Feminist or FemiNazi? Truth and Myth

This is a fascinating thread. I cannot but help to note and point out that there is such a diversity in opinion over a very basic concept -- equality and justice.

On a personal level, I simply cannot comprehend how anyone -- male or female -- can believe or even advocate the dominance of one sex over the other. It's entirely clear to me that "men are not better than women" and, of course, any converse statement.

Furthermore, it is rather troubling that men cannot recognize that women, historically, have been oppressed by clearly designated cultural roles and by religious attitudes. Again, it is troubling that there are women who do not seem to understand that men have also been oppressed by these very same cultural and religious role designations.

We -- men and women -- are all victims of cultural and religious evolution. Fortunately, at least in Western society, these concepts are being confronted and questioned.

__________________________________________________

For men who simply cannot see the simple truth of a global injustice and dominance over women, one only has to look. You don't have to search very far before example after example of gender discrimination can be found. From female castration to the injustices against women in Sharia Law, injustice against women is a common occurrence. In our own Western culture, we can all clearly see how women have been denied common "rights" that men have taken for granted. Until quite recently, women were denied the right to vote. Women have suffered in the workplace and in their careers because of their biological role to bear children. Women have been limited by laws, culture and even religion for no reason other than the fact that they are female and not male.

I will point out, however, that "our" Western society has made great inroads into confronting and amending these questions and concepts, at least when compared to other societies. Of course, just because "we" might be "ahead" of other cultures or societies in confronting these gender roles and regulations, it does not mean that we cannot continue to question and confront these issues.

I thank Parrhesia and Benevolent Heretic for starting this thread and, perhaps, for raising awareness and promoting discussion on this important topic.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
In our own Western culture, we can all clearly see how women have been denied common "rights" that men have taken for granted. Until quite recently, women were denied the right to vote. Women have suffered in the workplace and in their careers because of their biological role to bear children. Women have been limited by laws, culture and even religion for no reason other than the fact that they are female and not male.

I will point out, however, that "our" Western society has made great inroads into confronting and amending these questions and concepts, at least when compared to other societies. Of course, just because "we" might be "ahead" of other cultures or societies in confronting these gender roles and regulations, it does not mean that we cannot continue to question and confront these issues.

True, alot of injustice has been made, and I salute all feminists, maninists, humaninists, equalisisitis, isitisisistists or whatever everybody is, that strives to make people equal, like they should be.

My point though, is sects of feminism have been hijacked by extreminists, who are not looking for equality, but for a Matriarchial society. And originally, my point was to parrhesia, to state that those types of radicals are the reason why the term feminazi has come up. And sadly, many of these radicals are also the ones that are recruiting new feminists at schools and colleges. They are destroying the foundations of the ideals of feminism, and turning it into a radical "Death to men" type extremist movement.

Originally posted by Damocles
first off, ED drugs have been discussed ad nauseum. let me say this, ED is a Medical Condition. im very sorry that there arent more drugs out there for women, there should be. but thats beside teh stated point.

Damocles, I agree that ED drugs do have a healing effect for men and also for their partners who are gratified and surely these drugs have encouraged connection and love between partners. Thank you for clarifying this.

I will say this: It is one thing to create a drug, and it is another thing to market it. If you do not see anything odd or different about the frequency with which these drugs are advertised, and the manner in which it is done (making the woman look like she's FINALLY been given what she needs and wants), then I would ask you to look again. The stupid commericals with the grinning goofy guy whose wife greets him at the door because he brings her home a hard penis? Please. Certainly it can be said that these drugs could exist in the pharmacy without being advertised so much. In short, Viagra makes billions for pfizer. Why do they need to advertise it? Let doctors push it if they want to, but leave it off TV.

I would like to clarify the danger of these drugs. For example, a rapist, in the act of rape, may become shamed or otherwise mentally distracted during the rape, and thereby lose his erection. This has saved women during rape, if they are able to communicate with their attacker and maybe get him to sympathize. The rape is thereby halted due to the female's ability to counter his male-arousal. I will argue that on viagra, a man is not nearly as suceptible to this sort of action. I am describing a drug which does provide benefits to some males and their partners, but which also serves to undermine the natural female role in A: allowing sex to happen (arosual) and B: preventing rape (removal of arousal from rapist).

I am not trying to beat a horse to death but several people in this thread have engaged me on it so it seems like I'm harping on this. Really I don't care all that much because as most ATS members know, I am a doom-and-gloom conspiracy geek and I expect there will be a substantial increase in the amount of human suffering on Earth, very soon. There will be an epidemic of rape in the US if societal cohesion breaks down, which I do expect to happen. Our nation has been guided toward selfishness, violence and isolation. Women will pay the price for this isolation. These future American rapists could be defused somewhat now, during the calm before the storm, if only there were a desire for men to change their thinking, and if there were any type of moderating, calming voice somewhere which educated men about females and how they think/react. I doubt there will be much time for courts to handle rape cases or educate males under martial law.

if we raise our children, male and female the way her parents raised her, we wont have this problem within the next 2 generations. think about it. raise your boys to respect women and raise your girls to respect themselves. in general its up to us to teach our kids to respect everyone regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, sexual preference.

Well said. I could not agree more.

The education of children by their PARENTS and not by the schools, not by the TV and not by the churches or religions. That's what's needed.


[edit on 30-4-2006 by smallpeeps]

Originally posted by WolfofWar
sects of feminism have been hijacked by extreminists, who are not looking for equality, but for a Matriarchial society.

Every social movement, it would seem, have extremists. The "feminazis", if that is what you want to call extremists, are nothing more than the radical element of this social movement. Every social movement has had radicals. For every Martin Luther King, for example, we have seen radicals that fomented violence instead of peaceful change.

Feminazi's or women with radical views that were anti-man are not the majority. Instead, women and male feminists are, for the most part, moderate, level-headed individuals who are simply working for peace, justice and equality. It's always the radicals who claim the headlines or garner the attention with their views. But, in reality, the real efforts to bring about real change comes from people who are level headed, prudent. Don't be fooled into believing that the radical message is the dominant message that feminism represents.

[edit on 4/30/2006 by benevolent tyrant]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

That's overboard? "I don't need a man in my life at all" is overboard? What's the matter with not needing or wanting a man (or a woman) in one's life to to live a full, worthwhile, fulfilled life? For some people, it's just the ticket.

It is not overboard if you don't want a partner at all, and have no children. But I knew of some women who wanted children, but didn't want men involved at all eventhough they were biologically incapable of having children without at least a man's sperm. Then it is very difficult to be a single parent. It is my strong belief that children need both a mother and father. That the more time the children spend time with the parents the better mentally and emotionally they will be. At least if the parents are not abusive, but that is another case entirely. No one should have to go through any type of abuse. I do understand the cases of single mothers who's husbands/boyfriends ran out on them.

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
it is very difficult to be a single parent. It is my strong belief that children need both a mother and father. That the more time the children spend time with the parents the better mentally and emotionally they will be. At least if the parents are not abusive, but that is another case entirely. No one should have to go through any type of abuse.

I agree on this point. Chidren definitely need the influence that both parents can provide. There is a lot of research that shows, rather clearly, that children do better -- emotionally and psychologically -- when they have both a father and a mother. However, what every child needs is the security of love and acceptance.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I don't understand that idea.
The study of WWII is part of a history class required to graduate high school, isn't it? I don't think they have special requirements for male and female graduates

BTW, in high school I HATED shorthand so much that I appealed to the principal and was allowed to change my schedule.
I was the first female student in the drafting class.

This was before women's lib gained a hold of society and in a Catholic high school.

DToM, sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that the schools have different requirements for graduation male/female.

I'm trying to make the point that if a girl doesn't have an interest in engineering or business management, or soldiering, or the mechanical trades, or whatever, because she's been socialized (however unintentionally), by her parents, to want something else entirely, then all the EOEs (Equal Oppurtunity Employers) in the world aren't going to make a difference.

Here's another example of what I'm talking about. My stepsister and stepbrother, both went to good schools. She got good grades, he got mediocre grades. They both graduated. Now he's a Silicon Alley manager, and she sells sweaters.

Why is that? It's certainly not because my sis is unqualified. She's just as capable of performing my brother's job, in fact, she works a lot harder than he's ever been capable of. She just never thought to apply for it, I guess, so she sells sweaters instead. She doesn't love sweaters, it was just a job that she figured she could get(as far as I know).

What's the ratio of male/female plumbers? Anyone know?

What's the ratio of male/female electricians and mechanics? 80/20..maybe even 90/10?

Women are perfectly capable of doing those jobs, and they pay quite well, but the vast majority choose not to, because of the obviously powerful social conditioning we put kids through.

Why are there so few female salespeople in auto dealerships? It's not because the dealerships won't hire them (they outperform their male counterparts most often, and prove a valuable asset to the business), it's because there're many more guys showing up to the interviews.

This is what I'm talking about, when I say the problem has less to do with legislation and more to do with education (parental). The schools get these kids way too late to have much hope. The ubiquitous lone girl in shop class is testament to that.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Women are perfectly capable of doing those jobs, and they pay quite well, but the vast majority choose not to, because of the obviously powerful social conditioning we put kids through.

Why are there so few female salespeople in auto dealerships? It's not because the dealerships won't hire them (they outperform their male counterparts most often, and prove a valuable asset to the business), it's because there're many more guys showing up to the interviews.

Men and women are much different than in just bodily make up. I do not believe this is social conditioning, but more because male and female interests are vastly different. Take cars for example. A woman sees a car as a vechicle to get from point A to point B. She buys the one she likes and is the most economical. A guy on the other hand will drool over certain cars, and shun others.

Here is another area, shopping. Most women love to shop even if it is window shopping. They like looking at things, and look at prices for things they want to buy in the future. Most men have the mentality of go in get what you came to get and leave. In my husband's case unless it is Lowe's, then he can stay practically all day. Even when mothers drag their boys on shopping sprees, most still will not like shopping when they grow up.

Think about how we develop interests though. We're not born with them, that's for sure.

Everything we know contributes to our desires. If you don't know strawberry ice cream is delicious, because you've never been exposed to it, how could you possibly want it?

Originally posted by Damocles
again id like to try to dispell some myths here. viagra does NOT equal instant erection. these drugs work on the body by increasing blood flow to the area of their reproductive system. if a man would normally lose an erection due to "shame" he'd still lose it with the meds. yes, it would help him "recover" from said shame faster but still.

just as a fun experiment, tell yer dr yer "stressed" and having some trouble and ask, as the commercials suggest, "if a free sample is right for you". just to see how these meds affect you. chances are if you are healthy, you wont see much of a difference.

Naturally Damocles, you know that neither of our personal experiences determine reality in regard to others. Each person reacts differently to chemicals.

I have tried viagra obtained from a friend and I disagree entirely with your statement. A male on sufficient dose of this drug has no problem creating instant wood with no more than an erotic thought. I can personally attest to everything I have said about ED drugs due to my own natural human curiosity about how drugs work. That drug causes the male erection to remain in the face of cold showers, unsexy talk, emission, etc. I won't say it'll be the same for all men, but I can attest to what I say.

Frankly, to use drugs in this manner is often addictive, dependence-inducing, and counterproductive to the man's mental well being. I'd recommend more women learning hypnosis if their partner has ED, because with the right verbal triggers, most any man can be conditioned to produce an erection through hypnosis (or self hypnosis). Drug companies do not want you to know the power of your mind. Erotic hypnosis is a very new and interesting area of human sexuality and it will change human sexuality as more people learn about their own brains and bodies. Also, this field will re-draw the lines of sexual relations between humans.

What is sex about? It can be seen from two ends of the spectrum, and one could label those ends, male and female. From the female perspective, sex is about connection, merging and yes, elective-submission. From the male perspective, sex is about gratification, connection and yes, consented-dominance. Also, the terms "elective-submission" (choosing to take a sub position) and "consented dominance" (accepting the offer to dominate) can change from minute to minute. That is to say, perhaps a woman wants in a particular moment, for her lover to be rougher or to bite her neck or what have you, but then in the next moment, she wants him to be gentle. Also, the man may elect to participate in a relegation of power, and he gains pleasure from the submissive position, although his nature is to be aggressive and to use his god-given "tool".

Is it any wonder why so many men get aroused from wearing women's underwear or feminization? I know so many men who need to be smacked around or who wish their girl could be dominant with them. Personally, I think that everyone has a kink in their brain which will facilitate nigh-instant lubrication/hardness and which will result in good sex. Generally, if our lover is able to whisper the right combination of words in our ear, sex will happen.

BUT how can human sexuality become normal and discussed if so many people are ignorant of it? This ignorance is purposefully encouraged because true and honest sex education will empower women, which cannot be allowed.


[edit on 30-4-2006 by smallpeeps]

Originally posted by smallpeeps
I will explain it to you:

No, let me explain it to you...

If you don't think that the women listed below have "real power" then you don't understand the U.S. government.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice Ph. D -- Secretary of State

Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg -- Supreme Court Justice

Hillary Rodham Clinton -- U.S Senator (and one of the most powerful people in America)

My point is that although women in America do respresent part of the electorate, they are not permitted to elect a woman who would actually enact useful laws designed to protect women fully.

Again, rape is a serious crime in America. Of, course some court cases are messy, but both parties need to have their fair day in court, please give an example of a government doing a better job...

The US courts and their methods will ensure that rapists will always have a fairly easy escape route.

How so? Again, please give an example of a better system.

Perhaps if we actually had a female leader who was truly elected by the people

Most all female leaders are elected by the people; the ones in elected offices!

B: attempt to educate males about sex.

Are you for some kind of mandatory sex education of males? That assumes that males need such education...that also sounds very gender bias to me.

What's insane is the amount of power which white males have

Well, we don't live in a story book, the world is never going to be perfectly fair.

and also the hundreds of years prior to that when they wouldn't even allow women to vote or discuss politics.

Yes, that was hundreds of years ago, whats your point?

I mean millions of years ago cavemen would just beat females and drag them into caves, but I don't think that has anything to do with feminism in our modern day, do you?

-- Boat

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Boatphone]

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Boatphone]

Originally posted by Boatphone
I mean millions of years ago cavemen would just beat females and drag them into caves, but I don't think that has anything to do with feminism in our modern day, do you?

How do we even know the truth of this stereotype? I don't think there was a "Caveman's Guide to Loving" found by any archaeologists.

My concern is about extremist feminists not existing anymore. Aren't the works of Andrea Dworkin and Shere Hite still considered compulsory reading for feminists? What about Valerie Solanas's S.C.U.M. Manifesto?:

"Just as humans have a prior right to existence over dogs by virtue of being more highly evolved and having a superior consciousness, so women have a prior right to existence over men. The elimination of any male, therefore, a righteous and good act, an act highly beneficial to women as well as an act of mercy." (Solanas 67)

The S.C.U.M. Manifesto

I remember various feminist groups praising Lorena Bobbitt after she mutilated her philandering husband. Elevating a woman's psychotic episode to a heroic act. Isn't this a little extreme?

(For some levity:
After Lorena Bobbitt emasculated her husband, she hopped into her car and went driving, hurling his member out the car window. The organ hit the windscreen of the car behind. The driver of that car turned to their passenger and said: "Did you see the d*** on that bug!")

In all seriousness though, these writers are what has given the majority of men such a negative view of feminism. As long as Dworkin, Hite, etc... are still considered benchmark reading won't this just perpetuate that negative image?

Originally posted by Boatphone
No, let me explain it to you...

If you don't think that the women listed below have "real power" then you don't understand the U.S. government.

Uh, that constitutes an explanation? Maybe in your mind it does, seeing as how your posts are mostly distractive one-line affairs and containing little thought.

Most all female leaders are elected by the people; the ones in elected offices!

Condi is an oil company shill (even had a tanker named after her, subsequently renamed of course), Ruth G is not elected (she's a judge) and Hillary won a senate seat for being an obedient first lady.

please give an example of a government doing a better job...
please give an example of a better system.

Why should I educate you? Where is my incentive to follow your little distraction here? The burden of proof does not lie with me because the mental anguish which raped people suffer in court is obvious to any rational party. As for what would work better, well, I am all for tort reform and for any system which reduces the litiguous nature of the US, but what's the point? The US is not in the control of the people at the moment.

Are you for some kind of mandatory sex education of males? That assumes that males need such education...that also sounds very gender bias to me.

Yes, I am advocating better sex education in America and I think that suggestion was made quite clear to most ATS members.

I mean millions of years ago cavemen would just beat females and drag them into caves, but I don't think that has anything to do with feminism in our modern day, do you?

Yes it does. Societal impetus like that does not go away. It should indicate to any rational person that such forces will still exist in the hearts of men, and that women, if they are to be treated as equals need to have clear and defined protection of their person, including when in court. In fact, your statement above shows that due to the past history of men and women, it should be a primary goal for women to be protected by a society.

That protection should extend to the rape accuser, which it does not really do, because of the male-dominated law sector including judges, barristers, magistrates, etc. The history of that body has been one of hostility toward females and claims of females.

I am sure a majority of those judges and lawyers who are female would agree with me, at least in private. I'm glad for women who are lawyers or judges in spite of the massive issues and harrassment they face in that career choice. Anita Hill springs to mind.

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
My concern is about extremist feminists not existing anymore. Aren't the works of Andrea Dworkin and Shere Hite still considered compulsory reading for feminists? What about Valerie Solanas's S.C.U.M. Manifesto?:

That's ridiculous. Feminism is not a cult with 'required reading'. You don't have to pay dues and it's not a girls' club. I have never read the books you mention. I don’t need a book to tell me what to think or what to want or what's right and fair.

Where do you get the idea that extremist feminists don’t exist anymore? No one here has said that. If you have read the thread, you know that this has been discussed. Extremes of every group exist.

In all seriousness though, these writers are what has given the majority of men such a negative view of feminism. As long as Dworkin, Hite, etc... are still considered benchmark reading won't this just perpetuate that negative image?

It is YOU who are saying these books are benchmark reading. It is YOU who apply what these writers say to all feminists. It is YOU who have brought these titles into this thread. It is YOU who are judging 'feminists' on the basis of what the extremists have to say.

You say this is what gives men the negative view of feminism... Well, do something about it. Educate yourself.

Judging all of feminists on the basis of the extreme is the same as judging all Muslims as terrorists or all Christians as Whack jobs or all men as rapists!

This negative image you speak of appears to be how you choose to see feminists. And that's ok. But you should be aware that you are buying the myth of Feminazi being applied to the vast majority of regular old feminists, like myself, and you are mistaken.

Some goals and concerns of modern feminism
· To promote a positive image of female sexuality (be it heterosexuality or lesbianism) and allow women to take control of their own in cultures where it is treated as either dirty or "sinful", only catering to the satisfaction of heterosexual males, or non-existant.
· To prevent rape head-on. Instead of addressing it as something women (the majority of rape victims) have to deal with trying to avoid, addressing it as something men (almost exclusively the perpetrators) have to prevent. To make the issue not what she wore, what she drank, where she went, how late, how what she did gave the impression she was asking for it, but that the man raped the woman who wore/drank/was present (at night)/didn't actually ask. To concentrate on what is true of the men who rape and take steps to counteract it instead of ignoring it lest it offend some, rather than concentrating on what women should not do.

Feminists cite statistics and sociological studies to support their argument that women face discrimination, masculine bias, double-standards, and denigration. Examples of these arguments include:
· a societal tendency to consider men "angry", "upset", "down", but women "irrational", "hormonal" and subsequently not taking the woman as seriously.
· a societal tendency to use the male experience as the standard.
· a societal tendency for a sexually active female to be considered a "slut", "whore", or immoral, but a male in the same situation to be praised.
· a societal tendency towards excusing destructive behavior of boys (while chastising girls for the same actions from a young age) with "boys will be boys", no matter the detriment to people around them.
· a tendency for a woman to be under extra scrutiny in the workplace because of her gender, and for her gender to be the sole factor in her performance.
· a tendency to attribute a woman, or a girl's, success to outside factors while that of a man or a boy's to his own doing.
Source

I do apologise for not clarifying my earlier point. If one is to study feminism at a tertiary level, writers such as Gloria Steinem, Catherine MacKinnon, Shere Hite, Andrea Dworkin, and Naomi Wolf are required reading. Germaine Greer is an exception and most students of feminist studies do not study her work.

You tell me to educate myself, yet I have read works by feminist writers that you have not.

I am not a misogynist and I do believe that feminism has a long way to go in gaining equality, for instance: equal pay for equal work teamed with acknowledgement that a significant percentage of women may have a different work-life path to men due to the emphasis on women's roles as child bearers/carers even though some men are now happy to take up the role of house-husband.

I am also dead against rape. This predominately male form of power expression is reprehensible. Here in Australia we have seen a number of advertisements condemning violence against women, these ads are, to my mind, very effective and hard hitting. The latest commercial features Mark Brandon "Chopper" Read, Australia's most notorious toe-cutter. In this ad Read informs potential rapists of the repurcussions that await them when they get to prison. Read
Because the ad condones violence against men who beat and rape women, it has been met with derision. Unfortunately many men can only understand this 'language of violence' and it may be one of the more effective ways of getting the message through to some men.

Naomi Wolf makes some salient points in 'The Beauty Myth' concerning some of the pressures women experience as a result of cultural images of beauty on television and in magazines. Naomi Wolf has herself since admitted that some of the statistics used to support her thesis were overstated, however, the basis of her arguments remain sound.

I did indeed read the entire thread, my argument is that exteme feminism is not relegated to small enclaves (Sorry, I didn't mean non-existent) when it is required reading in feminist studies. It is extreme points of view that people remember long after completing their studies. I don't understand why the more severe end of feminist literature is acceptable in feminist studies, it's like a student of WWII history having to read Holocaust revisionist theory. This isn't to suggest that firmly held views ought to be watered down to make them more palatable. Although, when you are trying to further a cause it's worth keeping in mind how best to persuade your target audience. This the sledge-hammer and peanut argument.

Even though writers like Shere Hite and Andrea Dworkin had a recognisable profile in the 1970's their influence remains in feminist theory today.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Beelzebubba]

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
If one is to study feminism at a tertiary level, writers such as Gloria Steinem, Catherine MacKinnon, Shere Hite, Andrea Dworkin, and Naomi Wolf are required reading.

I disagree. The history of feminism and the movement today are really two different things as far as I'm concerned. With all the changes that have taken place in the last 30 years, feminism is a changing, growing movement. And the reason I expressed frustration is that this is not like Oprah's book club, where we all have to read the history of feminism to understand and work toward equal rights. We are not all on the same page. Feminism is as varied as religion. We don't all read the same books. I felt that what you put forth regarding feminism was coming from a narrow, aged definition and I'd like to say that there's a lot more to feminism than Shere Hite.

I also believe that the 70s version of feminism demanded that women work outside the home and refuse to walk through doors held open by men, on principle. It was more reactionary than an authentic movement.

You tell me to educate myself, yet I have read works by feminist writers that you have not.

Reading books is only one path toward education. And to be fair, I found your first post confusing as I discussed above.

Read
Because the ad condones violence against men who beat and rape women, it has been met with derision.

That's very interesting. Thanks for bringing that up. I will only speak for myself and say that I approve of this ad. I don't approve of violence, but if I again had the chance to deal with a rapist, it would engage in violence in self defense. Now the ad isn't speaking of self defense, but rape has to stop now. Yesterday. And if violence or the threat of violence will make or help that happen, I approve of it.

Talking about problems and changing attitudes is all fine, but if women are getting raped in the meantime, I'm sorry... understanding and counciling aren't going to cut it with me.

Naomi Wolf makes some salient points in 'The Beauty Myth' concerning some of the pressures women experience as a result of cultural images of beauty on television and in magazines.

I think I forget sometimes that women are still doing their hair and makeup and wearing clothes to please men. I gave that up so long ago, that I sometimes assume that by now, all women are done with it. Perhaps there is some basic education still needed.

I don't understand why the more severe end of feminist literature is acceptable in feminist studies, it's like a student of WWII history having to read Holocaust revisionist theory.

I agree. I think there's a sect that doesn't want women to be 'soft' on feminism because they're afraid we'll lose ground or 'settle' for something less than full-on female domination.

Even though writers like Shere Hite and Andrea Dworkin had a recognisable profile in the 1970's their influence remains in feminist theory today.

I guess I am just not connected with the 'academic' feminism and I'm even a little opposed to it in favor of practical feminism. I think the academic side of feminism is what turns a lot of people against it. But it is valid and the history remains an important aspect of any movement, regardless whether it's still applicable today or not.

Thank you for your input.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I disagree. The history of feminism and the movement today are really two different things as far as I'm concerned.

That's the problem BH; you claim that any part of feminism that is shown in a bad light, "isn't feminism". If your claim is true then feminism should change "its" name to avoid being confused with its older out dated "sister movement". (no pun intended).

-- Boat

Originally posted by Boatphone
That's the problem BH; you claim that any part of feminism that is shown in a bad light, "isn't feminism". If your claim is true then feminism should change "its" name to avoid being confused with its older out dated "sister movement". (no pun intended).

No I don't claim that any part of feminism that is shown in a bad light, "isn't feminism". I didn't say anything about changing its name. It's still feminism. Just a stricter version, an extreme version, if you will. A reactionary version. The only think I would suggest is that there is a modern feminism that is more authentically driven to equal rights for men and women instead of a fight to get back at 'the oppressor'.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Read
Because the ad condones violence against men who beat and rape women, it has been met with derision.

That's very interesting. Thanks for bringing that up. I will only speak for myself and say that I approve of this ad. I don't approve of violence, but if I again had the chance to deal with a rapist, it would engage in violence in self defense. Now the ad isn't speaking of self defense, but rape has to stop now. Yesterday. And if violence or the threat of violence will make or help that happen, I approve of it.

Talking about problems and changing attitudes is all fine, but if women are getting raped in the meantime, I'm sorry... understanding and counciling aren't going to cut it with me.

It is a very effective ad. People like Premier Peter Beattie can complain all they want about the double standard, but try telling it to the people 'inside' where 'rough justice' is a way of life'. I do believe that the only language a potential rapist understands is one which informs him that if he makes his 'power-play' on a woman, he will be robbed of his own power 'inside'. This is a simple truth.

I didn't wish to discredit feminism by mentioning those authors. I just wanted to show some examples of authors who still influence academic study of feminism today, authors who perpetuate a common view of the movement to most men.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Uh, that constitutes an explanation? Maybe in your mind it does, seeing as how your posts are mostly distractive one-line affairs and containing little thought.

Ah, smallpeeps…

Please, forgive me for not being clear. I am surprised by your personal attack, it doesn’t seem to fit in with your “enlightened” views.

Condi is an oil company shill (even had a tanker named after her, subsequently renamed of course), Ruth G is not elected (she's a judge) and Hillary won a senate seat for being an obedient first lady.

I fail to see how Dr. Condi Rice is an oil company shill. In fact I find it offensive and sexist to assume that just because Dr. Condi Rice (Ph. D) is a woman that she is somehow controlled by men. She is one of the most brilliant minds in the world. Do some reading on her.

In case you missed it, Hillary Clinton was elected to the U.S. Senate by the voting public. And maybe you don’t follow politics that much, but Hillary Clinton was nothing close to an “obedient first lady”; in fact she was the most powerful first lady in history, she even had her office moved from the living part of the White House to the West Wing!

Why should I educate you? Where is my incentive to follow your little distraction here? The burden of proof does not lie with me because the mental anguish which raped people suffer in court is obvious to any rational party.

Of course women who have accused someone of rape suffer in court. Nobody said that court was fun, for anyone; the person being accused of rape doesn’t have a great time either. Take the Duke Lacrosse guys for an example. They are bashed in the media all the time and are viewed as criminals. Of course the accuser is shown in a bad light as well, the point is both sides will be…

In fact, your statement above shows that due to the past history of men and women, it should be a primary goal for women to be protected by a society.

That protection should extend to the rape accuser, which it does not really do, because of the male-dominated law sector including judges, barristers, magistrates, etc. The history of that body has been one of hostility toward females and claims of females.

Again, if you so strongly believe that the justice system in America some how doesn’t protect women from rape, then the burden of proof is on you to at least provide a simple idea of a better system. This is so because you are the one charging that the system is flawed.

It is a primary goal of the United States to protect women. Can you offer any suggestions as to how we could improve this?

-- Boat

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Boatphone]