Feminist or FemiNazi? Truth and Myth

Thank you for your acknowledgment of my question, Benevolent Heretic. I think it is important to address this issue because this is part of the feminist definition that needs to be explored.

I also think that men are intimidated by powerful women. Women who can stand upon their own two feet and say what they feel do not have to be dependent on anyone. Somehow, there is still this opinion left in today's society that some part of womanhood has to "acquiese" to men and to society in order to be accepted.

The main problem is that with the demonstrations of the First Lady and Dr. Rice, they are women that are part and parcel of the "patriarchal" notion of acquiesing. They had to sacrifice some parts of their personality in order to be accepted and allow others to be accepting of them.

The main problem with Teresa Heinz Kerry is the fact that she doesn't allow this to happen. She says what's on her mind. The press paints her as "putting her foot in her mouth". She tells the press to "shove it", she is seen as Cruella De Ville. The problem is that she cannot be "man-handled" like the women who "acquiese". And that is a threat to the patriarchy. But if she is "silenced" and "submissive", she would have to sacrifice that part of herself that exudes her powerful nature in order to be more acceptable.

What kind of message does that send to our young women when female role models are forced not to express themselves or act the way they feel without "punishment" by those who espouse the patriarchal system? How are we, as women, supposed to prove that we are capable in any position in all walks of life, if we have to "acquiese" to the system and remain demure, silent and malleable?

How do we move forward as women if we are not given a proper venue in order to express ourselves in terms of emotion and intellect?

Dr. Rice and Laura Bush cannot be the answer for integrating within the so-called patriarchal system.

Originally posted by ceci2006
The main problem is that with the demonstrations of the First Lady and Dr. Rice, they are women that are part and parcel of the "patriarchal" notion of acquiesing. They had to sacrifice some parts of their personality in order to be accepted and allow others to be accepting of them.

This is news to me. Please, tell me what parts of their personalities they each gave up.

The main problem with Teresa Heinz Kerry is the fact that she doesn't allow this to happen. She says what's on her mind. The press paints her as "putting her foot in her mouth".

No, see she did put her foot in her mouth. She openly attacked Laura Bush for "never having had a job in her life", and then later had retract her statment when she was informed that Mrs. Bush had been a school teacher for many years.

That is putting ones foot in ones mouth. Can you understand this?

She tells the press to "shove it", she is seen as Cruella De Ville.

Well, yes telling someone to "shove it" after being asked a question is rude, and mean.

-- Boat

I'm new to this thread, but I want to ask; why is that every time we see a group go off the edge we begin to label it nazi ? What we are talking here should be rightful called "militant feminists", adding the 'Nazi' is not in good taste. I'm not supporting or standing up for the Nazis but rather against a fad that casually labels anything extremist as Nazi.

Coming to "militant feminism", personally from my experience it has grown from merely seeking equality to stating superiority. I dont think there are many who would oppose equality for women in this day and age but the movement has metamorphosed into this platform for special rights and special privileges and not to mention in some cases the claim of superiority. What is more disconcerting is the fact that these things are supported by both sides of the sexual divide, be it for greater privileges or in the stance of outright superiority. Also there is public sympathy for all this, which is camouflaged in the name of women's rights groups etc. Nobody wants to touch this issue for its tendentious nature and thus facing little opposition it legitimizes their views.

I too do not believe feminism is needed in America. Of course this is based off my own personal experience.

I dont know where you people live, but I've never seen or heard of someone getting turned down from a job because they are a woman. Nor have I worked with any women that were matched with me in terms of position and time in the company that were paid less than me. Most of the women Ive worked with (that were not tight lipped about their salary,most wern't) actually made more than I did.

Just recently, I lost a job to a woman, who was FAR less qualified than I, among other things. She was hired over me simply because she was a woman, and the boss wanted a woman working for him because it made the place look better. What a joke.

So who was discriminated against there?

Im all for equality. 100% equality every human being. Which is why I dislike feminism and minority activists groups. Everyone claims they want equality, but to me it seems they want special treatment, which is far from equal rights. What if I was a "man-ist" or whatever, what would you think of that? Most would claim I was sexist. What if I was to organize a heterosexual white male parade. Oh such horrible things would be said against me. But its ok for women, homosexuals, blacks, hispanics, ect...perfectly acceptable.

So who is being discriminated against?

Ever been to court...for anything? Man and a woman get charged for the same crime, who gets the harsher sentence? Divorcees fight for custody of children, who gets the children? Again, I have repeativly seen this kind of crap FIRST HAND.

Ive seen people claim rascism and sexism everytime something didnt go their way. Every time someone looked at them just the wrong way, or when their boss didnt give them the raised they asked for, or when they wern't doing so well in class. SEXIST! RACIST!!

And its always the big bad white male whos at fault. Every group out there can sling all the mud and all the hate they want, and never are they branded racists or sexist. All the while, the white male must sit and bite his tongue, because he knows whatever he says to defend himself will be branded on the spot and he'll be burned at the stake.


sick of it.

Thanks for ALL the new comments!

Originally posted by ceci2006
How do we move forward as women if we are not given a proper venue in order to express ourselves in terms of emotion and intellect?

I think part of the problem is the thought that we must 'be given' the proper forum to express ourselves. The forum exists. We just need to use it. And not be intimidated by people who call us emotional, mean, bitchy, rude or whatever. A man who tells the press to 'stuff it' (Antonin Scalia) is just a man expressing himself, but when a woman does the same, she's thought of as 'unladylike'. Bleep that!

Dr. Rice and Laura Bush cannot be the answer for integrating within the so-called patriarchal system.

I certainly hope not. I don't hope for an integration into the patriarchy. I hope for a shift in the patriarchy itself to a more gender-less power structure. I don't think we as women should try to fit into the patriarchy. I think the patriarchy is outdated, and should evolve to include women as well as men in powerful positions, and actually exercising their power.

FYI, the quote Kerry made about Laura Bush is:

USA TODAY
Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don't know that she's ever had a real job — I mean, since she's been grown up.

She didn't say Bush had never had a job in her life. It wasn't an attack. She simply said she didn't know. This is a perfect example of people making Kerry look like a bitch over a simple, innocent statement, and twisting it around and misquoting her at that! I couldn't have made up an better example myself! Thank you, Boatphone.

And, she apologized for forgetting about Bush's job.

"I had forgotten that Mrs. Bush had worked as a school teacher and librarian, and there couldn't be a more important job than teaching our children. ... I appreciate and honor Mrs. Bush's service to the country as first lady and am sincerely sorry I had not remembered her important work in the past."

It was really no biggie, but it was made into a big deal because Kerry made a mistake. She made a mistake and so she was made out to be a witch or a fool.

Originally posted by TristanBW9456
I dont have anything against feminists but you got to admit that these people do not help everyone by walking around with a chip on their shoulder

That's another rumor that needs dispelling. That every feminist has a chip on her shoulder. Not all of us do.

Originally posted by IAF101
I'm new to this thread, but I want to ask; why is that every time we see a group go off the edge we begin to label it nazi ? What we are talking here should be rightful called "militant feminists", adding the 'Nazi' is not in good taste. I'm not supporting or standing up for the Nazis but rather against a fad that casually labels anything extremist as Nazi.

Welcome to this thread and thanks for your comments. More please.

I agree with you. Whenever we are uncomfortable with something we tend to make it out to be extreme to fortify or validate our fear and hatred of it. That's part of the purpose of this thread; to say that the term FemiNazi applies to very few (if any) feminists. It's a term non-feminists have adopted to paint any feminists with a bad rap.

Originally posted by PlausibleDeniability
And its always the big bad white male whos at fault.
...
sick of it.

I'm sick of it, too, frankly. I know what you mean.

And one of the myths of feminism is that somehow, it has something to do with men. That the goal is to put men down, put them in their place, become more powerful than them, etc. But the true feminist movement's goal is for women to rise to their rightful place in society. That's all. To be equal.

We're not saying men (white black or purple) shouldn't do their thing, but the feminist movement has to do with women, regardless of what's going on with men.

I don't support anyone who sits back and blames men for their plight. I'm like the Bill Cosby of the feminist movement. It's our job to take our rightful place beside men, not continue to blame them for where we are.


[edit on 14-5-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

I am an aircraft mechanic. I held that job in the Navy and after retiremen, I went to school for my A&P license. I worked as a mechanic until I had my accident in 2002. As a woman in a predominantly male field, I had to put up with a lot of crap. I learned to give it as well. I never reported sexual harrasment. I handled it on my own.

I want equal pay for the same job. I want equal benefits. I do NOT want to be treated like a man. I am not a man, I am a woman. If I can do the same job as Joe, then I should get the same pay and benefits. If you have to lower the standards for females, that is not equality.

For example, the military lowers the physical fitness requirements for women. That is not equality. Women should have to fulfill the same requirements as men. But they should not have to bunk or shower with them.

Men are angry and bewildered at women's behavior. Women want to work in the same jobs that men do. Then they want the men to change the work environment.

What I mean is, most all men work environments are peppered with profanity and horseplay. Most employers allow this behavior until a female joins their ranks. The next thing they know, the men are losing valuable work hours sitting in sexual harassment and gender conflict classes.

As a woman, I feel that if you can do the job, and can handle the environment, then you should apply. Stop trying to make men more sensitive. They have to put up with that crap at home. If you want to work with a bunch of women, get a clerical position and let men be men.

Originally posted by darkelf
As a woman, I feel that if you can do the job, and can handle the environment, then you should apply. Stop trying to make men more sensitive. They have to put up with that crap at home. If you want to work with a bunch of women, get a clerical position and let men be men.

Can I just say, Wow!
This is incredible !

Arguably the final step in equality is for each party to step down from a position of privilege and meet each other half way, this is the case here. I dont know how many women are willing to give up maternity leave or how many employers are willing to give paternity leave and subscribe to this philosophy of equality in right and duty.

It could be argued however that in this endeavor to achieve utter equality we lose an essential duality in the workplace. While a singular esthetic is beneficial in the shop floor the same cannot be said to all areas of work. There are many areas that essentially require both aesthetic senses, I believe that the denigration of any one would force us into a sad dis-equilibrium.

Another point is if as we consider is if women would be willing to sacrifice their identity for a position or vice versa. If we were to assume a singular esthetic then would it be a pro-male esthetic or a pro-female esthetic or would it be some potpourri that would denigrate both?

Originally posted by darkelf
As a woman in a predominantly male field, I had to put up with a lot of crap. I learned to give it as well. I never reported sexual harrasment. I handled it on my own.

That's certainly a choice. To handle it on your own.

I want equal pay for the same job. I want equal benefits. I do NOT want to be treated like a man. I am not a man, I am a woman. If I can do the same job as Joe, then I should get the same pay and benefits. If you have to lower the standards for females, that is not equality.

I agree 100%.

What I mean is, most all men work environments are peppered with profanity and horseplay. Most employers allow this behavior until a female joins their ranks. The next thing they know, the men are losing valuable work hours sitting in sexual harassment and gender conflict classes.

Are you blaming women for this? Or the employer? I'm not sure I understand the point you're making.

Stop trying to make men more sensitive. They have to put up with that crap at home. If you want to work with a bunch of women, get a clerical position and let men be men.

This is a little hard to respond to, but I'll try. I'll just say that I have no interest in making men more sensitive. I learned decades ago that changing another person is an impossible and frustrating task. I don't care how sensitive men are, except for my husband, that is, and that's just personal preference, having nothing to do with the workplace.

Men can be men all they want, but I personally don't think ANYONE should have to put up with harrassment in the workplace. I don't think people should harrass the skinny little guy for being skinny and little or the red-headed guy or the gay guy or the woman for being a woman.

Now it's one thing for people to tell dirty jokes or swear or be uncouth, it's quite another for a guy to grab a woman's ass or breast or make sexual comments directed at her. And if you don't have a problem with that, that's cool, but if someone does. then they should have a recourse. Those are harassment and no one should have to put up with that crap. Women like you and me might very well put them in their place, but if a women didnt' have what it takes personality-wise to do that, OR she chose not to, then I think she should have a recourse.

I don't think a woman should be disallowed in a job because she can't handle verbal abuse. The boys can get together and be animals on their own time. At work, there should be a certain level of professionalism and maturity unless everyone in the group agrees to a level of horseplay.

You have a lot of good points that I agree with, but the last comment about working with women and a clerical job just kind of blew me away.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
A man who tells the press to 'stuff it' (Antonin Scalia) is just a man expressing himself

Justice Scalia was criticized in the media for that remark.

FYI, the quote Kerry made about Laura Bush is:

She didn't say Bush had never had a job in her life.

It wasn't an attack. She simply said she didn't know.And, she apologized for forgetting about Bush's job.

"I had forgotten that Mrs. Bush had worked as a school teacher and librarian, and there couldn't be a more important job than teaching our children. ... I appreciate and honor Mrs. Bush's service to the country as first lady and am sincerely sorry I had not remembered her important work in the past."

It was taken as an attack, and was widely viewed as such. This is because is was in fact an attack. Why, would she say, "I don't know if Larua Bush has had a real job in her life", if not to attack?

She said it, it was incorrect, it hurt the Kerry campaign, and she had to quickly issuse a retractment. That is what is called "putting ones foot, in ones mouth".

I'm not saying it was the worst thing ever, but you should be able to see that the fuss over her statement had nothing to do with her gender.

But the true feminist movement's goal is for women to rise to their rightful place in society. That's all. To be equal.

In American modern day women are fully equal to men.

-- Boat

Wow. Lots of commentary here. Don't even know where to start...

What do I think about feminism? I see it's point, and I know that it's got good intent. I do not consider myself a feminist, because, frankly, that seems very one-sided to me. I will not deny that males have been in power; to deny it would be silly. However, one lesson that I've learned in my few years on this earth is this: In order to be dominated, one must first submit. So, to say shame on males, solely males, is ludicrious. We (females) had our part too, which is to say, we allowed it to happen.
So shame on everyone.


More to the point, how to fix the situation? (Why bother talking about a problem if we cannot figure someway of fixing it, right?) The only thing that I can remember from middle school is a lesson from my history teacher -- rights and responsibility. Fine, you want the right to your own personal space. Then be responsible enough not to interfere or intrude upon someone else's. How many times in history has the underdog risen to power and then kept someone else down?

I keep thinking of the movie G.I.Jane; no, it may not have been a great movie, but it made a very good point -- she wanted to be treated equally, and she fought for it; then she, knowing the responsiblity inherent to her decision, pushed herself to keep up. Yeah, I know, the movies don't work in real life. But the point is still valid.

Besides all of this, one must remember (and here I am speaking about America) that we live in a capitalistic society. Thus, our society is morally flexible because we are primarily concerned with profits; a business does not care about the well-being of its employees -- it's worried about keeping the profit margins up. So the morals get skewed towards 'business logic', instead of moral everyday-people logic. Lying is bad, except when it gets you a raise. Stealing is bad, unless you don't get caught. To be poor is worse than being dishonest!!

In this society, how can we ever hope for equality?
America is not even a proper democracy! (If it was, then every single person would be addressed, *all* concerns debated and discussed, and compromises reached so that *all people* were satisfied to some degree. This country is, I think, too big for that. Not to mention too stuck on material happiness...)

Part of this thread talked about rape in other countries, particularly the child sex trade. In one article, "Because she looks like a child" by Kevin Bates (read it for a class), "Explaining why so many Burmese women were kept in brothels in Ranong, in southern Thailand, the regional police commander told a reporter... "In my opinion, it is disgraceful to let Burmese men [working in the local fishing industry] frequent Thai prostitutes. Therefore I have been flexible in allowing Burmese prostitutes to work here" (p. 224).
Thus, it is more honourable to exploit a child for sex, then to let the workers have sex with prostitutes of a different country?!? (Again, 'business logic' versus 'practical logic'.)

In the same article, it explains that the families sell their daughters willingly for money, and most of the time buy big screen tv's and the like. So between profits (which is a multi-billion dollar reason why the international sex trade keeps going -- particularly the child sex trade) and advertising, the girls are.. well... screwed.
Is it fair to blame the male gender? No, I don't think so. They may have raging hard-ons, but the bigger problem is the lack of morals.
I *know* when I'm doing something wrong. The difference is knowing when to stop *because* it's wrong.

Change the method of survival (money/comsumerism), and we can change the problem. Change morals, we might change the situation.

Raise your sons and daughters to respect each other and everyone else. Teach *both* sexes that they have rights and responsibilities. Teach them to be more afraid of dishonesty than poverty.. we might just see a change.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by darkelf
What I mean is, most all men work environments are peppered with profanity and horseplay. Most employers allow this behavior until a female joins their ranks. The next thing they know, the men are losing valuable work hours sitting in sexual harassment and gender conflict classes.

Are you blaming women for this? Or the employer? I'm not sure I understand the point you're making.

This is the employer’s fault. Horseplay can cause accidents. It should not be allowed in the workplace.

Men can be men all they want, but I personally don't think ANYONE should have to put up with harrassment in the workplace. I don't think people should harrass the skinny little guy for being skinny and little or the red-headed guy or the gay guy or the woman for being a woman.

I agree, ANY harassment is wrong. Disagreements happen and things are often said that shouldn’t be. Name calling should never be allowed. Men can act with civility and most do. Picking on others because they are different should never be allowed.

Now it's one thing for people to tell dirty jokes or swear or be uncouth, it's quite another for a guy to grab a woman's ass or breast or make sexual comments directed at her. And if you don't have a problem with that, that's cool, but if someone does. then they should have a recourse. Those are harassment and no one should have to put up with that crap. Women like you and me might very well put them in their place, but if a women didnt' have what it takes personality-wise to do that, OR she chose not to, then I think she should have a recourse.

In all of my years working with men, that has never happened to me. Most sexual harassment has been in the form of rude comments. The perpetrator gets one warning. I have never had to report anyone for sexual harassment. Any woman that cannot do that should not be working with men. I’ll clarify now before I get flamed.

People will test the new person to see how much that person will take. Some men (and some women) have an inappropriate way of complimenting women. My take on this is to let them know from the beginning that I do not appreciate those kinds of comments and future comments of that nature will be reported. Reporting a first offense takes my power away from me and puts it in the hands of the boss. Misunderstandings happen, I would never want a person fired or punished because I misunderstood their intent. Inappropriate touching (grabbing) should be reported.

I don't think a woman should be disallowed in a job because she can't handle verbal abuse. The boys can get together and be animals on their own time. At work, there should be a certain level of professionalism and maturity unless everyone in the group agrees to a level of horseplay.

I think I adequately addressed that in this post. Verbal abuse and horseplay should never be allowed in the workplace.

You have a lot of good points that I agree with, but the last comment about working with women and a clerical job just kind of blew me away.

I once worked in an office with 20 other women. I’ll take the guys any day over that!



[edit on 5/15/2006 by darkelf]

GIVE IT UP!!!!!


Women ALREADY received equal rights - the game should have ended already!!!!

If you take ALL the power that women have and put it in one basket, and take ALL the power that men have and put it also in a basket, then in today's America, the womens basket weighs more.

The fight should have ended LONG ago.

It continues now because it is good for the economy - divorces, child support, child psycologists (for divorced parents), ect.

Or....

we can keep this battle going till men and women just simply HATE each other and start a sex war.

I am really beginning to hate the word "feminist". It is not about equal rights anymore, it is about overpowering and taking over men and control.

When will this hate ever end?

darkelf - Thanks for your further comments. I had no problem working with men and never really had an opportunity to work with women. I was in engineering and thus surrounded by men.

One suspicion I have is that generally women are subconciously taught to be somewhat conniving, deceptive, manipulative and coercive as a 'toolset' to survive in the world today and this makes them not very pleasant to be around, especially for those of us who have tossed aside that toolset for a more practical toolset of education, honesty, respect and a good work ethic.

The stereotype of the woman office worker who gossips, is jealous, petty and manipulative of her boss and co-workers is not a happy picture to me. I much prefer the woman who is confident, straightforward, respectful and doesn't engage in the typical behavior of the stereotype.

Having said that, I do feel some kindredship and understanding of these women who I see as stuck between sort of 'evolutionary' stages. They were taught to behave one way (for survival in a "man's world") and once they become adults and start working, they find their toolset only gets them into trouble and doesn't serve them getting the respect they want.

I don't know if I've explained this well, but it's something I've thought about. I consciously rid my life of the 'games' that some people (not only women) play and I have little patience for people who gossip, lie and manipulate.

godservant, Did you read the thread? It's my opinion that that your obvious 'take' of feminism is exactly the myth that we're trying to dispel. The idea that feminism is a 'fight' between men and women is absurd. There is no 'game'. This isn't about hating men. This is not a war. If you think of feminism that way (which you obviously do from your post), it's no wonder you have hatred and anger around feminism.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
godservant, Did you read the thread? It's my opinion that that your obvious 'take' of feminism is exactly the myth that we're trying to dispel. The idea that feminism is a 'fight' between men and women is absurd. There is no 'game'. This isn't about hating men. This is not a war. If you think of feminism that way (which you obviously do from your post), it's no wonder you have hatred and anger around feminism.

Yes, I have read it. I can understand your stance on this since you are a woman - and maybe the same thing can be said about me since I am a man.

However, I feel that these 'groups', weather it is for women, blacks or anyone else, is just feeding the fire of hate. It puts groups of people against groups of other people.

Even if feminists get to a point where they have eveything they want, the battle will still continue from one side or the other - or both.

Is that what we really want - battle?

This thread shows exactly that - more battles, wars and hatred.

There can never be unison with fighting/division.

I love you BH - and often love what you write. This time (only the second I can remember), I disagree with you. It will only continue to cause a larger division.

Originally posted by godservant
Yes, I have read it. I can understand your stance on this since you are a woman - and maybe the same thing can be said about me since I am a man.

However, I feel that these 'groups', weather it is for women, blacks or anyone else, is just feeding the fire of hate. It puts groups of people against groups of other people.

Even if feminists get to a point where they have eveything they want, the battle will still continue from one side or the other - or both.

Is that what we really want - battle?

This thread shows exactly that - more battles, wars and hatred.

There can never be unison with fighting/division.

The point we are trying to make godservant, is that it is a battle of human rights. As long as one group holds power over another group, there will be a battle. Let's just treat all people fairly no matter what group they come from. Maybe then the fighting will stop.

Of course one should fight for human rights, but this battle is still going on. If feminists get all they are trying to get right now, then they will be more powerful. Then a masculist group will form and fight for equal rights from their perspective.

When will it end if allowed to continue? NEVER!

Humans are like many other animal species. Unfortunately, we are not like ants who are all treated equal.

The only way a battle like this could be won and be fair, is let women have their way on odd numbered years and men on even numbered. We can't be equal at the same time, because humans don't naturally want to be submissive and one side will ALWAYS feel their on the short end.

It'll just keep going and going and going and going . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Originally posted by godservant
However, I feel that these 'groups', weather it is for women, blacks or anyone else, is just feeding the fire of hate. It puts groups of people against groups of other people.

My disagreement with you comes here. I, as a feminist, am against NO group. Feminist does not mean anti-man to the vast majority of feminists. If you have read the thread, then you know that I like men. I am married to a man. He has posted in this thread. He is a feminist. What 'group' is he battling against?

I can totally see how you associate the term 'feminist' with 'against man', as there certainly are extreme factions of women who hate men and call themselves "feminists". But that's one of the myths surrounding the term. Just as extremist "Christians" and extremist "Muslims" have hijacked these terms, there are women who ARE against men and who DO wish to overpower men who are using the term "Feminist" to describe themselves. But the VAST majority of feminists are like my husband and myself. But since you read the thread, you already have read all about that. And still... you think there's war and hatred? Well, ok. I won't try to change your position on it.

Is that what we really want - battle?

That's not the goal, no.

This thread shows exactly that - more battles, wars and hatred.

I don't get that from this thread. Clearly, this thread is one of the most enjoyable threads I've participated in on the board. I don't know where your perception of battles, wars and hatred are coming from, but again, I won't drag you from your position.

And to be realistic, I do believe that life is a struggle, at least in part. There are battles worth fighting. There are ideals worth struggling for. And it doesn't have to be done with hatred. The equality of all people is an ideal that I feel, even if NEVER fully realized, is worth every bit of effort to strive for. The promise of harmony is not enough for me to give up the 'battle' of true equality for all, even if it takes my whole lifetime.

(sorry about all the sentences ending in prepositions... )

This time (only the second I can remember), I disagree with you.

Disagreement is ok with me. It's not necessary that we agree. What a boring world that would be.

Thank you for your continued comments.

Originally posted by godservant
We can't be equal at the same time, because humans don't naturally want to be submissive and one side will ALWAYS feel their on the short end.

Just FYI, I can honestly say that in my domestic relationship, we are equal. We are different, but we are equal in value and contribution to the relationship. Now, why can't that extend out to all people?

Neither of us are submissive. In fact, we're both quite the opposite. I don't think one has to be submissive. I think that's a misconception... that one has to be submissive and one has to be controlling. I guess you're right, we do definitely disagree on some basic concepts here.

I think the larger point of this thread should be that:

1. Women have already won equal rights in America, so what is the need for feminism?

2. Some "feminists" do use feminism as a platform to bash men.

-- Boat

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Just FYI, I can honestly say that in my domestic relationship, we are equal. We are different, but we are equal in value and contribution to the relationship. Now, why can't that extend out to all people?

In a perfect world, that would be great.

I have seen that type of relationship twice in my life (in others). However, I thnk that faminism has been redefined in most people - both men AND women. In most relationships today, women want to be in charge instead of being equal.

Then again, maybe I shouldn't comment on a subject as this. I am a bit bitter from seeing this in my current marriage - my current wife MUST have everything done her way and she likes to say how it's womens turn now after what men have done. I am quite tired of ALWAYS submitting instead of 50% of the time.

So, maybe I am a bit extreme due to my current situation - a situation that has become all too common now a days - and most blame it on feminism.

I find myself NOT leaving due to the fact that I know she has more power than I. My kids will become visitors and my pay will be cut in half. Thats automatic. If I wanted a CHANCE at shared costody, It'd cost me thousands.

And there is the source of my anger in my life. I don't feel a 50/50 equality thing going on there, not even close.