|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who are the majority clientele for child prostitutes (either boys or girls)? Who constitutes the market for their services both in this country and worldwide?
Child prostitution and trafficking is grave problem in my view. Certainly calling attention to the phenomenon and getting money and support behind eliminating child prostitution, worldwide, can only be considered a good thing.
In a free market, the consumer determines the market value and appeal of the product, in this case children as a sexual commodity. As long as this is true there will be unscrupulous people at the ready to capitalize on the "product" at the expense of others; the less powerful the better to exploit and abuse. Who is less powerful in all our societies than children?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with this article, Lorianne, is that males are also victims, females are also victimizers. This article ignores these facts, and so, it seems, do you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It should be noted that this is a standard ploy of feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without a market there would be no service, but conversely, without a service, there would be no market. IMHO, neither the providers nor the consumers of prostitution are any less guilty. Yet "society" does pretty damn good job of painting men as the criminals and female prostitutes as the " victims."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How right you are, Frank.
In Japan, Vietnam and Sweden there are now laws stating that only the customer is guilty of a crime when prostitution takes place. And, as Wendy McElroy has pointed out, women sometimes employ male gigolos, but she knows of no case in which a male being hired for prostitution by a woman has led to prosecution of the woman. In effect, when prostitution takes place, irrespective of the genders of the client and customer, only men are breaking the law.
Ain't the gynocracy a lovely thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No I didn't. I stated very clearly the "victimizers" are the clients of child sexual services.
This is the same argument as "sweatshops". Who creates the market for products that are priced so low that they can only be produced at exploitation levels? The consumers do. The people who run the factories and make money off of the exploitation are also "exploiter", but ultimately it is the consumers who drive demand for the "product" who bear the brunt of the "blame"
Take it out of the sphere of child prostitution for a moment to make a point. Who is ulitmately to blame for the decimation of a nearly extinct animal which is hunted nearly to extinction by a "market demand" for products made from said animal? The poacher or the consumer? Ultimately, if there is no "market" for the product, the poachers have no incentive to exploit the animal.
Same with drug production. Who is driving the drug trade? The producers or the consumers? Afghan farmers desperate for money produce 90% of the herion in the world. They don't use it themselves. But they plant it for personal gain at the expense of providing food for their countrymen. Are they to blame for being greedy? Yes. But it is the consumers who are to blame more.
Same with the diamond trade in Africa. Unspeakable exploitation of humans in diamond mining, yet we "choose" to ignore that and continually ride up the price of diamonds and profits for the elite who make money off of the trade without a care what our "needs" create in terms of human misery.
Yes, the article writer missed the point by focussing on pimps. She should be admonished for that. If we actually want to improve the situation, we SHOULD be focussing on, and shaming and criminalizing the *consumers* of children as a sexual commodity.
In the child sex trade worldwide, LOTS of people make money of the sexual sale of children, both men and women. The travel agent in Japan who books "sex tours", the airlines who tacitly benifit from such tours, the hotels, the governments who collect taxes off of businesses in the sex trade. The enite economy benifits in the child sex trade is a "pimp" if you get right down to it.(It is estimated that 15% of Thailand's GNP is generated from child sex, 30-40% of GNP off of the overall sex trade including children).
Who is to blame? Certainly lots of people including women, but not everyone is "knowingly" involved in benefiting from the exploitation of children. The persons who ARE most knowingly involved are the consumers of child sexual services. And they drive the industry, they create the market. Pimps and travel agents don't create the market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article deals with child sexploitation. If there are any "ploys" going on it is those who refocus the discussion to adult prostitution, a wholey different matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article deals with funding as much as child exploitation, to my reading. There are 24 lines discussing funding and women's welfare, and 21 lines using Angela's House as an example. Frankly, to me this is a bit of a marketing hook, to position the Women's Foundation as meritorious (and I'm sure it is).
The discussion as initiated by DaveW centered on the framing of prosititution, its participants and process, and ALSO notably child prostitution, as reflective of evil male behaviour.
And for those who believe that there are few male prostitutes, I can only comment that those boys I used to talk to as I left my bartending shift, were not hanging about to enjoy the night air, or view the stars. There is a problem, just not a very politically acceptable one as yet.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who is to blame? Certainly lots of people including women
Thank you. It should also be noted that this article doesn't just focus on children (Angela's Fund). It also makes statements such as, "She says donations to the foundation, a virtual lifeline for 120 small nonprofits that serve women and girls in the 22-county metro area, are flat," and "Why is it that poor women and children are always first to be sent to the end of the line?" (Italics added)
The extreme one-sidedness of the article is its problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article deals with child sexploitation
Wrong. The article deals with girl sexploitation. The sexploitation of boys, which does take place, is ignored.
While the article appears at first to be balanced (note the statement, "One of the lifelines that's tenuous now is Angela's Fund, created to help adolescent prostitutes") it is later shown that no such balance exists. (Note the statement, "Angela's House, with a 24-hour staff, is to offer loving care and intensive treatment as a first stop in a continuum of professional help for sexually exploited girls.")
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am no stranger to "one-sidedness" ways of thinking. We recently had a big political brouhaha in my state over raising the age of consent from 14 to 16.
Among those opposed was a state senator who publically denounced moving the age up on the grounds that "Young girls could use the money they get from older gentlemen to get themselves out of abusive family situations.
Huh? A state senator actually promoting child prostitution as a good thing for girls? Yes, I'm well aware of one-sided arguments which paint girls/women as prostitutes-to-be and they better damned well be grateful for the opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Angela's House, with a 24-hour staff, is to offer loving care and intensive treatment as a first stop in a continuum of professional help for sexually exploited girls."
Duly noted Thomas. I wonder if there is a girl-only admittance policy at Angela's House or just the author of the article failing to mention that the facility is open to boys as well?
She does miss the mark and cloud the issues in a number of ways IMO, so I'd not be suprised if she ommitted that information as well, intentionally or not.
I still fault with her MORE for not discussing the most important aspect in this troubling issue, the consumer of child sex services. Yes, boys are sexually exploited, moreso in other countries such as Thailand and Brazil than in the USA. In India there is a caste in which many young boys are castrated and sold (by their family) into virtual sexual bondage to brothels catering to that market.
A good organization to read up on for anyone interested in this subject.
http://www.ecpat.net/eng/index.asp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have compared a funded house that has a 24-hour staff available ONLY to girls with an unsupported comment from an unknown source (your senator) as a means of justifying the one sidedness of the article in question here.
Not a very strong argument...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think a female-only care facility for sexually exploited girls is any worse than, say, school classes segregated by gender, which I've seen touted on this very web site as a positive education choice for young boys.
The author of the article may erred by not addressing sexually exploited boys, but I think the editorial used Angela House as a case study to illustrate the problem of funding cuts, not intentionally as a means to "male bash."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We don't know whether Angela's House is only open to sexually exploited girls. If true, THAT fact and it's ommision would seem to me more objectionable than any of the other points made so far against the article, including my own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article states quite clearly, "Angela's House, with a 24-hour staff, is to offer loving care and intensive treatment as a first stop in a continuum of professional help for sexually exploited girls."
You don't see this because, as a feminist, it doesn't fit your agenda to see it.
(Perhaps you think that Angela's House might also be open to abused animals and plants that haven't been properly watered.) There is absolutely NO equivocation in the article's statement. Angela's House (not "David's House") is open to girls.
Lorianne will go on and on about this. We've seen this typical, feminist type of distortion too many times. There is no point in arguing with feminists. However, readers need to see the typical, extreme one sidedness of this article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, I don't see why it being open only to girls is a problem. Segregating girls' living quarters from boys', especially sexually abused girls and boys, is not a bad thing. Furthermore, as segregating classes for boys from classes for girls is receiving notice as a new wave in education for children of both genders, I don't see the problem. Except of course, that the issue of sexual exploitation of boys was notably absent from the article.
If the boys do not have a qualified facility of their own, perhaps a legitimate cause, and an opportunity for positive spotlighting, for the Men's Movement would be to start one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article states quite clearly, "Angela's House, with a 24-hour staff, is to offer loving care and intensive treatment as a first stop in a continuum of professional help for sexually exploited girls."
Yes the article states that, and I questioned whether this is the case or whether the author of the article (I assume not an Angela's House employee) simply didn't mention it. Given her writing style and failure to see the bigger picture I don't trust her to get all the facts. I tried to reach Angela's House to find out but could not find them listed.
"You don't see this because, as a feminist, it doesn't fit your agenda to see it. "
No, see above. But while we're on the subject of "not seeing", you don't seem to want to talk about the consumers of child sex services (of boys and girls). Why is that?
I just find different things to dislike about the article than you. I don't think "pimps" are the main part of the problem. I criticized her for that. Scot finds the fact that she doesn't mention there are female "pimps" important. I find that less important than the fact that pimps are not the real problem, as I've stated several times, the consumer is the main problem.
If the article writer had wanted to "bash" men, she missed a real opportunity don't you think? She could have talked about how the majority of consumers of child sex services are men. Not all, but rather substantial majority.
All sexploitation of children is a serious issue that I'd like to see eliminated. I don't see the value in saying it is only a problem for girls or only a problem for boys. However, in identifying root causes I think its appropriate to identify the "perpetrators"; the people creating a market for child sex. The real problem is changing societal attitudes about sex with children. I fault the atricle MORE (but not exlusively), for these ommissions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It appears that we do not know from the information provided that Angela's House only provides services to girls, but
from the statement given as quoted by others, together with the article's framing as being about the Women's Foundation funding, and its mission to provide funding to 120 non-profits for women and girls, that it is not highly likely. Note also the quotes concerning the difficulty placing girls in need.
As a working hypothesis, it is eminently reasonable to conclude that it is a girls facility, subject to rebuttal. To advance the argument that " we don't know - to an utter certainty" seems a trifle obfuscatory.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be frank, the analogy and comparison of shelter services, and sex-segregated classes is, to me at least, wildly inappropriate. A shelter is an intervention in a perceived destructive life environment. In this case, for a group seen to be as in need - child prostitutes. Fair enough?
Sex segregated classes turn on the optimal and effective delivery of specific legislated educational services - which services are guaranteed to be provided irrespective of gender. see several Titles - IX for starters ? . . .
Lastly, the authour is seeking to illustrate th3e problem of funding cuts - yes - gender specific funding cuts. Is it your contention that matching funding exists for the other gender on a proportionate basis? My understanding is that that is most unlikely. But then I'm from a country that has not one male specific shelter for prostitutes or violence victims.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a person preaches hatred against a biologically determined group (blacks, handicapped, males, whatever) then we do NOT have the RIGHT to demand that person's firing. We have the DUTY to demand that person's firing.
There is a critical difference between Germans and Nazis. To have despised all Germans during the 1930s and first half of the 1940s would have been racism. To have despised Nazis during the same time period, was understandable and fighting them was a moral duty.
Mainstream masculists (masculinists/egalitarians) are opposed to anti-male hate. Mainstream (gender/radical) feminists cultivate and preach hatred and lies against males. These hate-mongers are far too powerful. We must fight them and one of the ways to do this is by demanding that they be fired, just as we would if someone were clearly preaching anti-black hatred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just called the Atlanta Women's Foundation. Guess what? Angela's House is only for girls.
Gee, what a surprise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The author of the article may erred by not addressing sexually exploited boys, but I think the editorial used Angela House as a case study to illustrate the problem of funding cuts, not intentionally as a means to "male bash."
I see your point, but I dunno. She did choose to write a story in such a way that males only appear as predators and females as victims and rescuers.
You don't have to call it male-bashing, but it is contributing to a skewed view of the sexes that the folks around here have gotten very, very tired of. It has real consequences for us in society.
The author could have chosen any number of ways to illustrate the worthiness of that charity. She chose this particular example and omitted some real-life facts. One can wonder at her intentions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the boys do not have a qualified facility of their own, perhaps a legitimate cause, and an opportunity for positive spotlighting, for the Men's Movement would be to start one.
A legitimate suggestion. It has problems, however. The main one is that it pits men and women against each other in a competition for sympathy and resources.
The other part (which I'm not accusing you of)is that it most often comes from advocates for women's causes who spend hours and hours decrying the complete moral bankruptcy of anyone who wouldn't open their hearts and wallets to the suffering of women. When you point out that men suffer in the same way and could use the same sort of help, their boundless compassion for the victim disappears in the blink of an eye. "You should start your own program." You can actually see the wheels turning as they start planning to fight you for funding. The hypocrisy is absolutely unbelievable. (Like a lot of the stories you see at this site.)
I don't want to contribute to compassion that is only for one sex or the other. A victim is a victim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the boys do not have a qualified facility of their own, perhaps a legitimate cause, and an opportunity for positive spotlighting, for the Men's Movement would be to start one.
I found a better way to say it. *s*
You finished your post too soon. You left out, "I would support such a move."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is how I try to think of feminism and feminist. (I do this so I don't do the same as some feminists do to me as a male-rights advocate and stereotype them.)
Feminist is a women or man that believes in women's rights.
Feminism is the movement for women's rights.
On this basic level feminists are just the flip-side of the masculinist coin. Our concerns overlap in many areas and what is good for one group is often good for the other, but not always. While, I suspect, there will always be conflict between the groups at times often the ideas behind them are the same, equal rights that doesn't discriminate based on gender.
The problem occurs when feminist theory is used as a lens to examine men's issues. Because of its inherent bias, the theory is only useful for seeing women's problems as a result the end result of some male holding power or control. (Fem theory is based on Karl Marx conflict theory model with gender being substituted for money)
As a result many women in the feminist movement fail to recognize the power they have and how it effects men.
This gender theory model combined with the belief that we live in a purely patriarchal society creates an atmosphere of conspiracy and pits women against us in any attempt to challege the status quo.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 11, @08:56PM EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Tony.
Very eloquently put :)
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony, I have a philosophical problem with feminism being defined as a movement for women's rights. I'd feel much more comfortable if the definition was "a movement to promote equal rights and responsibilities for women." To promote only women's rights fundamentally ignores equality and paves the way toward the building of female privilege, which is apparently well under way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd feel much more comfortable if the definition was "a movement to promote equal rights and responsibilities for women."
This might be what feminism once was. It is not what feminism is today.
Yaaaaawn. Time for bed after a wonderful evening talking with terrific women. Night all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collins
Yes I agree that is probably a better way of putting it. I was mainly trying to make a point that "fine-tune" the definitions. I think you for your input though. I am planning on writing a paper or book someday on a theory for the masculinist movement. I hope it will be a bit less bias than the current "gender" theory (ie. feminist theory.
Thanks again,
Tony
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is for some feminists and believe it or not I have met a large number of women in school that feel the current feminist movement is "male bashing." They just have noone else offering an educated alternative view of gender. Something I am trying to correct.
Very encouraging if you ask me.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to jump in on this so late, but regarding the definition of feminism - I've always defined a feminist as someone who believes that the world undeservedly punishes women for being female (presumably for the sake of promoting and empowering males and masculinity), and feminism is thus the movement to end this process. I'm not trying to contradict or correct anyone else. However, I just feel that any social movement (or "-ist") dedicated to a particular demographic group implies some prior or existing oppression or stigmatization of that group.
I believe in equal rights and opportunities for auburn-haired people, but I don't think I should go around calling myself an Auburnist, because it seems auburn-haired people are doing well enough without my public support already! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most women who call themselves feminists don't struture their beliefs by what NOW or other feminists or even anti-feminists tell them to think that label means. Being a "feminist" is not about a narrow ideology that you must adhere to in whole fashion. As a feminists (and like any free citizen) you can claim your individual point of view on virtually any issue (abortion or affirmative action or anything else) and still call yourself a "feminist" (or a Democrat or Republican). You don't have to sign a contract with with NOW saying you agree with every position they take to be able call youself a feminist. Likewise, no one can tell you what you think on any particular issue based on your self-label. (For example, many people believe Democrats are all pro-Choice on abortion. Untrue. There are many who label themselves pro-Life Democrats. This means that they believe in core archetypal Democratic principals, but diverge on several individual issues).
Life is messy. Labels do not define everything in a cut and dried fashion.
The whole point of feminism is for women to be autonomous free individuals in a self-governing society. A free citizen if free to align themselves with whatever cause he/she wishes. To be otherwise is to be puppet. That is what is so funny (ironic funny) about groups or individuals co-opting the word "feminism" and conscripting those who use that label to describe themselves into a narrow ideology agianst their will!
Feminism is just like other label such as Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Environmentalist, etc. Within these labels are people who are blind ideologues. However, there are many more (IMO) who are in opposition to specific archetypal positions of that group on a specific issues but who nonetheless identify with the overall goals or mission implicit in the label. There ARE people who CAN think their way out of blanket ideology to an independent point on
the political/social spectrum .... issue by issue.
[I do agree that "feminism" was/is an unfortunate word choice. But that does not negate the fact that it is a broad label that encompasses many varied and often diametrically opposed points of view.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had the pleasure of talking with three different women in two different locations last night. Every one of them adamantly stated that she is not a feminist.
Fortunately, they recognize the primary thrust of mainstream feminism for what it is (irrespective of operational details) -- a belief in female superiority and male inferiority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas, I disagree.
You have no authority to speak for millions of individual women who call themselves feminists and to proclaim for them what they believe in("female superiority and male inferiority").
I know I won't convince you. But your labeling is offensive and arrogant and hypocritcal. I'm sure you wouldn't allow others to tell you what you believe in.
Perhaps this will hit home later when the men's movement moves along and you all are labeled as believing in things you don't believe. Once you're labeled inaccuratley as "woman haters" you'll see my point I hope :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Despite the fierce efforts of many who are desperately tied to the name, people are waking up and realizing what the thrust of mainstream (gender/radical) feminism is. (Note the word "mainstream." Did you see the word "mainstream?" There's this word there; the word is "mainstream," not "equity," not "individualist," "MAINSTREAM.")
Aryan supremacy is a hate movement. Radical, anti-American, religious fundamentalism is a hate movement.
It's important to get this message out... Mainstream feminism has degenerated into a hate movement. It must be rejected and we must move on to egalitarianism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I have pointed out countless times to Lorianne, equity feminists and individualist feminists are very different from mainstream feminists. I have also pointed out to her numerous times, including in this thread, that when I speak or write of "feminists" I am referring to the majority "mainstream feminists."
Individualist and equity feminists are a breakaway from the mainstream (gender/radical) group. Individualist and equity feminists are egalitarians. Mainstream feminists are hate mongers.
Okay, Lorianne, come back with some (mainstream) feminist tirade of distortions claiming that I'm saying "all" feminists are hate mongers.
Yaaaawn! Stretch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps this will hit home later when the men's movement moves along and you all are labeled as believing in things you don't believe. Once you're labeled inaccuratley as "woman haters" you'll see my point I hope :)
Actually, men in the men's movement are already incorrectly labeled as "angry white males," so we're no strangers to people believing we think things we don't. We get trolls here from time to time who like to tell us that we hate women, no matter how obvious it is to others that we do not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good point, Nightmist.
As I've pointed out, there are feminists who are hate mongers (mainstream/gender/radical feminists) and there are egalitarian feminists (individualist/equity feminists). Likewise, there are masculists who do not hate women (mainstream masculists) and there are masculists who do seem to hate women (radical masculists).
I have no more said that all feminists are hate mongers than I have said that all masculists are hate mongers. In fact, I finished post #56 with the statement, "Count me in with the mainstream masculists and breakaway feminists. We are the egalitarians."
These distinctions may be too much for some people to comprehend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that if one of the nationally recognized leaders of the mens' movement made statements that appeared to condone the hatred of women I would be VERY VOCAL in distancing myself from both him and his statements. There have been numerous radical feminists who have made statements that appeared to condone the hatred of men. I don't see the radfems doing the same whereas the women I know, just as Thomas pointed out with his example of the women he knows, are very clear about wanting to distance themselves from feminist hatred.
The dam has a big crack and there is no turning back. Radical feminism is doomed and I for one will watch with interest its slow demise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here it is in a nutshell:
Dump the word, "feminism," which has sexism built into it. Use the word, "egalitarianism."
And mean it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas___ I understand your distinction between various labels of feminism but I think the onus is on the speaker to distinguish his/her remarks with terms like radical-feminist, gender-feminist, anti-male-feminist etc. I don't think it's my responsibiity to use a fancy hyphenated label to refer to my beliefs.
For example, if I'm an environmentalist but a moderate one I don't refer to myself as a:
non-ecoterristic/ non-tree chaining / non-excessive government regulation/ envirionmentalist
I simply refer to myself as an environmentalist without giving others a label which spells out all my positions in detail. If others are intersted in specific views they can ask.
That said, I do agree that the word "feminist" has the appearance of sexism built into it and your suggestion of egalitarian is a far better choice (where where you when the name was being chosen?) However, I don't expect it to catch on now. I still maintain I can label myself as a feminist and define if for myself. To me the cutesy hyphonated and prefixed words are no better at defining my views than plain un-hyphenated feminist. And why would I assign myself a label of a ifeminist when I've only come in contact with that website 3 weeks ago and so far am reserving my judgement on what they stand for. Thus far they seem no more aligned with my principals than NOW. So I'm not ditching "feminist" just yet :)
Also, I think women who believe in feminist ideals, but don't have the guts to call themselves a feminist out of some PC-esque need to fit into current fads are dishonest. If they believe in the fundemental principals of equality for women, they should have the guts to identify themselves by their beliefs in some way. If not feminist, then in some other way. Did these women have an alternative label for themselves? In other words if I hear someone say "I'm not a feminist" (which I call a public political statement) ... then I'm apt to inquire, "Well what are you then? What do you believe in?" They are usually taken aback and have no answer, because they aren't FOR anything, they are just anti-something, usually anti-whatever is un PC at the moment. These people are mere stylists, fashionistas, political play actors. When making a political statement at least be honest and say what you are FOR or say "I have no interest in politcal causes or issues".
By the way, I'd do this with anyone who is espousing negative views on political matters but not really saying what they believe in. I'll ofen meet people whining about this and that legislation or elected official. My first question to them is "Who/what did you vote for?" The answer 9/10 of the time is "I didn't vote."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These people are mere stylists, fashionistas, political play actors.
These women are not weaklings, stylists, fashionistas or political play actors. They are strong, good women. They are simply sick of anti-male distortions, hatred and lies. Perhaps you are not a hate-monger. For whatever it's worth, I suspect that you are not.
One of the problems, with which we are dealing, is the definition of the word, "feminist." The word decidedly has sexism built into it.
As for your statement, "I think the onus is on the speaker to distinguish his/her remarks with terms like radical-feminist, gender-feminist, anti-male-feminist etc." I think that this is a valid criticism. I will be more vigilant about it in the future, and I will encourage everyone else to do the same.
As for where I was when the word, "feminism," was being chosen... I wasn't born. But I do think that we can MAKE the term "egalitarian" catch on.
Thanks for your feedback. I gotta go work out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I have eyestrain and a headache from reading through this thread. Let me see if I can make sense out this.
Lorianne objects to the depiction of feminism as a hate movement, but never really gives a definition of what exactly she thinks feminism is. Presumable she believes the dictionary definition of feminism being social, political, and economic equality between the sexes.
Thomas (& several others) argue that whatever feminism may have been, it is now about female supremacy & male inferiority.
That being the case one of two things are true:
1. The majority of women calling themselves feminists simply aren't, since they do not believe in equality between the sexes. They are female supremacist who have mislabled themselves for marketablity. or,
2. Feminism has come to mean something altogether different than origionally defined, so the dictionary definition is null, void and useless. The real working definition of feminism is female supremacy and male inferiority. Egualitarians must now find a new title for themselves (which seems to be what is effectively happening - eg: ifeminism, equity feminism).
Lorianne seems to be in the first camp and wants to stick with the dictionary definition, but is unwilling to conceed that the mainstream supremacists are not really feminists. She seems to want to keep them under the feminist umbrella.
Most others on this board fall into the second camp, and want to continue calling the supremacists in the mainstream feminists, and ignore the dictionary definition.
Also, I've never really seen a definition for "masculism," but from reading Thomas's posts "social, political, and economic equality between the sexes" seems to fit.
Now I'm really really confused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wastach__
You seem to be advocating that one group of feminists take defensive rather than offensive position on terminology. That is, dictionary defined feminism has to abandon their hill and scurry over to the next hill to in order to fight another day. Feminists by changing their name and letting NOW et. al. claim their former position is a sort of surrender of the principals themselves, not just the label (at least in my view).
Some people think this makes strategic sense. I don't. The very fact that NOW et al have claimed the title of representation of "feminism" is a testament to the pitfalls of this strategy.
I personally don't advocate surrender-as-a- tactical-maneuver philosophy on principal. If you allow anyone (NOW or anyone else) to co-opt your belief system for any reason, but especially for as flimsy a reason as a "marketing" ploy (which you rather astutely noticed) you're adopting a subordinate position for your belief system, claiming they need defense from the interlopers instead of vice versa.
I'm not critisizing those who take the defensive stance, I'm questioning the effectiveness of their strategy.
BTW we see this same strategic manuever over and over in politics. Example: people co-opting words such as "family" to suit their purposes. It's not a new thing or exclusive to "feminism".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To me, defining feminism as "equality between the sexes" is sexist, because it implies one of two things:
1) That the feminine element is somehow more equalitarian than the masculine element, thus to be a feminist is to be an equalitarian.
Or:
2) That all gender inequality in this world is represented by the female role, therefore it is accurate to coin a term which permanently synonymizes the feminine with the oppressed.
Now, Lorianne - I'm curious if this is how you define feminism. As Wastach pointed out, you haven't exactly given a clear explanation of what feminism means to you. I'm thinking that maybe it might help discussion and reduce confusion and mislabeling if you would just say - flat-out and simply put - what your basic views are on gender and the gender equality movement. I'm not challenging you or being belligerent. I just think it might be necessary, because it seems like you're always being accused of being this or that, and then you say you aren't - and it comes off as this guessing game. "No, you guessed wrong. Guess again."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawth: Fair enough request. I've actually given this a lot of thought and its not easy to write a synopsis of all your beliefs in clear concise way (try it, it's difficult)! I've tried to define what feminism means to me personally rather than project what it means to everyone else, which would be a daunting task.
I broke it down 2 ways. First how do I define feminism in a Broad Theoretical way and second how do I apply it to my everyday life which I call the Practical. It seems to me this distinction is important, so here goes:
Broad Theoretical Meaning: An assumption of and deference to all persons as autonomous individuals of free will and self-determination within the framework of social responsibility to one's fellow humans.
Practical Meaning: I expect people not arbitrarily create obstacles for me based on my sex (or color or religion, etc). In return I will not arbitrarily create obstacles for them based on sex. With only one caveat, just stay out of my way! The caveat is: I must maintain the self realization that (just like men) I cannot do everything and I cannot do everything well. So, allow me the benefit of the doubt and let me try to reach my potential even if you suspect I'll fall flat on my face. Do not attempt to define my potential for me in advance. If I can’t do something, it will become apparent soon enough. Of course, I endeavor to give the same benefit of the doubt to others.
Now none of those definitions say what my positions are on various and sundry social issues. Some of those positions are still under construction. But my test is to take a position I'm considering and apply it against my principles above. If there is a glaring conflict, I'm in trouble.
One obvious glitch is not being able to be objective about one's own principles and whether or not they are being maintained. That is where forums like this one come in handy, because there will never be any shortage of people at the ready to challenge your views .... to force you (sometimes kicking and screaming) to reasses them from a different angle one couldn't have seen on one's own. This is something I'm (happy?) to report has happened a lot since coming here!
PS. I posted this same request on a now defunct message board 2 years ago: What Does Feminism Mean to You Personally? You cannot imagine how diverse were the responses. This said to me that that there is no singular NOW version of feminist belief out there. This was reassuring to me, because if women can't think independently, how can they justify demanding individual autonomy and self-determination?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One obvious glitch is not being able to be objective about one's own principles and whether or not they are being maintained...
Mmm - as is evidenced by the probability that most of us at this forum, if asked, would probably each define our particular "-ism" in much the same way you (eloquently) defined yours. Yet, oddly, we still have conflicts of opinion! Guess it just goes to show that the definitions take on slightly different properties when applied to different people's lives.
But I thank you for taking the time to provide a "manifesto", at my request. I'm glad if you've been influenced by your participation here, as you say you have. And I think that, with time and continued discourse, we'll all learn how to deal with each other civilly - if, at times, argumentatively! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my mind feminism at this point is simply one more "special interest group".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Broad Theoretical Meaning: An assumption of and deference to all persons as autonomous individuals of free will and self-determination within the framework of social responsibility to one's fellow humans."
Oh really?
Then whyinhell does it have the gendered prefix/root 'fem' in it?
Either you're a feminist, OR, you're an egalitarian. NOT both. And the definition you give above is that of EGALITARIANISM -- NOT feminism.
Ergo, you are not a feminist.
Except that you ARE -- because your one-trick-pony is silencing dialogue about masculine issues by claiming that some other related issue is the REAL issue and should be the topic for discussion. . .and therefore the first issue should be ignored.
Which is what female-elitist male-dismissive FEMINISTS routinely do. . .
. . .this thread itself being yet another example.
Feminism per se has been corrupted into a movement of female-elitism and hatred of men. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have studied sociology and psychology theories for a few years now and here is how I try to separate them in my mind. This is VERY basic.
Feminist-someone who supports rights for WOMEN.
(note: I left out equal rights on purpose)
Feminism-The social movement encouraging rights for women.
Egalitarian-someone who is for equal rights for both genders.
Feminist theory- A conflict based theory used to analyze women in society. Presupposes men have power and women do not.
In my opinion feminist/feminism are not inherently misandric or "male bashing" but feminist theory is. The problems arise when feminist theory attempts to examine men in society. Due to its structure the theory inherently lacks the ability to do this a perceive the power women have and men lack in certain areas of society. To the extent that a person buys into the power structure of feminist theory and applies it universally to men their rhetoric becomes more and more misandric.
Masculinist and masculinism are the flip side of the above, but lack a self-created theory to examine the power women have in society. I am currently working on a more male friendly idea a conflict based theory involving the separation of the various spheres of control in society such as public and private to more fully examine gender interaction.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the omission. I would in fact support such a move. I have no sons, but I have stepsons and nephews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne, your perspective puzzled me at first. In response to a comment titled male bashing, questioning the anti-male bigotry of an article, you have responded first with "the majority clientele for child prostitutes . . .". The clear implication is that this would be men, and therefore, the bigotry is acceptable? factual reporting? trivial?
Finally I realized that my problem was the connection offered between anti-male editorializing (damaging the perception of men, and by extension me), and the immorality of the "product" users - some other men. I guess its acceptable to express bigotry, as long as it is in a just cause? And no, I am not suggesting that she be censored - just rebutted.
To go off on a long tangent here, and just for a different perspective, I offer the following. Economics, in an attempt to give human behaviour a model, came up with the concept of cross-elasticity of competing products. If I cannot obtain bread, I can eat rice. Sex is generally considered a human need, albeit one that can be overridden. (Check the neurological and neurochemical effects of orgasm). If men are unable to obtain sex from peer women, they are likely to turn to a competing product. Masturbation is one of those. Other men is another. Despicably, child prostitution is yet another. I assume that there are also people for whom sex with minors is the strongest attraction - if you wish a fetish or perversion, and most likely a psychological deficiency. I would point out that in recent years, it has become clear that the incidence of women with minors has been understudied.
As a practical matter, it would be nice if the less injurious alternative products, particularly masturbation, were strongly encouraged. However, I guess it is clear what Catherine McKinnon has to say about that. Incidentally, please keep her at home, and don't send her to my country to guide the drafting of legislation.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In response to a comment titled male bashing, questioning the anti-male bigotry of an article, you have responded first with "the majority clientele for child prostitutes . . .". The clear implication is that this would be men, and therefore, the bigotry is acceptable? factual reporting? trivial? "
No, the opposite. I claimed her aritcle was NOT factual in that she choose to focus the presumptive cause of the problem on pimps (doesn't matter the sex) as oppposed to the root of the problem which is the clientele for child prostitutes. This was not only an ommision of comprehensiveness in reporting, but an obfuscation of the root causes. (She also did not bring up issues of poverty that contribute). In other words, she chose to focus on one tiny element in the problem (and probalby for scurilous male bashing reasons, though we don't know) at the expense of focussing on the root causes for the ever increasing prevalence of child prostitution, escpecially forced and coerced child prostitution.
"I guess its acceptable to express bigotry, as long as it is in a just cause?"
No it is not acceptable. However it is not acceptable to ignore the root causes of a problem in an effort to deflect claims of bigotry. In other words, there is no just cause to ignore the fact that men constitute the vast majority market for child sexual services in a discussion obstensibly about eliminatig child prostitution. For whatever reason, she choose to focus on "pimps". I can't say for what reason, makes no sense to me, but whether it was deliberate male bashing or not is hardly the biggest complaint about her inaccuracy (IMO of course). If she had wanted to male bash she certainly could have focussed on a different aspect of demographics, the consumers of child sex services, child sex porn etc.
PS. I have no idea what McKinnon has to say about masturbation. I really haven't read her work, a few snippets here and there. I suppose I should read her, to find out what all the hullabalooo is about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 10, @07:45PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
If the people in this group are going to rail against every editorial and news article about women's issues, I don't want anything to do with it. You're hipocrates (sorry I can't spell) becase there are TONS of articles on this site which are about men's issues but don't mention women. Like false accusations - one would gather from this site that men never make false accustaions, because only women making false accs are prominently displayed here.
I think there are issues that guys face that deserve more attention but this group's focus on attacking anything that doesn't knowtow to the "radical masculist" stance I see here totally blows your credit with me.
You're hipocrates, and your no better than the people you claim to be in the wrong.
a guy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think there are issues that guys face that deserve more attention but this group's focus on attacking anything that doesn't knowtow to the "radical masculist" stance I see here totally blows your credit with me.
Damn, bud, you really *can't* spell, can you? You also, apparently, can't read. This site is about as far from radical as any I've ever found (about *any* subject). Why don't we focus on women? Becaues it's a MEN'S ISSUES SITE! Geez! Why are feminists sites allowed to focus SOLELY on women's issues, but men's site's MUST MUST MUST focus on women's issues, too?
As for "hipocrates," I've never been, and never will be, a medical doctor. Nor did I discover aspirin. If you're looking for a doctor, I suggest you try WebMD. If you're looking for the man who discovered aspirin, I suggest an encyclopedia (the man himself has been dead since 370 BCE). If you meant to type "hypocrites," well, then you'll have to look somewhere else as well. How about NOW's site?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL Nightmist!
to "a guy" - Perhaps you have some suggestions for topics or articles that you feel would be good to discuss? Let's hear it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 10, @08:54PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps a few clarifications are in order:
Adolescence
Adolescence starts with the beginning of physiologically normal puberty and it finishes when the identity and behavior of an adult are accepted. This period of development generally corresponds to the period going on the tenth to the nineteenth year. (Committee of the medicine of Adolescence).
Age of Consent
The arbitrary age, assigned by legislators, that define the legal time at which a person may consent voluntarily to sexual activity with another person.
NEW DEFINITION FROM HISTORY: Source: http://www.mc3.edu/gen/faculty/barmstro/devlin.htm l
The Age of Consent law is " ... is to protect young girls against themselves ... "
I'd refer any farther questions to this website:
http://www.ageofconsent.com
Now , on to a point I want to make. Trafficking for sex with adolescents is not child sex trafficking. A child, is, by definition a prepubertal human being. Farthermore the definition of pedophile adapted by the DSM specifically excludes people who have sex with adolescents. There is some debate over whether to add a term "hebephile" to describe those who have sex with or are attracted to sexually-mature adolescents, but this is very controversial. Esp since the ages of consent vary quite a bit throughout the world, and the various States, and because it is considered physiologically normal for teens and "legal adults" (18? 21? to have sexual attractions for each other.
I believe everyone wants to stop pedophiles from preying on children. But my personal opinion is that from age 15 on up, it isn't really a problem.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remo__ Would you differntiate between consensual sex among adolescents or between adolescents and legal adults? How about between consensual sex and "trafficking"?
I'm unclear of your position. Do you consider 15 year old individual who is "trafficked" to legally ok for persons of any age to purchase sex from?
If I understand the law it is illegal for a US citizens to travel abroad for the purpose of purchasing sex with persons under the age of 18 regardless what the age of consent is in the host country or the laws of the state regarding prostitition where the US citizen resides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 11, @06:13PM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:
Thank you for a nice series of questions rather than a full-frontal assault on a pedophile-in-your-midst. I appreciate it. Now a disclaimer: I am sure that the views I express here will NOT be the views of the majority of the men on this message board, though I'm pretty sure most will agree to a very limited extent about some of my points. To wit:
"...differentiate between consensual sex among adolescents or ... adolecents and legal adults"?
I make no differentiation between the two cases cited. That doesn't mean its a good idea. And that doesn't mean that extra protections couldn't be extended for so-called "young adults"-- for instance, mandatory marriage. The current system can treat an 18 year old "adult" who has consensual sex with a 16 year old "minor" the same as the thirty year old who sexually assaults little Cindy Lou Who (who is no more than 2 ). They are both sex-offenders, right? Both rapists, right? I suppose I could link you to the Court decision where a 16 year old boy was jailed for having sex with his 13 year old girlfriend--against the wishes and protests of both the girl and her mother, and despite protestations by the girl that she initiated it.
As for "trafficking"? I am for the legalization and REGULATION of prostitution. Purchasing sex from that hypothetical fifteen year old of yours? Absolutely fine, so long as law allows it.
Before I get to your final question I want to add a bit more about the difference between a child, an adolescent, and an adult. One of the things that seperates children from adults is the ability to be an abstract thinker. Thinking abstractly is necessary to reason morally. The only other difference is wisdom: The accumulated accurate observations drawn over a period of time by a person based on the experiences in their life. I suppose you could add "maturity" -- the ability to take responsibility for one's actions. But by that standard, some NEVER grow up.
My personal experience? When I was 20 I worked over the summer at a fast-food joint. Having been a shy Conservative Christian most of my life, I had never dated, never even kissed a girl, all through high school. There were 4 girls who worked the day-shift with me. I don't remember all their ages, but I know the youngest was 15 or 16, and the oldest was my age. Well, for whatever reason they decided it would be fun to pick on me in a sexual manner. This included comments, groping, swats to the butt, and playfully rubbing against me. Sometimes it would be one of the gals, sometimes en-masse. Of course NEVER when a Manager was around.
At first I was confused. What should I do? I didn't know much about SH law at the time At first, I asked the gal to stop. When that didn't happen, I started to grope back. It was relatively enjoyable ,but then I was called to the carpet by the leader of the group. She informed me that they would stop when they wanted, and that I should do anything they said: Should I bother them, or rebel, it would be 4 against one. :( Anyway, its occured to me since then that they didn't need protection from ME -- I needed protection from them. And it puts the lie to any assertion that teenage girls can't -- or don't -- manipulate or seduce older men. I bet every girl there had more sexual experience than I did.
I believe your understanding of the law internationally is valid, though I think it is legal to engage in consensual, non-commercial sex with someone of legal age in the Country you are in. I would have to go back to AgeofConsent.com and read again, its been awhile.
Once again, my views are just my views, and don't represent a majority here. This is my last post on this, as it is a bit off topic for this thread. If you wish to ask me more about it, you can pm me if we see each other in another chat, and I'll give you my email.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 10, @09:17PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
to nightmist: your real funny, ha ha. Maybe you and scott aren't so bad, scott seems to be the only one with a level head here sometimes, but most of you twits here show just as much apathy to women's issues as you complain that feminists have for men's issues.
The HYPOCRACY (did I spell that right this time? If not I'm sure you'll focus your reply on that) is obvious from the complain that is at the top of this page. Male children who are forced into prostitution is rare compared to women, give it up already! Its the same as feminists who claim that fathers get custody too often, its a rare case so don't blow it out of proportion!
to Tom: I say we can discuss lots of topics, about kids who need their fathers, boys being drugged out who are completely normal, and other stuff like that. But complain that an article which talks about prostition isn't claiming that men are violated just as much as women is absurd. Its like whining, and we shouldn't whine about stupid issues like this when we have real ones to educate peopel on.
that guy again
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous, I see nothing wrong with identifying and criticizing an article that ignores male victims and female perpetrators of an offensive act. Domestic violence is a similar situation. Feminists routinely ignore or dismiss male victims and female perpetrators in essays and ads about domestic violence. And the argument that ignoring a category of victims is OK if that category comprises a small percentage of the total is dubious to say the least.
Your suggestion about focusing on children who need fathers and on normal boys who are drugged are good and important topics -- topics which have been and will continue to be covered on this web site. But it is also reasonable to go after anti-male bias in the media, gov't, education and the "helping professions" (lace curtain.) I think the correct spelling is "hypocrisy".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I say we can discuss lots of topics, about kids who need their fathers, boys being drugged out who are completely normal, and other stuff like that. But complain that an article which talks about prostition isn't claiming that men are violated just as much as women is absurd. Its like whining, and we shouldn't whine about stupid issues like this when we have real ones to educate peopel on.
Well, then, perhaps you should've focused your comments to that end in the beginning instead of accusing us all of being some kind of fringe "radical" masculists.
Something else you don't seem to understand, "that guy," is that just because a story appears on this site doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it. FWIW, there are several things that have been posted as "male bashing" to this site which I didn't believe were actualy male bashing. Some people will think the editorial is male bashing. Some will not. It's just the way of things. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make that person a "radical," and it most certainly doesn't make this site radical. It makes it real.
If you disagree with someone, speak up about it. Don't rant and accuse the entire readership of this site of holding some sort of high-toned hatred that generates radical activism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're hipocrates, and your no better than the people you claim to be in the wrong.
a guy
One more thing... I could care less what sex you are. I can still argue with your (incorrect) opinions about this site. Why try so hard to convince us that you're a guy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"A Women's Foundation study shows women in Georgia make 71 cents for every dollar men make..."
Is this a joke? Perhaps the author should cite statistics from a slightly less-biased source. It still amazes me to see people quote stats from a source who's political agenda is so utterly blatant. Anyone who has ever taken a statistics course in college knows that data collected from a study can be (and too often is) manipulated to such a degree that one can get any results they desire.
If you don't like the results... just reinterpret your data.
I'm sure most of you know this, but if it hasn't come from a peer-reviewed scientific journal, you should probably disregard it as quackary.
hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Hipocrates (maybe a good handle for you)... You say, "But complain that an article which talks about prostition isn't claiming that men are violated just as much as women is absurd."
I said nothing about men being violated as much as or more than or less than women. I said there are boys who are victims and women who are victimizers and this article ignores those facts.
As for this site's focus on men's issues, as Nightmist points out, this IS a men's issues site. The Independent Women's Forum focusses on women's issues. I have no problem with that because it's a women's issues site (and one that, believe it or not, is not devoted to anti-male hatred).
As for all-boys classes, there are already all-girls classes, so no problem. As for shelters for males, there are far, far, far more shelters for females than shelters for males. This problem has been discussed a number of times on this site with regard to shelters for men who are battered by their partners as frequently as women are battered by theirs. Boys and men need shelters. Women have far more shelters than men.
And as for starting shelters, that is one of the things that the men's movement is working on, at first by raising awareness of the need. Women's shelters didn't spring up all over the industrialized world in a single night. And, as I've pointed out before, one of the great problems men have is that we are just waking up and realizing that we were seriously mistaken in believing feminists, when they claimed that they wanted equality. We are now learning that we not only have to do this on our own, but we have to fight the anti-male hate-mongers to accomplish it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(paraphrased) "mensactivism.org complains about articles excluding men but it itself excludes women in the articles it portraits as positive"
my first instinct, besides all of the poor grammar, was that perhaps there's a point to be heard here. before jumping the gun on this piece of flamebait, i think it would be important to analyze the statement and it's implications.
given that people here generally find the exclusion of males as victims and females as agressors (or what have you) as biased or misandrist there is a tendancy to "cover the other side" by presenting more data to suggest that the gender roles are not as solid as we like to believe.
at the same time, in this presentation are we too enaging in the same behaviour that we condone? i think that is what anonymous' comment boils down to. if the goal of this site is to provide a comprehensive news coverage for both genders, then yes. if the goal of this site is to provide the flip-side of the coin and a forum for discussion of this, then no. however, i can see where the statement might come from.
more importantly, i think the accusation could be more delicately put as to be more condusive to constructive discussion. by initially attacking, those responding are put in a defensive stance and nothing is accomplished. if it is your goal to work together towards an understanding, please take note of this in the future, anonymous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I'll jump in here (finally).
As I see it, the name "Men's Activism.Org" suggests that this is a gender issues site which focuses on gender issues as they pertain to men. Maybe I need to re-read the Philosophy page, but I've never gotten the impression that this forum was supposed to encompass both male and female aspects to gender issues (which, by the way, is not the same as saying that this site was not supposed to include female participants; the gender slant lies at the issues level, not at the participant level).
Now, IMO, if the stated purpose of this forum is to discuss gender issues as they pertain to men, then those of us here who only want to discuss the issues from the masculinist perspective have the right-of-way, and it should be incumbent upon those of a different persuasion to adjust to us, not the other way around. And if they can't adjust to us, then they should just go elsewhere.
Now, let me just say, too, that I am not a proponent of "radical gender masculinist" rantings. Yes, at times, when I was feeling rather depressed, I made some fairly bleak generalizations about men that might have sounded like radical whining - and, usually, somebody called me on it and I back-pedaled posthaste. :-)
Most of the time, though, I try to avoid that. But, I don't think that I'm radical or hypocritical just because I want to focus on how certain issues pertain to men. Again, that's what I thought this site was for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And to echo Hawth's sentiments, men's issues, indeed, are why I come here and make my own offerings. I recognize the need for gender EQUALITY, and in that light, the need for a place for people to come and discuss issues pertinent to MEN. Healthy debate is always welcome but I hope no one expects that this site ought to be changing its focus because some who visit here don't think women are being given enough attention or respect. Were it to do that, I would surf elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hippocrates? Or hypocrisy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some people are lousy spellers. Some people, like me, don't have a lot of time to edit and make a post perfect grammatically or spelling wise before posting. I look forward to the day when every bulletin board program has an internal spell-check feature, so you don't have to write your post in another program, spell check then move it over.*
In the meantime there is www.dictionary.com for those words you KNOW you're going to botch if you don't look it up first :)
* Then we can begin developing logic-check, manner-check, coherence-check, sanity-check......... programs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Getting back to the point:
Ezzard is a feminist who has infiltrated the Atlanta Journal. She spreads the usual lies and hatred of men for the usual reasons.
In this case she is complaining that the feminists are not getting enough money.
Most of the money that goes to feminist causes never even reaches the group that supposedly needs help. It is used to pay the wages of feminists and to pay for the maintenance of the feminist infrastructure.
Most of the feminists who have come from the "women's studies" university courses rely on these areas for income and support. After all, where else are they going to get jobs - they have no knowledge of the real world.
The way feminists have traditionally received "donations" or government funding is by outright lying about men. More simply put: they use propaganda. It is always the same propaganda: Feminists need money to protect women from evil men. This propaganda has always produced lots of money for the feminists in the past. Ezzard is just doing the same thing here - with hopes of drumming up some cash for the Old Girls Club.
All the men who work for this newspaper should get together and demand that this feminist is fired. Say it loud - NO MORE MAN-HATRED.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 11, @03:06PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny Man,
Great letter! Please send it to the Atlanta Journal. But, don't just send it to Ezzard, send it to the head of editorials and the other feedback addresses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She should be fired because she's a feminists? Feminist should be fire from newspapers? Can you spell censorship?
Give me a break. What country do you want to live in? Doesn't sound like the USA.
She has as much right to her opinion as anyone else. You don't have to like every opinion expressed but you do have to allow it to be expressed. If she has a readership, the paper will keep her on. If not, she'll be gone. Simple as that.
How would you like it if I said ALL men's activists lie and therefore should not be allowed to work at newspapers.
As to your blanket condemnation of feminism and feminists: You do your cause a disservice by speaking in the same way as those you condemn as speaking as you just did. Can you spell hypocrisy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne - Ezzard is certainly entitled to her opinion...but... so is Johnny Man and it is his opinion that she should be fired. Aren't you trying to stifle his opinion here?
I agree with him. I think she should be fired because she apparently supports the hate movement that is called feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And all this goes back to the old claim of biased reporting. If Ezzard is reporting news, then she should not editorialize. If she editorializes and passes it as news, then she should be fired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The feminist Ezzard, among many others, is inciting hatred against men and boys. She is using lies and deception to do this (techniques acquired from hard-core man-hatred groups) this is a crime! She is using these lies and this deception to procure money to support feminist man-hatred groups under the pretext of helping children. (The children receive very little of the money) This is fraud! These kinds of crimes have not been prosecuted in the past because of the acceptance of man-hatred in society. However, they are still crimes. Ezzard should be fired for inciting hatred against men, for lying, and for deliberate use of deception to further her hidden agenda. She should not be fired for being a feminist. Fire her for her socially destructive actions - not her beliefs. If she wants to hate me for being a man - fine. That's her right. I have no problem with that. But if she wants to incite others to hate me, my father, my uncles, brothers, friends and workmates while using lies and deception to accomplish the task, then she should, at the very least, be removed from the position she is using to do that. MEN - FIGHT BACK!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MEN - FIGHT BACK!
Indeed! And let the unrelenting distortions and lies and hate-mongering by mainstream feminists drive you on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I think she should be fired because she apparently supports the hate movement that is called feminism." Tom
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne has been around here long enough to know that men's activists, on this board at least, generally refer to "mainstream feminism" as "feminism." We have an alliance with ifeminism.com. Ifeminists are not mainstream feminists.
Again, Lorianne made the statement, "Saying ALL feminists are evil man-haters is the same as a feminist claiming ALL men are evil woman-haters..."
"Feminists" is not the equivalent of "women." Rather, saying "ALL feminists are evil man-haters" is equivalent to a feminist claiming "ALL masculists (not all men) are evil woman-haters."
Feminism, as most people know it, is a hate movement. And "feminists" is not the same as "women."
Note that Lorianne is a mainstream feminist. She will never desist from making her distortions to impugn men and little boys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Thomas for the clarification. I indeed refer to "mainstream" or "radical" feminism when I say feminism. The ifeminists and equity feminists are willing to see the man's side and work with us. I see them (radical feminists) as a group that hates men. Simple enough. I also know that men's activists very rarely hate women. I can't think of one that I know. OTOH I know a number of feminists who truly hate men. Most of us are very angry but we don't hate women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I quote from a previous post by Tom: "In order to create change men and women must form alliances and in the process hammer out their differences. A part of the strategy of the radical feminists is to stop this very thing from happening. Both men and women need to step forward and speak their truth. The problems we have seen with the NOW types is that there is no room for this. I think that Wendy and Ifeminists will welcome this sort of dialogue."
Tom is well aware of the difference between "feminists (mainstream/gender/radical)" and "ifeminists/equity feminists." And, again, Lorianne has been around this board long enough to know the difference as well.
An attack on the evil known as "feminism" is not an attack on "women." They are not equivalent, no matter how much feminists claim that they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also know that men's activists very rarely hate women. I can't think of one that I know. OTOH I know a number of feminists who truly hate men.
Mainstream feminists hate men and boys. Mainstream masculists/masculinists do not hate females. Breakaway feminists (ifeminists/equity feminists) do not hate men and boys. Some, perhaps, radical masculists hate females.
Count me in with the mainstream masculists and breakaway feminists. We are the egalitarians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Feminism, as most people know it, is a hate movement."
No it is not. Besides that "most people" do not describe it that way. Perhaps most people here do not describe it that way.
I have no idea if I'm a "mainstream" feminist or and "ifeminists" or whatever. I suppose you'll tell me what I am. It certainly won't be the first time arrogant people tell me what I think. (Funny they never seem to like it if I tell them what they think...... Odd that)
I only heard about ifeminist.come recently. On the whole I am hopeful about it but I have some concerns. On my first visit to the chatroom I was told by one ifeminists "ifeminists don't think like that."
Ha ha ha. I guess I have to learn a secret handshake or something. Apparelty to be in "independent" feminist, you have to think exactly the same as the other "independent" feminists.
That seems suspiciously like NOW and other organizations to me. Oh well. The quest to own my own thoughts and opinions continues I guess :) Is there a thought patent office I wonder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism, as most people know it, is a hate movement.
Indeed it is. Many people fail to see it as a hate movement, because it controls, to a large extent, the media and the academy. But that doesn't change the fact that when most people speak of feminism, the thing of which they speak is a hate movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever people may claim to be, it's easy to tell a racist, when talking to one about race, and it's easy to tell a feminist, when talking to one about men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You seem to be heavily into classification and organizing people into little slots. I'm sorry I just can't think like that.
To, you seem to have co-opted the entire word "feminism" and defined it for everyone else who call themselves "feminist" no matter where on the spectrum the stand. Funny, NOW has tried to do the same thing, but I think has given up realizing how futile it is. Femimism is no longer a monolith (if it ever was) and telling people what they think based on a word-label is a bankrupt concept, especially as feminism is fundementally concerned with individual autonomy not hegonomy (shhhh don't tell NOW).
If you want an ally in critiqueing policy (and strategy) of NOW and other such organizations you've got one. But I'm uninterested in blanket simplistic and proscriptive labeling (as I told the ifeminist who tried to pull the same crap with me). Apart from being useless in discussing real concrete issues we all face, it's just plain boring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are saying all feminists are hatemongers then yes, you are being hypocritical by not acknowleging you are doing the exact same thing as you "claim" feminist do: hate men.
You cannot make a claim that feminism is a hate movement without calling your own credibility into question. However, you are right, you are free to undermine you own credibility by being hypocritcal, no one can stop you.
I believe I mentioned the onus of free speech in my post, that is that free speech has a price. If the readership for Ms. Ezzard is not viable, the paper will "fire" her. Until then calls for her summary dismissal on grounds she is a "feminist" and all feminist are evil hatemongers is pre-emptive censorship.
Again, the poster is free to do that, but his free speech carries a price too, as does all men's activism, or feminist or whatever stances. It will be judged in the court of public opinion. Hypocrisy doesn't normally do well there. Normally ones views are undermined by blatant hypocrisy even moreso if intentioned.
Note: I'm not defending Ms. Ezzard's views. I voiced my objections to her views upthread. I'm merely pointing out hypocrisy when I see it. Saying ALL feminists are evil man-haters is the same as a feminist claiming ALL men are evil woman-haters (not that I've met many any feminists believe this).
Note 2: Overblown generalizations and hperbole hurt both causes, feminism and masculinism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note what Lorianne wrote (italics added): "If you are saying all feminists are hatemongers then yes, you are being hypocritical...
"calls for her summary dismissal on grounds she is a "feminist" and all feminist are evil hatemongers is pre-emptive censorship...
"Saying ALL feminists are evil man-haters is the same as a feminist claiming ALL men are evil woman-haters..."
I now draw the readers' attention to her distortion of the facts. What I wrote was, "Mainstream (gender/radical) feminists cultivate and preach hatred and lies against males."
Mainstream (gender/radical) feminists are very different from ifeminists and equity feminists. The former are hate-mongers and liars. The latter are egalitarians. I have pointed this out on this board a number of times. I have also pointed out that when I (and, from what I can tell, most men's rights activists) speak in general of feminists I am referring to mainstream feminists, not the far smaller, breakaway ifeminists/equity feminists. Lorianne's statements are like those of Nazis who, during the 1930s and first half of the 1940s, claimed that any attack on the Nazis was an attack on all Germans. Nazis were not the equivalent of Germans. This blatant distortion of the facts is a standard mainstream feminist ploy.
Lorianne made the statement, "Saying ALL feminists are evil man-haters is the same as a feminist claiming ALL men are evil woman-haters..." Wrong. "Feminists" is not the equivalent of "women." Rather, saying "ALL feminists are evil man-haters" is equivalent to a feminist claiming "ALL masculists (not all men) are evil woman-haters." (This latter statement would, obviously, be incorrect but would be structurally equivalent.
Again, I wrote of mainstream (gender/radical) feminists. Lorianne's insinuation that I wrote of all feminists is a standard issue distortion of the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Can you spell censorship?" Perhaps you could correct me, but I understood the US Constitution to protect free speech from government interference - not private interference. In other words, I am not entitled to force the New York Times to publish my scurrilious(sic) views on the WWF. But if I can persuade the NYT to publish same, the government cannot prevent that.
Calling for the firing of a columnist is not censorship, anymore than refusing to buy the Atlanta Journal would be.
As to your calling all men's activist liars, and proposing their ineligibilty for media employment - feel free. The market has already spoken. Apart from the internet, there might be a dozen men commentators that you could call men's activists, and perhaps, what, six women who regularly write from this perspective? Hint - they've already been denounced as liars.
The blanket denunciation of feminism - there is a difference between the denunciation of an ideology and its adherenets/promoters, and an entire sex. Not that there aren't some very ethical and moral feminists. Lets see there is, well, Robin Morgan, and Naomi Wolf, Faludi, and ah, oh well there is a lot of them!
Incidentally, didn't the US just pass hate crime laws, which include the writing of or posession of hate literature as prima facie evidence of a hate agenda? Guess I've got that wrong again, Canada has hate literature laws - not crime motivated by hate (we have that too), but just the publishing of "hate". Despite years of bigotry in the media, the only case brought under hate laws for feminist speech, was the recent filing of charges against Sunera Thobani for defaming citizens of the United States. It was dropped of course.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
