|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is another Madison Avenue come on to sell women overpriced and overrated merchandise by appealing to their innate self absorption about their femininity. Remember Secret deodorant? "Strong Enough For A Man (men stink more than women?) But Made For A Woman." It was just an average overpriced deodorant. I have observed that this is the pattern for products aimed specifically at women only. They are products that are really mediocre and seriously overpriced.
And just what would the men left behind be doing while the stupid "girls" are off globe trotting? I believe they would be having the time of their lives. I wouldn't worry about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 03, @03:50PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I think that this is just a one sided article talking about a great idea. Every year I have a women's weekend with two friends of mine. Our husbands take the kids and we spend the weekend doing fun stuff, like getting a massage, eating out, drinking, renting movies, eating in,, drinking, eating chocolate...;-)It is a great way to relax and have fun without bringing any issues along.
On the flip side, our husbands are also given equal time to go play. Two of them go together hiking, or gaming, etc. The third goes off to SCA weekends. We all get free down time, and neither resents the other for going off and doing their own thing.
If there were guys only weekend packages, maybe with sports themes, or outdoors, or gaming, etc, I imagine they may go over well too.
I just would not be suprised, however, if some feminist has a snit about not being allowed to join.
I think that this one sidedness may just be a result of women liking their down time planned and men not wanting to plan down time, or wanting to plan it themselves.
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Jen,
I think your observation is very resonable.
But have you as a female noticed that products aim specifically at women are generally overrated and over priced?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 03, @07:09PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Men will not put up with paying more for frilly stuff like botanicals or a pretty label. Womens clothing is ridiculous, if you look at the price of a trendy shirt and compare it to a men's article. I think that women are really into trends and labels, they will revamp their whole wardrobe every 1-2 years, while men tend to wear things until they have holes. I am in the men's group here, so I really cannot understand spending thousands of dollars a year on what I look like.I mostly have free dog t-shirts in my wardrobe, and my jeans have holes but are too great(read comfy) to toss. Skin and bath products, clothing, cleaning supplies, women tend to be just plain gullable and have a hard time seeing though marketing gimmicks. Even a friend of mine, who will spend hours researching products to make sure she knows the best, then months window shopping to find a deal, doesn't seem to understand that if she went out and just bought walmart sandals and coats for the kids they would last as long as the Teva's and Lands End in kidese, not to mention saving 20-40 bucks and how much time.
I think it is all appearances. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's been said that men will pay $2 for a $1 item because they needit, and women will pay $1 for a $2 item they don't need because it's on sale.
Lotta truth there.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 03, @10:13PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"innate self absorption about their femininity..."
I like that. Most women see through the hype about gender-branding. But you're right this is a marketing angle. Well put.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The headline is misleading and "inflamatory" (but that's a strong word). I trust my wife (no ... really ... wink). If she wants to go off for a girls weekend I got no issues with it. She has EARNED my trust (as I have earned hers) over the 6 years we have been married. I think in a healthy relationship its great to spend time apart. It allows both people to miss each other, take a break from the mutual routines, and recharge the batteries. I am totally for it. Now, I know someone has been burned by unscrupulous signifigant others *(I have too), but that aside, in a loving trusting relationship a separate set of activities helps keep the "cabin fever" away. I live in Alaska. TRUST ME: cabin fever exists.
Also, on the issue of women's products. THEY GET SCREWED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! for prices. I have looked at all the "beauty products", perfume, clothes, etc etc that women buy and women get TOTALLY SCREWED on the markups. Men, for the most part, are less concerned about "beauty products" (for us I mean, and all the accessorizing) that are for men. More often than not we are not "clothes horses". I totally feel for women in this department.
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 03, @09:52PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Women do not have to spend all that money, they chose to. Since when does lipstick and The Gap clothing make or break anything. Women who chose the rat race of fashion chose to get ripped off.
Sorry. I just was reading an article how women dressing like whores on the MTV awards were victims of the patriarchy. Bullshit. They are 'victims' of vanity. Women are way harder on other women than men could ever be. My 2 cents..Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lol, you and I seem to agree a lot. I saw your post on WEHAVEBRAINS (I am pretty sure it was you, sound like your thinking). They are also discussing the "skin deep" thing and the "beauty myth" idea. What pisses me off is that when men spend money on beauty, cosmetic surgery, etc etc so many of them BLAME MEN. Its "patriarchy" or "living up to male stereotypes" or some such horseshit. I think so many women view anything that pisses them off as "male caused". I agree with you: it's a woman's vanity that fuels the vanity market. Let me give some (poor) examples: women notice what SHOES women are wearing (I never do: I am SUCH a guy in so many ways), women want DESIGNER (or faux designer fashions) and dress up when seeing OTHER WOMEN ... so how the f*ck is that based on what MEN do? I could give a ton more examples but I think that covers it. Any comments Jen?
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I REALLY got preview my posts ... I meant when WOMEN spend money.... not men ..
Oops
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @10:03AM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I think that it is a innate mechinism to like to feel good about yourself.
**I will be generalizing here**
For women that means looking good. Women need approval, and the quickest way is to draw physical attention.From men it is looking hot, from women it is looking in style and thin. I will admit that I love it when I look great, sometimes a new haircut can break me out of a rut, or a new pair of jeans can make me feel sexy. I try not to base my outlook on life on what I look like, but WOMEN very much judge a book by the cover. Most women can spot a Walmart item, can smell it, a mile away, and likewise can spot a pair of Bass shoes. Some women will discount your opinion if you look poor, they will chose not to approach you, or look down on your parenting if your kids are not dressed well and spotless. (My kids are in a perpetual state of uncleanliness, 5 minutes after a bath they have stains or dirt on them-I have boys and let them be such)
As I said, I am generalizing here. But I was a day care provider for 8 years, taught preschool, and have a 13 and 8 year old. I have had expirience dealing with parents, mothers in particular. This is how I have seen many people. Women can be catty and shallow, and I think that is why I have always been a tomboy. I don't get them either ;-)
It is funny that women blame men for being visual, that all they care about is looks, but they are far worse.
And yes, everything is a man's fault. Get used to it. (rolling eyes)
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's it... no more Oprah for you... get that house clean and cook me some biscuts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poor Dave, him and his had are gonna get on intimate terms again after THAT comment.
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:)
She must not have read it yet... I've been waiting to see what the reply would be, usually it's an eye roll, but that's not as easy to do online.
Funny thing is... the real insult there for Jen is accusing her of watching Oprah. :)
She makes damn good biscuts... and even better bread, and she know she could easily break me by threatening to boycott the kitchen. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @05:32PM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
Yup-just made two loaves of whole grain bread with brown sugar and sunflower seeds dripping with butter, to go with the homemade minestrone soup~Oh, look at the time, I have to go feed the dogs ;-)
Dave, better stop at the store on your way homeand pick up some TV dinners.
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Jen, can you get my wife the recipe for your bread. No, I am serious. She has a bread maker and is a G-R-E-A-T cook. I think my E-mail is open to the public .. if not, let me know I will give it to ya and you can E-mail her the recipe and I can be one happy Alpha-male-dominating-husband-who-eats-bread *(in other words my wife will graciously make it, eat 80%, and allow me to try it)
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blond!? I don't THINK so! Dark brown NEVER been dyed a minute in my life thank you very much!;-)
A recipe? I wish I could, but then I would have to kill her.
Actually, I don't have any bread recipes. I know, sounds weird, but I know the proportions of each type of ingredient, like for 2 loaves of bread I need total 3 cups wet ingredients, including some or all of egg, oil, water, honey, butter, etc. The I use a palmful of yeast and salt, and depending on what grains I use a sweetner and wheat gluten, and however much grains I need til it feels right.
I am Italian, I don't use recipes, or if I do I never really follow them, and my dishes always taste slightly different than the last time. If she wanted to make some by hand I could help, but I have never used a bread maker, so I don't know.
Let me know if she wants to try it by hand. I will say that making bread by hand is addicting, and has a very zen quality.
The Biscuit Queen
ps, thanks for the name idea, I think I will keep it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @04:24AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Of course feminists like the idea of shipping snobby self-entitled western women over the entire world to help spread their hate agenda too."
Wow.
Just a note. Today is the first time I've ever heard of or visited your site, and I was hoping for some enlightened discussion of current and relevant male issues, gender roles, egalitarianism, etc., etc... but this has to be the most ignorant thing I've read in a very, very long time.
The fact that a comment like this is posted on the frontpage (regardless of the fact it's user-submitted -- there is still an editorial process) strips away any credibility this site might've had, in my eyes.
As an activist, I work towards equal rights and fair treatment for all - and there's no way I'd associate myself with an organization/collective/service that posts this kind of FUD about feminism.
If you want to enact social change, you need to deconstruct your own prejudices first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lol, the poster notices that this was reader submitted. Yes it was. I got a reasoned reply for you too. (no really)
First off the originator of the post is Anonymous. Now maybe someone should/could/wanted to "edit" the post, but it was not done. There have been quite a few times when people here have disagreed with a post. There have been flaming wars, childish debate, and even snitty off topic personal remarks. Welcome to posting online. Nice to meet ya.
Now, there may have been a snippy header, but there is a lot to be said for the fact that American Gender Feminist who DO feel SELF-ENTITLED. And "Anon" they DO want to ship their brand of Gender Feminism around the world. But, I won't make a blanket observation without PROOF. I mean, why give you more ammo right? Fair enough:
1) UNICEF: do a search for this article and our response on THIS site. Or, just look at what UNICEF has become. This is an organization that WAS for saving children around the world. NOW it is WOMEN and "girl child" centered. Don't take MY word for it, visit their site.
2) Gender Feminist organizations wanted to help WRITE the CONSTITUTION for the Afghanistan. In it they wanted the requirement for gender-proportional representation in the parliment. Sounds good? Ok, but consider the Gender Feminist did NOT try for ETHNIC proportionality, or RELIGIOUS proportionality, or any other. No, they wanted affirmative action (but ONLY for GENDER) written into a new countries defining document. Nice "equality".
3) And from around the world ... more Gender Feminism: "german husband must pay Ex-wife's widower her portion of his pension" or "kenyan prostitutes offered money to falsely accuse British soldiers of rape" or "South African LOVELIFE organization tells girls the same lies about DV statistics as they spread in US"
So, I can agree that the beginning "front page" of the article was snippy, but it was on point, accurate, and had a lot of history to it.
Now, lets see if we can't visit a few "feminist" sites and see what we have there. I can list what I have seen. Certainly not rational, logical, empirically scientific, non-emotional-based, and gender neutral comments. I know, I post of 3 of them. So, I admit that people here DO get passionate, they do rant, and sometimes other members call them on it. Quite often actually. So the "ANON" status of your quotes, while you ADMIT this is your FIRST time here and what you saw in a SINGLE article while singularly IGNORING the posts below shows that it may also be YOU (gasp) that may need to adjust your "prejudices". After all "prejudices" are just that PRE JUDGING. Have you read 3-8 articles? Have you, HONESTLY, looked at the supporting data? Have you been willing to admit that maybe some of the things here were legitimate arguments? Or even gone so far as to wonder WHY there is so much frustration for men in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand etc etc? Until then, cupcake, stop trying to sound holier than thou. You're no good at it and we have been ignoring "ANON" trolls far more witty than you for a long time.
Nice try Troll House Cookie.
Nothing but love for ya
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @10:35AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
maybe someone should/could/wanted to "edit" the post
At least you see that.
is a lot to be said for the fact that American Gender Feminist who DO feel SELF-ENTITLED. And "Anon" they DO want to ship their brand of Gender Feminism around the world
I'm not denying the existence of Dworkin-types who want everyone to think like them, but attributing the socio-political attitudes of extremists to "Feminists" as a whole is misrepresentation.
Gender Feminist organizations wanted to help WRITE the CONSTITUTION for the Afghanistan
So did radical Christian groups. This should not reflect on Christians as a whole.
Gender Feminism: "german husband must pay Ex-wife's widower her portion of his pension"
Under German law, when a couple divorces, the ex-spouse with the smaller pension has a right to top-up payments from the other's pension. This is a non-gender-specific law, and applies equally to both sexes.
Additionally, Bernhard Wanwitz, a judge at the administrative court in the western city of Mainz, said the husband in questions withdrew an appeal to keep his entire pension. (Source: Reuters)
I fail to see how this has anything to do with sexism, feminism, or gender roles at all.
As for the kenyan/african examples, without more information on them I can't really comment.
Have you read 3-8 articles?
Yes.
Have you, HONESTLY, looked at the supporting data?
Yes.
Have you been willing to admit that maybe some of the things here were legitimate arguments?
There are a good number of things here that warrant discussion. This does not make up for (or excuse) misrepresentation and ignorance.
Or even gone so far as to wonder WHY there is so much frustration for men in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand etc etc?
As a man who lives in a first-world nation, I spend a great deal of my time trying to understand this frustration, and doing what I can to exact social change.
Until then, cupcake
I appreciate the term of endearment, muffin.
we have been ignoring "ANON" trolls far more witty than you for a long time.
Oh, I don't doubt it. There's some pretty witty trolls out there.
My point, however, was not to troll, but to draw attention to something that I think is both negative to your site, and to your cause in general, which is a cause that I share. (even if I don't necessarily agree with the way you handle it.)
I want men to be taken seriously in modern gender politics, and having "feminists like the idea of shipping snobby self-entitled western women over the entire world to help spread their hate agenda" on the frontpage of a Men's Activism website does not help this cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @09:36AM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Well well, anonymous user! You have said a mouthfull. I would like you to tell me one thing. How is this wrong? The western world has been sending well-off white women to eastern nations for years trying to undermine their social structure in the name of feminist equality.
Feminists believe that middle eastern women are a subjugated underclass in need of liberation. The problem is, that western women do not know everything. Let us see what western feminism has brought us. In the states, 50% marraiges end in divorce, 30% of children are born to unwed parents, the use of antidepressants among women is above any other nation in the world, children see more of their day care provider than their parents, children as young as 7 are bringing guns to school and KILLING each other, there are enormous amounts of women on drugs and welfare. Women have no clear social role, they are blasted by stay at home moms if they work, and are blasted by working women if they stay home. Many women could not cook a real meal to save their lives, and raise their kids on Mc Ds and Wendy's. The introduction of women in the workforce has driven up the cost of everything from cars to housing to college that it is nearly impossible for most Americans to stay home with their kids. Feminists claim that female circumcision is so evil-then circumcise nearly every male in this country for NO MEDICAL REASON.
So who the hell are we to tell middle eastern women how to live? They stay at home and RAISE their own kids, cook real meals, raise healthy kids in intact marraiges and a live in father. They do not have issues in the same capacity with drugs, alcohol, divorce, crime. They are comfortable and supported in their roles as women. Are their problems? Yes. But obviously NO MORE THAN US.
So what were you saying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @10:06AM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists believe that middle eastern women are a subjugated underclass in need of liberation. The problem is, that western women do not know everything.
Agreed. Nor do western men, nor does western culture, in general. Following directly from that, cultural export may not be the best idea, regardless of if it's coming from Radical Feminism Inc. or G.W. Bush.
Let us see what western feminism has brought us. In the states, 50% marraiges end in divorce, 30% of children are born to unwed parents, the use of antidepressants among women is above any other nation in the world, children see more of their day care provider than their parents, children as young as 7 are bringing guns to school and KILLING each other, there are enormous amounts of women on drugs and welfare.
Even if I were to accept all of these statements at face value -- You draw a link between these things and the influence of western feminism how, exactly?
Feminists claim that female circumcision is so evil-then circumcise nearly every male in this country for NO MEDICAL REASON
I don't know any feminists that have had their children put through genital mutilation of any kind. Do you have numbers on the percentage of self-identifying feminists who have circumcised their children?
So who the hell are we to tell middle eastern women how to live?
I'm not an advocate of mass exporting cultures, as I mentioned earlier this post.
They stay at home and RAISE their own kids, cook real meals, raise healthy kids in intact marraiges and a live in father.
That depends on your definition of healthy, I suppose. I don't personally consider the gender roles prevelant in Afghanistan to be healthy for either sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @10:21AM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know any feminists that have had their children put through genital mutilation of any kind. Do you have numbers on the percentage of self-identifying feminists who have circumcised their children?
I don't really follow this. The majority of american boys are circumcised. Some of their mothers must be feminists. So are you suggesting that the feminist mothers do not make the circumcision decision ever. Or, more worryingly, do you not consider the completely medically unecessary and non-anaesthetised removal of the foreskin to be genital mutilation?
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @10:48AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
The majority of american boys are circumcised. Some of their mothers must be feminists.
Why's that, exactly?
Male circumcision in feminist literature has been almost universally condemned. (And I only say 'almost' to allow for the possibility of traditional Orthodox Jewish feminists, somewhere.)
Many have written entire books condemning the subject, such as Rosemary Romberg's "Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma". Saying that feminists advocate circumcision (male or female) is about as far away from the truth as you can get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Google the NOW site for "circumcision" then google it for "genital." What do you get? You get ZERO articles or references on circumcision and about 25 on genital mutilation...all of which are about women.
Please show me any references to boys and circumcision at NOW. While it may be true that one theorist condemns all genital mutilation it appears to my eyes that the feminists are indeed a special interest group interested only in girls. Portraying them as giving a shit is a stretch. Just google the now site for "father" and see all of the anti-father references and warnings about upcoming legislation that needs to be defeated because it is pro-father.
fathers
genital
Circumcision
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @01:12PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Google the NOW site for "circumcision" then google it for "genital." [...] Please show me any references to boys and circumcision at NOW
There are none. It's the National Organization for Women, not the National Organization for People or the National Organization for Young Boys.
And who said that NOW is the undisputed voice of feminism, anyway? NOW has a history of race and class discrimination against women of less-popular colour or status. Why should I accept them as the One True Voice of Women? Does Fred Phelps speak for all Christians?
I'm sorry (truly, no snark) that feminism has seemed to be, to you, a female-only SIG. (I assume that you're American, because most Americans of either gender I know who aren't active in academia's political circles feel the same way.) There's a lot more to it than women protecting women.
--
"The human rights issues of informed choice, body ownership, and the right to intact genitals as feminist rights are evaluated in the context of the recent feminist movement. America's women and their health-care providers are challenged to extend those same human rights, not only to females here and abroad with whom they can identify, but to men, male children, and male newborns, as well." - Donna Macris, "America's Experience: The Feminist Movement for Body Ownership is Medically Recognized"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um, someone in an anonymous suit was making inferences that feminism was against male circumcision. The references speak for themselves. They don't speak about issues or equality, they are a special interest group that focuses only on women, the quote about boys was an afterthought specifically crafted to avoid being labelled a bigot. I have yet to see a feminist show any sort of compassion for boys who are circumcised or to take action that would counter the cultural ignorance that allows this tragedy to continue. They are much more concerned about girls in foreign lands than they are about boys in this country. Prove me wrong.
Are there some feminists who are against circumcision? Probably. But please don't imply that feminism is fighting against circumcision. Ha! They may make mention of male circumcision in writing because to not do so would clearly show them to be bigots.
My hope is that those of us who are fighting for men's rights will be open and loving enough to fight for equality and when we see an issue that impacts girls and women to lend a hand in that direction. Don't hold your breath for the fems to do that.
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @01:50PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Um, someone in an anonymous suit was making inferences that feminism was against male circumcision.
Yes, that would be me.
The references speak for themselves.
Insofar as they are representative of one organization of women, yes. A sample size of one is a very poor sample to extrapolate larger trends from.
the quote about boys was an afterthought specifically crafted to avoid being labelled a bigot
Ah. I wasn't aware you were privy to the specifics of Donna Macris' creative process. How did you come by this information?
I have yet to see a feminist show any sort of compassion for boys who are circumcised or to take action that would counter the cultural ignorance that allows this tragedy to continue
I, however, have. I have seen much compassion and activism on this issue from feminists. "Male Genital Mutilation - A Feminist Study of a Muted Gender Issue" by feminist anthropologist Seham Abd el Salam is a good place to start.
Are there some feminists who are against circumcision? Probably. But please don't imply that feminism is fighting against circumcision
I'm not implying, I'm out-and-out stating: Feminism, in both my personal experience and in literature that I've read, has been very clear on this issue. The right of body ownership as presented in feminist material by its very nature is against genital mutilation of any kind, and is very explicit and condemns in no uncertain terms male circumcision.
My hope is that those of us who are fighting for men's rights will be open and loving enough to fight for equality
My hope is that (again, no snark) you take the time to do the research on the issue, and not listen to NOW as though they spoke for All-Of-Feminism. They're (IMHO) a slipshod organization that hasn't contributed anything progressive or worthwhile to feminism in the last twenty years, if they ever had. They're an anachronism from first-wave feminism, which was a reactionary and confrontational female-oriented movement.
I have no reason to lie about any of this. If you think I am, take the time to look up the relevant material (some of which I've referenced), and decide for yourself; It seems that everyone here that I've dealt with has these conceptions of feminism as this radical militant anti-male juggernaut -- and while these people exist, they do not represent feminism as a whole any more than the Black Panthers represent african-american activists. (Or, if you prefer, no more than the Heritage Front represents male American family values.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the reference to the circumcision info. I searched for it on amazon and couldn't find it. Can you provide a link?
Not to be snarky but, a sample size of one is a very poor sample to extrapolate larger trends from. ;>)
If NOW is a poor representative of feminism perhaps you can point us to a national group that does a better job?
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @02:21PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't find it on Amazon, but I found a web link to the study which seems to be complete. A quote:
Feminism is not for women only. It is for building new and fairer social politics for both genders, especially children. Now, with the defeat of the false hygienic justifications for male circumcision, its ugly and unfair face is revealed: a blood and flesh sacrifice presented to the patriarchal society. I'm (in real life) pretty sick at the moment, and getting ready for work, so I don't have the time/energy to get you more quality material on the subject ATM, but later tonight/early tomorrow I'll go through some journals and books, and post some more information on feminist views of MGM and feminist groups that aren't NOW. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your willingness to offer resources. No hurry, I can wait. However, I would be curious if you have a suggestion for a national organization that you think represents feminism in more the light that you see it. That shoudn't take too long.
Thanks
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @03:12PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
I wish I had a quick answer for you, but the organizations that get federal funding in the US are rarely (if ever) the organizations that work in the spirit/ideals of feminism. (Which shouldn't be too suprising, when you consider that much of the ideals of feminism are very much at odds with the morality of the US, especially in regards to a person's right to freedom of choice - not just the abortion issue, but pornography, prostitution, speech, thought, etc..)
Part of the problems that feminists are having is this lack of representation -- what happens is that groups like NOW get federal dollars and time on national media, etc., and the ideals are compromised and undermined. Social programs that come from good ideas get implemented with horrible execution (witness Affirmative Action policies - created to address a very real problem of gender/racial inequities, but executed in such a way as to only end up causing frustration and resentment without any positive result)
Thus, the public face of feminism ends up being largely comprised of reactionaries (NOW) and people in favour of near-worthless social programs (Affirmative Action), which prejudices people against actual feminism, which makes it harder for academic feminists to get any social change done, which means NOW gets more air time, which means feminism as a social movement is pushed further into 'radicalism' and irrelevancy/marginalization, etc., etc., etc...
... to sum up what should've only been a two-line post, there isn't any national organization that I can quicky link to and endorse. I'll post some details later about some academic/anthropological/political/etc collectives, with a bit of info and background on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would bet that you and I would heartily agree on the ideals of feminism. However, as you point out, the practice is far from the ideal. They are no more interested in equality than the man in the moon yet that is the ideal.
There is no other national organization that represents your brand of feminism. If feminists are as you say why would they allow the likes of NOW to speak for them? I doubt they would. I think the reality is that you are reading the academicians (and an odd minority at that) and as you point out, this is a far cry from the actual practice. Most of us on this board are fighting the reality of bigotry and hate in real time situations, not the heady ideal of some academe.
Just have a look at the domestic violence industry to get a real sense of the hatred that is espoused. There is compassion for female victims but for males you can forget it. Hate and projection are the name of the game. All flying under the cover of chivalry and victimhood. It is disgusting.
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @03:43PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
A quick reply before I leave for a while:
- Victims groups (of any nature) are not the places to look for tolerance. They're (almost) all vengence based, which sickens me. There exist feminist domestic violence groups which work towards 'restorative justice', which isn't about sending the hubby to jail, but rather deconstructing the reasons why people abuse and why people seem drawn to abusive relationships, so that both people can move on, get healthy, and have seperate, happy lives. Consider that DV rates are the same for lesbians are they are for hetero couples. DV is about gender roles and power, not the sex of the abuser/victim. This is the standpoint that feminist dv groups take. (but again, these groups aren't govt funded or anything, so a battered wife/hubby will never hear about them from the police)
- Feminists don't allow NOW to speak for them any more than The Church allows Fred Phelps to speak for them. Anyone can go on TV and say they're a feminist/nazi/saint and spout garbage.
- Bigotry and hate are things we deal with in RL interactions, yes, but there's still a very real feminist movement that isn't just an academic ideal, that does very real social work. The problem is, it's not nearly as sensational as NOW, and doesn't get much exposure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANON said: - Victims groups (of any nature) are not the places to look for tolerance. They're (almost) all vengence based, which sickens me.
Here we have some agreement. I would note that feminism appears to me to be a victim group and follows your idea that tolerance is nowhere to be found.
ANON - There exist feminist domestic violence groups which work towards 'restorative justice', which isn't about sending the hubby to jail, but rather deconstructing the reasons why people abuse and why people seem drawn to abusive relationships, so that both people can move on, get healthy, and have seperate, happy lives. Consider that DV rates are the same for lesbians are they are for hetero couples. DV is about gender roles and power, not the sex of the abuser/victim. This is the standpoint that feminist dv groups take. (but again, these groups aren't govt funded or anything, so a battered wife/hubby will never hear about them from the police)
Links please.
Perhaps where you are these things are happening...but I surely have not found them in the US. Where are you located?
- ANON - Feminists don't allow NOW to speak for them any more than The Church allows Fred Phelps to speak for them. Anyone can go on TV and say they're a feminist/nazi/saint and spout garbage.
Maybe you are right about this. Show us some links to feminists who disagree with NOW other than our buddy Wendy McElroy. Where is the outrage and criticism of NOW from this group? If it is as prevalent as you say you should be ble to find LOTS of links. Links please.
ANON - - Bigotry and hate are things we deal with in RL interactions, yes, but there's still a very real feminist movement that isn't just an academic ideal, that does very real social work. The problem is, it's not nearly as sensational as NOW, and doesn't get much exposure.
Ah yes, the myth of the good feminist. Prove it. At this point NOW IS speaking for feminists in the US whether you like it or not. There may be splinter groups who disagree but they are surely not the majority.
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 05, @09:50AM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
Here we have some agreement. I would note that feminism appears to me to be a victim group
I don't agree. I don't think the EFF or the NAACP is a victim's group either. I think that part of being a victim's group involves a very personal and explicit wrong that the group is trying to fix, as compared to a larger cultural bias/discrimination.
Links please. Perhaps where you are these things are happening...but I surely have not found them in the US. Where are you located?
I'm in Canada. Here's some feminist restorative justice links:
Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies - Feminist restorative justice work with criminalized females.
The Implications of Restorative Justice For Aboriginal Women and Children Survivors of Violence - Overview of feminist restorative justice techniques used by the Canadian govt in several areas.
Centre for Restorative Justice - Feminist restorative justice initiative funded by the Correctional Service of Canada.
Show us some links to feminists who disagree with NOW other than our buddy Wendy McElroy.
Most of the anti-NOW feminist writing that I have is in academic journals, which aren't published in full online (or if they are, I haven't found them). I'll post details w/quotes and references of relevant articles later, there might be an online academia library somewhere with copies of these texts.
Names off the top of my head: Karen DeCrow (former NOW president fed up with the gender politics there, and now on the board of the National Congress for Men, as well as many egalitarian feminist organizations), Christina Hoff Sommers (academic feminist and author of "Who Stole Feminism?") and Warren Farrel (another former NOW pres and equity feminist author of "The Myth of Male Power")
There may be splinter groups who disagree but they are surely not the majority
They're not the most controversial, nor the most radical. As a result, they're not the most visible, regardless of size. The vast majority of people I know who are feminists do work in academia, research, work with prisoners, abused/abuser groups, etc., and they very much dislike what NOW is doing.
As someone who works in music, neither myself or anyone I know in the field can stand the RIAA, but they're still the voice of "The Music Industry".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh please, you don't even know your own links. Here's what one of your "Restorative Justice" web sites had to say about domestic violence:
A word about language usage in this paper may be beneficial. The overwhelming
majority of our cases to date have involved female victims and male offenders, and our
grounding in domestic violence theory and practice is consistent with this gendered
imbalance. Certainly, we recognize (and have worked with) male victims and female
offenders and recognize the seriousness of those situations as well; still, in this paper,
when we refer to “victims”, we mean female victims, and by “offenders” we mean male
offenders. Second, most of our cases in MRJC’s VOM program fall into the category of
family violence, so when we refer to domestic violence, we are referring specifically to
spousal or partner assault and whatever other abusive behaviours may be related to that
violence.
LMAO! You call this inclusive?? I call it overtly anti-male and blatant sexism. Using "Feminist Principles" of language this would be seen as a huge boo boo don't you think?? LOL
Oh and yeah, your feminists who believe in equality and are against NOW don't have web sites???!!! Oh please. And you are trying to tell us that the real feminists are represented by all of these people who DON'T HAVE WEB SITES??? Any cretin can put up a web site these days. If they are valid groups or even individual writers and don't have web sites...well...It's just hard to believe. My dog peed on it would go over a bit better.
Don't call Warren Farrell a feminist. He's not. Maybe if you would read some of his books you might get an idea about how the feminists are indeed wreaking havoc. You seem to live in a little world that has some serious filters when it comes to the hatred of feminists. Wake up man! Wake up!
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's another quote from your "restorative justice" web site. More hateful crap. Is this a bit on the anti male side?? LOL!!
The sociopolitical or feminist perspective on domestic violence, as articulated by (among
many others) Duluth’s Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP), forms the core of
our understanding of our work in this field. This perspective views abusive actions as
arising out of a set of beliefs that are informed by patriarchal values and traditions. Abuse
is seen as a deliberate strategy to gain power and control in a relationship. Abusive
actions, therefore, arise out of an abuser’s choice, not out of an uncontrollable impulse.
One consequence of this set of beliefs is that an abuser is solely responsible for his
abusive behaviours. Another consequence is the recognition that violence is not an
expression of escalated conflict; the motives that inform participation in conflict are
distinct from the motives that inform the choice to be violent. Abusive actions can and do
arise in conflict situations, and they occur also in the absence of conflict.
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 05, @03:19PM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
I call it overtly anti-male and blatant sexism. Using "Feminist Principles" of language this would be seen as a huge boo boo don't you think
It's obvious that you're looking for a way to write off the information I'm giving you. No, I don't agree that clarifying nomenclature at the beginning of a paper is overtly anti-male and sexist, but to each their own.
your feminists who believe in equality and are against NOW don't have web sites
Did you even read my post? I said most of the writing took place in journals, not the people don't have websites. Whatever, I'm sick of typing the same things over and over on this board.
Don't call Warren Farrell a feminist. He's not.
He seems to think he is. Have you told him yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it might be more accurate to say that the web sites you have provided are riddled with sexism. Please note that the restorative justice site you linked uses the "Duluth" model in its work with domestic violence. Do you know about the Duluth model? It's feminism at its best. It claims that violence IS MASCULINE! (of course it also claims victimhood for women) LOL. Its wheel claims that male privilege is one of the root causes of domestic violence. Importantly it has no explanations for female violence other than that she must have been abused previously by a man. Sexism to the max. This is the theoretical framework of your egalitarian feminists? HA! What a twisted joke.
You are probably young and inexperienced. I will give you that much. I think you need to get out more and look at the world rather than thinking the world is your journals.
Wake up man! You are sleeping.
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 05, @04:03PM EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
It claims that violence IS MASCULINE!
Where's that, exactly? Doesn't say that in any of the Duluth material I've ever seen.
I think you need to get out more and look at the world rather than thinking the world is your journals
Y'know, the more time I spend in "the world", the more I just end up running into people like I see on this board. It's not terribly encouraging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh Anon. I have been there before. About a year ago I heard about this thing called the Duluth model and couldn't believe my ears. I saw some info at a men's site and read a bit on the Duluth model. What I read shocked me. The articles said that Duluth was really not a therapeutic model designed to help people heal, it was a totalitarian model that used techniques of brainwashing and indoctrination. I was stunned. I turned to my local library and checked out a couple of books on the Duluth model. I bought a treatment manual (Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model, Pence, Paymar, Springer Publishing) and read it.
I was even more shocked. My reading convinced me that the articles I had read were absolutely correct and that there was a terrible injustice going on right before everyone's eyes and no one was seeing it.
I am disgusted by the bigotry I see. Your blind and uninformed defense of these bigots is typical. There are millions like you. There is much work to be done in righting what is wrong here.
Are you willing to help?
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @02:56PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
"Why's that, exactly?"
Um - purely statistically. I am assuming that some of the millions of boys that are born each year in the USA must have mothers that are feminists. Correct me if you do not believe this to be so.
One of your original points was that you did not know any "feminists that had their children put through any form of genital mutilation". So I still don't understand that statement.
I am not (and did not) say feminists advocate circumcision. However, since you now say that feminists in general oppose male genital mutilation, it seems odd that circumcision of male infants in the USA seems so prevalent.
Even if someone wanted to say that all fathers and all doctors were pro male infant circumcision, it would still leave a large number of women who would be anti circumcision. Circumcision rates do not seem to bear this out.
It may be that though feminists are opposed to male circumcision in principal, they are not inclined to do anything about it.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @03:34PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
I am assuming that some of the millions of boys that are born each year in the USA must have mothers that are feminists. Correct me if you do not believe this to be so.
I'm sure it's a statistical certainty that there are feminist parents of circumcised children.
you now say that feminists in general oppose male genital mutilation, it seems odd that circumcision of male infants in the USA seems so prevalent
It's not odd when you consider that it's standard procedure during birth for a good number of doctors, and many parents are never -well-informed about the issue, or even asked if they wanted their child circumcised. It's just the way it is, in many places. In a fair percentage of those places, doctors insist on it.
Also consider the literature available to many fathers-to-be on the subject. Perhaps the most famous natural-birth advocate, Dr. Robert Bradley says "...do not let your wife build up a mighty issue over these simple little cuts" -- I mean, who is he going to trust on the issue? A male doctor who works in childbirth, or a woman who doesn't even have a penis of her own?
it would still leave a large number of women who would be anti circumcision. Circumcision rates do not seem to bear this out
Depends where you are, I suppose. I don't live in the US, and the rates here are about 25% of the male population. In the US, I believe they're closer to 60%.
How many women in the states do you figure are educated feminists? One in twenty? 1-in-50? 1-in-200? Even if we assume one in ten (which is far, far too high), and we assume half of those women have babies, and half of those babies are male, and all of those babies are born without circumcision, that's still only 2.5% of the populace.
Circumcision has historically been at the decision of men. Where I live, I see a lot of work done by feminists to stop it, which has included actual protests at hospitals. The 'pro-circumsision' groups here are almost exclusively men, while the anti-circumcision groups have been about 75/25 women/men.
Thus, I submit that even if it is not readily apparent to you, there is a lot of work being done in the field by feminists to stop MGM. I suggest taking a look at the study I linked to elsewhere in this thread if you'd like to see some of the work that is being done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @12:04PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
"I don't know any feminists that have had their children put through genital mutilation of any kind. Do you have numbers on the percentage of self-identifying feminists who have circumcised their children?"
---------
This statement perfectly illustrates how feminists lack complete accountability for their own misandric ideology.
You see, on a personal level feminism really is a indoctrinated mindset that has been standardized in academia more than a specific association with an organization (although in some forms feminism is an organization). So any critique of feminism almost always yields - "well this isn't my feminism." This is the same reason why harmful hate based feminist ideologies have infiltrated change from within just about every western institution. Because feminism is a mindset that puts women first before the facts on a personal level, a societal level and a global level and in the process feminists hold men to an unreasonable standard of accountability with the use of hate statistics (like in DV laws) and government funding.
For whomever this 'anon' poster is, she/he is not being truthful by denying that feminists are trying to affect a liberal gender-feminist value system into the various cultures in the world. So much for diversity and inclusion…. Hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @01:02PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
This statement perfectly illustrates how feminists lack complete accountability for their own misandric ideology
This statement perfectly illustrates the assumptive nature of this site that set me off in the first place.
So any critique of feminism almost always yields - "well this isn't my feminism."
Well, seeing as I'm not a feminist, I think it's a fair statement for me to make. With that said, I think it's pretty silly that you feel that an anonymous statement on a message board somewhere on the internet "perfectly illustrates" anything about feminism.
Although, your willingness to embrace random opinion as "perfectly" representative of an ideology helps to explain the ignorance and gross misconceptions I've seen in my short time here.
denying that feminists are trying to affect a liberal gender-feminist value system into the various cultures in the world
Which, if you'll take the time to read my earlier posts, I never denied. In fact, I spoke against exportation of culture.
To clarify, for anyone else that gets confused:
- I find the assumptive nature and hypocrisy present on this site pretty overwhelming. (LSBeene's reply to my orignial post is a perfect example. He assumes I'm a woman, and then proceeds to call me 'cupcake' and 'cookie', which is nothing more than petty namecalling. Sexist, petty namecalling, at that. How can I take any of his arguments on sexual discrimination seriously after that?)
- I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be a feminist. Therefore, my statements illustrate nothing whatsoever about feminism, feminists, or anything other than my own views.
- I have never met a feminist who has had their child circumcised. Nor have I ever seen anything to suggest that a non-trivial percentage of feminists (of any description) have their children's genitals mutilated.
- I do not approve of recklessly forcing domestic socio-political ideologies into foreign cultures.
Any questions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @03:51PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
You (anon) have taken a poorly argued contrary position to just about every topic brought here important to men's issues, and yet you claim that you are not a feminist while you still defend aspects of feminism (?). This is hypocrisy. And you illustrate my original point that feminists lack accountability because any argument against feminism does not represent your own (yet still standardized) ideological outlook (or lack thereof).
I find your assumptive nature and hypocrisy pretty overwhelming as your arguments are nothing more than the "I don't agree.. nah.. nah" variety...
As for your statements:
1."I have never met a feminist who has had their child circumcised. Nor have I ever seen anything to suggest that a non-trivial percentage of feminists (of any description) have their children's genitals mutilated."
Clearly you do have feminist friends and you do talk about "genitals utilization" (yet you maintain that you are not a feminist). You have taken your own “assumptive nature and hypocrisy" to a high level here as clearly you do not speak for all feminists, so why provide your own opinion as factual data.
2. "- I do not approve of recklessly forcing domestic socio-political ideologies into foreign cultures."
No, but you clearly approve of recklessly providing non-sense personal and contrary opinions as they relate to men’s issues here.
Step up and present topics relevant to men's issues, this does not mean you have to agree, but your statements are useless and represent poor diplomacy (which is obviously not your goal...) and you have not stated a clear opinion of men’s issues yet…so why are you here other than to troll?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 05, @09:58AM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
yet you claim that you are not a feminist while you still defend aspects of feminism (?). This is hypocrisy.
I can defend Jesus' advice to "love thy neighbour" without being a Catholic. Ergo, I can defend aspects of feminism without being a feminist. This isn't too hard to follow.
why provide your own opinion as factual data
I didn't. You will note, I said "I have meet" and "I haven't seen". I'm describing my experiences. You still with me here?
you clearly approve of recklessly providing non-sense personal and contrary opinions
All opinions are personal. If it's not personal, it's not your opinion. My opinions happen to be contrary. I approve of voicing contrary opinions in a forum for discussion of said opinions.
Step up and present topics relevant to men's issues
What I'm presenting is this: Generalization about feminism hurts men's activism. I think this is relevant.
so why are you here other than to troll
To make a difference, hopefully.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that feminism HAS to be generalized. If most women are not actively fighting NOW and other feminazi groups, then that is because this has become the accepted norm, or because they don't care. Either way is tacit approval for what is going on. When you, ie troll, try to split feminism up into factions, most of which you claim are not so bad, then you undermine the ability of this movement to fix on it's target. The very nature of feminism is to gain ground for women. Women have the higher ground in nearly every walk of life in western society. So by working towards more ground for women you are by default working on lowering ground for men.
There is no good feminism. The word is as misleading and dead as the word chivalry. (There Gonzo and Ray, I said it) I think any movement towards rights based on sex should be humanist. The men here do not want more rights than women, they want equal. The same cannot be said for feminism. This is a semantics game. You use the word chivalry or feminist, expect ugly comments. Both words have been shoved up these men's asses enough to last a lifetime.
If you really want to make a difference, get a username (like we haven't said that a hundred times) and stop expecting to change anyone's mind in 2 days. We don't know you, no one is going to listen to you. Stay here longer, invest in this space as a supporter, and months down the road you may be able to talk about this again. It took me a year before critical comments were accepted as loving concern, not feminist trolling. That is what happens when a group of people have been burned before.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 05, @04:49PM EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
...this is obvious by your pathetic attempt at "debate" here. You argue feminist points yet you claim you are not a feminist. I suppose when Hitler was arguing nazism he wans't a nazi either.
Your logic - is non-existant. Liberal wimp loser.
feminism is sexism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"- I have never met a feminist who has had their child circumcised. Nor have I ever seen anything to suggest that a non-trivial percentage of feminists (of any description) have their children's genitals mutilated."
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/
Circumcision Incidence Rate
1996 1997 1999
Northeast Region 66.7% 68.3% 65.4%
Midwest Region 81.0% 81.6% 81.4%
Southern Region 63.6% 64.5% 64.1%
Western Region 36.2% 38.0% 36.7%
All Regions 60.2% 62.8%
So, anon, you are telling me that out of this 2/3 of women who have had their children genitally mutilated, that NONE of them are feminists? That MOST of them are not feminist? Bull. Most women consider themselves feminists. There is NO feminist movement to stop circumcision. There is no outcry that A MILLION boys a year are genitally mutilated in the US?
The absolute number of boys circumcised in US Hospitals by year is:
1996 1997 1998
1,317,422 1,146,839 1,113,853
Given that NOW and other feminists are so vocal when anything happens to women, where is the outcry? By any feminists?
You are wrong here, I think you are using your opinion as fact, when the facts speak another story.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 06, @12:59AM EST (#70)
|
|
|
|
|
There is NO feminist movement to stop circumcision. [...] Given that NOW and other feminists are so vocal when anything happens to women, where is the outcry? By any feminists?
As I linked to earlier, here is Male Genital Mutilation - A Feminist Study of a Muted Gender Issue" by feminist anthropologist Seham Abd el Salam. There's a lot of this type of anti-circumcision feminist work out there, if you look for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Anon" wrote: "There's a lot of this type of anti-circumcision feminist work out there, if you look for it."
Just think for a sec about this, anon, if there was so much good work being done, I wouldn't *have* to look for it -- it'd be in-my-face, be obvious common knowledge, and be being covered in mainstream media.
But it's not.
This is the first I've heard of it and I consider myself pretty much, um, in-touch with anti-circumscision efforts.
Please try to separate the social hypotheses (I hesitate to say theories), carefully revised history, and PC agenda (of what I'm assuming are your surroundings) tell you about the world, and take an actual emperical look at the world around you. They don't line up.
If feminists were concerned with actual equality, we'd see evidence of it. We don't.
If feminists were fighting against circumscision, we'd see evidence of it. We don't.
If feminists were actually concerned about the plight of men, children, and families, we'd see evidence of it. We don't.
If feminists were advocting special privileges and exclusion of responsibility for women, we'd see evidence of it. We do.
If we had a legal system profoundly hostile to men, we'd see evidence of it. We do.
Be a critcal thinker, and observe what your eyes actually see, not what someone's agenda tells you to see.
Ragtime
The Uppity Wallet
The opinions expressed above are my own,
but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"As an activist, I work towards equal rights and fair treatment for all - and there's no way I'd associate myself with an organization/collective/service that posts this kind of FUD about feminism."
Maybe I'm not as hip as I should be but I have no idea what FUD means. I can guess the FU part, but the D isn't coming to me. Anyway, I've gathered from the context of this and other posts you've made in this thread that you don't agree with people vociferously condemning feminists/feminism either in general, (which was the meaning the standard convention of English would imply from the author's statement), or as a whole.
Now, elsewhere you write that its unfair to judge feminists by extremists like Dworkin or the National Organization for Women. These so called "extremists" are the leaders of the feminist movement. They're the ones who sell the overwhelming majority of the feminist books purchased. They are largest and most powerful feminist groups out there. Since most feminists are choosing to buy the books they write and join the organizations they control, they obviously do represent the views of most feminists. Here is an excellent essay by David Byron on what these so-called extremists tell us about feminism as a whole. Its short and I highly recommend anyone reading this thread to take a minute and read through it. It addresses the heart of this debate very well.
In addition to the points Byron made, I'd just like to point out that if a person disagrees with the majority of these so-called extremists' views and still chooses to label themself a feminist then they are mislabelling themself. Its sort of like being completely in opposition to most of what Bush, Bush Sr., Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Dole, Bill O'Reilley, and every other famous or influential republican says about politics and still calling yourself a republican. Just as that group defines what being a republican in today's world means, Gloria Steinem, Patricia Ireland, Germaine Greer, Andrea Dworkin, Marylin French, Michelle Landsberg, NOW, the Feminist Majority Foundation, The American Association of University Women, the League of Women Voters, and others largely in agreement with their views define feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to second Hombre's recommendation to read the link. David Byrons site offers some fascinating info. I would also recommend the What is a Hate Movement section where he shows the nature of any hate movement and then connects the dots to show how feminism functions similarly.
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 05, @09:13AM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
I have no idea what FUD means
FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Consider the RIAA's campaign against downloading music, or MS's stance on linux. Disinformation that cultivates a negative impression, basically.
These so called "extremists" are the leaders of the feminist movement
I think this is where these conversations are breaking down. I don't agree.
They're the ones who sell the overwhelming majority of the feminist books purchased
Certainly. Stephen King sells the overwhelming majority of fiction books purchased, but I would hope you don't consider his work representative of all fiction writers, or character-based fiction as a genre.
Since most feminists are choosing to buy the books they write and join the organizations they control
How do you know that most feminists are buying these books, and joining these organizations? Certainly, there are a fair number of people doing both, but how can you know what 'most' feminists are reading or doing?
Obviously, my experiences are not the norm here, but most feminists I know wouldn't touch NOW and similar groups with a 10-foot-pole, and view the 'extremist' figures as almost single-handedly destroying the credibility of feminism.
Its short and I highly recommend anyone reading this thread to take a minute and read through it
I sat down and read through it, but I think that I disagree with Mr. Byron on a good number of essential points. His calling "80%" of feminists liars, and defining feminism as "the belief that women are all victims and its all men's fault" to me, highlight a mindset that is not conductive to an objective critical review of feminism.
Just as that group defines what being a republican in today's world means
Perhaps so, but being a Republican is a very structured thing. You can get a membership card, for instance. There's no such criteria or process for feminism, or any other social change movement. Glamour (or Maxim) magazine could declare itself a feminist magazine tomorrow, and there's no One True Authority that can say "No, it's not".
Anarchy, as a political construct, is not anything like what 95% of people think about when they hear the word 'Anarchy'. That doesn't mean that people who are following the tenants of non-exploitation aren't Anarchists, it just means that there's a lot of FUD and misinformation about the term and its participants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
Well, you're partially right. Doubting their claims is part of the scientific method, sort of like when those guys claimed to have created cold fusion. Other scientists gave arguments as to why they didn't think that was the case, and the experiment proved to be non-repeatable, (read falsified). This is the normal process of peer review. Feminism has never been much burdened by peer review and the scientific method of dissenters checking their claims, as evidenced by how weak the support for those claims typically tends to be. So yes, I'm proudly trying to spread doubt about what feminists are claiming.
You're also right about the fear part. Have you read the SCUM manifesto? Why would groups dedicated to equality not only tolerate but actively promote that? Why is it required reading for women's studies classes in at least several universities in the US? What about the rights feminists have taken from men, such as the right to have access to your children or have your wife put in jail if she murders you? Shouldn't we fear what they'll try to do next, a la the millions of dollars of support they raised to try and pin Andrea Yates' murdering her children on her husband being a fundy? The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is yes. Powerful groups that promote such things , (all feminist groups of note), as SCUM, and have historically ruined people's lives to advance what by any rational standard can only be seen as a female supremecist agenda, and continue trying to do so, should be feared.
But you're dead wrong about the uncertainty. I want you to be certain that the facts men's activists routinely cite are legitimate and that's why I've started organizing them for easy reference over on this page. I've also put this page up to make sure there's no question that bigotry against men is commonly promoted by powerful feminists. I've got about 45 pretty damning quotes, from a wide variety of influential feminists that feminists in general haven't been apologizing for or trying to dissociate themselves from. Is that enough to make you certain that there is a lot of bigotry in feminism? If not, how many obviously bigotted quotes by how many different influential feminists would you need in order to be certain of it? A lot of those quotes are also proudly mixed in with other quotes many feminist sites herald.
Hombre wrote- "These so called "extremists" are the leaders of the feminist movement"
I think this is where these conversations are breaking down. I don't agree.
I'm not going to let you off that easily. You disagree, that doesn't mean the conversation is breaking down. Its very clear to me that this is the central part of the disagreement we have. Let me break this down into syllogistic form.
1. It is acceptable to condemn orgs like NOW and feminists like Dworkin for their strongly bigotted approach to gender issues. - This you've already agreed with.
2. Organizations like NOW and feminists like Dworkin are the accepted leaders and spokeswomen of the feminist movement. - This is our point of disagreement.
3. Therefore, it is acceptable to condemn feminists for their strongly bigotted views. - If you accept both 1 & 2, this logically follows.
So as you can see, the question of whether or not it is acceptable to condemn feminists, (and thus, whether or not that article was an acceptable one to post on this site), is a question of whether or not NOW, the AAUW, Patricia Ireland, etc. represent feminism. See, there's no breakdown in conversation here, just a singular point of disagreement to try and get through.
My explanation for why I consider them representative of feminism and the leaders of the movement I'll again restate. The books written by such feminists notorious for bigotry as Dworkin, Greer, Brownmiller, etc. sell better than books written by feminists that do not contain bigotted views of men, (other than Sommers' works, I have never seen any). The organization of NOW, the AAUW, the FMF, and the LWV have much higher memberships than any other feminist group, and have accomplished many more of their goals. Also, other than Sommers and McElroy, I haven't heard any self-proclaimed feminists publicly condemning them. And these women are visciously slandered by feminists all the time, and supported by most anti-feminists. When a self-professed feminist goes to speak at a conference and all the feminists there are booing her, and all the anti-feminists cheering, I think she isn't representative of feminism.
Now let me see your argument. Who do you claim are the leaders of feminism? What US organizations do you think are supported by more feminists than NOW or the others mentioned above? And please don't try to use the Baskin Robbins shuffle defense. You know, the "There are so many different flavors you can't criticize them because none of your criticisms apply to all of them!" fallacy. I mention this only because its a common tactic of many special groups to try and disappear into the shadow's like that whenever they are brought under criticism. They'll claim there's so many different types of "x"ist that anything you say can't possibly apply to them all and mock the idea that such a divergent group would have an agenda "I must have missed the meeting where the agenda was handed out.". Why do they do this? Simple, if there's no group, if there's no agenda, and if there are many different varieties of feminist, or whatever, then there's no target for the criticism. All the group members melts into the shadows, only to reappear and get on with their agenda when no one's looking any more. If they're that divergent than the word "feminist" is meaningless, as not only couldn't they be criticized, nothing positive could be said about them either. In fact nothing at all could be said about them, which makes the words "feminism" or "feminist" absolutely meaningless. However, they do have a meaning and refer to an ideology. That ideology being the one most closely held by its leaders of course, so the question again is who are the leaders, and thus the representatives of feminism? If they are not the ones I've named above than who are they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hombreviii
Excellent list of quotes!! Makes your head swim at the hate spewing out of these women's mouths.
Can we copy this list for pamphlets? Seems like a great way of hitting home how spiteful the group has become.
The Bisquit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I sat down and read through it, but I think that I disagree with Mr. Byron on a good number of essential points. His calling "80%" of feminists liars, and defining feminism as "the belief that women are all victims and its all men's fault" to me, highlight a mindset that is not conductive to an objective critical review of feminism.
A critical review at this time is a moot point. Pheminism has been weighed, measured, and found wanting.
Next.
Perhaps so, but being a Republican is a very structured thing. You can get a membership card, for instance. There's no such criteria or process for feminism, or any other social change movement. Glamour (or Maxim) magazine could declare itself a feminist magazine tomorrow, and there's no One True Authority that can say "No, it's not".
Apples and oranges. If this mythical majority you speak of really didn't follow NOW, they could speak out and bring it to it's knees in short order - and I'm talking a measure of weeks here, maybe months at the most.
Where are they? The denunciations? The protests? The disclaimers? Where are these so called moderate pheminists?
Oh yeah. I bet they're having high tea with Bigfoot, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You sound a lot like a bu7nch of pussy-whipped men who still can't get off their "lapdog to women" chivalry addiction.
Go lick the hand that slaps you.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lol, had to get y'alls attention.
Got a few points to make, so I hope y'all will bear with me and read em.
1) will everyone here, in the name of all that is FREAKING HOLY, PLZ PLZ PLZ get a "handle" and USE it, I can't tell one person from the other. Look, momma always told me I was the mental runt of the litter, but help me out.
2) This post is getting very esoteric and kinda silly. Everyone take a deep breath, say 10 Hail Dworkin's and regroup.
3) I may be in the total minority (it's tough being blond and male) but I don't think MALE circumcision is all that bad. I am not the most well read person on the subject of female circumcision, but I have heard about removing the woman's clitoris and ya know what: folks, that's just fucking barbaric.
4) I am reading a ton from our "Anon" friend who earlier I referred to as cupcake and who replied that I was a muffin. (that was a good retort by the way: 2 points). I gotta tell you, I think you may have gotten off on a bad footing here, but please (sincerely) allow me to clear a few things up.
5) Most of the men who post here have been through some real world sh*t. And not to leave out our WONDERFUL female supporters - Dave's biscuit maker for example (Sorry Jen, I just couldn't resist - pay me back later). See, we often have seen the terrible injustices first hand. We have seen it in real life, and not just in some philosophic, coffee house, smoke filled room discussion. You're basically asking us who have seen water to prove to you it's wet. We have seen the sky and you are asking us to prove to you it's blue. Dude, ACK!!, water is wet, the sky is blue, and most people who call themselves "feminists" these day are making our lives a living hell. Some do not actively go after us (I'll get to that) but just passively ignore the blatant one sided bigotry men are going through.
Every women I know has a friend, brother, father, coworker, etc that has been through a divorce, gotten one sided sensitivity training, seen how the media depicts men .. etc etc ad nauseum. DO I think that ALL women don't care or are out to get us? LMAO ... if that's the case Jen, Trudy, Wendy et al have got me completely where they want me: blind, dumb, and trusting.
But here it is: Most Feminist organizations that are the most powerful, get the most media attention, and are setting the gender agenda here and around the world are GENDER FEMINISTS. I cannot believe that most American, British etc women who see this are blind, so they are giving at LEAST tacit approval. Just like if I went passed a dorm room, heard 2 friends in there (male/female) heard the women getting raped and kept walking. I didn't RAPE her, I didn't encourage it, but I did just ignore it and gave my tacit approval to it happening.
Lastly, if you want you can ask any here, or specifically me, for examples of ANYTHING I have posted about. I will do the leg work, I will provide you with answers. But in fairness, please don't come here and ask us to prove to you that water is wet, the sky is blue, and that most self-proclaimed feminists are really about equality (no matter WHAT they tell themselves.) I post at 3 feminist boards ( I will tell of 1 or 2 .. but the third I am posting as a woman just for experimentation) and the blinders these women wear to honestly (and I do believe it to be honest) spout off the anti-male, bigoted, and discriminitory ideas they have makes it clear that THEIR "feminism" is about self-entitlement, rights w/out responsibility, and constant victimology.
I hope my post was useful
Peace,
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What he said (great post Steven). IMO it's really not worth debating with someone who's unwilling to take a personal stand and yet insists that we're all wrong about what's black and white and plastered all over the media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What pisses you off, you sanctimonious shitheel, is the idea that some men might just be getting fed up.
By all means. Let us go back to soft-pedalling the issue. Like has been done for the past fifty or so years. Really fucking effective, that, isn't it?
Pissed off men brought about laws that relieved them from the burden of paternity fraud. Pissed off men brought us a Men's commision. And your namby-pamby, limp-fucking-wristed, pantywaste "engagement in dialogue" has brought us exactly what? Political correctness? Fascist "harassment" laws? Case after case of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" no win legal scenarios? Fathers driven from their children's lives, with all the wreckage that goes with it?
Oh, you're a bunch of real fucking heroes, you are.
Oh yes. Be "better" than "her" as she takes you to the cleaners in the divorce, throws you out of a house you - by the sweat of your brow alone because she wanted to exercise her "choice" to be a stay at home mom - bought and paid for, takes your car, half the business you worked for years before you even met the slut, slaps a restraining order on you, forces you to see your children in supervised visits that you have to foot the extra cash to do, drives you out of any meaningful involvement in their life, alienates them against you, raises your child support every time you get two dimes to rub together - and then you'll come to find out that one of the kids isn't even yours, it was concieved with the guy she's screwing now, and was screwing while you worked 50 plus hours a week and two jobs to make a christmas for your family; because you didn't have time to meeet her "needs." And the real Daddy is playing daddy to both the kids, living off of you, while you barely, if at all - get to be a weekend dad. Provided you don't piss her off somehow so she punishes you with no visitation - with the Family Court's official Wink and blessing of indifference.
And to top it all off, you get stuck with paying for the lawyer she hired to do it to you. WHAT A DEAL!!!! But hey, You're a WINNER because you're BETTER than she is.
Just keep telling yourself that, boyo.
Oy, yea, thus have been the fruits of your way. God save us all from any further victories, if you don't fucking mind. We're all so fucking triumphant we can hardly walk under the plunder of your myriad conquests.
But God Forbid - GOD FUCKING FORBID - we do anything that might cause us to roll up our sleeves and actually accomplish something without some pussy-whipped maggot infested phem-boy lapdog coming in here and prtonouncing judgement from on high. No, no, no. Don't call a fucking cunt a fucking cunt, or shine the harsh light of reality on her for being a gold-digging manipulative, crab infested, cum-drunk gutterslut. How Eeeeeeeeeeeeevil! Why, Massa Missy Sho' nuff do be pow'ful angry iffen we sasses her, yassuh!
If you love your tranqulity, and unexamined life, and pats from the hand of your mistresses better than a fight to be free ... Go. Fuck off and die. We don't need your crap, or your pious pronouncements, or your proven ineffective way of doing things - with friends like that, who the fuck needs enemies? Cower and whimper like the willing slave you are, you whipped cur. May the hand that feeds you crumbs from her table only beat you lightly. May your yoke be a velvet one, and may we all forget later that you claimed to be a man.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO
GOD DO I LOVE THE WAY YOU FUCKING WRITE
LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO
Holy shit, I still think you must bust a keyboard a week banging away as you must to put THAT much invective into what you write.
phew ... still laughing my ass off
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, Marc, and all kinds of people, with their distinctly unsubtle, in your face BIATCH way of doing things come in here with documentable victories and progress, however partial at times.
Then comes some cocksucker talking about what dicks we are and brings what? A track record of flapping his yap? A friggin plan of action for crissake? No - just the usual twat-slobbering "Oooh! Oooh! Don't be mean to girls!" bullshit.
I mean, Jesus Heironymious Christ in a Bucket with Fries and Slaw! Understand them? What''s to fucking understand? Last one of these skanky ho's - "Liz" that I tried to "understand" has a link to the motherfucking SCUM manifesto on her site. She thinks I'm subhuman as a male, and need to be kept in a camp. SHE FUCKING SAYS SO, IN JUST SO MANY WORDS, IN PLAIN FUCKING ENGLISH - and then the cunt is linked to by half the fucking pheminazi sites around.
Hello? Can you say she hates me? Enemy? She's the KKK to my manigger? HELLO?!?!? MCFLY?!?!?!?!?!
Fuckin' dumbasses. He's like the goddamn old Jews that were urging their people to co-operate so nobody would get hurt as they got marched into fucking Auschwitz.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 05, @10:56AM EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
Those with XY chromosomes used to be called "men".
I feel the word man-igger is a more apropriate title to-day ( and reading your post was the first time I have seen this word used). Another useful word might be "chilavery" ( amalgamation of slavery and chivalry). Chilavery is being forced to forced to fulfill traditional gender duties/obligations even though the opposite gender have been liberated from corresponding duties/obligations. As long as chilavery exists, we are all just man-iggers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 05, @08:50AM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
You, my friend, have some serious resentment issues.
Either that, or you've got terrible taste in partners. Seriously, man. What the hell kind of women are you picking up?
and whimper like the willing slave you are, you whipped cur
That just made my night. I actually almost woke up my roommates laughing. You really meant that all serious-like, didn't you?
--
Now, for a brief answer to the few coherent points you made, I have no desire to spend very much time on a post like yours
What pisses you off, you sanctimonious shitheel, is the idea that some men might just be getting fed up
Nope. What pisses me off is seeing men behaving like shitheads and making gross generalizations, because it reflects poorly on me, and limits my ability to affect social change.
Pissed off men brought about laws that relieved them from the burden of paternity fraud
And i say HUZZAH. Being pissed off is a fantastic tool and motivator for change. Being pissed off isn't a good reason to write off other social change groups, much as we've been written off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that if you want anyone to even try to imagine you as anything other than a troublemaking troll, you need to sign up and get a username. Gonzo may be a lot of things, but wishy washy was never one of them. While not always the most gracious, he is one of the most passionate and dedicated, and he kicks us in the butt when we become lax. Do not slam him and expect to win any friends here. Your opinion of his posts will not change anything.
Sincerely, The Bisuit Queen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, whatever - I'd respond more in depth, save that you haven't given much in the way of substance to work with, just more sanctimony and excuses for the ineffectiveness of your much beloved politically correct approach.
Either that, or you've got terrible taste in partners. Seriously, man. What the hell kind of women are you picking up?
I'll address this one issue? Me? This is not in toto the descriptor for any or even a composite of those women I have personally been involved with. Though some cover several of these bases. What it is shows what has happened to myself and many other men - no. Not many. The lion's share of those involved in a domestic breakup, esp. as involves men's children.
These are not ancedotal tales. Those horror stories are legion.
Men have a right to be pissed - furious - in a towering rage - over such bullshit, and for far to long have they been told - by such as you - "Don't be mad! Be a man! SUCK IT UP!"
Fuck that.
For far, far, far too long have these men been denied a place to rage, to scream, to call these evil bitches, evil bitches. Every time they do, they get some fuckhead comes in and starts preaching to them about how they're just immature, or have issues, or whatnot.
Here's a news flash for you pal. Have issues? Your command of the fucking obvious is staggering, exceeded only by your profound ignorance. Men here have been robbed of children, homes, life savings, freedom, and good name. Not to mention the many men all over hell who have just died at their own hand.
Now - got anything useful to offer? A plan to do anything? A little commiseration? Or just more of the same Pious and Politically correct twaddle you've been peddling?
If you haven't got anything better to do than surf the internet and swoop down like a seagull (That is to say, squawk, shit on everything, and leave) because someone says something you don't like or in a manner you don't care for, you're in far, far greater need of either therapy or a job than anyone I know of.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to enact social change, you need to deconstruct your own prejudices first...
I actually almost woke up my roommates laughing.
Hmmm... Postmodern post-structuralism. Multiple roommates. Holy Mother of Pearl, you're a grad student in a liberal arts program!
What pisses me off is seeing men behaving like shitheads and making gross generalizations, because it reflects poorly on me, and limits my ability to affect social change.
But of course it would would make life hard for you; you're living in the belly of the beast. How many times in the last year have you been forced to apologize for men in general and having had the bad taste to born with testicles?
And here we are encouraging men to say more things you will have to apologize for. It must be quite draining, putting all that energy into demonstrating how non-sexist you are.
Cheer up, bucko. Someday you'll apologize once too often and a fuse will blow and you'll realize IT'S JUST NOT WORTH IT. And we'll be here, waiting to welcome you with open arms.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just had my first ever vacation alone (to UK). I had a wonderful time and did things that would bore my husband and kid to tears.
I'd do it again, but not to the exclusion of going on vacation with my family. It was just different.
My husband and daughter went on vacation together (hiking) and had a marvelous time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 06, @09:25AM EST (#71)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sick of providing information/debate (the feminist work on circumcision), and then being ignored completely. ("There is NO feminist movement to stop circumcision")
I don't think I have any more reason to post here, to be honest. This board strikes me as overwhelmingly reactionary, and (unflatteringly) reminds me quite a bit of first-wave feminism. As a male, I can understand male anger directed at unfair practices designed to 'level the playing field' or what-not that actually ends up with an anti-male bias, and I work to right these wrongs -- but don't you see, you're doing the same thing that was done to you twenty years ago.
The overwhelming discriminatory tone here (being called Cupcake as an insult before I stated I was male, and then being called 'Limp-Wristed') is really too much for me to try to get past in my desire to contribute positively to the pro-male philosophy here.
Gonzo said, Men have a right to be pissed - furious - in a towering rage - over such bullshit, and for far to long have they been told - by such as you - "Don't be mad! Be a man! SUCK IT UP!" , and Gonzo was half-right. Men have a right to be pissed. I'm pissed. Seems everyone here is pissed. But again, assumptions are made. Nowhere have I said "suck it up" or "be a man" or anything along those lines. The reason I posted here in the first place was to draw the attention of the users here to comments that will hurt the credibility of the board, if/when dealing in a mixed community (ie: with women, feminists or no, who have tax funding and policy-making ability).
But as much as I know this, it's also becoming apparent to me that the general tone of this site has as much moderation and tolerance to it as the worst radical feminist boards.
I do what I can IRL to affect social change. I work towards laws, policies, and programs that don't have gender/race/sexual-orientation/class bias, and I find it's an uphill battle on both sides. The radical feminists want female protection written into the law books, and the men's activists are so busy fighting the radicals tooth-and-nail that neither side sees the egalitarians and moderates in the middle, who are increasingly made irrelevant in the face of the boys-vs-girls gender wars.
Of course there are man-hating feminists. I've been personally uninvited to an anti-DV rally because I was male, and I'm sure my experience is not unique. But saying "hey, not all male activists are sexist" at the rally went over about as well as my saying "hey, not all feminists are sexist" went over here. Neither side is willing to listen, convinced that their experience with the loudest, angriest and most visible activists is representative of the movement as a whole.
I wish you all the best, but I will not be part of a men's group that throws words like 'pantywaste' [sic] and 'cookie' around as insults. I would've hoped that Men's Issues were considered relevant here to all men, not just men who aren't "limp-wristed".
--
Jairus Pryor
restraint.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jairus - Accusing others of not responding to your posts is pretty lame since you and I had been discussing the Duluth model and you, um, left abruptly without responding to my last two posts.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, eh?.
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 06, @11:15AM EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
Sweet Jesus.
If you read my post you'll see I didn't accuse anyone of not responding. I accused people of ignoring the information I posted when replying to my posts.
Much like your post just did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 06, @11:21AM EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
In any case, feel free to pick apart whatever you'd like to in my post, ignoring the larger meaning.
I haven't replied to your posts because I haven't had time to reply to anyone's posts (I started on that circumcision one, then I wrote the 'fuck it' post.) I also haven't been able to track down any of this duluth=brainwashing material you mentioned.
But, if you wish to decide that my lack of posting highlights some moral or logical deficiency in my character or argument, feel free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, at least your second post you start to take a little responsibility. This is progress. Yes you are correct, you "ignored" the information in my posts just as you claim others have done to you. Pot, kettle, black?
Wake up! You claim to be for equality yet you support organizations that use the sexist Duluth model as a way to batter men.
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 06, @11:43AM EST (#76)
|
|
|
|
|
As I said, I've yet to see any information that shows the Duluth model as a sexist/anti-male model. I plan to take a look at the book you mentioned, but as it stands, I've seen nothing that paints the model in a sexist light. I would never support any organization that has I've seen show itself to be sexist. If the Duluth model proves to be sexist, I'll withdraw my support for organizations that use it, and speak against them. If I see organizations battering men, I'll withdraw my support for them, and speak against them.
None of this is relevant to the larger point contained within my post, of course, in regards to the tolerance and moderation shown on/by this site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, here's the basics of the Duluth model.
It assumes that violence is masculine and that men are trained by our culture to dominate the women in their lives.
It beleives that men are privileged and use this privilege as a means to exert power over women. There is no corresponding explanation for female violence.
It beleives that domestic violence is not a function of psychopatholgy, alcohol use, borderline personality disorder etc. All of these have been heavily implicated by research in the origins of domestic violence but the Duluth model is very clear in recomending that these all be seen as distractions and to ONLY focus on the male privilege/power over women issue.
It beleives that a women's violence is the result of having been previously abused by men. Somehow the prohibition against seeing alternative explanations for violence was lifted when it comes to the girls!
The men in groups are NOT ALLOWED to discuss their previous abuse or to say anything that would in any way imply that they are not the total perpetrator, in fact the men must sign a confession prior to treatment!
This is just the begining. I highly recommend you read a book or two on Duluth and see what your pals are supporting. It is disgusting and counterproductive to the max. The group leaders are made up of abused women who have a gigantic ax to grind. It is unbelievable.
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 06, @12:16PM EST (#78)
|
|
|
|
|
I plan to take a look at books on the model, but if these are the basics of the model, why are none of these points articulated on the duluth website?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Deluth model is a sexist nightmare... this from your web link:
"When a woman being beaten by her husband calls 911, she dials into a complex community system, which often resolves cases based on institutional imperatives rather than on making victim safety central. This reflects an historical tolerance for domestic violence, rather than the attitudes of individual practitioners."
not even ATTEMPTING to show balance by using the word "victim", just throw "woman" in there even though most reputable (sociological, not doj... which is severely biased by method) studies have shown spousal abuse to be a 50/50 proposition.
some more:
"To make fundamental changes in a community’s response to violence against women, individual practitioners must work cooperatively, guided by training, job descriptions, and standardized practices that are all oriented toward the desired changes."
after that we get a "typical case" where a male has abused a female, no discussion of her culpability or participation is mentioned.
"Policies and procedures adopted by agencies in the judicial system should be continually monitored by an organization which is outside the judicial system and is guided by victim advocacy programs and battered women."
and the summary:
"An intervention project is most effective if it is independent from city and county government. The DAIP in Duluth has received limited funding from these units of government, and hence has been relatively unfettered when confronting a particular practice of a participating agency. While intervention projects are usually separate from the shelter, organizers of projects should work with shelters to ensure that projects are not negatively impacting shelter funding and that the protection of battered women through safe housing and advocacy takes priority."
The Deluth model is for protecting battered women... plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.menweb.org/batdulut.htm
http://www.eurowrc.org/05.education/education_en/1 5.edu_en.htm
Here's the "Creator" wheel from the duluth website... notice the "Male Privilige" section, but no corresponding "Female Privilige".
Honestly... the Duluth model is so PERVASIVELY sexist that I find it hard to believe that any person focused on equality who's actually understands the model can support it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.duluth-model.org/documents/Creator.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you not see this on their web site? Well, because they have sanitized things with gender neutral language. It's like throwing a rabbit skin on a weasel. Ain't no rabbit but the cover looks like it. I would urge you to read through that site with the eyes of a man who was a victim of domestic violence and get a sense of what he might feel. I also want you to know that I have never been a victim or perp of DV. I don't have alot of personal baggage around it. What I have seen through my work as a therapist has convinced me of the hatred that flows from this industry.
When I first found out about this I called the local resources and was ignored and treated as if I was crazy. One woman I emailed who was a state employee involved in DV made a mistake and cc'd me with an email to a co-worker where she told her about my questions. The co-worker said that she ran into nuts like this and she just needed to ignore me and I would go away in time. I went to the state level and was literally ignored. I wrote my congressman and senators all of whom proved to me that they could care less about this issue. I ran into a wall so high and so deep that nothing could get through. I continue to be amazed at the depth of taboo over a man's pain. It is a real eye opener.
I would also urge you to read this link for more info on duluth
The Power and Control Wheel was developed by battered women in Duluth who had been abused by their male partners and were attending women's education groups sponsored by the women's shelter. The Wheel used in our curriculum for men who have used violence against their female partners. While we recognize that there are women who use violence against men, and that there are men and women in same-sex relationships who use violence, this wheel is meant specifically to illustrate men's abusive behaviors toward women. The Equality Wheel was also developed for use with the same curriculum.
Now how would you feel reading that being a male victim of DV? Make you feel real cozy, safe, and understood?
Standyourground Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I plan to take a look at books on the model, but if these are the basics of the model, why are none of these points articulated on the duluth website?
Oh gee. They soft pedal where they stand on issues. Golly gee whiz, who would ever do a thing like that?
Your word for the day is "Naive."
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 07, @11:27AM EST (#86)
|
|
|
|
|
At the end of the page about the Deluth Model
"The DAIP in Duluth has received limited funding from these units of government, and hence has been relatively unfettered when confronting a particular practice of a participating agency. While intervention projects are usually separate from the shelter, organizers of projects should work with shelters to ensure that projects are not negatively impacting shelter funding and that the protection of battered women through safe housing and advocacy takes priority."
Black and white, intervention should not take money away from WOMEN'S shelters.
According to their own model, there must legally be men's shelters. Since there are not, I believe the State is violating their own laws.
Also, they are 'unfettered' by certain gov't agencies. This says that they are exempt from said agencies rules. I wonder if the constitution is one of those agencies, you know, the whole shall not disciminate deal??
How, if you are a man, can you sit by and not only watch but defend the wholesale discrimination and slandering of your whole sex?
How can you sit and watch an evening of television and tell us that there is no male subjugating feminist agenda?
Take the blinders off, man.
~The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't replied to your posts because I haven't had time to reply to anyone's posts
I hope you at least find the time to answer my response to your attack, (I am the one who posted the story to the front page), when you aren't busying yourself with these tangents about circumcision or the Duluth model. I admit my last reply was a bit long, but I feel our small discussion in this thread has remained on topic and gotten to the crux of the issue without personal insults or silly shouting matches. At the very least, if you choose not to respond, would you please indicate whether...
1. You've decided I'm right.
2. You feel my syllogism and/or my definition of who's words and actions define feminist ideology so obviously failed to meet logical criteria, (note, logical criteria for a definition is much stricter than the dictionary might lead one to believe), that it wouldn't be worth your time to point out what everyone can obviously see.
3. You don't think your attack on me is worth defending.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
