consider how society describes them - anti-heros, rebels etc.,

Why was Johnny Rotten given cult status whereas Amy Winehouse, who has far greater talent, is called a 'cheap meth-smoking whore'?

Why do women need to be such role models, why are media allowed to point at the women who drink and fuck around and call it a disgrace to society when men have been doing it for centuries?

The true inequality.

The question becomes does this happen because men make her a "cheap meth smoking whore" or is it other women who make her one? While I am not sure I have heard theories that sometimes women do not always help themselves when they attack one another.

It involved logical extensions of an argument, a number of locations and times where a certain person on this thread is known to frequent, identifying characteristics, increased probabilities of high velocity, high density, particulate pollution, and a means of generating said particulate pollution. Do you wish to continue?

*inserts two-dollar coin*

Fuck yeah. This game is crooked, but no way is that Game Over.

I dress sexy. I do want to get laid. Just not by you. By wearing sexy clothes I hope to attract the attention of a male I consider suitable. That doesn't mean I lose the right to say "no" to males I don't consider suitable. You can window shop all you want. But I decide who gets the goods. Understand?

Proof that women always have and always will have power over men despite what some feminists have claimed It is a joke people but they always have had a lot of power.

The question becomes does this happen because men make her a "cheap meth smoking whore" or is it other women who make her one? While I am not sure I have heard theories that sometimes women do not always help themselves when they attack one another.
It doesn't matter whether men started dogpiling on Amy Winehouse or women did. The point is that anyone who would attach such moralistically denigrating labels to a woman who is as messed up as she, but not to a similarly messed up man, is perpetuating a sexist double standard that blames women for behaving in ways that men are not blamed for.

Who is "we"? And second off, there is always a group that is going to be hated... It's the typical world situation...

Proof that women always have and always will have power over men despite what some feminists have claimed It is a joke people but they always have had a lot of power.
Then how come dressing sexy in the office won't get a woman's pay raised to be equal to that of her male co-workers? Please don't waste our time with such trite stuff as this.

It doesn't matter whether men started dogpiling on Amy Winehouse or women did. The point is that anyone who would attach such moralistically denigrating labels to a woman who is as messed up as she, but not to a similarly messed up man, is perpetuating a sexist double standard that blames women for behaving in ways that men are not blamed for.

I understand your point and I in all respect will not debate it because it is not a point that I hold fully I am placing it in here as an hypothesis. I have read and heard theories that sometimes women are held to higher standards because other women are holding them to this standard, now I do not know if this is true or not but as I have heard it from a number of women in the public eye I am proposing this may have something to do with the indifference.

Then how come dressing sexy in the office won't get a woman's pay raised to be equal to that of her male co-workers? Please don't waste our time with such trite stuff as this.

As I said it was not meant to be taken seriously. I am sure that someone in here will at least get it. Of course I will get back to you on your post as I know I have an article waiting for me to read on what you said and the brief first paragraph was talking about this and if this was the way to break the supposed glass ceiling.

Waaay back someone asked why we hate women.

Hint: Read at least the first post.

If you're wailing into the topic based only on the for-fuck's-sake Thread Title, consider yourself hiding in the sanitation storage area of the thread, with Nobel Hobos and Cameroi, trying to make a bong out of spare parts from the vacuum cleaners.

I mean, you're welcome and all. Just don't make a whole lot of noise. The security guard is bonking the cleaning lady, and you'll get us all busted.

As I said it was not meant to be taken seriously. I am sure that someone in here will at least get it. Of course I will get back to you on your post as I know I have an article waiting for me to read on what you said and the brief first paragraph was talking about this and if this was the way to break the supposed glass ceiling.

Gotcha bro. We have this ripper 2000-watt force-feeding water-pipe, and a quarter ounce of hydroponic skunk. And the security-guard is in, he has some weird shit which looks like shredded-up cellophane and apparently the cleaning-lady prefers appliances.

All we need is a lighter. None of us are smokers, hey. Want to join us?

Yeah, I wasn't aware I had been mind-melded with all these other chicks. And when we do get control, will the Hive Queen issue new dominatrix outfits, or do we have to buy our own?

Who's this "The Feminist Movement" hivemind you talk about?

Just a question. You managed to debate SL posts with relative ease and actually debate the 'points' he made why not High Expectation's?

Gotcha bro. We have this ripper 2000-watt force-feeding water-pipe, and a quarter ounce of hydroponic skunk. And the security-guard is in, he has some weird shit which looks like shredded-up cellophane and apparently the cleaning-lady prefers appliances.

All we need is a lighter. None of us are smokers, hey. Want to join us?

Scratch that in case you had read it I do get it, well why not I'll bring some of my own secret stash along.

Just a question. You managed to debate SL posts with relative ease and actually debate the 'points' he made why not High Expectation's?

I'm currently busy looking up porn.

I'm currently busy looking up porn.

Ahh that would explain it please do not stop me from doing what using the only thing the internet is worth having, apart from posting on NSG of course ;)

Just a question. You managed to debate SL posts with relative ease and actually debate the 'points' he made why not High Expectation's?
Because my arguments made to SL also stand for HE. The post of HE's I was ridiculing was merely a repetition of things he already posted, which are answered by my earlier posts. I am not in the habit of retyping the same arguments over and over for every blowhard who can't be bothered to read the thread.

Because my arguments made to SL also stand for HE. The post of HE's I was ridiculing was merely a repetition of things he already posted, which are answered by my earlier posts. I am not in the habit of retyping the same arguments over and over for every blowhard who can't be bothered to read the thread.

Fair enough. And sorry while I have read this thread from the first to last post over the days I must have missed HE's earlier posts or at least forgot about them, to which you must have already replied to.

Because my arguments made to SL also stand for HE. The post of HE's I was ridiculing was merely a repetition of things he already posted, which are answered by my earlier posts. I am not in the habit of retyping the same arguments over and over for every blowhard who can't be bothered to read the thread.

I am, but, as I said, porn.

Waaay back someone asked why we hate women. In my experience the people who hate women most are women and the people who hate men most are women and most overt sexism I hear comes from women. In fact casual misandry, is to me, more common than casual misogyny.

The Feminist movement loves to whine about the under-representation of women in Government. However these bastions of sexism were the ones who allowed equality in the first place by allowing women to vote, by allowing sexual discrimination laws, by allowing equality of opportunity.

But equality of opportunity is not enough is it? It's not enough to compete on a level playing field for some feminists. No, the rules have to be changed to benefit their side.

Good luck to them I say. I wish them all the best in their struggles to work when the feel like it since they have greater responsibilities like family. I hope they kick up a storm about mens clubs being discriminatory while increasing their female only gyms. I'm looking forward to the day when they decide that anyone who has a bit of paper to say they are "safe" can look after their children as well as they, except the father. Or that the termination of the fetus is the business of everyone but the father or that a boyfriend or dead husbands sperm is their property.

This is not sarcasm. If women really want this then I say fight for it. Fight hard and you may well win. One day all us men could be kept in camps for your safety and the safety of your perfect eve clone children, you can return to the homeostasis of your projected eden in which we are the snake. Masculinity itself could be eradicated with good breeding programmes which ensure only homosexual but fertile males are produced as breeding stock and any dangerous heterosexual males are terminated in utero.

But please, please please please, stop pretending that it's about equality. Be honest. You think we've had our turn made a bad job of it and want control.

This lyrical post, addressing no other poster, nor the thread subject, nor the first post, deserved nothing less than two pages of lyrical spam.

But I commend it as a fantastic Thread Bump. If Aldous Huxley was in the first few days of conceiving his masterpiece Brave New World, kinda pissed with some girl who'd turned him down, and constrained by the length of rave expected on NSG, he might well have posted this.

For the ripping-to-shreds, I tag Heikoku 2.

... and a grinning, goofy "goodnight" to you all!

Who's this "The Feminist Movement" hivemind you talk about?

That would be those who have been indoctrinated into thinking that misandry is equality by the rhetoric of leading feminists. Even the name is promoting female issues and not equality. They do not call themselves equalists they call themselves feminists. As I say I have no trouble with this, not a bit. I just feel it is slightly dishonest to claim it is about equality when in many cases it is ideological misandry.

I'm not claiming "oooh us poor men!" not one bit of it, we rule still, are in charge, make more money, are more often involved in violence, suppress the female in many many cultures,and have done for a good few thousand years so I understand the anger, indignation, sheer frustration and outright hatred that many women have for many men or for the idea of masculine dominated culture, but I'm not so naive to accept that frustration anger and hatred is about creating equality since a very big part of feminism is to redefine culture in order to benefit women.

Again I say good luck, just stop the pretence.

Also, my previous points on this thread were about irresponsibility of individuals giving opportunity to criminals and that it would be reasonable to be responsible to protect oneself, knowing that crimes happen to which many thought I was blaming victims for rape. Some people brains may well be in their asses others seem to be in an autonomic reflex of the knee.

Find me one prostitute who sells themselves to "keep men happy".

Some men cook and clean and nearly all who have them help to raise children. Just because we can't lactate does not mean we don't play an important part of the development of a child. Some people grow up without moms.

You can't produce a baby without a man, so life goes through us too.

On another note, rape is only the woman's fault if she consented and then lied in court. Don't tell me women are above that or that it doesn't happen, 'cause it does. Women can play innocent much easier than a man. Especially if there are a lot of men in the jury.

YOUR NOT THE ONE CARRYING THE BABY!!! We nurture it whiling carry it for a labor of 9 months. and i went far with the prostitue thing women do that idk y men do it too actually this fourm pisses me off. im responding in it cuz im protecting us women

:headbang:

I hate groups that are exclusive to particular groups, White Power, Black Power, AIM, Feminists groups, and the like...

All organizations that support only one group of people, are shit...


People are people, regardless of sex, creed, and race, and they all suck...

Fair enough. And sorry while I have read this thread from the first to last post over the days I must have missed HE's earlier posts or at least forgot about them, to which you must have already replied to.
I didn't respond to every post he made because, as I said, my replies to SL also addressed HE's nonsense. If he is too self-absorbed to read posts not directly about him, that's not my concern.

I am, but, as I said, porn.
Maybe HE needs to be doing something with a pickle or a few bananas while he posts, to keep your attention. ;)

I am, but, as I said, porn.

So, you're like a dog, and porn is like bacon... :p

That would be those who have been indoctrinated into thinking that misandry is equality by the rhetoric of leading feminists.
So, the girls who live only in your fantasies, then.

Even the name is promoting female issues and not equality. They do not call themselves equalists they call themselves feminists. As I say I have no trouble with this, not a bit. I just feel it is slightly dishonest to claim it is about equality when in many cases it is ideological misandry.
And I'm sure you can list some of those "most" cases for us, right? I'm sure you have a whole catalogue of real life examples which are the basis for your belief, right?

I'm not claiming "oooh us poor men!" not one bit of it, we rule still, are in charge, make more money, are more often involved in violence, suppress the female in many many cultures,and have done for a good few thousand years so I understand the anger, indignation, sheer frustration and outright hatred that many women have for many men or for the idea of masculine dominated culture, but I'm not so naive to accept that frustration anger and hatred is about creating equality since a very big part of feminism is to redefine culture in order to benefit women.
So, are you really saying that, since you believe men have behaved badly towards women, you automatically believe women want to behave the same way towards men? And what do you base that assumption on?

Again I say good luck, just stop the pretence.

Also, my previous points on this thread were about irresponsibility of individuals giving opportunity to criminals and that it would be reasonable to be responsible to protect oneself, knowing that crimes happen to which many thought I was blaming victims for rape. Some people brains may well be in their asses others seem to be in an autonomic reflex of the knee.
Uh-huh.

So, you're like a dog, and porn is like bacon... :p

I'm like a horny dog and porn is like sexy bacon. :D

All organizations that support only one group of people, are shit...

So I suppose you're not celebrating the 4th of july today in any way.

So I suppose you're not celebrating the 4th of july today in any way.

He hates your freedom.

As do we all.

He hates your freedom.

As do we all.

. . . .

Who taught the woman to read?

. . . .

Who taught the woman to read?

There are no women on the internet.

There are no women on the internet.

of course there aren't. They just end up crying when they can't figure out how to use the computer.

Obviously you got a man to do it for you.

of course there aren't. They just end up crying when they can't figure out how to use the computer.

Obviously you got a man to do it for you.

I let the bitch sit on my lap while I type for her too.





Okay, don't make me kick your ass. We all know men can't type this well.

So I suppose you're not celebrating the 4th of july today in any way.

Smart Ass..

yes i am, its a Holiday not an Organization...:upyours:

Okay, don't make me kick your ass. We all know men can't type this well.

My own inability to spell for shit should not be taken as indicative of men in general.

Bitch.

Smart Ass..

Ayup

yes i am, its a Holiday not an Organization...:upyours:

how you support your hypocrisy is your problem, not mine.

My own inability to spell for shit should not be taken as indicative of men in general.

Bitch.

*kicks ass*

You don't get to call me bitch, mofo.

You don't get to call me bitch, mofo.

Nonsense...you're a woman aren't you?

Nonsense...you're a woman aren't you?

Don't me call Murv down on your head.

Even I wouldn't want to see the results afterwards.

how you support your hypocrisy is your problem, not mine.

That doesnt even make sense...How could you possibly equate celebrating a National Holiday with not supporting an Organization?

Where's your Sense Man?!

Don't me call Murv down on your head.

Even I wouldn't want to see the results afterwards.

Getting rather moody are we? Where is your man? I should tell him to bring you back in line!

*adjusts badass monocle*

Getting rather moody are we? Where is your man? I should tell him to bring you back in line!

*adjusts badass monocle*

I can put up with it for about three posts from someone I'm familiar with. From you, it's zero posts.

I can put up with it for about three posts from someone I'm familiar with. From you, it's zero posts.

So you're going to treat everything I say with seriousity?

So you're going to treat everything I say with seriousity?

what makes you think that if you see two people conversing, it's appropriate for you to join in, even in jest?

I can put up with it for about three posts from someone I'm familiar with. From you, it's zero posts.

Aaaw, but he's got a monocle!!

http://www.prinny.co.uk/images/bender-monocle.gif

what makes you think that if you see two people conversing, it's appropriate for you to join in, even in jest?

*shrugs*

I guess it's just the way my personality is that I wouldn't see anything strange at all in someone doing that in a conversation with me and someone else. If I wanted to have a personal jest match with someone and didn't want anyone else involved, I'd do it in PMs (or telegrams on NS, I guess).

It's sort of a concept that seems natural to me and has been reinforced by almost every forum I'm a member of. My apologies if I've offended but that's just not something I'm used to.

Nonsense...you're a woman aren't you?

Don't me call Murv down on your head.

Even I wouldn't want to see the results afterwards.

Getting rather moody are we? Where is your man? I should tell him to bring you back in line!

*adjusts badass monocle*
I know you kids are not going to make me put on my high heels and come down there.

Overall an interesting article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/01/gender.women) on the perceived backlash against feminism, from which this paragraph:



This may just be one survey but I often see far greater vitriol, far worse insults hurled at women in the public eye compared to men, and it does seem to be getting worse.

In a way, we may have treated women courteously in the past - though I rather doubt it - and the open manner in which people insult women nowadays is merely recognition that they're in some ways more equal, as one quoted person puts it: "I think that you always get the greatest resistance when you're actually doing something," she says. "I think it signals that there's a slightly stronger sense of feminist organisation and voice than there was 10 years ago. The irony, of course, is that you only get resistance if there's something to be resisted."

However, it's not just in the words we use.



Why is real hatred and loathing reserved for women?

We don't, feminists are evil so we should hate them. To say hating feminists is hating women is to say hating Nazis is hating Germans.

feminists=women who hate non-women
Nazis=Germans who hate non-Germans

So, the girls who live only in your fantasies, then.


Ad Hominem. Supposition and ineffective. You know nothing about me and your assumptions are worthless. But if mockery makes you feel better, by all means continue, I am impervious to this tactic. Also most women I know like to be called women not girls, they would find it insulting.


And I'm sure you can list some of those "most" cases for us, right? I'm sure you have a whole catalogue of real life examples which are the basis for your belief, right?


I never used the word most I said many. I will assume this tactic was not deliberate dishonesty. I have indeed a whole catalogue of real life examples which are the basis for my perspective, as well as having studied the ideological rhetoric of many of the figureheads and authors of Feminist ideology.


So, are you really saying that, since you believe men have behaved badly towards women, you automatically believe women want to behave the same way towards men? And what do you base that assumption on?


Again I will assume that you are not being intellectually dishonest here. To reiterate I said.

"so I understand the anger, indignation, sheer frustration and outright hatred that many women have for many men or for the idea of masculine dominated culture"

If you wish to discuss the points I actually made rather than project your own bias as a gloss over what was clearly written do so.

If you wish to continue to with ad-hominems, false assumptions, exaggerated claims and projections then you are also welcome to do so. It is a group of tactics one becomes used to if one does not utterly and totally capitulate to the feminist ideology without question.

FINALLY SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS THE MESSAGE I ATTEMPTED TO CONVEY! I'm giving you a cookie, your the only one who actually got what I was saying ans didn't scream "oh noez itz tah ebil raepist m0s1im dude"

I appreciate your enthusiasm and thank you for your cookie. However, your waltzing with the goalposts has made me suddenly not very hungry. And for me to give a cookie back, well, that's very, very rare. Congratulations?

Except Intangelon noted about STARING. Now, you might not know this, but staring is very, very, different from RAPING!

There it is. Exactly.

A slight tweak - I don't think it's at all hypocritical to complain about staring, but one can make a reasonable case for hypocrisy if a woman dresses provocatively and objects to people looking. Staring is just rather rude and creepy regardless of what someone's wearing.

I dunno -- I think I've mastered the art of the surreptitious stare quite well. Either that, or I'm subtle as a flying mallet and those I'm admiring don't mind the attention.

2) Rapist gets punished victim gets less sympathy.

3) When a woman chooses to dress like a whore and walk around town then gets attacked she is not to be held accountable for her actions?

And here's why I gave your cookie back, nice though it looked. "Walking around town" is no reason to get attacked, no matter what someone is dressed like. This is what it means to live in a nominally civilized society. You could certainly make the argument that we're not there yet (civilization) -- I'd buy that one hell of a lot easier than I'd buy "she was wearing a low-cut top, she was ASKING FOR IT." 'Cause that's bullshit.

That's basically admitting the Arabic shariya law is a good and sensical thing to obey when it comes to how women dress. That, by extension, is saying that men are incapable of controlling themselves and are little better than common dogs.

She engaged in an unsafe activity, anyone who engages in unsafe activities usually are held accountable.

Really? So we punish skydivers, skateboarders, skiers, PEOPLE WHO LEAVE THEIR DAMNED HOUSES AND WALK TO THE MARKET?! Really?! You are stretching so far for an argument that I'm beginning to suspect that you're one of Reed Richards' kids. Assault and rape are assault and rape, the clothing of the assaulted/raped simply DOES NOT MATTER. If you believe it does, you are in need of counseling, and I'd really not like to have you out on the streets.

And I'm not saying the rapist is not accountable, both are sentient beings with free will and if you deny that I knew that from the start I'd laugh myself blue in the face I honestly would.

Free will? For a rape victim? Okay, you've gone beyond the pale. I'm through trying to talk reasonably to someone who is obviously not willing to do me the thread the same courtesy. You seem to think that rapes only occur in badly-lit alleyways and that any woman who would DARE to walk there while showing even a sliver of flesh deserves any tragedy that befalls her. Seriously. Get help. Reality is waiting for you.

Ad Hominem. Supposition and ineffective. You know nothing about me and your assumptions are worthless. But if mockery makes you feel better, by all means continue, I am impervious to this tactic. Also most women I know like to be called women not girls, they would find it insulting.
I used the word "girls" because I don't believe the people you described really exist.

I never used the word most I said many. I will assume this tactic was not deliberate dishonesty. I have indeed a whole catalogue of real life examples which are the basis for my perspective, as well as having studied the ideological rhetoric of many of the figureheads and authors of Feminist ideology.
Lay 'em on us.

Again I will assume that you are not being intellectually dishonest here. To reiterate I said.

"so I understand the anger, indignation, sheer frustration and outright hatred that many women have for many men or for the idea of masculine dominated culture"
You said a lot of other things, too.

If you wish to discuss the points I actually made rather than project your own bias as a gloss over what was clearly written do so.
You didn't make any points. You posted nothing but invective. Make a point and I'll address it. Continue to rant about some kind of shadowy anti-man attitude you claim exists but cannot show examples of, and I will treat your posts with the respect I feel they deserve.

If you wish to continue to with ad-hominems, false assumptions, exaggerated claims and projections then you are also welcome to do so. It is a group of tactics one becomes useful if one does not utterly and totally capitulate to the feminist ideology without question.
HAHAHAHAHA!! You accuse me of ad hominems, false assumptions, exaggerrated claims and projections, and in the same paragraph make that weird remark about someone who has "utterly and totally capitulated to the feminist ideology without question." Well, I know you can't possibly be saying that I'm like that because that would be an ad hominem, a false assumption, and an exaggerated claim. Who knows, it might even turn out to be a projection in a way. Well done.

But irrational thought is no crime in itself. When it leads to actions, and those actions harm another person, the actions are the problem.

Whether statements based in irrationality are "harmful actions" I suppose depends on the context. Being a jackass probably isn't, but deliberately lying to someone about a matter which is their business probably is a harmful action.

Most interesting case of all is follie a deux, shared madness. When two or more people co-operate in a mutually-satisfying delusion, are they guilty of harming each other? Or is it like the individual case, "failure but not wrongdoing" ...?



Absolutely men have a significant reduction of testosterone (and some other hormone I can't spell the name of) in their forties, though they generally remain fertile long after that. It's nowhere near as dramatic as the menopause, though I just wred that it can have similar symptoms.

But here's a shocker: I love it. I attribute my middle-age bliss (relative to my anguished twenties and my despairing thirties) to getting this yoke of masculinity off my soul, at least partially. It was never a happy thing for me.

I could go on and on about this, it's a core feature of my character. But I'll stick to the facts: the only thing which kept me from cutting my own testicles off was the concern that I might one day want to father children (there are health costs as well, osteoporosis and a tendency to put on weight, but I'd cope.) As an exploratory step towards neutering myself, I had the "snip" -- vasectomy -- at about age 30. I have never fathered children (that I know of, and there is only one incident which I'm ignorant of the consequences of) ... but I probably still have the option.

Truth is stranger than fiction. I imagine a few jaws hitting desks. ;)

Menopause is much harsher that way (the option of genetic parenthood.) Men have a relatively forgiving "biological clock."



Here I must disagree. I could kill a person, but only under very special circumstances. Other than "killing lots of people" I find it hard to imagine anything more vile and beyond my rights than that.

No, wait, I see what you mean. Not you or I, nor South Liz, are capable of committing the worst, the most irrational acts. But "we" in the sense "all humans." Some humans may be utterly irrational.

And I still disagree. There must be some reason that I know no person who is evil, nor totally irrational. I have read about such, but ... I ... don't ... KNOW ... them. Nor, I will gambit, do you.



For men there is prostate cancer. Dang that prostate (next against the wall when the revolution comes lol).

I wouldn't worry too much about the connection. I suspect there are good reasons (evolutionary) why the reproductive organs of both sexes work best in youth, and are relatively fallible compared to other organs.

I doubt it's the reproductive system trying to kill us for not reproducing. That's kind of ... Catholic? (Yeah, that's mean. And an invitation to hijack. And wrong. And it stays in. Irrationality ftw!)
We could both read lots about it ... or should we cry out for our B0ttle ... ;)



I was drunk, my mind was wandering. (A word I like: woolgathering.)

And not so much with the being nice. This petulant fop is not going to hit you again :)


I would have it some other way. But dreaming of the impossible is my chosen way to be irrational. I inherited it from my mother (the faraway look, the tuneless humming of some old song, so rounded-down and unpunctuated as to no more than 'all the old songs.')

And "fair" I agree with. We don't whine about the rules which we cannot change.

In all honesty some of the last things you said to me made me think. The petulant fop hit the petulant ¨fopette¨, lol, and made her reconsider a few things. I´m sure you know to what I´m referring to.;)

As for your post, as soon as I can straightly think again, I will answer. But I´m not being nice, your post did made me ponder a few things about the nature of gender and how society and biology hits us. The thing is I haven´t taken my thoughts into consideration about the subject for quite a while and you brought it up. I felt compelled to say something.

I used the word "girls" because I don't believe the people you described really exist.


How convenient for you.


Lay 'em on us.

No, they are too numerous and you have made your decision a priori. (see above.)


You said a lot of other things, too.


Indeed I did.


You didn't make any points. You posted nothing but invective. Make a point and I'll address it. Continue to rant about some kind of shadowy anti-man attitude you claim exists but cannot show examples of, and I will treat your posts with the respect I feel they deserve.


You wish examples of Misandry? Well I will put my own experiences aside since it will be accused as anecdotal IF you choose to believe them, which I doubt.

However there is much in print, if you can read properly. Here is a small sample.

"A Feminist Dictionary...

'Until now it has been thought that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behaviour is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning" '

Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985."

"A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered." Andrea Dworkin

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known."
Hilary Clinton.

"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter."
Marilyn French

I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
Robin Morgan

"Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole... patriarch!"
Gloria Steinem

Even....

"Whatever the theories may be of woman's dependence on man, in the supreme moments of her life he can not bear her burdens."

and

"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men."

Elizabeth Cady Stanton


HAHAHAHAHA!! You accuse me of ad hominems, false assumptions, exaggerrated claims and projections, and in the same paragraph make that weird remark about someone who has "utterly and totally capitulated to the feminist ideology without question." Well, I know you can't possibly be saying that I'm like that because that would be an ad hominem, a false assumption, and an exaggerated claim. Who knows, it might even turn out to be a projection in a way. Well done.

Yes I did accuse you of that. And AGAIN you seemed to have missed the point I was making which is that the tactics I accuse you of are tactics that are used against people like myself who have NOT utterly and totally capitulated to the feminist ideology without question, by Ideological Feminists. I explicitly stated I did not think you were doing this deliberately, yet it continues.

unless you find a man willing to have his semen removed from him via a hypodermic needle to his testicles, I'm pretty sure the way you're going to get the sperm to use in insemination is going to involve a penis to some extent.

There are men who get off on having women stomp on their dicks with clogs.

So, you're like a dog, and porn is like bacon... :p

Wait... If men are dogs and women are bacon, what would a hermaphrodite be? A schweinehund?

*snip*

Generally when providing examples you give sources. You gave none. For all we know, you invented those quotes.

Generally when providing examples you give sources. You gave none. For all we know, you invented those quotes.

they seem real to me.

without context you cant say anything about them though.

How convenient for you.
It was. Thanks for the softball.

No, they are too numerous and you have made your decision a priori. (see above.)

Indeed I did.


You wish examples of Misandry? Well I will put my own experiences aside since it will be accused as anecdotal IF you choose to believe them, which I doubt.
Fraidy-cat.

However there is much in print, if you can read properly.
Meow-hiss. Personal insult.

Here is a small sample.

"A Feminist Dictionary...

'Until now it has been thought that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behaviour is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning" '

Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985."

"A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered." Andrea Dworkin

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known."
Hilary Clinton.

"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter."
Marilyn French

I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
Robin Morgan

"Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole... patriarch!"
Gloria Steinem

Even....

"Whatever the theories may be of woman's dependence on man, in the supreme moments of her life he can not bear her burdens."

and

"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men."

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

A small and useless sample. You can't find anything online so that we may judge the source for ourselves, and make up our minds as to whether you are taking these quotes out of context? Try again please. Why don't you try googling your quotes to start with?

Also, you claim "The Feminist Movement" is anti-man and that your proofs are too numerous to list, yet here you only quote seven women. And two of your quotes have nothing anti-man in them at all. I refer to the Hilary Clinton quote and the first line from Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Not very overwhelming, I have to say.

EDIT: Also, they are single remarks presented without any context. Where are the papers and articles? Where are the manifestos? Where are the women's studies college course outlines detailing how many credits a student can get for learning what pigs men are?

Yes I did accuse you of that. And AGAIN you seemed to have missed the point I was making which is that the tactics I accuse you of are tactics that are used against people like myself who have NOT utterly and totally capitulated to the feminist ideology without question, by Ideological Feminists. I explicitly stated I did not think you were doing this deliberately, yet it continues.
No, it doesn't, because I never did it in the first place.

You wish examples of Misandry? Well I will put my own experiences aside since it will be accused as anecdotal IF you choose to believe them, which I doubt.

However there is much in print, if you can read properly. Here is a small sample.

"A Feminist Dictionary...

'Until now it has been thought that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behaviour is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning" '

Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985."

"A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered." Andrea Dworkin

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known."
Hilary Clinton.

"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter."
Marilyn French

I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
Robin Morgan

"Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole... patriarch!"
Gloria Steinem

Even....

"Whatever the theories may be of woman's dependence on man, in the supreme moments of her life he can not bear her burdens."

and

"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men."

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Polemic is not policy.

As a man, the only quotes which make me feel attacked or persecuted (and then only by words,) are Stanton's (from before the turn of last century) and French's. I'm not going to "read between the lines" to play along with your false sense of persecution.

As a feminist, I feel no need to defend the words of any other self-appointed feminist. Just as, being a political leftist, I can read Marx or Mao without having to stand by every word.

Yes I did accuse you of that. And AGAIN you seemed to have missed the point I was making which is that the tactics I accuse you of are tactics that are used against people like myself who have NOT utterly and totally capitulated to the feminist ideology without question, by Ideological Feminists. I explicitly stated I did not think you were doing this deliberately, yet it continues.

And again, you characterize any feminist position as the result of "capitulation to ideology." The first time, you used the even stronger word "brainwashing."

Are we to understand by this that your own beliefs are forced apon you?

Are you being paid to put your opinions forward ... or was it intimidation? Blackmail?

Don't ask us to believe that your opinion is formed by dispassionate observation, if you won't do us the same honour.

Oh, hi Muravyets! I thought you'd logged out.

I'm not trying to poach your kill. Honest! :p

Oh, hi Muravyets! I thought you'd logged out.

I'm not trying to poach your kill. Honest! :p
Oh, I am about to log. Dinner time. :) Have at him. There's plenty to go around. :D

Oh, I am about to log. Dinner time. :) Have at him. There's plenty to go around. :D

HE's long sentences and difficult words rather limit the field of posters who are likely to reply.

I smell thesaurus. ;)

But the posts are bang on-topic and I'll treat the opinions with respect. You might not be happy with the result: I'm feeling rather genial and might just let HE slip away.

Hold on a second, are we debating the existence of misandry, or just whether it comprises the mainstream view of feminism.

Incidentally, Firefox doesn't recognize 'misandry' as a word.

HE's long sentences and difficult words rather limit the field of posters who are likely to reply.

I smell thesaurus. ;)

But the posts are bang on-topic and I'll treat the opinions with respect. You might not be happy with the result: I'm feeling rather genial and might just let HE slip away.

oh dont let him go.

start with his first post and shred it.

unless you already did, i havent been paying much attention to this thread...

Hold on a second, are we debating the existence of misandry, or just whether it comprises the mainstream view of feminism.

I don't know. Which would you rather debate? Both seem relevant.

Incidentally, Firefox doesn't recognize 'misandry' as a word.

True that.
If it's really motivating you, I think this (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=10079&atid=1014602) is the place to report it as a bug.

I don't know. Which would you rather debate? Both seem relevant.

Is there a debate to be made?

I mean, the S.C.U.M Manifesto pretty much proves that misandry is not a fictional belief, but the fact that they were a fringe group and not mainstream feminist suggests that misandry is not central to feminism.

Have I forgotten something?

[quote]True that.
If it's really motivating you, I think this (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=10079&atid=1014602) is the place to report it as a bug.

Not really. Just seemed relevant to point that out.

Is there a debate to be made?

I mean, the S.C.U.M Manifesto pretty much proves that misandry is not a fictional belief, but the fact that they were a fringe group and not mainstream feminist suggests that misandry is not central to feminism.

Have I forgotten something?



the scum manifesto was one nutty thing written by one nutty woman. it is the manifesto for no one.

HE's long sentences and difficult words rather limit the field of posters who are likely to reply.

I smell thesaurus. ;)

But the posts are bang on-topic and I'll treat the opinions with respect. You might not be happy with the result: I'm feeling rather genial and might just let HE slip away.
I won't if he keeps making assertions he can't back up. Every person is entitled to their opinion, and if he wants to dislike feminists and/or feminism, I'm not going to attack him for it. But if he is going to claim that feminism in general has the goal of putting women in a superior position of power over men, then I will call that a lie on its face. If he wants to maintain his assertion, he's going to have to do better than a few excerpts from some "Dictionary of Feminism."

Hold on a second, are we debating the existence of misandry, or just whether it comprises the mainstream view of feminism.

Incidentally, Firefox doesn't recognize 'misandry' as a word.
As far as I'm concerned, the issue is whether it comprises the mainstream view of feminism.

There can be no doubt that there are women in the world who hate men, just like there are men in the world who hate women, as well as all the other kinds of bigots. But do anti-man bigots comprise "the Feminist Movement"? Are feminists in general bigoted against men or do they want to see some kind of female dominated social order? HE has suggested that he thinks so. I say such suggestions are gross falsehoods and demand to see evidence in support.

Is there a debate to be made?

I mean, the S.C.U.M Manifesto pretty much proves that misandry is not a fictional belief, but the fact that they were a fringe group and not mainstream feminist suggests that misandry is not central to feminism.

Have I forgotten something?



Not really. Just seemed relevant to point that out.

the scum manifesto was one nutty thing written by one nutty woman. it is the manifesto for no one.
^^ This.

This is why I asked HE to provide links to full sources. How can we determine if a statement or paper is a guiding principle of feminism or just a one-off nut-rant that no one pays any attention to, unless we have access to the sources? How can we tell if the quoted remarks represent the core beliefs of the speakers, which they promoted as the principles of feminism, or if they were random, isolated remarks made in some specific context that might affect their meaning one way or another, unless we can compare them to other writings and statements of the speakers?

There can be no doubt that there are women in the world who hate men, just like there are men in the world who hate women, as well as all the other kinds of bigots. But do anti-man bigots comprise "the Feminist Movement"? Are feminists in general bigoted against men or do they want to see some kind of female dominated social order? HE has suggested that he thinks so. I say such suggestions are gross falsehoods and demand to see evidence in support.

Are most Feminists bigots? no, definitely not...But, as a general rule the Organized ones are, the ones that actually get on TV and get coverage, because they make the better story...

Most of these style misconceptions are at the fault of the Media...

^^ This.

This is why I asked HE to provide links to full sources. How can we determine if a statement or paper is a guiding principle of feminism or just a one-off nut-rant that no one pays any attention to, unless we have access to the sources? How can we tell if the quoted remarks represent the core beliefs of the speakers, which they promoted as the principles of feminism, or if they were random, isolated remarks made in some specific context that might affect their meaning one way or another, unless we can compare them to other writings and statements of the speakers?

yes. the quotes he provided have the ring of truth (meaning i dont doubt they are authentic) but without the context you dont know if they are just one bitter comment or part of a whole misandrous philosophy. we dont even know if the various women moved on from their statements to a ... broader theory of human liberation.

for example the marilyn french quote is from "the women's room" A FREAKING NOVEL. (i read it when it was new and loved it. who knows how i would feel about it now) what is the sense of taking a speech from a novel without context?

Are most Feminists bigots? no, definitely not...But, as a general rule the Organized ones are, the ones that actually get on TV and get coverage, because they make the better story...

Most of these style misconceptions are at the fault of the Media...

who do you have in mind?

Are most Feminists bigots? no, definitely not...But, as a general rule the Organized ones are, the ones that actually get on TV and get coverage, because they make the better story...

Most of these style misconceptions are at the fault of the Media...
I'm sorry, but to me, blaming it all on the media is a cop-out, while still floating some kind of bogey-man image. If it's not all feminists, then it's the "Organized ones." And who are they, then? Who are "the ones that actually get on TV" etc? How are they organized and what do they do that brings out the TV cameras? And what anti-man agenda do they spout in the media that gives all feminists a bad name?

the scum manifesto was one nutty thing written by one nutty woman. it is the manifesto for no one.

Yeah. What's your point?

Yeah. What's your point?

my point is that you said

"I mean, the S.C.U.M Manifesto pretty much proves that misandry is not a fictional belief, but the fact that they were a fringe group and not mainstream feminist suggests that misandry is not central to feminism."

implying that there was some group that followed the scum manifesto when i doubt that the author herself took it seriously (but i cant be bothered to look it up again). she was mostly being provocative.

as muravets said, there are lots of individual women who hate men. for various and sundry reasons. that doesnt make it a feminist philosophy.

not that there havent been anti-male things written from time to time through the years. it would be odd if there hadnt been. but they have carried no weight in the basketful of ideas that is modern feminism. in the end, even andrea dworkin got married.

who do you have in mind?

Code Pink was the first thing that came to mind...


Buncha Nutcases...yet they get tons and tons of Coverage...

Code Pink was the first thing that came to mind...


Buncha Nutcases...yet they get tons and tons of Coverage...

never heard of them.

let me look them up.

oh they are an antiwar group.

no wonder they get lots of attention

Nonsense! If I walk into a pub filled with Glasgow Rangers supporters dressed in a Celtic strip I bear absolutely no responsibility if they are violent towards me, it should not even have to cross my mind that it might be a poor choice or may provoke them, I should be entitled to do what I want when I want without any ramifications or self responsibility or caution on my part.

Irony I take it. A commonly used trick to make a point without having to stand by the point.

The argument is made by negatives, giving the user of irony "security by obscurity" since to invert the statement involves risk of fallacy, most notably the fallacy of "the missing middle." There are many opportunities for the user of irony to dispute the Assertion implied by the irony.

And there's a further factor of cowardice to irony: it attacks a position without itself taking one. And even if defeated, the user of irony can plead "only joking."

The best response is either a laugh, or a rolling of the eyes. But I go into battle anyway. For the forum, for clarity and for Ashmoria!

First I attempt to de-ironize the statement:

Nonsense! If I walk into a pub filled with Glasgow Rangers supporters dressed in a Celtic strip I bear some responsibility if they are violent towards me, it should cross my mind that it might be a poor choice or may provoke them. I am not entitled to do what I want when I want without any ramifications or self responsibility or caution on my part.

Now I answer this modified statement, well aware that H.E. can deflect my attack with "but I didn't say that."

Nonsense! You are entitled to put yourself in perceived danger all you want! The only responsibility you bear is to yourself unless it can be shown that wearing the 'wrong' strip somehow harms the Rangers supporters.

Nor does it suffice to plead that by risking your own life or health, you do harm to your loved ones. Or deprive your boss of your labour for some length of time. This is implied in all cases of individual choice, it is one of the factors which the individual must weigh for themselves in making a decision.

So who else may be harmed by your actions? The Rangers supporters? If they don't assault you and are therefore not punished for it, this is unsupportable. If they do assault you and are punished for it, this is clearly justice. Arguably, you have done the other Rangers supporters a favour by exposing a criminal, or several, who was hiding in their midst, camoflaged by the team strip.

Leaving one sliver of possible truth to the assertion. Your actions harmed any Rangers supporter who assaults you, by provoking them to do something they would not otherwise do, which has bad consequences for them. And this sliver of possible truth is entirely germane to the issue the cowardly attack-by-irony addresses: a woman's responsibility for herself being raped.

H.E., you will need to pay close attention to this last limitation I will put on the possible truth of the modified (de-ironized) statement. It is the only part of my argument which it is worthwhile for you to dispute. And the only reason this point has not been made long ago to the satisfaction of all is that it is a difficult and subtle one. It is sound, but not self-apparent.

What does it mean for one person to Provoke another in this hypothetical case of 'walking into the pub'? Throwing the first punch? Saying bad things about their mother, saying something racist or sexist, saying something under your breath, wearing the wrong clothes? There are degrees of provocation, obviously. Some are legal, some are not!

The decision as to whether walking into the pub wearing the wrong clothes is legal or not rests with the proprietor, within the limits of national and county law. THEY, and only they or their nominated representative (an employee) can refuse you entry, refuse you service, ask you to leave or expel you with proportionate force if you refuse to leave. They could also call the police to have you removed, which would actually be the wisest move since it allows a third party with no stake in the outcome (police) to judge whether your clothes are legal by the dress code of the pub and by law.

This is not an argument of "it's a law so justice is irrelevant." Instead, there exist standards of civilized behaviour which law reflects. By "ignorance is no defence" it is clear that all citizens are expected and obliged to recognize in common lines which should not be crossed. Up to that line, provocation is only an annoyance. The only recourse of the person who is provoked is response in kind (trash talk which does not cross the line of Hate Speech, dirty looks, refusal to deal in matters of mutual discretion like sharing a game of pool) or sucking in their gut and ignoring the provocation. Beyond that line, breaking a law, either party is entirely responsible on their own for their actions, regardless of whether they or the other was the first to 'provoke' on the permissible side of the line.

Your case is defeated. This hypothetical, like all "she asked for it" cases, rests on an unsound premise: that the Celtic supporter consents to be assaulted by putting themselves in a position where this is more likely to happen.

Irony I take it. A commonly used trick to make a point without having to stand by the point.

The argument is made by negatives, giving the user of irony "security by obscurity" since to invert the statement involves risk of fallacy, most notably the fallacy of "the missing middle." There are many opportunities for the user of irony to dispute the Assertion implied by the irony.

And there's a further factor of cowardice to irony: it attacks a position without itself taking one. And even if defeated, the user of irony can plead "only joking."

The best response is either a laugh, or a rolling of the eyes. But I go into battle anyway. For the forum, for clarity and for Ashmoria!

First I attempt to de-ironize the statement:

<SNIP>

Your case is defeated. This hypothetical, like all "she asked for it" cases, rests on an unsound premise: that the Celtic supporter consents to be assaulted by putting themselves in a position where this is more likely to happen.

do you do this kind of thing for a living?

do you do this kind of thing for a living?

If he doesn't, he should.

Cuz he's good.

If he doesn't, he should.

Cuz he's good.

he sure is.

Irony I take it. *snip*

Brill.

do you do this kind of thing for a living?

It's my experience that anything I do for a living quickly stops being enjoyable. So I mow lawns and such, since that never was fun.

On the subject of the S.C.U.M manifesto: I took a second-year Philosophy course on feminism many years ago, and the very first thing we read was that 'manifesto.' I think I was the only male in the class and it would have been easy to think that this choice of the first text was intended to scare me away.

But I think the intention was more subtle than that. Several of the other students WERE misandrists (lesbian separatists, or just messed up as kids) and their positive reaction to the text pointed fairly plainly to their reason for studying, to arm themselves with slogans and bolster-up some fairly twisted world views. About the end of the first week, we moved on to The Second Sex and the light went out of their eyes. I think the hive-mind they were hoping for had been struck a mortal blow. ;)

Plenty of good thinkers in that course. No-one studies philosophy to get a job, I swear!

It's my experience that anything I do for a living quickly stops being enjoyable. So I mow lawns and such, since that never was fun.

On the subject of the S.C.U.M manifesto: I took a second-year Philosophy course on feminism many years ago, and the very first thing we read was that 'manifesto.' I think I was the only male in the class and it would have been easy to think that this choice of the first text was intended to scare me away.

But I think the intention was more subtle than that. Several of the other students WERE misandrists (lesbian separatists, or just messed up as kids) and their positive reaction to the text pointed fairly plainly to their reason for studying, to arm themselves with slogans and bolster-up some fairly twisted world views. About the end of the first week, we moved on to The Second Sex and the light went out of their eyes. I think the hive-mind they were hoping for had been struck a mortal blow. ;)

Plenty of good thinkers in that course. No-one studies philosophy to get a job, I swear!


being old myself, i have had plenty of exposure to anti-male rants from feminists. i remember an article in some lesbian-feminist publication that advised its readers to not have babies because .....WHAT IF YOU WERE TO HAVE A BOY!? its the sort of thing that i think you ...get over...with more life under your belt.

and feminism isnt a hierachical movement with the big thinkers at the top telling everyone what to do and how to do it. its a hodgepodge of good and bad thinking that ebbs and flows in its approach to sexual politics and life in general. you judge how important an idea is by how many other people pick it up not by the prominence of the person saying it.

when i took feminism 101 in college the professor made sure to treat any man in class like dirt. she didnt call on them often and didnt take what they had to say seriously. she was trying to treat them the way women got treated in big time male classes (which still existed at the time. i think there arent so many mostly-male classes today) what a bitch. only the most feminist men took the freaking class anyway. there was no need to treat them like the enemy.

yard work is a good gig if you get the right clientele. theres alot to be said for working outside.

"A Feminist Dictionary...

'Until now it has been thought that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behaviour is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning" '

Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985."

This rather funny quote appealed to my own "rather twisted world view" so I looked it up.

Written by ... ALAN ALDA.

:D :D :D

=============

Damn straight.

You all stop it now. It's literally making me blush.

If he doesn't, he should.

Cuz he's good.
Damn straight.

This rather funny quote appealed to my own "rather twisted world view" so I looked it up.

Written by ... ALAN ALDA.



oh thats funny. Kramarae and Treichler are the authors of the feminist dictionary.

i probably read that issue of MS magazine when it came out. (it printed the article on testosterone poisoning by alan alda) its a famous article but i certainly didnt remember who wrote it or that it was a man.

It's my experience that anything I do for a living quickly stops being enjoyable. So I mow lawns and such, since that never was fun.

<snip> About the end of the first week, we moved on to The Second Sex and the light went out of their eyes. I think the hive-mind they were hoping for had been struck a mortal blow. ;)

Plenty of good thinkers in that course. No-one studies philosophy to get a job, I swear!

being old myself, i have had plenty of exposure to anti-male rants from feminists. <snip>
My own personal experience with anti-male prejudice is mostly among young, new-age-y "wymyn" who study "herstory." Actually, the majority of such women I've met have nothing at all against men and are completely egalitarian. However, there is a small minority who will say things at parties along the lines of "matriarchy brings only good things; patriarchy brings only bad things" and "competitiveness and aggression are male traits that are alien to 'real' females" and historical fictions such as "once upon a time the world was matriarchal and there was no war until men took over." However, these people -- both male and female -- are far from organized and do not represent leaders of any social or political group. Like HE, they are wrong on their facts but entitled to their opinions.

my point is that you said

"I mean, the S.C.U.M Manifesto pretty much proves that misandry is not a fictional belief, but the fact that they were a fringe group and not mainstream feminist suggests that misandry is not central to feminism."

implying that there was some group that followed the scum manifesto when i doubt that the author herself took it seriously (but i cant be bothered to look it up again). she was mostly being provocative.

She did, actually. Quite so. Of course it's also worth noting that she was batshit insane and that she shot Andy Warhol.

as muravets said, there are lots of individual women who hate men. for various and sundry reasons. that doesnt make it a feminist philosophy.

not that there havent been anti-male things written from time to time through the years. it would be odd if there hadnt been. but they have carried no weight in the basketful of ideas that is modern feminism. in the end, even andrea dworkin got married.

Tell me where I have claimed that radical feminism was part of the mainstream feminist movement? Here's a hint: I haven't.

She did, actually. Quite so. Of course it's also worth noting that she was batshit insane and that she shot Andy Warhol.



Tell me where I have claimed that radical feminism was part of the mainstream feminist movement? Here's a hint: I haven't.

I would still like to know what "radical feminism" is. We have established that there are extremists and nutters out there who will spout all kinds of shit, but I have yet to see evidence that they are more than isolated loudmouths, that they belong to any organizations that have or even attempt to have any social or political influence, or that their ideas have enough in common with each other to count as a group that could be labeled "radical feminism" -- or any kind of a group at all.

I would still like to know what "radical feminism" is. We have established that there are extremists and nutters out there who will spout all kinds of shit, but I have yet to see evidence that they are more than isolated loudmouths, that they belong to any organizations that have or even attempt to have any social or political influence, or that their ideas have enough in common with each other to count as a group that could be labeled "radical feminism" -- or any kind of a group at all.

I ran into that on Wikipedia, i tried reading it, but it was all Jumbled and not organized enough to make allot of sense...

Didnt see any specifics about people or groups though, the article may have just been written by a few people, lol

My own personal experience with anti-male prejudice is mostly among young, new-age-y "wymyn" who study "herstory." Actually, the majority of such women I've met have nothing at all against men and are completely egalitarian. However, there is a small minority who will say things at parties along the lines of "matriarchy brings only good things; patriarchy brings only bad things" and "competitiveness and aggression are male traits that are alien to 'real' females" and historical fictions such as "once upon a time the world was matriarchal and there was no war until men took over." However, these people -- both male and female -- are far from organized and do not represent leaders of any social or political group. Like HE, they are wrong on their facts but entitled to their opinions.

its hard when you realize that women suck just as much as men do. the utopian view comes more from wanting a better world than from hating men. by the time you get to be a leader, you have had to accept that women will not automatically make the world a better place.

She did, actually. Quite so. Of course it's also worth noting that she was batshit insane and that she shot Andy Warhol.



Tell me where I have claimed that radical feminism was part of the mainstream feminist movement? Here's a hint: I haven't.

i dont think that radical can ever BE mainstream.

being old myself, i have had plenty of exposure to anti-male rants from feminists. i remember an article in some lesbian-feminist publication that advised its readers to not have babies because .....WHAT IF YOU WERE TO HAVE A BOY!? its the sort of thing that i think you ...get over...with more life under your belt.

Ah, I realize now why feminazis are always insisting on their right to kill babies. It's so they can kill all the widdle boys! ;)

and feminism isnt a hierachical movement with the big thinkers at the top telling everyone what to do and how to do it. its a hodgepodge of good and bad thinking that ebbs and flows in its approach to sexual politics and life in general. you judge how important an idea is by how many other people pick it up not by the prominence of the person saying it.

Yes, that the approach science takes too. Peer review. (And of course the appearance of science as all about the big thinkers is wrong. Postgrads and even amateurs are an essential part of the process.)

But feminism is also a branch of politics. So the slogans get more attention than they probably should.

when i took feminism 101 in college the professor made sure to treat any man in class like dirt. she didnt call on them often and didnt take what they had to say seriously. she was trying to treat them the way women got treated in big time male classes (which still existed at the time. i think there arent so many mostly-male classes today) what a bitch. only the most feminist men took the freaking class anyway. there was no need to treat them like the enemy.

I was lucky with my 'professor,' but there were plenty of other courses which quite shattered my dreams about "at uni I will be in the egalitarian world of science, where only intelligence and learning matter."

Academia has ego-contests and 'office politics' as bad as any workplace. A fair whack of bigotry too. When I first arrived, I sort of assumed I would never leave uni ... become an academic. I changed my mind pretty quick!

yard work is a good gig if you get the right clientele. theres alot to be said for working outside.

:) Maybe not in Siberia. But I live in southern Australia, so absolutely!

its hard when you realize that women suck just as much as men do. the utopian view comes more from wanting a better world than from hating men. by the time you get to be a leader, you have had to accept that women will not automatically make the world a better place.
I have met many and read writings by many more such female-utopians, and I agree that the things they say are based primarily on wishful thinking about how they wish things had been once upon a time and could be someday again. The emphasis tends to be more on the "no war" than on the "matriarchy."

However, the tiny minority who I do think show an anti-male bias are, I guess, more the ones who denigrate personality traits they label as male. I have had arguments with such women who have insisted that I was "acting male" and being false to my feminine nature because I enjoy sports and have an aggressive personality. I think I have had maybe four such arguments in my entire life. These same few people also proudly brag about how they reject anything in society they consider "patriarchal" -- as long as it's convenient, of course.

With such people, I think there is some scapegoating going on here. Maybe they don't like the way their lives are going or something about the modern world, and they just decide to arbitrarily blame a group they imagine is in charge of such things. But I have always noticed that they never do anything about it but complain and brag. Their anti-male attitude never influences their votes. They don't write complaining letters, or boycott businesses, or stage demonstrations, or write articles or books about it. They just bitch at parties.

Point #1

I have met many and read writings by many more such female-utopians, and I agree that the things they say is based primarily on wishful thinking about how they wish things had been once upon a time and could be someday again. The emphasis tends to be more on the "no war" than on the "matriarchy."


Point #2
However, the tiny minority who I do think show an anti-male bias are, I guess, more the ones who denigrate personality traits they label as male. I have had arguments with such women who have insisted that I was "acting male" and being false to my feminine nature because I enjoy sports and have an aggressive personality. I think I have maybe four such arguments in my entire life. These same few people also proudly brag about how they reject anything in society they consider "patriarchal" -- as long as it's convenient, of course.

One of the amusing things when we studied radical feminism in my political science class. The premise was basically just that, that there is a branch of "feminist" political science that emphasizes points like those, that aggression, violence, and war are fundamentally "male" political characteristics, not female ones.

of course when one points out women (Mier and Thatcher to come up with two) who have utilzed and authorized force, the response is that they were "acting" male.

Which basically reduces the entire theory to the aggressive, violent, militaristic "male" characteristics, and the diplomatic, peaceful, nonviolent "female" characteristics. But since the theory, for the sake of its own viability, recognizes that women can act "male" the converse, that men can display "female" characteristics just as well (Jimmy Carter anyone?).

And since both men and women can have "male" and "female" characteristics and personalities, the idea that somehow this ties into women becomes almost sexist in itself, applying what they deem to be positive characteristics to the domain of women.

Point #1




Point #2


One of the amusing things when we studied radical feminism in my political science class. The premise was basically just that, that there is a branch of "feminist" political science that emphasizes points like those, that aggression, violence, and war are fundamentally "male" political characteristics, not female ones.

of course when one points out women (Mier and Thatcher to come up with two) who have utilzed and authorized force, the response is that they were "acting" male.

Which basically reduces the entire theory to the aggressive, violent, militaristic "male" characteristics, and the diplomatic, peaceful, nonviolent "female" characteristics. But since the theory, for the sake of its own viability, recognizes that women can act "male" the converse, that men can display "female" characteristics just as well (Jimmy Carter anyone?).

And since both men and women can have "male" and "female" characteristics and personalities, the idea that somehow this ties into women becomes almost sexist in itself, applying what they deem to be positive characteristics to the domain of women.


there was a time when these kinds of ideas were common. are there really still prominent female scholars who push this kind of BS? is it a "they have tenure, we cant get rid of them" kind of thing?

Point #1




Point #2


One of the amusing things when we studied radical feminism in my political science class. The premise was basically just that, that there is a branch of "feminist" political science that emphasizes points like those, that aggression, violence, and war are fundamentally "male" political characteristics, not female ones.

of course when one points out women (Mier and Thatcher to come up with two) who have utilzed and authorized force, the response is that they were "acting" male.

Which basically reduces the entire theory to the aggressive, violent, militaristic "male" characteristics, and the diplomatic, peaceful, nonviolent "female" characteristics. But since the theory, for the sake of its own viability, recognizes that women can act "male" the converse, that men can display "female" characteristics just as well (Jimmy Carter anyone?).

And since both men and women can have "male" and "female" characteristics and personalities, the idea that somehow this ties into women becomes almost sexist in itself, applying what they deem to be positive characteristics to the domain of women.
Precisely.

This is why my conversations with people who espouse those views devolved into arguments, since, I, being me ;), would not refrain from explaining to them just how sexist they were being -- and how anti-feminist they were being in presuming to tell me what I had to do in order to be a "proper" female. :D Those were fun parties.

One of the amusing things when we studied radical feminism in my political science class. The premise was basically just that, that there is a branch of "feminist" political science that emphasizes points like those, that aggression, violence, and war are fundamentally "male" political characteristics, not female ones.

of course when one points out women (Mier and Thatcher to come up with two) who have utilzed and authorized force, the response is that they were "acting" male.

Which basically reduces the entire theory to the aggressive, violent, militaristic "male" characteristics, and the diplomatic, peaceful, nonviolent "female" characteristics. But since the theory, for the sake of its own viability, recognizes that women can act "male" the converse, that men can display "female" characteristics just as well (Jimmy Carter anyone?).

And since both men and women can have "male" and "female" characteristics and personalities, the idea that somehow this ties into women becomes almost sexist in itself, applying what they deem to be positive characteristics to the domain of women.

Hence my position that all supremacist groups are shit...they all eventually reach this point...

there was a time when these kinds of ideas were common. are there really still prominent female scholars who push this kind of BS? is it a "they have tenure, we cant get rid of them" kind of thing?

I never encountered that particular philosophy directly, my exposure to it was merely a few lectures in a comparative political philosophy class

there was a time when these kinds of ideas were common. are there really still prominent female scholars who push this kind of BS? is it a "they have tenure, we cant get rid of them" kind of thing?
I wouldn't know. I have not been trying to keep up, but I haven't noticed any prominent new articles or books along those lines since the 1980s. However, once even a nutty idea gets out, it will keep circulating in society long after it's been abandoned in academia.

I wouldn't know. I have not been trying to keep up, but I haven't noticed any prominent new articles or books along those lines since the 1980s. However, once even a nutty idea gets out, it will keep circulating in society long after it's been abandoned in academia.

yeah. its part of the downside of not being able to send out the "stop believing this" memo to everyone.

I never encountered that particular philosophy directly, my exposure to it was merely a few lectures in a comparative political philosophy class

well im thinking that ive heard this kind of sentiment, at least echos of it, on such mainstream outlets like "the view" on abc daytime. not a bastion of great thinking by any means but perhaps tuned into that school of thought that supposes that women think differently than men.

I never encountered that particular philosophy directly, my exposure to it was merely a few lectures in a comparative political philosophy class
I'm not sure there actually are any academic or political published works that promote that philosophy directly. However, it sort of bubbled up out of vaguely related studies. For instance, one of the most often quoted proponents of the idea of a war-free ancient matriarchy part of the equation is the archeologist Mary Gimbutas -- see her popular book When God Was a Woman. People talk about her as if she advanced civlization more than sliced ham, but I am not a fan of hers. I don't know what kind of work she did when she concentrated on her field expertise, which was archeology, but in her popular writings, she let herself speculate wildly on how she thought history should have read, despite actual archeological evidence that contradicted her theories. Very poor work, in my opinion.

However, despite her popularity with the post Greer/Sontag/deBeauvoir generation of feminists, she is hardly a leader of the feminist movement. She was an archeologist with personal opinions.

This rather funny quote appealed to my own "rather twisted world view" so I looked it up.

Written by ... ALAN ALDA.


Some humor columnist, I think Dave Barry, discovered that testosterone was considered a controlled substance where he lived. In other words, about half of the world is under the influence of a chemical that, if it left there body, they would be prohibited from having.

I would still like to know what "radical feminism" is. We have established that there are extremists and nutters out there who will spout all kinds of shit, but I have yet to see evidence that they are more than isolated loudmouths, that they belong to any organizations that have or even attempt to have any social or political influence, or that their ideas have enough in common with each other to count as a group that could be labeled "radical feminism" -- or any kind of a group at all.

Radical feminism isn't, to the best of my knowledge, an organized movement. Rather, it seems to be more of a catchall term for a certain level of aggression and/or a far more extreme ideology than what is considered the mainstream feminist movement.

To shameless plagiarize Wiki:

"Radical feminism is a "current" within feminism that focuses on patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships producing what radical feminists claim is a "male supremacy" that oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and to overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and what they see as male oppression of women, and calls for a radical reordering of society. Early radical feminism, arising within second-wave feminism in the 1960s, typically viewed partriarchy as a "transhistorical phenomenon" prior to or deeper than other sources of oppression, "not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form" and the model for all others. Later politics derived from radical feminism ranged from cultural feminism to more syncretic politics that placed issues of class, economics, etc. on a par with patriarchy as sources of oppression."

It seems like a fairly wide berth, since it encompasses everything from the anti-pornography movement to, of course, our dear Valerie Solanas who had such wonderful gems as:

"Every man, deep down, knows he's a worthless piece of shit."

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

"The male chromosome is incomplete. All men are walking abortions."

"The male has the negative Midas touch, everything he touches turns to shit … he yearns to spend his time … wallowing in basic animal activities – eating, sleeping, shitting, relaxing, and being soothed by mama."

As a feminist, I feel no need to defend the words of any other self-appointed feminist. Just as, being a political leftist, I can read Marx or Mao without having to stand by every word.

Here I think lies the problem while there are some feminists who really are just here to ensure that they are treated equally and get a fair go there are others who do take feminism as a sort of stepping stone to assert that they are the superior gender and that they should be getting special privileges. Now not all feminists and shouldn't all be painted with the same brush in the same way that not all Democrats hold exactly the same beliefs and shouldn't be painted with the same brush.

There can be no doubt that there are women in the world who hate men, just like there are men in the world who hate women, as well as all the other kinds of bigots. But do anti-man bigots comprise "the Feminist Movement"? Are feminists in general bigoted against men or do they want to see some kind of female dominated social order? HE has suggested that he thinks so. I say such suggestions are gross falsehoods and demand to see evidence in support.

Ahh but as we all know the loud controversial people are the one who makes it on the news and will state that they speak for al women, when really it may only be a fringe group of feminism and not of general thought.

If he doesn't, he should.

Cuz he's good.
Just don't say "siggable" and not follow through.

*inserts two-dollar coin*

Fuck yeah. This game is crooked, but no way is that Game Over.

*detects counterfeit coin. Games you over*

In terms of radical feminism, indeed radical anything, I see its place for pushing along change. Often we need radical positions for two reasons.

First is to at least force the discussion, without radical opinions, we tend not to care so much for the issue nor do we have the boundaries within which we can have a conversation.

Second is to push change, where the balance is skewed to one side, simply pulling from the middle means that the balance is only likely to move between that middle position and the existing position. Often, the pull needs to come from an equally unbalanced position to effectively meet in the true middle.

Many points of view that were once thought radical are entirely accepted now, the death of Jesse Helms should remind us that his opinions were once quite the norm, civil rights were seen as radical.

Yet, in terms of this debate, radical is just that, held by a minority of people and certainly not representative of feminism as a whole and, even more certainly, it should not be pointed at as an excuse not to change our society for the better.

Here I think lies the problem while there are some feminists who really are just here to ensure that they are treated equally and get a fair go there are others who do take feminism as a sort of stepping stone to assert that they are the superior gender and that they should be getting special privileges. Now not all feminists and shouldn't all be painted with the same brush in the same way that not all Democrats hold exactly the same beliefs and shouldn't be painted with the same brush.



Ahh but as we all know the loud controversial people are the one who makes it on the news and will state that they speak for al women, when really it may only be a fringe group of feminism and not of general thought.

who are you thinking of here?

Radical feminism isn't, to the best of my knowledge, an organized movement. Rather, it seems to be more of a catchall term for a certain level of aggression and/or a far more extreme ideology than what is considered the mainstream feminist movement.

To shameless plagiarize Wiki:
>snip for space>
Oy gevalt. How many times in how many different ways does a person have to say something? I swear.

One more time, from another angle:

I understand what people mean when they say "radical feminism."

What I don't understand is what makes them think it is appropriate to apply a "group" label like "radical feminism" to any random smattering of nut-jobs and loons who might try to grab a spotlight every 5 to 10 years, when they're feeling down and pissy.

I don't understand why some people think that these few angry women represent feminism in any way at all. I have yet to see any actual connection betweeen these women and feminist principles, policies, or agendas.

So tell me, what makes any random, angry, whining, complaining, possibly crazy woman a "feminist" in some people's minds?

Here I think lies the problem while there are some feminists who really are just here to ensure that they are treated equally and get a fair go there are others who do take feminism as a sort of stepping stone to assert that they are the superior gender and that they should be getting special privileges. Now not all feminists and shouldn't all be painted with the same brush in the same way that not all Democrats hold exactly the same beliefs and shouldn't be painted with the same brush.



Ahh but as we all know the loud controversial people are the one who makes it on the news and will state that they speak for al women, when really it may only be a fringe group of feminism and not of general thought.

who are you thinking of here?
I don't think we're going to get an answer to this question from anyone.

I keep seeing these references to "extremists" and "radicals," but they are always described merely as "they." The mystical, mythical They, once again. Who are They?

I honestly do not recall any feminist speaker, writer or thinker has actually claimed a matriarchal agenda as even desirable, let alone plausible, since the 1970s, when modern (post-suffrage) feminism was a new movement, in a social context of radicalism in social reform movements, and when the goals of the movement were dire and immediate -- such as trying to get the public to take sex crimes seriously and get equal protection of the law for rape victims and domestic abuse victims. And even then, I challenge anyone to show me any instance of feminists trying to push an actual social or political agenda that would lead to female supremacy over males. The extreme rhetoric of a brief period notwithstanding, I would like to be shown any feminist actually working towards creating an unequal, female-dominated society.

It is my contention that, if such cannot be shown, then what the posters here have described as "radical feminism" doesn't really exist. There are only some complaining individuals still dining out on the fiery speeches of long ago -- not doing anything, not representing anything but themselves.

EDIT: I'm not trying a No True Scotsman gambit here. I just want to see real examples. I don't want to have amorphous They's trotted before me, as if I am supposed to either defend or attack phantoms. I have already acknowledge that some individuals hold these extremist opinions. What I have challenged is the proposed connection between these extremist views and feminism -- even as a "fringe element." Now if such a connection can be shown -- if it can be shown that there are feminists in the world who espouse and work for the kind of radical agenda that has been described here, then I will deal with that.

But if all I'm going to get is "well, you know, there are fringey people out there, and they say this and they think that, and remember there was that one really big thing in the news 30 years ago where this one woman claimed to be a movement, and here are a few out-of-context and misattributed quotes that I'm taking from memory or something to prove it all", I'm sorry but I'm not going to accept that as something worth discussing.

Let these posters show me that the people they are talking about really exist, and then I will address the issue of them. If I want to claim such people are not really feminists, then I will have to prove that, not just arbitrarily dismiss them because they don't fit with my notion of feminism. However, I will not even address imaginary They's.

I don't think we're going to get an answer to this question from anyone.

I keep seeing these references to "extremists" and "radicals," but they are always described merely as "they." The mystical, mythical They, once again. Who are They?

I honestly do not recall any feminist speaker, writer or thinker has actually claimed a matriarchal agenda as even desirable, let alone plausible, since the 1970s, when modern (post-suffrage) feminism was a new movement, in a social context of radicalism in social reform movements, and when the goals of the movement were dire and immediate -- such as trying to get the public to take sex crimes seriously and get equal protection of the law for rape victims and domestic abuse victims. And even then, I challenge anyone to show me any instance of feminists trying to push an actual social or political agenda that would lead to female supremacy over males. The extreme rhetoric of a brief period notwithstanding, I would like to be shown any feminist actually working towards creating an unequal, female-dominated society.

It is my contention that, if such cannot be shown, then what the posters here have described as "radical feminism" doesn't really exist. There are only some complaining individuals still dining out on the fiery speeches of long ago -- not doing anything, not representing anything but themselves.

EDIT: I'm not trying a No True Scotsman gambit here. I just want to see real examples. I don't want to have amorphous They's trotted before me, as if I am supposed to either defend or attack phantoms. I have already acknowledge that some individuals hold these extremist opinions. What I have challenged is the proposed connection between these extremist views and feminism -- even as a "fringe element." Now if such a connection can be shown -- if it can be shown that there are feminists in the world who espouse and work for the kind of radical agenda that has been described here, then I will deal with that.

But if all I'm going to get is "well, you know, there are fringey people out there, and they say this and they think that, and remember there was that one really big thing in the news 30 years ago where this one woman claimed to be a movement, and here are a few out-of-context and misattributed quotes that I'm taking from memory or something to prove it all", I'm sorry but I'm not going to accept that as something worth discussing.

Let these posters show me that the people they are talking about really exist, and then I will address the issue of them. If I want to claim such people are not really feminists, then I will have to prove that, not just arbitrarily dismiss them because they don't fit with my notion of feminism. However, I will not even address imaginary They's.


thats why i keep asking. so they can realize that they HAVE no answer.

certain conservative radio talk show hosts rail against "feminazis" but they just take a few silly quotes from here and there, the best ones being very old, and claim that it somehow represents what feminism is. (when it likely doesnt even represent the current thought of whoever said it.)

its far more common to have anti-feminist rants than it is to have women saying radical things in public.

thats why i keep asking. so they can realize that they HAVE no answer.

certain conservative radio talk show hosts rail against "feminazis" but they just take a few silly quotes from here and there, the best ones being very old, and claim that it somehow represents what feminism is. (when it likely doesnt even represent the current thought of whoever said it.)

its far more common to have anti-feminist rants than it is to have women saying radical things in public.
I agree -- except that I suspect they never will realize -- or rather, admit --they have no answer just by being asked a simple question they can't answer. So I admit I have taken the elegance out of it and laid out exactly what I want from them and why, just because I get tired of reading the same posts which can only be answered with the same succinct question, over and over.

I don't think we're going to get an answer to this question from anyone.

I keep seeing these references to "extremists" and "radicals," but they are always described merely as "they." The mystical, mythical They, once again. Who are They?

"They" are "Not me or those I give countenance to."

Dualism is valid. It may be inescapable. It is a useful tool for understanding, but the person who cannot put their imagination on each side of the dualism, imagine what it is to be a rapist for instance ... cannot make use of the tool. They are a victim of this strong tool they cannot control.

Worse, those who define their own "opinion" ... perhaps define "themselves" ... by opposition to what they find "unspeakable" or "pure evil" will never give a valid answer to any question but "who are you?"

And their answer will be so sad, so self-limiting, that compassion requires we just let it pass. Their answer is "I am me! You wouldn't understand."

I am very drunk. Forgive me if this does not make sense.

"They" are "Not me or those I give countenance to."

Dualism is valid. It may be inescapable. It is a useful tool for understanding, but the person who cannot put their imagination on each side of the dualism, imagine what it is to be a rapist for instance ... cannot make use of the tool. They are a victim of this strong tool they cannot control.

Worse, those who define their own "opinion" ... perhaps define "themselves" ... by opposition to what they find "unspeakable" or "pure evil" will never give a valid answer to any question but "who are you?"

And their answer will be so sad, so self-limiting, that compassion requires we just let it pass. Their answer is "I am me! You wouldn't understand."

I am very drunk. Forgive me if this does not make sense.
It does make sense. However, it is also clear you are drunk, no need to say it. Further however, I lack compassion, so knowing this about them will change nothing.

I don't understand why some people think that these few angry women represent feminism in any way at all. I have yet to see any actual connection betweeen these women and feminist principles, policies, or agendas.

Perhaps it would be efficacious to form a Feminist Party and stand it for election in a prominent Parliament.

Taking a tiny share of power in a proportional representation parliament would be the initial aim. Not to change policy! Not to show the strength of the women's vote (women will vote as citizens not as women, and quite rightly). But merely to establish what is, and what is not, a Feminist Political Agenda. To put some moderate, plausible list of Feminist aspirations on the public record, as something that a party campaigned for and got a member elected for ... not as a set-in-stone final list of demands, but certainly dynamite against future claims that "all feminists endorse this crazy lady I just wred on some blog."

The aim of getting a member elected to some house of government should trump setting forth a full and scalable platform. It would take some years to build a sound party, not just the fanatics who expect instant success. And the proffered candidate being a man might be smart tactics.

Green parties and such make many feminist statements on the books of government. But those statements are not made under a dedicated Feminist banner.

Obviously, I am not talking about doing this in the US. Not one of the three seats of power is constituted proportionally to the population. I'm sorry for US citizens for that, small minorities of them must bargain to be represented yet still don't get a representative dedicated only to their issues.

I repeat, I am drunk and this idea might be counterproductive. Polling 1%, getting one member up or none at all might give those who call all feminists "radicals" more ammo than having a moderate agenda on the books of legislature is worth.

Perhaps it would be efficacious to form a Feminist Party and stand it for election in a prominent Parliament.

Taking a tiny share of power in a proportional representation parliament would be the initial aim. Not to change policy! Not to show the strength of the women's vote (women will vote as citizens not as women, and quite rightly). But merely to establish what is, and what is not, a Feminist Political Agenda. To put some moderate, plausible list of Feminist aspirations on the public record, as something that a party campaigned for and got a member elected for ... not as a set-in-stone final list of demands, but certainly dynamite against future claims that "all feminists endorse this crazy lady I just wred on some blog."

The aim of getting a member elected to some house of government should trump setting forth a full and scalable platform. It would take some years to build a sound party, not just the fanatics who expect instant success. And the proffered candidate being a man might be smart tactics.

Green parties and such make many feminist statements on the books of government. But those statements are not made under a dedicated Feminist banner.

Obviously, I am not talking about doing this in the US. Not one of the three seats of power is constituted proportionally to the population. I'm sorry for US citizens for that, small minorities of them must bargain to be represented yet still don't get a representative dedicated only to their issues.

I repeat, I am drunk and this idea might be counterproductive. Polling 1%, getting one member up or none at all might give those who call all feminists "radicals" more ammo than having a moderate agenda on the books of legislature is worth.

it would take the fun out of it and reduce arguments to "no true scotsman" fallacies (which are common enough already)

the beauty of feminism is that anyone can say anything no matter how radical or how reactionary and its all part of the mix. thought changes over time both in the movement and in your own life.

i dont know if it still happens but for a while the feminist professors of ivy league and other elite schools tried to convince their top-of-the-heap or soon-to-be-there female students that they were oppressed by the system. one wonders how many of those former students who are now out in the world making a living still believe that. id guess not many even if they were taken by the idea when they were in school.

I would still like to know what "radical feminism" is.

Technically, "radical feminism" is the position that misogyny is ingrained in the fundamentals of human society, and therefore for sexual equality to be realized society itself must be replaced. Radical feminism in the past associated itself with sex-negative feminism and disassociated itself from the GLBT rights movement, both of which probably contributed to its decline. In some ways the current, mainstream feminism, with its embracing of sex-positive feminism and the GLBT movement, could be considered to be more extreme and radical than radical feminism.

I doubt that was the sense he was using it in, and my rambling probably muddled the waters, but eh. I've never claimed to contribute anything worthwhile.

It does make sense. However, it is also clear you are drunk, no need to say it. Further however, I lack compassion, so knowing this about them will change nothing.

Compassion does not compel mercy. But compassion (drunkenly defined here, without recourse to a dictionary, as "feeling another's pain") informs us as to when a gesture of mercy will be taken as confidence in the strength of one's own belief, or weakness in the face of opposition.

Replying brusquely to me because I am drunk is quite fair. The obtuse and clumsy NH deserves less respect than the alert and deft one. I SHOULD be told to shut up when I talk crap, it's not personal.

So, the only reason I'm still banging on is to make clear that I was not, and am not, criticizing your treatment of any other poster. I was speaking very generally about those who cannot identify the target they want to attack. They have the hate, but don't know what they hate. They use generalizations, tend to lump unrelated people into a class (like "liberals" or "christians" or "men") and in the worst of cases, pick a target not because it really poses any threat to them, but because they might be able to vanquish it.

(Am considering posting in different colours to show my level of drunkenness. It may be obvious to you, but many judge drunk posting by the spelling and grammar.)

What I don't understand is what makes them think it is appropriate to apply a "group" label like "radical feminism" to any random smattering of nut-jobs and loons who might try to grab a spotlight every 5 to 10 years, when they're feeling down and pissy.

Well, there you go. It isn't really a group label. It's more of a catchall to describe the beliefs that are way moire extreme than mainstream feminism. Less of a label, more of a descriptive term.

I don't understand why some people think that these few angry women represent feminism in any way at all. I have yet to see any actual connection betweeen these women and feminist principles, policies, or agendas.

I don't understand why some people think that I'm trying to equate this to the feminist movement.

They are concerned with the empowerment of the female sex, so that would make them a feminist in the loosest sense of the word.

Of course sense the other half of the definition stresses that in addition to the empowerment there is also a goal of equality.

So it's a lot like Fred Phelps, taking part of the definition and twisting it to feed their hateful agendas while the rest of us do not consider them part of the group they claim themselves to be a part of.

it would take the fun out of it and reduce arguments to "no true scotsman" fallacies (which are common enough already)

It would take the fun out of it??

Either you are joking, or you're a different kind of feminist than I. Or I was joking (not sure, actually.)

If you put an argument that "getting whupped as explicit feminists, in direct political speech, would set back feminism" I would take it seriously. But this idea that feminism is "debating for fun" I can't take seriously: the fun of politics and fun of intellectual enquiry are at best sweeteners to these crucial parts of society, each of which has real consequences: the happiness and suffering of real people.

It's NSG. I'm drunk, and you know that. Prime computation: you are joking.

the beauty of feminism is that anyone can say anything no matter how radical or how reactionary and its all part of the mix.

From this it would follow that feminism cannot define itself "against" any opinion. "Man was made in God's image, but woman was not. Women are evil, made from a rib as Satan was made from an angel, by a mistake of God, so we must kill all the women because they are evil, to do God's work" is a feminist position, a bit reactionary perhaps but all part of the mix.
(Yeah, I enjoyed that. ;) )
thought changes over time both in the movement and in your own life.

You are definitely taking the piss. This indisputable conclusion does NOT follow from what was the first half of the paragraph.

Change is the rule of life. I think Gandhi said that.
You look so pretty like that, in your brand-new leopard-skin pillbox hat. Dylan said that.
Gandhi and Dylan were totally walking in the same sandal. I said that.

*turns off music, it really isn't helping*

i dont know if it still happens but for a while the feminist professors of ivy league and other elite schools tried to convince their top-of-the-heap or soon-to-be-there female students that they were oppressed by the system.
You were ivy league? (Repellent concept, btw) Or is that based on the writings of the professors?
one wonders how many of those former students who are now out in the world making a living still believe that. id guess not many even if they were taken by the idea when they were in school.

Oh, crikey. Are you testing me here?

University (or whatever you call it) is part of that "world." I adamantly defend the value of higher education (and of course elementary education and secondary) in making GOOD CITIZENS, not just good employees. Less adamantly, I defend tutors of any grade who try to induct the best and brightest into their field, and into academia.

There's plenty of dead-wood in universities. They either got tenure by some corrupt means, or they once were deserving of it but have lost the passion to learn and teach, but have since slacked off. Both the collegiate, joy-in-learning-and-teaching role, and the meal-ticket, respected-for-seniority-alone role could appeal to the students.

This attitude of "teaching at tertiary level isn't a real job" is just going to send tertiary education down the shitter. Perhaps the assessment criteria should be shifted more towards the "participating effectively in teaching others" rather than "proving you learnt whatever I was trying to teach you" by (effectively) the teacher. Learning is hard to prove, and the good old days of education as as virtue have beeen overshadowed by "have the piece of paper or don't get the job."

University education (college, whatever you call it) is being, cannot help being, more and more optimized towards degrees rather than knowledge. Because the stakes are always rising to have the piece of paper. Possession of that degree, perhaps before one has worked a single day at any remunerative job, makes ever more difference to career prospects. Paper ceilings.

(Which from my socialist perspective, makes free public education to Bachelor level ever more important, but that will be disputed.)

(I'm sobering up in preparation for sleep, I hope you aren't insulted that I would reply to you while so borked. There is no need to be polite about any of the above, I'll answer for any part of it when I'm sober. I'll answer to other posters too. I chose to get drunk and post, I have no excuse if I post crap.)

Technically, "radical feminism" is the position that misogyny is ingrained in the fundamentals of human society, and therefore for sexual equality to be realized society itself must be replaced. Radical feminism in the past associated itself with sex-negative feminism and disassociated itself from the GLBT rights movement, both of which probably contributed to its decline. In some ways the current, mainstream feminism, with its embracing of sex-positive feminism and the GLBT movement, could be considered to be more extreme and radical than radical feminism.

I doubt that was the sense he was using it in, and my rambling probably muddled the waters, but eh. I've never claimed to contribute anything worthwhile.
This sounds like a description of the radical rhetoric occasionally expressed by a minority of feminist speakers/writers in the 1970s but not since then, which I mentioned before as being still cited only by a few dissaffected individuals expressing their own private opinions, but not purporting to represent anything else.

Compassion does not compel mercy. But compassion (drunkenly defined here, without recourse to a dictionary, as "feeling another's pain") informs us as to when a gesture of mercy will be taken as confidence in the strength of one's own belief, or weakness in the face of opposition.
I lack mercy, too, sadly.

Replying brusquely to me because I am drunk is quite fair. The obtuse and clumsy NH deserves less respect than the alert and deft one. I SHOULD be told to shut up when I talk crap, it's not personal.
I spoke brusquely because I'm a brusque person, not because of your drunkenness. Sorry. I don't have another tone. Didn't mean anything by it.

So, the only reason I'm still banging on is to make clear that I was not, and am not, criticizing your treatment of any other poster. I was speaking very generally about those who cannot identify the target they want to attack. They have the hate, but don't know what they hate. They use generalizations, tend to lump unrelated people into a class (like "liberals" or "christians" or "men") and in the worst of cases, pick a target not because it really poses any threat to them, but because they might be able to vanquish it.
I understood that, and I didn't think you were criticizing me. I was just trying to explain that, though I understand why they do it, my lack of compassion is why I never reach that point where the crippling weakness of their arguments makes me just let them go.

(Am considering posting in different colours to show my level of drunkenness. It may be obvious to you, but many judge drunk posting by the spelling and grammar.)
You'd have to be sober enough to always use the same colors for the same drunk-levels for that system to work.

This sounds like a description of the radical rhetoric occasionally expressed by a minority of feminist speakers/writers in the 1970s but not since then, which I mentioned before as being still cited only by a few dissaffected individuals expressing their own private opinions, but not purporting to represent anything else.

Yeah, it's really just the stuff expressed by a few writers like Steinheim or however you spell her name.

This sounds like a description of the radical rhetoric occasionally expressed by a minority of feminist speakers/writers in the 1970s but not since then.

But would not some of these people still believe in this? While femisism may have changed would their beliefs have changed? Some may have others may not have.

And Nobel Hoobs there is a politcal party in Australia called the "What Women Want Australia Party" Basically their agenda is to improve the lives of women such as maternity leave (shame they don't care about paternity leave) but that is up to them to decide and will never win a seat in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, a bit like the Fishing and Lifestyle Party.

The what women want party will never win a seat. I agree with that. But they may incfluence the result of a senate. They can preference whatever politician they think would do the best job. If there is a male and a female they will preference the female

That is the value of fringe parties. They are too small to have their opinion heard over everyone elses. But they can whisper to a politician "support this bill or you will lose our preference"

On the other hand it may show that the majority of women think overall they are being treated well in society. Because the states allow 6 senators to be guaranteed a spot if no one preference them what women want would only need 1/3 of the female vote if no man voted for then at all.

This means that less than 1/3 women think that what women want support the policies. (Or dont care about politics)

In the end whilst Australia has not had a female PM we have had the head of states and even the Governor general being a female.

The glass ceiling in the western world is a dam thin glass ceiling now which can be easily cracked with a small tap. The third world has a 3m thick ceiling made out of concrete

The what women want party will never win a seat. I agree with that. But they may incfluence the result of a senate. They can preference whatever politician they think would do the best job. If there is a male and a female they will preference the female

That is the value of fringe parties. They are too small to have their opinion heard over everyone elses. But they can whisper to a politician "support this bill or you will lose our preference"

On the other hand it may show that the majority of women think overall they are being treated well in society. Because the states allow 6 senators to be guaranteed a spot if no one preference them what women want would only need 1/3 of the female vote if no man voted for then at all.

This means that less than 1/3 women think that what women want support the policies. (Or dont care about politics)

In the end whilst Australia has not had a female PM we have had the head of states and even the Governor general being a female.

Yes that is a good point, the question however is do they have enough voters backing them to be able to have their preference flows count? I am not to sure and I will have to have another look at the last election to see how much of the Senate vote they got.

Just a correction our Governor General is our head of state, I know it may not always seem it as our PM has always acted as our Head of State for a very long time now, but we have had women as heads of politcal parties and as Governors and CEO's and Chairwoman of the board. Of course while Labor is in power we will always see a woman as Deputy PM ahh hypocrisy at its best we want equality so we will make a law stating that someone must hold this position because of their gender.

The glass ceiling in the western world is a dam thin glass ceiling now which can be easily cracked with a small tap. The third world has a 3m thick ceiling made out of concrete

I think the glass ceiling in the 1st world is almost just a pile of shards lying on the ground. We have seen many women rise to positions of power because of hard work and detirmination, just as much as a male needs to do in this day and age. Can feminists say that this is the case? Of course not because then what would they have to state to continue their campaign on that subject.

There is plenty of other unfair things in the world such as in some cases a disparity in wages between men and women, that is where the effort should be focused on, not on saying that because there is not enough woman in positions of power somehow proves that their is still a glass ceiling. The 3rd world, however, is different and there some real protest from within needs to be brought to the fray.

But would not some of these people still believe in this? While femisism may have changed would their beliefs have changed? Some may have others may not have.


If feminism changed, then those views do not represent feminism.

It is my contention that such views NEVER represented feminism, but regardless of that, they most certainly do not now.

Also, DUH, some people might think that way. I've been saying that over and over, for crying out loud. It means nothing because they represent nothing. Hell, you believe stuff, don't you? Yet, when was the last time you were looked to as representative of anything?

It would take the fun out of it??

Either you are joking, or you're a different kind of feminist than I. Or I was joking (not sure, actually.)

If you put an argument that "getting whupped as explicit feminists, in direct political speech, would set back feminism" I would take it seriously. But this idea that feminism is "debating for fun" I can't take seriously: the fun of politics and fun of intellectual enquiry are at best sweeteners to these crucial parts of society, each of which has real consequences: the happiness and suffering of real people.

It's NSG. I'm drunk, and you know that. Prime computation: you are joking.


no i wasnt joking.

the moment you start trying to define orthodox feminist beliefs you start a never ending fight over what is and what is not feminist belief. not that that doesnt happen now but it would create a whole new level of infighting.

it was bad enough back in the day when "mainstream" feminists tried to keep the lesbian feminists out on the grounds of being to divisive (or not to the point or something)

the FUN is that a young woman can throw off the bonds of the patriarchy and do something radical then later on decide that she wants to go mainstream and kick some ass in the business world then give it all up to become a spiritual feminist and then do it all over again. there isnt ONE goal, ONE way of being, ONE philosophy. its better that way. feminism is about freedom not about chaining yourself to someone else's set of ideas.


and then the rest of your post i dont understand or dont have a response to.

except that "god no i wasnt ivy league"

Also, DUH, some people might think that way. I've been saying that over and over, for crying out loud.

Often, those that hold the most radical views against males have a particular reason for their hatred of men, having either been abused, raped or worked as a prostitute.

Yeah, it's really just the stuff expressed by a few writers like Steinheim or however you spell her name.

Steinem is quite tame next to Dworkin. Hell, she married a man in her old age. ;)

If feminism changed, then those views do not represent feminism.

It is my contention that such views NEVER represented feminism, but regardless of that, they most certainly do not now.

Also, DUH, some people might think that way. I've been saying that over and over, for crying out loud. It means nothing because they represent nothing. Hell, you believe stuff, don't you? Yet, when was the last time you were looked to as representative of anything?

No but what has being said is that they claim to be feminist even though feminism has changed which is what many people having been saying. Just because they don't represent feminism isn't going to stop them from claiming that they do especially if they used to and while the ideas have changed they haven't. Now I know that what they claim to be feminism isn't real feminism, and not the form that you profess to, and I have never claimed that I have said that they have been different forms of feminism or what people say is feminism, you too have said that these people have said stuff and believe it and are heard while it not be your form of feminism it is a form of feminism, and they are around which you have stated.

Last time I was looked as a representative of anything, well let's see last Thursday night I as a players representative for my soccer club I represented the players and my own beliefs.

And Nobel Hoobs there is a politcal party in Australia called the "What Women Want Australia Party" Basically their agenda is to improve the lives of women such as maternity leave (shame they don't care about paternity leave) but that is up to them to decide and will never win a seat in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, a bit like the Fishing and Lifestyle Party.

My point wasn't very strong. As far as I can make out from reading my own post, I was saying this:

There is no "Feminist Agenda" because there is no central authority to write it.
There should be a Feminist Party of that name, to write the agenda.
If the Party was intent on actually winning a seat, it would have to avoid extreme positions like "abolishing patriarchy."
Then we'd have an Agenda in Hansard, to point to, to win arguments with people who whine about the non-existent Feminist Agenda.


It's a weak idea (I was very drunk ... a couple two many Drinks to Celebrate the acclaim heaped apon a rhetorical post of mine earlier in this very thread. Celebration turned De-cerebration.) My entire research consisted of WikiP-ing "feminist party" and seeing that there was one once, in Germany. And that they got chewed-up and spat-out by the voters.

About all I can rescue from it now is: "Feminist" must be a very dirty word if a Feminist party can't call itself The Feminist Party.

==========

no i wasnt joking.

the moment you start trying to define orthodox feminist beliefs you start a never ending fight over what is and what is not feminist belief. not that that doesnt happen now but it would create a whole new level of infighting.

it was bad enough back in the day when "mainstream" feminists tried to keep the lesbian feminists out on the grounds of being to divisive (or not to the point or something)

the FUN is that a young woman can throw off the bonds of the patriarchy and do something radical then later on decide that she wants to go mainstream and kick some ass in the business world then give it all up to become a spiritual feminist and then do it all over again. there isnt ONE goal, ONE way of being, ONE philosophy. its better that way. feminism is about freedom not about chaining yourself to someone else's set of ideas

As I said in the reply here to B.E. ... that was a very weak post.

A Feminist Party is a fine idea (and would be most effective in a proportionally-represented chamber like the aussie Senate.) It should not need to "whisper in the ear" of anyone, but stand entirely on it's platform of issues.

But my idea that forming a party, not to get anything in particular done, but purely for the purpose of writing a Feminist Agenda ... well, it was a Very Very Bad Idea. It was, if you'll excuse the pun, cock-eyed! :p

I totally agree with what you say in reply. An individual life is an adventure, in which one moves on from what has become boring. It's not a little box to cower inside, with a label on the outside. "I'm a Feminist, so I'm safe now under the protection of the Sisterhood." Ugh.

There's room for compassion and room for ambition in any life. In a sense, that what personal freedom is. Choosing one's own character and being able to change.


and then the rest of your post i dont understand or dont have a response to.

Well, that confirms it. The post was gibberish! :D

Oh, and Blowman Empire: I AM NOT A HOOB! :mad:

I hate those pommy puppets (http://www.channel4.com/learning/microsites/H/hoobs/index.jsp). Ferals (http://www.abc.net.au/children/feral/) are more my style.



(Yes, I'm JOKING. We're friends on here, right?)

Oh, and Blowman Empire: I AM NOT A HOOB! :mad:

I hate those pommy puppets (http://www.channel4.com/learning/microsites/H/hoobs/index.jsp). Ferals (http://www.abc.net.au/children/feral/) are more my style.



(Yes, I'm JOKING. We're friends on here, right?)

Of course we are. Sorry about that I think I may be a bit dyslexic, I will remember that you are Hobos and not Hoobs.

Oh and you just reminded me of another great show I watched when growing up The Ferals, how could I forget, me and a couple of other mates were going over the shows of our childhood such as Super Ted, Raggy Dolls, Johnson and friends, Hairy McClairy of Donaldsons Dairy amongst many others but none of us rembered the Ferals, it was a great show.

As for your other post, I understand what you are saying and do somewhat agree with it.

Of course we are. Sorry about that I think I may be a bit dyslexic, I will remeber that you are Hobos and not Hoobs.

Hobos = more than one Hobo.

I don't expect anyone to believe me when I say this, but NH was the first nation I ever made.

Oh and you just reminded me of another great show I watched when growing up The Ferals, how could I forget, me and a couple of other guys were going over the shows of our childhood such as Super Ted, Raggy Dolls, Johnson and friends, Hairy McClairy of Donaldsons Dairy but none of us rembered the Ferals, it was a great show.

I'd like to get into writing for children, actually. If you say it's good, that might be enough for me to hook up Flash to go youtube it.

Hobos = more than one Hobo.

I don't expect anyone to believe me when I say this, but NH was the first nation I ever made.

lol ok mate. No I believe you despite what your join date says after all I could use my orginal nation and join up now despite it being 6 years old.

I'd like to get into writing for children, actually. If you say it's good, that might be enough for me to hook up Flash to go youtube it.

The ferals? I thought you might have already seen it, considering your GMT time zone I just assumed maybe you were to old or to young to be watching it. It is a godd show but make sure it is The Ferals and not Feral TV while Feral TV was good and contained all the original ferals the original show was pretty good.

Overall an interesting article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/01/gender.women) on the perceived backlash against feminism, from which this paragraph:



This may just be one survey but I often see far greater vitriol, far worse insults hurled at women in the public eye compared to men, and it does seem to be getting worse.

In a way, we may have treated women courteously in the past - though I rather doubt it - and the open manner in which people insult women nowadays is merely recognition that they're in some ways more equal, as one quoted person puts it: "I think that you always get the greatest resistance when you're actually doing something," she says. "I think it signals that there's a slightly stronger sense of feminist organisation and voice than there was 10 years ago. The irony, of course, is that you only get resistance if there's something to be resisted."

However, it's not just in the words we use.



Why is real hatred and loathing reserved for women?
I'm willing to entertain the notion that your ideas may have some validity, but your evidence is laughably pathetic. A poll on celebrities? Come on!
As for lack of funding for rape centres equalling mysogyny... There are plenty of other poeple telling you what's wrong with that argument, you don't need me to add to it. Please do a lot more research, quote some reliable statistics, and make some more logical statements. Then maybe I'll be prepared to listen to you.

Please do a lot more research, quote some reliable statistics, and make some more logical statements. Then maybe I'll be prepared to listen to you.

Gosh, thanks, I'll try meet your exacting standards from now on.

Meanwhile...

I hear "the feminists" are out to get me. They want to frame me for harassment; they want the right to breastfeed in my car; they want to toast my goolies before raging Sapphic fires. Never mind that some of my fellow men would pay good money to have that last thing done to them, there is plainly a monstrous regiment prosecuting a ruthless sex war at we gentlemen's expense, and it is winning. We have been forced on the defensive. The ladies will not be appeased.

I present these random extracts from the The Seething Classes' Book Of Male Resentments to indicate both the strength of resistance to women's uneven but inexorable advance beyond the domestic realm and the sheer silliness of much of it. Yes, I know sins are committed in female liberation's name and all sorts of daft attitudes struck. Women do sometimes abuse power at men's expense and cite powerlessness as justification. I get narked when women assume that I hate shopping and don't know where the oven gloves are kept because I'd gladly squander an afternoon on retail therapy if I had an afternoon to squander, because the sight of my souffles rising would make them go weak at the knees, and because sex war cliches are, in fact, our common enemy

But that's humankind for you. And the point is that the best and wisest feminist ideals – the sort that don't interest the media - have things to offer men too. Women moving onto the ground of politics and the professions, gaining autonomy and attaining enhanced cultural presence as a result has presented challenges for men and masculinity, but also certain opportunities.

Feminism has become a dirty word in the mouths of some its enemies, so let's recall one of its basic ambitions – the release of women from the constraints of gender custom and practice. It insists – or should insist – that the blurring of boundaries between men's domain and women's, between traits we call masculine and those we call feminine, is not a dangerous assault on some sacred natural order but an advance for social justice. It's about fair play, freedom of choice and enhancing human happiness.

Men should embrace these principles too, not only for women's sake but also for their own. All else being equal, to be born male is to inherit legacies of entitlement that continue to outweigh those bestowed on those born female. Yet the state of maleness carries its own burden of expectations and constraints. Contemporary studies of boyhood shed light on what we've always known – what I still remember vividly from my own boyhood – about the disabling and limiting influence of male behaviour conventions, homophobia and general "gender policing" on men in the making and the huge anxieties that inform them.

This is the baggage men drag with them through their lives; the pressure imposed both from without and from within to appear hard and never soft, to make a performance of rejecting anything that smacks of domesticity or femininity, notwithstanding the metrosexual and "new man". Even men who seem to embody and thrive on this stereotype can feel like slaves to it, and are often undone by it.

Sensible, grown up, non-sectarian feminism recognises all of this and seeks ways for men to combat it. This is not a matter of asking men to forgo every traditional bond and pursuit in favour of their "feminine side" but of inviting them to see that such distinctions are limiting and very largely artificial. It's not a matter either of unmanning the alleged essential male, but about men flourishing and developing in all areas of their lives, including as parents and in the home. It's about making modern, dual-earner, heterosexual relationships work better; more democratically. It's about a chap discovering that he too can be a nurse in the nursery, a cook in the kitchen and a lover in the bedroom and also, should he be so inclined, wrestle grizzly bears and grout the bathroom tiles as well – and be happy for women to enjoy such freedoms, too.

lol ok mate.

I just turned Two. I'm all grown up and I can poo in the pot too!

The ferals? I thought you might have already seen it, considering your GMT time zone I just assumed maybe you were to old or to young to be watching it. It is a godd show but make sure it is The Ferals and not Feral TV while Feral TV was good and contained all the original ferals the original show was pretty good.

Psst. It was me who brought up the Ferals. The not-toned-down, bad-role-model abusive Ferals! Yay! "Whup that sucker! Whup that sucker!"

Mmm, I was wondering if you were commending any of the others as good kids TV.

Er, Barringtonia: should we be reading that as something you wrote? The italics confuse me.

I like the rave. I'm just not sure if I should reply to it as your words?

No, it's an article, I should link but sometimes I'm just lazy - I only do it when quoting the entire article, I'll link if just posting excerpts.

Pure laziness :)

No, it's an article, I should link but sometimes I'm just lazy - I only do it when quoting the entire article, I'll link if just posting excerpts.

Pure laziness :)
Well, give the by-line at least.

Well, give the by-line at least.

Godammit!

The headline is as follows:

Gender stereotypes hurt men too
A woman's place: The best and wisest feminist ideals have things to offer both men and women

It was written by this guy.

Dave Hill is a novelist, blogger, occasional broadcaster and long-standing writer for the Guardian. He is the author of several non-fiction books, most notably Out Of His Skin, a groundbreaking account of racism in English football as revealed by the career of Liverpool star John Barnes. His most recent novel is The Adoption.

He publishes three blogs: Clapton Pond documents life in the part of Hackney, east London where he lives with his wife and those of his six children who have yet to fly the nest; at Big Britain he pursues his interest in British politics, culture and identity; at London: Mayor, Met & More he tracks developments in the capital, with special reference to the 2008 mayoralty election. He also contributes at Liberal Conspiracy

Here's the original article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/gender.politics

It was an opinion piece and not overly controversial so I wasn't too compelled to provide full context but you people are just never happy are you? Next you'll be asking for his telephone number so you can question him yourselves. When does it end!

:)

Here's the original article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/gender.politics

Dunno about Muravyets, but that's all I was asking for.

Godammit!

<grudgingly does at last what he should have done at first>

It was an opinion piece and not overly controversial so I wasn't too compelled to provide full context but you people are just never happy are you? Next you'll be asking for his telephone number so you can question him yourselves. When does it end!

:)

I would have been happy with just the link, too. :p Or just the author's name. Anything to show that you were quoting someone. ;)

Overall an interesting article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/01/gender.women) on the perceived backlash against feminism, from which this paragraph:



This may just be one survey but I often see far greater vitriol, far worse insults hurled at women in the public eye compared to men, and it does seem to be getting worse.

In a way, we may have treated women courteously in the past - though I rather doubt it - and the open manner in which people insult women nowadays is merely recognition that they're in some ways more equal, as one quoted person puts it: "I think that you always get the greatest resistance when you're actually doing something," she says. "I think it signals that there's a slightly stronger sense of feminist organisation and voice than there was 10 years ago. The irony, of course, is that you only get resistance if there's something to be resisted."

However, it's not just in the words we use.



Why is real hatred and loathing reserved for women?

Wow, the only person of those ten from your excerpt that I recognized was Paul McCartney! I do not like feminism or feminists but I do not hate women. I do not know anybody that hates women as a group. I do not think that feminism was ever really accepted. Although some people call feminism equality for the sexes and I think that this is a generally accepted idea in many aspects. It is the women acting like men or strange modern marital structures and divorces that are goofy.

In todays soiciety we unfortunately are encouraging these thoughts of men being surperior to woman. I only have to give the example of the pathetic 'Man Show' in America to show you what kind of people are encouraging it though, but sadly it seems that it is fairly popular to treat woman like this. Maybe if we didnt have stupid shows like The Man Show which only encourage disrespect and a shovenistic view we wouldnt have these issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XXkIxWbt1U

In todays soiciety we unfortunately are encouraging these thoughts of men being surperior to woman. I only have to give the example of the pathetic 'Man Show' in America to show you what kind of people are encouraging it though, but sadly it seems that it is fairly popular to treat woman like this. Maybe if we didnt have stupid shows like The Man Show which only encourage disrespect and a shovenistic view we wouldnt have these issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XXkIxWbt1U

I understand that anyone who sees The Man Show a time or two would think that it's nothing but chauvenistic, but if you knew the two hosts of the show, you'd know that it's really in the realm of a Colbert Report than anything resembling anything serious.

Adam Corrolla is far too narcissistic to do anything serious... :p

Wow, the only person of those ten from your excerpt that I recognized was Paul McCartney! I do not like feminism or feminists but I do not hate women. I do not know anybody that hates women as a group. I do not think that feminism was ever really accepted. Although some people call feminism equality for the sexes and I think that this is a generally accepted idea in many aspects. It is the women acting like men or strange modern marital structures and divorces that are goofy.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who has seen the light of a monitor could not know who David Beckham was, but whatever.

Equality of the sexes is good, women "acting like men" -- that, is presuming to have an equal right to do things men traditionally do -- is not? Explain that one to me, please.

I just turned Two. I'm all grown up and I can poo in the pot too!

I thought their was more than one of you? ;)

Psst. It was me who brought up the Ferals. The not-toned-down, bad-role-model abusive Ferals! Yay! "Whup that sucker! Whup that sucker!"

Mmm, I was wondering if you were commending any of the others as good kids TV.

Didn't you say you will look at it on you tube?

The other few I mentioned? What's wrong with them?

I find it hard to believe that anyone who has seen the light of a monitor could not know who David Beckham was, but whatever.

Equality of the sexes is good, women "acting like men" -- that, is presuming to have an equal right to do things men traditionally do -- is not? Explain that one to me, please.

I do not like it when women wear pant suits. Men do not wear dress suits. I also do not find it feminine for a women to wear a man's haircut. I also do not like the long haired look on men.

I do not like it when women wear pant suits. Men do not wear dress suits. I also do not find it feminine for a women to wear a man's haircut. I also do not like the long haired look on men.

I don't like it when scene kids get spiky black mullets, male or female, but it is their prerogative to look ridiculous. It doesn't affect me in any way.

As for short hair... if don't think Keira Knightley (http://www.celebrity-hair-styles-magazine.com/images/keira-knightley-short-hair-photos-11.jpg), Natalie Portman (http://i1.tinypic.com/n1rywl.png)or Jessica Alba (http://sp1.yt-thm-a01.yimg.com/image/25/m4/2846519822) are feminine, I don't think you've ever seen a female.

I do not like it when women wear pant suits. Men do not wear dress suits. I also do not find it feminine for a women to wear a man's haircut. I also do not like the long haired look on men.
I don't like it when people say pointless, meaningless things, but they do it. Life is full of disappointments, eh?