Stand Your Ground

Stand Your Ground Forums => Main => Topic started by: dr e on May 02, 2007, 05:49 AM

Title: Another Feminist bites the dust. Same old Same old.
Post by: dr e on May 02, 2007, 05:49 AM
In her introduction a new member Kate posed the question of the harm that feminism might be causing or not causig to boys and men.  Sorry Kate if that is not exactly what you meant.  I think it's an important question and will start off and I hope others will join in with their ideas.

Imagine a family with a mother, father, two boys and two girls.  In this family the girls are given special privileges.  They get special desserts, a special diet and are taken on special outings simply becuase they are girls.  At school the classes have been designed to h elp them learn and much of the curricula is girl centered.  Talking is important to your grades.  The girls are taught special chants and slogans and are praised for repeating them.  An example is "I am a woman (girl) of power."  Extra credit is given for pumping the fist in the air while proclaiming this little ditty.  The girls are given chores but they usually are daintier and less grueling than those given the boys.  When punishments are given the girls get special treatment and are often ex cused for htting the boys since they are simply defending themselves while the boys are given harsh punishments for hitting their sisters.  Everything is done to help the girls self-esteem be as high as possible.  The rules favor the girls and often there are rules that give punishments to a behavior that is done to a girl but no punishment for the same thing done to boys.

All the while the boys are told that all of this is being done for the girls since in families prior to theirs the girls didn't get as much. Now it is time to make up for that.  They are told that is just the way it is.  They are also told that much of this is their fault.  Boys and men historically have been the problem and that they shouldn't try to be powerful like their sisters, they should try to be humble and simply take it like a man.  They don't have any chants for the boys, they tell them that being a boy is not a great start and that he needs to strive to counter his biology and his natural instinct to be masculine by being more like his sisters. 

Now tell me.  Does this system hurt the boys?

DUH.

Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: The Gonzman on May 02, 2007, 05:57 AM
Yes, feminism hurts boys; so much so that if it were within my power I would remove boys from the custody of feminist mothers.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: zarby on May 02, 2007, 06:10 AM
 
I take my children over to my sister's household frequently to visit.

She is affluent with a nice house. She lives "the good life."

She has three children -- two girls and one boy.

Her children are very successful. The oldest (a girl) got admitted to a prestigous university.
She has gotten awards for various things, etc.

My two boys spent several days over there over the Easter holiday.

They came back pointing out that the girls have nicer things in their room than the boy.
The girls don't do chores. They boy does all kinds of chores.

The statement was made that the the "[boy] is not loved as much."

Further, "mom [my ex-wife] says [sister] never wanted any boys -- just girls."

I actually don't think any of these things are true. This boy started life as an extremely
premature baby. His parents went to great lengths suffering huge hardships to get
him started out right in life. I know they love him as much as the girls. I do suspect
though that he does far more chores than the girls. I don't know who has the most
goodies in their rooms -- who has the newest computer, the biggest TV, etc.

I was shocked though that the boys picked up on this. I was disturbed that my
ex-wife apparently would say something like that.

I think at a minimum this story shows that boys are thinking about things like these.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: brian44 on May 02, 2007, 06:32 AM
I would say most of the depression, loneliness, lack of self-respect and poor self-image I have experienced over the decades is completely attributable to feminism. So yes, it has definitely hurt me.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: zarby on May 02, 2007, 06:47 AM

That is interesting, Brian44.

I don't know your age or circumstances but you speak of decades so you must have some age on you.

I never felt harmed by feminism until my divorce but I have felt extremely harmed since that point.

I was shocked -- absolutely shocked -- at how I was treated.

I didn't feel harmed as a child or even a young adult.

I probably predated the worst abuses.

I graduated high school 1979.

I don't think these got really bad until the 1990s and after.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: brian44 on May 02, 2007, 07:12 AM


That is interesting, Brian44.

I don't know your age or circumstances but you speak of decades so you must have some age on you.

I never felt harmed by feminism until my divorce but I have felt extremely harmed since that point.

I was shocked -- absolutely shocked -- at how I was treated.

I didn't feel harmed as a child or even a young adult.

I probably predated the worst abuses.

I graduated high school 1979.

I don't think these got really bad until the 1990s and after.


I'm in my 40s. My earliest memory of feminism was a programme about the redundancy of men, broadcast in the early 70s. There were aggressive feminist lesbians supporting the argument that women could one day reproduce without men, as only two X chromosomes were necessary.  They spoke of a man-free utopia where all evil would be eradicated without men. It was a studio debate, with a lot of hatred towards men. As I was a boy at the time, I found it quite disturbing to think that there were women out there that didn't think I was needed, or even deserve to exist. This left a scar on me. I'm old enough to remember a time when women did need men and the media didn't take every opportunity to destroy our self image or confidence. I remember a time when women were feminine. And I also remember a time when I didn't get depressed watching films or programmes where my gender was ridiculed to sell products or appeal to women. BTW, I have been complaining about the negative stereotyping of men since the 80s. I think at the time, most men didn't actually notice what was going on and why they didn't feel as good about themselves. Nearly all of the men I spoke to about this agreed with me after watching the media from a new perspective.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: zarby on May 02, 2007, 07:26 AM

Yeah, I remember elements of extreme feminism from the 1970s but I considered them just wierdos.

I didn't think they had any real effect on my life. I viewed much as a bizarre cult or something.

Your comment about remembering women being feminine is so true.

I so rarely see a woman anymore who is truly feminine. I am not talking just about her body shape, etc.

I truly feminine woman carries herself differently and has a different attitude than most women now.

I do think the younger women may be reverting back to feminity (or never lost it). I visited a college campus a week or so ago and saw a number of women who seemed to me to have a "feminine" attitude and appearance. I wonder whether they will still have it at age 30 or 40 and beyond?

Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: brian44 on May 02, 2007, 07:42 AM

I do think the younger women may be reverting back to feminity (or never lost it). I visited a college campus a week or so ago and saw a number of women who seemed to me to have a "feminine" attitude and appearance. I wonder whether they will still have it at age 30 or 40 and beyond?



I wish I could say the same for London. When I see so many young women drunk and incapable of walking properly, or even collapsed in the street, I'm not too hopeful. I've actually seen women brawling in the street and it's not a pretty sight. I hope things really are better for you in your area though.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on May 02, 2007, 10:19 AM
I think the numbers speak for themselves.

Boys are

80% Ritalin users
80% teen suicides
most drop outs
most suspensions and expulsions
Less likely to score well on standardized testing (except math SATs?)
Less likely to graduate
Less likely to apply to or get into college
Less likely to graduate college

95% of elementary-high school school teachers are women


any more?
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: brian44 on May 02, 2007, 10:39 AM

I think the numbers speak for themselves.

Boys are

80% Ritalin users
80% teen suicides
most drop outs
most suspensions and expulsions
Less likely to score well on standardized testing (except math SATs?)
Less likely to graduate
Less likely to apply to or get into college
Less likely to graduate college

95% of elementary-high school school teachers are women


any more?


Outrageous. Imagine the seismic shock waves if those figures were for girls...
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: JackBauersPowerHour on May 02, 2007, 11:20 AM
Feminism has "separated" boys from men, and then I think the harm is implied.

Divorce has left kids to see Dad maybe 4 days a month if hes lucky. Now with such paranoia over child abuse and sexual abuse, good luck trying to find a talented strong male in the teaching or child care profession anymore. In fact, there is such hysteria going on, good luck finding males who want to be Big Brothers or Little League coaches or Boy Scout leaders or mentors anymore either. All it takes is one false accusation and your life is over.

There is no longer any structure in society left, except maybe sports, where men and boys can bond and boys can learn how to be men.

I think feminism is reaching for straws now. They can vote. They can apply for any job now. Theres nothing to whine about but the petty stupid things. No different than PETA or MADD now. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, well the penalties for drunk driving are pretty extreme now. All they can do is demand the legal limit be lowered yet again, because thats all that they can bitch about. At some level, this is about justifying your job. If a woman's job is to push feminist issues and lobby, but there is no oppression going on anymore, what can they do except invent something? "Hey lets threaten to sue public schools to start programs just for little girls! That will justify my paycheck this month!"

Feminism will self destruct rest assured. Eventually they will be seen by society as a bunch of fucking idiots. No offense to PETA, but they've grasped at straws for so long that they look stupid most of the time now. Completely out of touch with the real world. Feminism will do the same thing. Eventually they will run out of things to cry about and people will stop listening. And finally people will look at feminists for what they are - a bunch of old, probably overweight nags who no man wants to fuck, marry or date. Any movement based on hate is bound to self destruct. That's why I've always said that MRAs shouldn't pan women indiscriminately like the way women piss on men, it only makes us as bad as them. It will only ensure our destruction in the end.

JBPH
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: jaketk on May 02, 2007, 12:00 PM


All the while the boys are told that all of this is being done for the girls since in families prior to theirs the girls didn't get as much. Now it is time to make up for that.  They are told that is just the way it is.  They are also told that much of this is their fault.  Boys and men historically have been the problem and that they shouldn't try to be powerful like their sisters, they should try to be humble and simply take it like a man.  They don't have any chants for the boys, they tell them that being a boy is not a great start and that he needs to strive to counter his biology and his natural instinct to be masculine by being more like his sisters. 


One of the foster kids I stay with grew up in a home similar to what you describe, though more violent. As I understand it, he was the only male in the home with several women and his sisters. While I cannot be sure those women were feminists, based on his behavior and the things he has occasionally stated about his experience, it would appear that their views about males are in sync with those feminists. But even outside of an extreme example like that, constantly being reminded that girls are better or need special treatment is not something boys will miss. One does not have to tell a person that is he lesser than someone else for the message to get across. All one need do is constantly tell the other person she is better or treat her better.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Mr. X on May 02, 2007, 02:41 PM

I think the numbers speak for themselves.

Boys are

80% Ritalin users
80% teen suicides
most drop outs
most suspensions and expulsions
Less likely to score well on standardized testing (except math SATs?)
Less likely to graduate
Less likely to apply to or get into college
Less likely to graduate college

95% of elementary-high school school teachers are women


any more?


Only 12% of teachers k-8 are men.
Men die 5 times more on the job.
Men live on the average 8 years less than women.
In the vast majority of single parent households its the boy who will live without a same sex parent more than a girl.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on May 02, 2007, 07:18 PM
Oh, you are right, it is 85% of teachers, not 95%, sorry!
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: PaulGuelph on May 02, 2007, 09:31 PM
It is hurting everyone.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Kate on May 02, 2007, 10:29 PM
Hi to everyone here.
Right. I have now had time to have a brief survey of this forum, and it seems so far that a lot of the posters here have a very different definition of feminism than myself...even more so than I had previously thought! There are a few issues that arise from this, not least ones regarding who gets to decide premises/epistemological definitions, but here is my no.1 concern:

Some, if not all, of the people here plainly feel that feminism has hurt them. Directly. As a human being, I am concerned about that, since I personally think that political ideology should NEVER trump compassion. Whether I agree or disagree with your take on feminism is not really the issue here. (Well, it kind of is, but bear with me.) I am having some difficulty in deciding how to proceed, and here's why:

I don't want to be the cause of pain and suffering for anyone if I can help it.
Some people have directly stated that feminism hurts them/is still hurting them. For some, this may mean not engaging with feminism or feminists more than they actually *have to* (and I can see why, if you regard feminism as a hate movement).
I identify as a feminist. Not by any definitons I've seen here so far, no, but still: I am a feminist, and for some people that means the enemy. If you want to get into why I am a feminist, definitions etc we can do that,  but as far as this thread goes, my main priority is going to be listening and asking questions.

However, I can see why even that approach is going to be offensive to some. A KKK member on an anti-racist forum is probably going to be offensive even just asking questions. So here's my problem: even given that I am going to try and consider it from YOUR point of view, I will need to ask questions and clarify as to what that POV is and why. I have a lot of questions and a lot of points of disagreement with what's been said. IF, as some of you might well think, it is not worth your time, or worse, it is going to cause you pain to even talk to me because I am a feminist, then I would be grateful if you could indicate that.* Otherwise, I don't think it's fair on my side to start critiquing anything anyone has said on this forum.

*Just to be clear, I am not implying and do not intend to imply that doing so indicates anything in the way of admission of defeat or whatever as regards your arguments.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: CaptDMO on May 03, 2007, 12:43 AM
Nice disclaimer.
Here's a thought-
All sorts of folk assume the penumbra of feminist, when in fact they are nothing of the sort .
The web is simply chocked FULL of all sorts of re-defined and co-opted assumptions as to
seperate branches of feminism Feel free to identify with one or two, perhaps even
identify with a philosophy that has nothing to do with gender at all!
Just a simple phrase or two that best brackets your position. No need to go into
entire histories or philosophies yet, and I believe most will agree that no one "label"
perfectly defines an individuals position.

This would be helpful in framing answers to potential queries.

I can only write for my own position on a few points right off the bat.
Quote
I personally think that political ideology should NEVER trump compassion.
I consider this misguided and nieve.
Quote
I have a lot of questions and a lot of points of disagreement with what's been said.
Perhaps you'd consider just presenting your questions, citing what you disagree with and defending it, and NOT chipping away from the shadows whenever the
opportunity suits you.
It is certainly your choice.
Quote
However, I can see why even that approach is going to be offensive to some.
So what? Get on with it!
No one can please everybody. Just as the term Politicly Correct has proven to be an ironic oxymoron, I have found that fear of offending, for a multitude of potential concequences, has done nothing but discourage exchange of ideas, divide common goals, and empower  parasites that thrive exclusively on continued conflict between folks that otherwise have no objections to each others life choices.
Again, your choice.

My OWN disclaimer.
I hold precious little respect for the defense of any grand theory feminism, presented as assumed universal truth. I usually have an ear for annecdotal phenomina.
Acadamia has had little of value to offer to me on the subject-FAR to easy to shred!
Maya Angelou (for one) however, can be annoyingly poignant.   

There are many other stances here.
This one is mine.

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Sociopathic Revelation on May 03, 2007, 02:36 AM

Hi to everyone here.
Right. I have now had time to have a brief survey of this forum, and it seems so far that a lot of the posters here have a very different definition of feminism than myself...even more so than I had previously thought! There are a few issues that arise from this, not least ones regarding who gets to decide premises/epistemological definitions, but here is my no.1 concern:

Some, if not all, of the people here plainly feel that feminism has hurt them. Directly. As a human being, I am concerned about that, since I personally think that political ideology should NEVER trump compassion. Whether I agree or disagree with your take on feminism is not really the issue here. (Well, it kind of is, but bear with me.) I am having some difficulty in deciding how to proceed, and here's why:

I don't want to be the cause of pain and suffering for anyone if I can help it.
Some people have directly stated that feminism hurts them/is still hurting them. For some, this may mean not engaging with feminism or feminists more than they actually *have to* (and I can see why, if you regard feminism as a hate movement).
I identify as a feminist. Not by any definitons I've seen here so far, no, but still: I am a feminist, and for some people that means the enemy. If you want to get into why I am a feminist, definitions etc we can do that,  but as far as this thread goes, my main priority is going to be listening and asking questions.

However, I can see why even that approach is going to be offensive to some. A KKK member on an anti-racist forum is probably going to be offensive even just asking questions. So here's my problem: even given that I am going to try and consider it from YOUR point of view, I will need to ask questions and clarify as to what that POV is and why. I have a lot of questions and a lot of points of disagreement with what's been said. IF, as some of you might well think, it is not worth your time, or worse, it is going to cause you pain to even talk to me because I am a feminist, then I would be grateful if you could indicate that.* Otherwise, I don't think it's fair on my side to start critiquing anything anyone has said on this forum.

*Just to be clear, I am not implying and do not intend to imply that doing so indicates anything in the way of admission of defeat or whatever as regards your arguments.



Kate, one of the biggest reasons that I have been wary of feminism and anyone who has exposed feminism is that not only is it female centric (I appreciate your honestly here---by way of its ideology it is based on this premise; you are completely correct), but that it defines and regulates masculinity by its own parameters, and not always on the basis of true equality or for considering men's best interests.  Chances are many people accepted certain feminist memes simply because they not only believed they were doing good, but that in turn it would also liberate men from the confines of roles they didn't want to accept or felt burdened by. 

Unfortunately, this hasn't completely demonstrated this notion (there are many variables I am glossing over here, such as advances in birth control that freed up women to some extent, socioeconomic factors, and other things I'm not going to go in depth here) but what we have seen is continued cultural assault on men.  I've asked questions about certain topics ranging from hypergamy (and why lower class men struggle to find suitable long term mates), why women are protected in the legal arena often at the expense of men, absurd charges of sexual harassment on elementary school boys, and even the never ending parade of articles condemning men for choosing their own individual path ("toxic bachelors"), and while it DOES seem that men's issues are gradually being pushed upwards from merely being an underground phenom and limited other circles, the problems are occurring.  Just look at the harsh attempts to discredit fathers seeking justice as manipulative and abusive towards women, especially in the feminist online communities.

It's been suggested that feminism failed men.  The truth is that feminism really wasn't meant for men in the first place, in my not so humble opinion.  What the Hugos and his ilk often claim is that men have misplaced misogyny because they are losing ground with special treatment "patriarchy" gave them by the default.  Nothing of the sort really happened, and that most men have struggled with various issues since we became aware of injustice and social malaise that is often inherently anti-male.  Instead of men's rights being axiomatic in our culture (namely America for me here) it is an uphill battle for most men.  VERY few men have enormous power despite what many feminist attest to, and even now wealthy celebs are getting taken for a ride in divorce court by vindictive exs.

One thing, to me, is clear.  The Pandora's box has been opened and the lid cannot be closed.  There is no going back to "traditional" modes completely, unless men and women, in every major aspect, decided on this as a social compact worth keeping.  Aside from that, I find it puzzling you believe that the MRM is going to be harmful towards women.  I haven't read one public MRA assert that it's a positive thing, although I have read gender feminists openly (in print) describe violent actions toward men with quite the zeal . .
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: neonsamurai on May 03, 2007, 02:43 AM
Hi Kate,

Welcome to SYG. Believe it or not we like it when feminists turn up here and debate with us, which is really what this place is for. Having said that we do get more than a few 'drive bys' whereby someone turns up, calls us 'woman haters' and then leaves without backing up their arguments.

I'm I guess most of us here would classify themselves as some form of MRA or another. Some of us are armchair activists, some of us are a lot more involved, but we exist because feminism isn't doing it's job. It's touted as a movement based around 'equality', but similar to 'Animal Farm' it seems that some of us are more equal than others.

Fawcett Society (http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?Pageid=5) is the mouthpiece for the UK feminist movement.

National Organisation of Women (http://www.now.org/issues/) is the main US feminist body.

Check out those two links and see were they talk about issues where men miss out. Apparently there aren't any. I'd have a lot more respect for those organisations if they started calling themselves 'women's rights advocates' and stopped pedalling their 'equality' BS. I'm here because the organisations that speak for feminists clearly don't care about the rights of men, only what they can make us responsible for and I can't see them every being satisfied.

For example, the Fawcett Society is currently campaigning for equal pensions for women. "For every pound of income received by men in a pensioner couple, women receive less than 32 pence." They claim that this is unfair and are campaigning to prevent female OAP's living in poverty.

What they forget to mention is that most pensions in the UK are based on how much you contribute to them and also the fact that the retirement age for men is 65 and for women 60. Men in the UK work an average of 14 years more in their (shorter) life times than the average woman and contribute far more to the countries GDP. That's bearing in mind that the average Britan works around 39 years of their life.

So what the Fawcett Society want is an 'equal' outcome for less work. They're not pushing for women to work longer and contribute more, they're just picking bits of 'equality' and demanding they have it.

You either have equality or special treatment. You can't have one and claim it's the other.

That's my beef with feminism.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: zarby on May 03, 2007, 03:20 AM

Men have traditionally at least since the industrial age worked for money and contributed their monetary earnings largely to their wives and families.

Their wives contributed other things without monetary value but arguably as or even more valuable.

Now, women don't want to contribute these other things. Yet, they still want the money.

The extreme here is where the wife divorces the man yet retains a significant portion of his income while doing nothing for him other than tormenting him.

So, women want equal retirement benefits even thought they contribute less?

This is just another way of women getting the money without giving anything in return.

Money is largely what men have to bargain with. When the money is taken forcibly by law and given to women, the man is left largely without anything to contribute or bargain with. Why should a woman give him the time of day? She can get his money whether she does or not.

The men become slaves to women who will not give them the time of day? This is a pretty bleak world that is developing.

Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: bluedye on May 03, 2007, 04:47 AM
When you have people (feminists) trying to demonize masculinity with a multi-faceted approach (false dv/rape stats, "sensitivity" training,  wage gap patriarchal paranoia, VAWA & the societal indoctrination that a VAWA is "necessary", constant references to the violent nature of males in books/interviews/blogs, women's studies curriculums where men are targeted repeatedly, etc.) ...men and boys will suffer.

When I'm watching TV with my family & I see a commercial about a family where the dad is bumbling around like an idiot while his family mocks him, I can't help wonder what my kids are thinking.

It makes you ponder why this type of commercial is so prevalent & why it's totally acceptable by our society.

The feminist assault on men as a group/class for 40 years has led to the notion that men DESERVE to be shit upon.   Yup, we asked for it.  We're oppressive & violent & that's why we need to be "fixed."

As insane as that notion sounds, it is translated into laws and societal attitude about men.

Feminists don't see men as equals, they see men as competition.  ...So they've engaged themselves in a "dirty-pool" game to discredit & monkey-wrench the competition.

Our society is a very different place because of their efforts & it's not all happy little stories about "breaking the glass ceilings" & about the glory of the female vote.  That's what the feminists list on their resume, but neglect to mention the malicious assault on the male gender.

The stats that BQ outlined paint a picture of how the efforts of feminists contribute to the state of men & masculinity in 2007.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on May 03, 2007, 04:53 AM
Welcome Kate. I realize you will be swamped with replies here, so I will make this brief.

What the above posts boil down to is feminism's main body stands for issues which are not about equality, but about protecting and advancing the interests of only women, many times at the expense of men.

While you can put any definition you want on feminism, NOW sets the standard here in the US. If you disagree with NOW you are disagreeing with modern, mainstream feminism.

I will add two more ways that modern, mainstream feminism hurts men. One, reproductive rights. Men have none. Zero. Zip. They cannot even keep it in their pants, because men and boys who have been raped, and men who are not the father ( and have been proven medically not to be the father) have by court, order under threat of jail, been made to pay child support and thus become parents against their will.

Women are given every choice available, in some cases including killing their infants and walking away.

There has to be a middle ground here.

The other is VAWA. The Violence Against Women Act. I just did a speech in a college class (I am a returning college student as an adult) about violence against men. Men are 3 times more likely to be murdered. They are twice as likely to be assaulted. They are 30% of reported domestic violence cases according to the CDC. If one takes into account prison rape, it is possible men are raped more than women-we do not know.  They are 93% of all workplace fatalities, and 98% of military fatalities.

So by the most trusted sources, it is MEN who are more victims of violence than women.

Yet feminists fought for, and fight to maintain, Violence against women   Act. Not only that, but they actively fight to keep out language to make it inclusive to men as well. Also, when ever services for men are spoken of, NOW/feminists go on the warpath claiming you cannot take thier money, go start your own shelters. Who do you think mainly pays for VAWA and women's shelters!? Taxpayers, most of whom are men! 10 Billion dollars in the last 10 years to VAWA, paid for by the publics taxes, and 1/2 that public is denied those services. That is NOT equality.

So, as I step off my soap box, smooth down my skirts and take a deep breath, I will just say that feminism does not in practice equal equality. I wil tell you what I told myself years ago-feminism does not stand for equality, and since I do, feminism does not stand for me. I proudly stand beside these men knowing that they truly want equality, not special perks.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: bachelor tom on May 03, 2007, 06:38 AM
My two cents as an ordinary guy (not an MRA yet):

On the personal level I'm sick of male-bashing in the media and everyday conversation, I'm sick of seeing incompetent females promoted and supported around me, I'm sick of promiscuity, ignorance and self-absorption promoted as healthy and desirable lifestyles

On the macro level I worry that western women will stop breeding, thus paving the way for the loss of everything good in the western cultural tradition, including objective scientific inquiry and a level of security and comfort only dreamed of by our ancestors

In a more abstract way I'm sick of the way radical feminists twist language and data in an unethical and dishonest fashion to achieve narrow in-group goals at the expense of the rest of society
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: dr e on May 03, 2007, 08:06 AM

Kate - The purpose of this forum is to discuss these issues.  All points of view are welcome.  It would be helpful to hear where you stand and your own definition of feminism.  Tell us what you think.  Please do tell us how you think we are wrong.  Otherwise it becomes a one-way converstation.  Maybe like a hunter in a duck blind. 

E



Hi to everyone here.
Right. I have now had time to have a brief survey of this forum, and it seems so far that a lot of the posters here have a very different definition of feminism than myself...even more so than I had previously thought! There are a few issues that arise from this, not least ones regarding who gets to decide premises/epistemological definitions, but here is my no.1 concern:

Some, if not all, of the people here plainly feel that feminism has hurt them. Directly. As a human being, I am concerned about that, since I personally think that political ideology should NEVER trump compassion. Whether I agree or disagree with your take on feminism is not really the issue here. (Well, it kind of is, but bear with me.) I am having some difficulty in deciding how to proceed, and here's why:

I don't want to be the cause of pain and suffering for anyone if I can help it.
Some people have directly stated that feminism hurts them/is still hurting them. For some, this may mean not engaging with feminism or feminists more than they actually *have to* (and I can see why, if you regard feminism as a hate movement).
I identify as a feminist. Not by any definitons I've seen here so far, no, but still: I am a feminist, and for some people that means the enemy. If you want to get into why I am a feminist, definitions etc we can do that,  but as far as this thread goes, my main priority is going to be listening and asking questions.

However, I can see why even that approach is going to be offensive to some. A KKK member on an anti-racist forum is probably going to be offensive even just asking questions. So here's my problem: even given that I am going to try and consider it from YOUR point of view, I will need to ask questions and clarify as to what that POV is and why. I have a lot of questions and a lot of points of disagreement with what's been said. IF, as some of you might well think, it is not worth your time, or worse, it is going to cause you pain to even talk to me because I am a feminist, then I would be grateful if you could indicate that.* Otherwise, I don't think it's fair on my side to start critiquing anything anyone has said on this forum.

*Just to be clear, I am not implying and do not intend to imply that doing so indicates anything in the way of admission of defeat or whatever as regards your arguments.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: gwallan on May 03, 2007, 08:41 AM

Maybe like a hunter in a duck blind. 


Jeez E! Isn't one duck thread enough.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Kate on May 03, 2007, 09:15 AM
Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful replies. I'm a bit busy tomorrow but I will read over them again and post a reply asap when I've had a ponder.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: dr e on May 03, 2007, 09:53 AM
My apologies Gwallan.  How could I have been so blind?  It's time for me duck out for fear that the good folks here may think this doc a quack!




Maybe like a hunter in a duck blind. 


Jeez E! Isn't one duck thread enough.

Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: dr e on May 03, 2007, 09:56 AM

We will look forward to hearing from you Kate.  I do hope you are willing to discuss this.  Most of those who have come before you have said something similar and then we don't hear from them again.  Maybe you will be different. 



Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful replies. I'm a bit busy tomorrow but I will read over them again and post a reply asap when I've had a ponder.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: The Gonzman on May 03, 2007, 10:06 AM

Hi to everyone here.
Right. I have now had time to have a brief survey of this forum, and it seems so far that a lot of the posters here have a very different definition of feminism than myself...even more so than I had previously thought! There are a few issues that arise from this, not least ones regarding who gets to decide premises/epistemological definitions, but here is my no.1 concern:


Here's my concern: What is feminism?

In the other thread on "Introductions" I linked to a piece by myself which defined what the M/FRM means to me.  It includes also statements of what it is not.

As far as getting that from a feminist - my impression is that you might as well call yourselves "JSUNWTCHDUTISTS."  It means nothing.  According to just about every feminist in recent memory that has come around here, you can believe whatever you want, and as long as you call yourself a feminist, then, by Gum, you're a feminist.

That's weaselly to me.  It's slick, and intellectually dishonest.  It avoids having to defend - or even think - about unpalatable positions by saying "Well not all feminists think the same on everything..."  While technically true, I can say the same thing about, for instance, Atheists.  While all of them don't think alike, if you get one who burns incense and offers up chants to Loki, well, they're not a very good atheist.

So - what is you commonality?  Anything?  What beliefs must a feminist hold?  What can they not hold?  Is it possible to be a pro-life feminist?  A conservative one?  Are Wendy MacElroy and Christina Hoff Summers "Feminists in Good Standing?"  Or no?

Does one support "Affirmative Action" for women?  If the answer is yes, then it will follow that this will lead to quotas and tokenism.  How do you reconcile that?  How do you answer the very legitimate question of "So you're saying it's okay to hire someone based on their sex if that sex is female?"

Take a stand.  Take a position.  Have the courage of your convictions.

And ask yourself why feminism has developed such a bunker mentality; also, why does it seem there is so much effort to hide what it means?  Is it a thing which cannot withstand scrutiny?  Is it something to be ashamed of?

Quote
Some, if not all, of the people here plainly feel that feminism has hurt them. Directly. As a human being, I am concerned about that, since I personally think that political ideology should NEVER trump compassion.


Political ideology?  Riddle me this:

Mary and John get married, have a child, and get divorced.  As a matter of rote, Mary winds up with custody, is the recipient of child support, gets the house, etc. etc.

All on the sheer basis of her sex.  This hurts John, primarily because he goes from "Father who has a daily presence in his child's life" to "Visitor in his Child's Life."

The law gets changed; this prompts a revisiting of the case, which then changes to give John custody, et al.  This is on the basis of the facts - but when all is said and done, this hurts Mary, who now becomes the visitor in her child's life.

Someone will wind up hurt no matter what.

Quote
Whether I agree or disagree with your take on feminism is not really the issue here. (Well, it kind of is, but bear with me.) I am having some difficulty in deciding how to proceed, and here's why:

I don't want to be the cause of pain and suffering for anyone if I can help it.
Some people have directly stated that feminism hurts them/is still hurting them. For some, this may mean not engaging with feminism or feminists more than they actually *have to* (and I can see why, if you regard feminism as a hate movement).


Depends - you going to cling stubbornly to it?

I could give you a very long litany of the sins that feminists and feminism have committed against me.  I was an abused husband - not because I couldn't have snapped the little bitch in two with one hand, but because I got taught never - EVER - to hit a woman.  Not even in self-defense.  I endured broken fingers, burns, scaldings, ambushes while I slept - all manner of abuse.  And the reaction I have gotten from 90% or better of feminists have ranged from "Well, you eventually slammed her against a wall and told her no more, so since you have the greater *potential* to cause harm, this makes you the abusive one" to "What did you do to her to provoke her?" or the classic "Well, that's too bad, and nobody should go through that - but there's not enough of you to be worth helping."

Oh.  Also "Build your own shelters."  Yep.  Tried it.  The leader of the local N.O.W. at the time torpedoed me, and campaigned actively against it.

Quote
I identify as a feminist. Not by any definitons I've seen here so far, no, but still: I am a feminist, and for some people that means the enemy. If you want to get into why I am a feminist, definitions etc we can do that,  but as far as this thread goes, my main priority is going to be listening and asking questions.


What you are getting is people's definitions based not on what feminists SAY, but what they have seen them DO.

Quote
However, I can see why even that approach is going to be offensive to some. A KKK member on an anti-racist forum is probably going to be offensive even just asking questions. So here's my problem: even given that I am going to try and consider it from YOUR point of view, I will need to ask questions and clarify as to what that POV is and why. I have a lot of questions and a lot of points of disagreement with what's been said. IF, as some of you might well think, it is not worth your time, or worse, it is going to cause you pain to even talk to me because I am a feminist, then I would be grateful if you could indicate that.* Otherwise, I don't think it's fair on my side to start critiquing anything anyone has said on this forum.


Just remember that taking potshots at someone's POV, while keeping your own hidden will be called out.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: bluedye on May 04, 2007, 01:59 AM
Quote from: Gonzokid
As far as getting that from a feminist - my impression is that you might as well call yourselves "JSUNWTCHDUTISTS."  It means nothing.  According to just about every feminist in recent memory that has come around here, you can believe whatever you want, and as long as you call yourself a feminist, then, by Gum, you're a feminist.

That's weaselly to me.  It's slick, and intellectually dishonest.  It avoids having to defend - or even think - about unpalatable positions by saying "Well not all feminists think the same on everything..."


Right on.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on May 04, 2007, 04:38 AM
I look forward to Kate's response. I would love for once to hear a feminist explain how it is acceptable that mainstream feminism supports such sexism against men. 
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Chris Key on May 04, 2007, 06:10 AM

I identify as a feminist. Not by any definitons I've seen here so far, no, but still: I am a feminist, and for some people that means the enemy. If you want to get into why I am a feminist, definitions etc we can do that,  but as far as this thread goes, my main priority is going to be listening and asking questions.


Does anyone else believe that the term 'feminism' is as bigoted and offensive as the term 'white supremacism'?  Both movements support the empowerment of their respective followers at the expense of the people they hate.  Therefore, I don't think a feminist is any better than a white supremacist.

A feminist saying that she's fighting for 'equality between the sexes' is no different to a KKK member saying he's fighting for 'equality between the races'.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: JackBauersPowerHour on May 05, 2007, 02:33 AM

Some, if not all, of the people here plainly feel that feminism has hurt them. Directly. ...
Some people have directly stated that feminism hurts them/is still hurting them.


Feminism costs everyone. There a direct associated cost to feminism in America. Every moment has a social cost and a bottom line cost. Affirmative action has a real dollar cost to the US economy. Some is implied - contracts, social programs, etc. Some is not implied - loss of productivity for sake of political correctness.

I don't mind that people believe what they want to believe - I START TO MIND WHEN I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

Thanks to feminism and the idea that women don't need men and the drive to push males out of the family unit, there are a ton of teenage single mothers out there. Who pays for it when those kids having kids need to go on welfare? Uh .... all of us. Our tax dollars.

If I am trapped in a fire and some female firefighter isn't strong enough to drag my ass out of a burning building, and she's only there because she sued the living shit out of a fire department to get there - do I deserve to die so someone feels more "equal" when men and women are clearly not "equal" in many things?

If you think there is no "cost" to feminism in America, then you defy the basic reasoning found in most high school economics books. I mean these are concepts we teach 16-17 year olds.

Here's my message to feminists -

PAY FOR YOUR OWN SHIT YOUR OWN DAMN SELF

Am I the only person here who is tired of his tax dollars subsidizing these whiney for profit martyr movements that don't show one bit of common sense most of the time?

Every time a man goes into work has to take an extra five minutes to tiptoe around a walking lawsuit in a skirt and be ultra PC as to not offend her to get the job done is five minutes of lost productivity. And that costs ALL OF US. Those costs are passed on to the consumer. They are passed on to our tax bills.

In every product we buy as Americans, we are paying a percentage of that cost to account for the stupidity of people working in that organization.  They pass the cost of that stupidity onto us all. Feminism, in a fiscal sense, passes on the cost of the stupidity of their movement onto all of us.

Feminism hurts us all.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: CG9603 on May 05, 2007, 06:13 AM
Short answer: Yes.  Emphatically.  Particularly in the issue of harassment.  Others have already listed additional reasons by which I think feminism has harmed males. 
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: dr e on May 09, 2007, 06:27 AM
I am hoping that Kate will be true to her word and discuss the issues raised in this thread.  My fear is that she will be like the others who have come before her.  We all remember those folks asking questions (sometimes in a belligerant manner) who received thoughtful and clear responses and then dissappeared.  For this reason I am making this thread a sticky for all to see.  If and when Kate comes back I will re-open this thread.  Until then it serves as a reminder.

My compliments to all of you who have written on this thread.  Well done.
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Nillerz on May 09, 2007, 07:29 PM
I think the bad thing is the obviousness, many boys, if memory serves, say that things in their school or at home are sexist all the time.

When I was 8, I used to go to the woods with my dad and we'd cut and stack firewood. My sisters are older than 8, and they go with us to stack firewood, but they get to do other things.

Also, in the school, teachers would say things like 'Because girls are smarter' and the girls would you 'YEEEEAAAAAAAAAH!'

And we'd say 'That's sexist!' and hear, "It's only sexist if you're a girl. You can't be sexist against boys!"

Then we'd get our name written on the board and we'd have to sit out during playtime...
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: brian44 on May 09, 2007, 10:13 PM

And we'd say 'That's sexist!' and hear, "It's only sexist if you're a girl. You can't be sexist against boys!"

Then we'd get our name written on the board and we'd have to sit out during playtime...



Yes, there's one thing the female gender does much better than the male: HYPOCRISY
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: dr e on May 10, 2007, 04:25 AM


And we'd say 'That's sexist!' and hear, "It's only sexist if you're a girl. You can't be sexist against boys!"

Then we'd get our name written on the board and we'd have to sit out during playtime...



Yes, there's one thing the female gender does much better than the male: HYPOCRISY


That's a negative generalization Brian and a warning for you. 
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: brian44 on May 10, 2007, 04:36 AM



And we'd say 'That's sexist!' and hear, "It's only sexist if you're a girl. You can't be sexist against boys!"

Then we'd get our name written on the board and we'd have to sit out during playtime...



Yes, there's one thing the female gender does much better than the male: HYPOCRISY

That's a negative generalization Brian and a warning for you. 




Sorry, maybe I should have said IME, or qualified it to the vast majority of feminists in general, but IME women are generally much more guilty of this kind of thing. If only feminist sites were so keen on banishing negative generalisations about men...
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: dr e on May 10, 2007, 04:43 AM
Yes Brian.  Just qualify it by saying that has been your experience.  That would be fine.  It would be interesting to see a fem site that held its members accountable for what they say about men.  That could be a feature in MAD Magazines "Things we would like to see" column. 
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Chastity on May 10, 2007, 06:23 AM

Yes Brian.  Just qualify it by saying that has been your experience.  That would be fine.  It would be interesting to see a fem site that held its members accountable for what they say about men.  That could be a feature in MAD Magazines "Things we would like to see" column. 

Great idea, E. I suggest that equality is added, as a "thing we would like to see" to that column.
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Big Log on May 10, 2007, 07:02 AM
I think that it begs the question of what good has feminism done boys?
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Chastity on May 10, 2007, 07:12 AM

I think that it begs the question of what good has feminism done boys?

I believe the answer is: None.

If anyone has objections, sound them out, please.
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: bachelor tom on May 10, 2007, 11:19 AM

I think that it begs the question of what good has feminism done boys?


It teaches them how nasty women (& manginas) can be?
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: CaptDMO on May 10, 2007, 03:49 PM
So...what do you think Kate?.......Kate?......Kaaate?........
Oh well! Must have had something more feministy to do.

Nice catalyst to educe and reinforce several folks positions though.
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on May 10, 2007, 05:46 PM
Give her a day or so.  Not everyone spends every day here.
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Mr. X on May 12, 2007, 10:14 AM
Why the heck are you guys doing this? Are you all saps! This is yet another woman coming her to stir up the roosters so she can get attention. Now you devoted a whole thread to her. Its the same as someone who blurts out "no it isn't" like a parrot so they can suck up the attention from people trying to prove to them they are wrong. Don't give her attention. Wow she gets 4 pages of guys all jockying for her attention and all she has to do is post one or two feeder posts egging you all on? And on top of it she makes you all wait a few days for her grand and glorious reply? Wow, could you guys be anymore at this person's feet begging for scraps?

Make her prove herself to you. You're the ones with the facts. If feminism is right MAKE HER PROVE IT. But you doing the work for her with her blurting out a prerecorded statement and you all rushing up to prove her wrong is just catering to attention grabbing. If she wants to make a point then she should activily post and prove her point.

Good going guys. Are you also going to wash her car, mow her lawn and paint her house in hopes she gives you another tiny scrap of prerecorded brain farts?
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: dr e on May 12, 2007, 12:50 PM
Mr X I can understand your frustration but would encourage you to expand your scope just a bit.  This thread has been helpful in a number of ways. First it has helped us to practice in articulating our views.  Read through this thread and you will find some beautifully written and very convincing evidence that feminism has been hurtful to boys and men.  The more we practice the better we get.

Look at the views for this thread.  We are coming up on a thousand.  Remember that most who come here don't post.  Most just read.  Many of those folks are trying to get an understanding of issues.  They may have heard some arguments against feminism in the past but are convinced that feminism is about equality.  A thread like this is wonderfully instructive for folks who are just learning about these issues.  I know about this because I hear from lurkers who talk about their experience. 

Even if Kate never responds that is also a good thing.  It shows both us and the lurkers that feminism can't take a punch.  Any ideology worth its salt would have lots of proof that what has been written on this thread is incorrect.  I doubt we will be seeing that anytime soon.  Today's radical feminism is not about the truth, it is about propaganda. It is not seeking to explain or bring understanding, it is corrupt. Buy not responding Kate gives everyone an important message.

If she responds all the better.



Why the heck are you guys doing this? Are you all saps! This is yet another woman coming her to stir up the roosters so she can get attention. Now you devoted a whole thread to her. Its the same as someone who blurts out "no it isn't" like a parrot so they can suck up the attention from people trying to prove to them they are wrong. Don't give her attention. Wow she gets 4 pages of guys all jockying for her attention and all she has to do is post one or two feeder posts egging you all on? And on top of it she makes you all wait a few days for her grand and glorious reply? Wow, could you guys be anymore at this person's feet begging for scraps?

Make her prove herself to you. You're the ones with the facts. If feminism is right MAKE HER PROVE IT. But you doing the work for her with her blurting out a prerecorded statement and you all rushing up to prove her wrong is just catering to attention grabbing. If she wants to make a point then she should activily post and prove her point.

Good going guys. Are you also going to wash her car, mow her lawn and paint her house in hopes she gives you another tiny scrap of prerecorded brain farts?
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Mr. X on May 12, 2007, 02:02 PM
Quote
Even if Kate never responds that is also a good thing.  It shows both us and the lurkers that feminism can't take a punch.  Any ideology worth its salt would have lots of proof that what has been written on this thread is incorrect.  I doubt we will be seeing that anytime soon.  Today's radical feminism is not about the truth, it is about propaganda. It is not seeking to explain or bring understanding, it is corrupt. Buy not responding Kate gives everyone an important message.


I don't even know if that's an issue. I think a lot of these are just attempts at getting attention. Kind of like the girl in a gym screaming at some guy who minds his own business "stop looking at me" just so people will give her attention. I just don't think these women come here to actually discuss ideology. If they ever did I'm sure they would stop their beliefs a while back. Now women like Biscuit Queen appear on the level since they engage in thoughtful dialog even though its not 100% going along with the guys here.
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: HighDesert on May 12, 2007, 09:08 PM

Mr X I can understand your frustration but would encourage you to expand your scope just a bit.  This thread has been helpful in a number of ways. First it has helped us to practice in articulating our views.  Read through this thread and you will find some beautifully written and very convincing evidence that feminism has been hurtful to boys and men.  The more we practice the better we get.

Look at the views for this thread.  We are coming up on a thousand.  Remember that most who come here don't post.  Most just read.  Many of those folks are trying to get an understanding of issues.  They may have heard some arguments against feminism in the past but are convinced that feminism is about equality.  A thread like this is wonderfully instructive for folks who are just learning about these issues.  I know about this because I hear from lurkers who talk about their experience. 

Even if Kate never responds that is also a good thing.  It shows both us and the lurkers that feminism can't take a punch.  Any ideology worth its salt would have lots of proof that what has been written on this thread is incorrect.  I doubt we will be seeing that anytime soon.  Today's radical feminism is not about the truth, it is about propaganda. It is not seeking to explain or bring understanding, it is corrupt. Buy not responding Kate gives everyone an important message.

If she responds all the better.






Dr E,

Very well said. 

I haven't posted much here much since I joined.  It seems I have a different way of looking at things than many here seem share.  I appreciate the efforts of everyone who sincerely contributes here and really don't care to detract from that. 

I think it's great that so many individuals are becoming aware of the solid Truth about the discriminatory nature of gender specific laws as well as laws that are not gender specific, yet are applied to men with such harsher sentencing that one would simply have to be a fool (or someone who is actively engaged in a conscious movement to oppress men in general) to not realize beyond a shadow of doubt, that the 'courts' are biased against men - simply because they are men.  That is not equal and fair treatment.    I've wondered if someone was astute enough if they could pursue legal action against certain 'States' under the grounds that they violate the 'Constitution'. .  .  another thread someday perhaps.

While I don't post here much, I appreciate the quality posts of many of the posters at this site.  This thread seems to have offered plenty of opportunities to prove some unarguable points.  Perhaps, that's why so many feminists don't reply - simply because they can't.  Not because they are messing with anyone or trying to goad someone into barking whenever they snap their fingers.  Indeed they may well think that on some superficial level - but in reality, they simply can't reply to the facts.  End of discussion.   See Biscuit Queen's reply which begins:

Quote
Welcome Kate. I realize you will be swamped with replies here, so I will make this brief.

What the above posts boil down to is feminism's main body stands for issues which are not about equality, but about protecting and advancing the interests of only women, many times at the expense of men.

While you can put any definition you want on feminism, NOW sets the standard here in the US. If you disagree with NOW you are disagreeing with modern, mainstream feminism.

I will add two more ways that modern, mainstream feminism hurts men. One, reproductive rights. Men have none. Zero. Zip. They cannot even keep it in their pants, because men and boys who have been raped, and men who are not the father ( and have been proven medically not to be the father) have by court, order under threat of jail, been made to pay child support and thus become parents against their will.

Women are given every choice available, in some cases including killing their infants and walking away.



Think about it.  If you think you're a feminist, how can you argue with that?  The only possible way you could support the current way of thinking is if you openly admit that you think women are vastly superior to men.  A female Supremacist. 

Kinda takes all the debate about arguing over whether you want equality or something else.....


On the positive side, perhaps a woman is out there thinking about feminism and how great it all sounds, and then she reads the Truth about it all as so many here seem to be so well at espousing, and realizes what a sham it all is and how in reality it isn't what it's purported to be. 

The better each of us becomes at enunciating the Truth about what is really going on in the world around us the more that awareness is able to reach others out there.  Individuals who read what you write may not do anything but start to talk to someone in the 'meat' world about what he/she read here, or they may even post something about a topic that was started here on another forum.  Whatever it might be, threads like this where so many are so willing to offer Honest debate about the subject at hand can only help to enlighten those around us. 

Peace all


 



Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Kate on May 16, 2007, 02:04 AM
Apologies for the lengthy post(s). I have tried to reply to as many as I could.

Dr E: the system you describe sounds like it would indeed, hurt men and boys. If you TRULY believe that is the current system, then I can see why you think it is unfair.
However, as I am sure you can see by now, I don't agree that the current system is quite how you have described it: I also don't agree that where boys and men are disadvantaged, feminism is necessarily the cause.

Gonzo, your views on forcible removed custody have been noted. I hope you were joking.

Zarby, I agree that boys may be 'thinking about things like these.' People think about lots of things all the time.

Brian, as we discussed briefly, I am interested to know how you connect feminism to the poor image of men and boys presented in the media. I understand what you are saying about not feeling needed, but really, why would the views of some women, lesbians, that they don't need men, affect you so negatively? They were talking about their own preferences. Why is that so threatening to some men? Furthermore, I would be interested to know why you think (if you think) women aren't presented in negative ways in the media. I think they are.

TBQ, your argument 'the numbers speak for themselves' as regards to boys is fair enough, yet I don't see that same argument 'the numbers speak for themselves' being made by MRAs with regards to rape statistics, DV stats etc. i.e. statistics that show men at fault, or women as primary victims of harm, are strongly contested by MRAs in many areas. Personally, I think that is well and dandy - statistics should be questioned, no problem with that. They should be placed in context and discussed. So:
80% Ritalin users - where did you get this stat? This is, indeed, worrying.
80% teen suicides - I was aware that boys commit suicide more often in the US, but that girls attempt suicide 3x as often as boys. So I don't really agree with making suicide a male-only issue, nevertheless I would support male-oriented services (as well as female-oriented ones) and research into gendered differences in suicide methods and motivations. Do you know of any research that points to reasons given for suicidal tendencies in teens? As far as I am aware, peer bullying is often cited as one of the main reasons. But I would need to research further to comment more on this.

The other stats you quote all relate to the 'boy crisis' in schools that Dr E also emphasised in his intro to this thread. Now I don't think it is as simple as making out that boys' biology is different and the learning environment doesn't suit them. You can't ignore that race and class affect the stats. Why do white boys do better than Hispanic and black girls at grade 4 reading, for example? Here is a report, which shows the trends and breaks down the achievement groups for the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) report from the U.S. Dept of Education. http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/ESO_BoysAndGirls.pdf
As you can see, it paints a rather different picture to the 'boy crisis' one. Further, it tracks both the national report from 2005 comparing boys and girls, the main NAEP which has tracked students since the early 1990s, and the 'long term trend' NAEP which has tracked students since the early 1970s. I will not detail every place this study contradicts your findings or ideology, you can read for yourselves.

Furthermore, here is preliminary report on Christina Hoff Sommers' 'Where the Boys Are' - specifically, it addresses problems with Sommers' condemnation of feminism: http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Eeandersn/sommers2.html

Furthermore, Mark Liberman of Language Log has investigated and repudiated the scientific studies cited in several books which popularize the 'boy crisis'. He has posted the critiques AND the original, cited scientific studies online so that anyone may see and judge for themselves. If anyone here is interested in reading the original source material I can post the links. The authors that are found to have misquoted or misused scientific findings include: David Brooks: Leonard Sax: Michael Gurian: and Kathy Stevens. (Bluedye and Shiva: please note that the "talkativeness as a female trait" theory is investigated at length, traced back through popular media and literature and is found to have no basis in any scientific research that the author is aware of. If you know otherwise! Please DO post a link to the actual study/ies!)
Now, please note that I am not arguing that everything these authors have said or written is false. I am very suspicious as to WHY they would argue what is actually an ideological argument from the standpoint of assumed (and it seems, at the very least, extremely exaggerated) 'scientific objectivity.' Dr E - in another thread you said that you would always hope that a scientist is a scientist first and a ___ second. Well, I hope that you have the courage of YOUR convictions and rather than just brush these criticisms off, actually investigate them.

If you are interested in debating these issues from ideological standpoints, without claiming some kind of prior legitimacy derived from exaggerated sex differences, then we might actually be able to find some points of genuine agreement. I will wait and see how it plays out. We can talk about issues like single sex schooling and modern vs traditional teaching methods, which I am not necessarily against...
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Kate on May 16, 2007, 02:08 AM
Capt DMO - as per my 'strand' of feminism, I agree with you that the term has been re-defined and co-opted and the web is chock full of this sort of thing, though I have to say, it is a little ironic to hear an MRA saying this. I've outlined some of my reasons for identifying as feminist in the 'intro' forum. I'm a little disturbed by your cynicism as to my statement that political ideology should not trump compassion. I wonder why you have come to this cynicism.
I invite you cordially to shred academic theories, including mine. It is what they are for - attempted shredding; and actual dialogue on the issues will hopefully proceed. Anecdotal phenomena is indeed touching at times, though I'm not sure it can prove ideology in any real way - art, however, is perhaps the great unifier and common denominator, and perhaps you are also including such things. In fact, the possibilities of creative endeavour have a lot to do with the fact I am still optimistic about human beings, despite the shitty things people do to each other every day.

Sociopathic Revolution, your points are interesting and perhaps we can discuss them at greater length if you are so inclined. Off the bat I would probably say that hypergamy is related to accessing power by proxy. If you read my intro thread you will probably see why I don't see it as a problem that feminism is woman-centric, though in areas which have traditionally been dominated by women or the feminine (eg. childrearing)  men may be, indeed, at a disadvantage. However, I do not lay the blame for this on feminism or even women alone. My problem with the MRM is in trying to find out why they seem to do this. And yes, I am also trying to see it from the point of view of, if you like, the reverse of my own beliefs...i.e., for the sake of argument, I am trying to imagine "what if...?" What if...the MRM was right about feminism? What if the damage done to men was really caused by feminism? What would this mean for the world? Trouble is, to do that, I have to try and balance the good the MRM might be doing for men with the bad consequences for women. So I think one does need to ask, how would the MRM ensure that women are, indeed, treated fairly within their ideology. The question here is really - what if feminism collapsed, and MRM became incredibly powerful? How would women be treated in THAT world? How would non-macho men be treated? Would it be better than now? A question for a separate thread maybe, another time.

Neonsamurai - your beef, as you put it, with feminism is related to the fact that it is woman-centric. As I've already argued, I don't see this as a problem per se. It's not a secret, i.e. NOW is explicitly titled 'for women.' The reason is that feminism, specifically feminist activism and organisations, identify the inequality already existent within society as far as it relates to WOMEN. So they are reacting to already existent inequalities etc. This does not necessarily mean that feminists don't care about men, or that men cannot be pro-feminist, but you're correct in asserting that issues primarily associated with men are not such organisations' priorities. I ask you, why should they be? This isn't a heartless question! I don't think these organisations are stopping men from gaining rights that they don't have, and I don't think feminism is about hating men. Your argument rests on the assumption that equality for women already exists in every area. Maybe you think it does. But that is a different discussion.

Zarby, your argument - which reduces human beings to gambling, greedy money-grubbers -  makes large generalisations about men and women. It's not really related to the topic title of feminism's specific harms. But I agree, your vision of the world is pretty bleak.
Bluedye - I've responded to the question about stats earlier in this post.

TBQ - I must take issue with your statement that disagreeing with NOW means disagreeing with 'modern, mainstream feminism.' This is totally US centric! I won't argue that NOW has no influence on feminism or feminists today, but I do take issue with the statement that I cannot possibly disagree with anything they say and yet be a feminist!!! I have never lived in the US, for one, and actually, I am not totally familiar with NOW or all their policies. This is not to say I agree or disagree with them, necessarily: ask me about a specific issue and we can discuss it, but I would have to research it. I am not sure I can accept, on face value, your assertions that men have no rights re: reproduction, or that VAWA is unfair because it doesn't address all victims of all violence. Are you agreeing that men commit more violence BTW? You don't mention that. Maybe you will attempt to answer the questions I asked earlier in my reply to Sociopathic Revolution - namely, if the MRM is MORE in favour of equality than feminism is, then how do they/will they ensure that equality is not only for Men? As a woman, I'm curious to hear your response to that. How are your rights protected under the MRM?
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Kate on May 16, 2007, 02:10 AM
Gonzokid - your questions re: what is feminism are valid ones, and I have posted a part of my own motivations on the intro thread. It's a bit off topic here so I will try to answer your questions another time on that thread, regarding definitions and so on. I do note that you have indeed posted your own manifesto, yet nobody else here has answered my question as to whether other MRAs must agree with that manifesto or indeed any manifesto to subscribe to being an MRA. Intellectually dishonest? Or able to appreciate that there are shades of grey in the world of human understanding? Your arguments here tend towards a kind of fundamentalism. I'm not sure on affirmative action, actually - I need to check my understanding of that term and find out how it was implemented in the US as opposed to the UK (not even sure if it ever was, I certainly never benefited knowingly that I remember). So I'll answer that another time. Meanwhile, I think it's only fair that you answer my questions about science in the Healthy Masculinity thread.
Not sure what your point is with the divorce story. Are you saying that someone always winds up hurt so...what does this mean for equality?
Re: your personal history with DV. As you know that is a huge topic, too much for me to go into detail with here. I will say that I don't necessarily follow what I imagine YOU think is the 'feminist' line of thinking on the subject, however, I have yet to see a convincing argument on the MRM side either. Please see the end of this post as regards my main worry with the MRA ideological position on DV.

Bachelor Tom - I find your worry about 'western women' will stop breeding curious. Also, if you are so worried about that, why be a bachelor??? And, how is feminism responsible for stopping women breeding?

Dr X - not only is your post about my honest attempts at dialogue an ad hom attack, but you manage to shame anyone here who actually wants to reply or read posts written by the so-called enemy. Nice one. "Make her prove herself to you." - If this is the attitude, then why should I even bother?  If you would care to read my very first couple of posts, you can find out for yourself how I got here and why. I also stated that in this thread, anyone who does not wish to respond to me does. Not. Have. To.  "You're the ones with the facts." Well, really, if that were true, then why has nobody actually answered my questions with serious substantiated facts, links to studies they endorse, text sources they can actually produce as evidence of their claims etc? OK: maybe this will actually happen. As I've said, I will wait and see.

High desert - I do not endorse killing infants, nor do I agree that rape victims should pay child support. I find it incredible that you are suggesting these are feminist agendas or something. Links/evidence, please.

Overall note to everyone: from what I can see, the main problem with your arguments is that on the one hand, you argue from biological differences to promote policy changes in schools etc. Yet you will not acknowledge the part biological differences may play in issues of violence, including rape and domestic violence. If ANYONE here can refute this apparent contradiction in a logical way, I would like to hear it....also, if anyone actually wants to answer any of the questions I have asked about the MRM that would be nice, too.
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: brian44 on May 16, 2007, 02:53 AM


Brian, as we discussed briefly, I am interested to know how you connect feminism to the poor image of men and boys presented in the media. I understand what you are saying about not feeling needed, but really, why would the views of some women, lesbians, that they don't need men, affect you so negatively? They were talking about their own preferences. Why is that so threatening to some men? Furthermore, I would be interested to know why you think (if you think) women aren't presented in negative ways in the media. I think they are.



If you live in the US or UK then you must have an extremely low ability to empathize. Look at adverts that deride men to sell products and then imagine it was a woman instead. Then (I know it's asking a lot), imagine that it wasn't just one advert, but tens of thousands, shown over a period of decades. Then try to imagine its effect on you consciously and subconsciously. Feminism caused this by pressuring the media/advertising to always portray women is as positive a light as possible, rather than asking for equality. It is also caused by political correctness (of which feminism is a part) and the incredible power that feminists hold over the media. So men have to become the butt of nearly every advertising joke. We are the negative stereotypes. If you look at what feminists say about men they also negatively stereotype men, or believe them to be inferior.

The thing about the lesbians (if you actually read what I said) was my first experience of feminism in the early 70s, that left a scar on me as a young boy. They were female supremacists who not only didn't need men, but thought that, as men were inately evil and inferior, had no right to exist.

Even Australian boys/men are suffering (although, I believe, to a lesser extent):

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20866939-5007146,00.html

Quote

"They are branded as troublemakers in schools - and they often have no role models in the home because of the high rate of single-parent households - and then in the media the role models they see are overwhelmingly negative."

And the trend towards "demonising, marginalising and trivialising of men and male identity" could turn into a tug-of-war with serious mental health consequences for a generation of young boys.

"We are probably having a negative impact on young men's esteem and we are definitely having an impact on young boy's self esteem," he says.

"Ultimately such portrayals could lead to negative social and even financial costs for society in areas such as male health, rising suicide rates and family disintegration."
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: brian44 on May 16, 2007, 03:12 AM

Overall note to everyone: from what I can see, the main problem with your arguments is that on the one hand, you argue from biological differences to promote policy changes in schools etc. Yet you will not acknowledge the part biological differences may play in issues of violence, including rape and domestic violence. If ANYONE here can refute this apparent contradiction in a logical way, I would like to hear it....also, if anyone actually wants to answer any of the questions I have asked about the MRM that would be nice, too.



http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/inthenews/MassNews990802women_violent.htm

Quote
August 2, 1999--Women are just as violent to their spouses as men, and they are almost three times more likely to initiate violence in a relationship, according to a new Canadian study, as reported in the National Post.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the study, however, is the source of the data -- a 1987 survey of 705 Alberta men and women that reported how often males hit their spouses. 

Although women were asked the same questions as men in 1987, their answers were never published until now. When the original study was published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science in 1989, it was taken up by feminist groups as evidence of the epidemic of violence against women. 
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: hansside on May 16, 2007, 03:44 AM


Overall note to everyone: from what I can see, the main problem with your arguments is that on the one hand, you argue from biological differences to promote policy changes in schools etc. Yet you will not acknowledge the part biological differences may play in issues of violence, including rape and domestic violence. If ANYONE here can refute this apparent contradiction in a logical way, I would like to hear it....also, if anyone actually wants to answer any of the questions I have asked about the MRM that would be nice, too.



That biological differences exist between the sexes is beyond dispute.

To argue that such differences has no bearing on violence is also very unrealistic.

For example if men and women commit domestic violence at a similar rate, women will get hurt more. Not because of more evil will from men, after all they initiate equally, but simply because men are bigger and thus hit harder.

I find it ironic that you blame us for trying to deny logical consequences.

I have read a lot of feminist literature and very, very often will it say some trait is biological when it favours women and that it is a social construction when it somehow disfavors women. Then they will hide behind "yes, but there are different kinds of feminisms". Well, how appropriate. This way feminism will never be made to account for it body if incoherent ideas.
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: The Gonzman on May 16, 2007, 03:51 AM

Gonzokid - your questions re: what is feminism are valid ones, and I have posted a part of my own motivations on the intro thread. It's a bit off topic here so I will try to answer your questions another time on that thread, regarding definitions and so on. I do note that you have indeed posted your own manifesto, yet nobody else here has answered my question as to whether other MRAs must agree with that manifesto or indeed any manifesto to subscribe to being an MRA.


Kate, strip away the language and the "manifesto" is really pretty "Least Common Denominator."

But let's pull a random example.  I would assert that any man who said, "Rape is such a heinous crime and hurts women so badly, that men need to accept a little less in due process for the sake of women" to be a person I would show the door of the movement, and were it in my power, I would forbid him from identifying as one of us - and whom I would never call "brother."

Quote
Intellectually dishonest? Or able to appreciate that there are shades of grey in the world of human understanding?


Shades of gray are one thing.  I recognize plenty of shades of gray.  I also recognize black and white, too.

Yes, Intellectually dishonest.  I'm a Catholic.  I can easily come up with ten things you must either believe - or not believe - to be a "good Catholic."  This gives clarity, both of thought and of expression.

Quote
Your arguments here tend towards a kind of fundamentalism.


Nice try at shaming language. 

Quote
I'm not sure on affirmative action, actually - I need to check my understanding of that term and find out how it was implemented in the US as opposed to the UK (not even sure if it ever was, I certainly never benefited knowingly that I remember). So I'll answer that another time. Meanwhile, I think it's only fair that you answer my questions about science in the Healthy Masculinity thread.


Well, I will answer that later too, then.

Quote
Not sure what your point is with the divorce story. Are you saying that someone always winds up hurt so...what does this mean for equality?


It's an indirect question - I will make it direct:  As a feminist, do you place more value on women or fairness? If reforming something to be more objectively gender blind resultedd in women losing socio-legal advantage, would you support it?

Quote
Re: your personal history with DV. As you know that is a huge topic, too much for me to go into detail with here. I will say that I don't necessarily follow what I imagine YOU think is the 'feminist' line of thinking on the subject, however, I have yet to see a convincing argument on the MRM side either. Please see the end of this post as regards my main worry with the MRA ideological position on DV.


It is plainly obvious to me that the feminist position of DV is one of "Woman = Always Victim" and "Men = Always Victimizer."

Quote
Overall note to everyone: from what I can see, the main problem with your arguments is that on the one hand, you argue from biological differences to promote policy changes in schools etc.


Ah, the great "boogeyperson" of sex segregated schools?

Sufficient evidence exists to indicate that a great many boys and a great many girls benefit from single-sex education.  So what is wrong with making it an option?

You lefties seem to have no problem with "gay" schools, or "Ethnic" schools - why is sex schools such a problem ... oh yeah - you all seem to have no problem with all girls schools either.

It's just the all boy schools that you have an issue with.

Quote
Yet you will not acknowledge the part biological differences may play in issues of violence, including rape and domestic violence. If ANYONE here can refute this apparent contradiction in a logical way, I would like to hear it...


First - violent criminals, in any event, are less than 1% of society.

Second, who is more violent?  The Feiberg list shows the incidence of violence, and initiating thereof, tends towards parity.

Well, let's just be blunt - as a seven foot 300# man with four black belts, how much violence I am expected to take from Jane Q. Random?  If she attacks me with a hot iron skillet full of grease, and I break her wrist while disarming her, who do you classify as the "abuser?"

Or how about this - woman punches, slaps, claws at a man and won't let him get away. She won't let him call the police.  She blocks him from leaving the house.  He finally pushes her down (Goddamn, bitch!  Get off me!)  Who would you haul to jail?



Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: dr e on May 16, 2007, 04:17 AM
Quote
Apologies for the lengthy post(s). I have tried to reply to as many as I could.
No need to apologize.  This is what we want.

Quote
Dr E: the system you describe sounds like it would indeed, hurt men and boys. If you TRULY believe that is the current system, then I can see why you think it is unfair.
However, as I am sure you can see by now, I don't agree that the current system is quite how you have described it: I also don't agree that where boys and men are disadvantaged, feminism is necessarily the cause.



Many many examples have been given on this thread about how boys and men have been put into a situation similar to what I have described.  You have brought up domestic violence and maybe that is a good place to start.  The feminist VAWA has been causing a great deal of pain and suffering for men and boys.  Can you see how the VAWA focuses on girls and women, gives them special treatment, special services and special advantages that are simply not available to boys and men?  This is the template I described in the first post and the VAWA helps us see it clearly.  The feminist claim is that women are almost always the victims of DV and therefore should get the services.  This claim is bogus.  They have known it was bogus from the beginning.  If you look at the stats from surveys, hospitals and  police records their bias will seem to be affirmed.  But try looking at the peer reviewed research and you get a totally different story.  The initiation of DV is much more equal between men and women and the serious injury rate is about 62% female and 38% male.  Well over one third of the seriously injured victims of dv are men.  Even the justice department estimates that there are 835,000 male victims of dv each year in the US.   Now tell me just how this feminist legislation has not hurt men?  Focus on women?  Yes.  Hurtful to men and boys?  Yes.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: neonsamurai on May 16, 2007, 06:13 AM
Quote from: Kate
Neonsamurai - your beef, as you put it, with feminism is related to the fact that it is woman-centric. As I've already argued, I don't see this as a problem per se. It's not a secret, i.e. NOW is explicitly titled 'for women.' The reason is that feminism, specifically feminist activism and organisations, identify the inequality already existent within society as far as it relates to WOMEN. So they are reacting to already existent inequalities etc. This does not necessarily mean that feminists don't care about men, or that men cannot be pro-feminist, but you're correct in asserting that issues primarily associated with men are not such organisations' priorities. I ask you, why should they be? This isn't a heartless question! I don't think these organisations are stopping men from gaining rights that they don't have, and I don't think feminism is about hating men. Your argument rests on the assumption that equality for women already exists in every area. Maybe you think it does. But that is a different discussion.


Thanks for replying Kate. Your right that the Fawcett Society and NOW are organisations for women and in being so they only look at half the problem. You can't talk about 'equality' and only look at half of the problem, so it's clear that they aren't interested in equality as such, just more rights for women.

It's like going to a marriage guidance counselor with your wife and having them only listen to your wifes problems. Just solving the issues that she has with the marriage doesn't mean that it'll make everything better, it will just breed resentment, which if you like, is where we are now. Feminism will only go so far and then it will fail to solve women's problems, which is the postion it is in now, since most of women's problems involve men. When we all thought that it was about 'equality' we were a lot more receptive, but they're still using that word to campaign for some very women-centric rights.

My example about the pensions is a classic case for this. The fawcett Society are campaigning for women to recieve an equal pension to men, even though on average they will contribute much less to it. In this case they want an equal outcome, not equal treatment, which is a pretty huge difference. Kate, how would you address such an issue? Should the average woman who works 14 years less recieve the same pension as a man who's worked 14 years longer and retired later? Or should we scrap the UK pension system and force everyone to get a private pension (which would also discriminate).

Asserting issues such as these will also impact on men, one way or another. Be it through our taxes or where the country's money is spent.

As you've asked, why should NOW or FS care about men's issues considering they are based around furthering women's rights? Well when you look at it like that, they clearly shouldn't. But how are these organisations funded? If they are private companies then by all means they can behave how they like. But if they recieve government donations to operate (provided by taxes raised mostly off the backs of men), then surely they are biting a sizeable chunk of the hand that feeds them. Can an organisation funded by the government or who are registered as a charity be allowed to promote descrimination under the pretence of equality?

Do you know of any Men's Rights Organisations funded by the government? Should F4J recieve grants from the Home Office, or be registered as a charity?

But my argument against these feminist organisations doesn't rest on the presumption of equlity, but on these feminist organisations definition of equality which I fear is very subjective. Who decides when we have reached true equality, and when we have what will NOW and the Fawcett Society do?

I reckon they'll just pretend that there's still descrimination.

Thanks for reading.
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Mr. X on May 16, 2007, 11:16 AM
Quote
Dr X - not only is your post about my honest attempts at dialogue an ad hom attack, but you manage to shame anyone here who actually wants to reply or read posts written by the so-called enemy. Nice one. "Make her prove herself to you." - If this is the attitude, then why should I even bother?  If you would care to read my very first couple of posts, you can find out for yourself how I got here and why. I also stated that in this thread, anyone who does not wish to respond to me does. Not. Have. To.  "You're the ones with the facts." Well, really, if that were true, then why has nobody actually answered my questions with serious substantiated facts, links to studies they endorse, text sources they can actually produce as evidence of their claims etc? OK: maybe this will actually happen. As I've said, I will wait and see.


That's Mr. X not Dr. X. I didn't spend 8 years in evil medical school so I can't be called Dr.

As for my post, we get lots of posers and fems pooping and running to get attention. I'm all out of attention. I refuse to give any out. I'll have to go through and read your posts for your questions but I'll gladly reply to any you have and produce facts. I have tons of urls and articles and fact sources. But why should I bother when I have wasted time in the past trying to prove myself to some female who just blows off anything presented and insists with irrational brow beating she is right, women are victims and men owe women and men have no issues.  For me the proving time is over. I'm in the non-cooperation stage. I am not here for you nor any female and will not waste time trying to validate myself. And again, your post simply proves my point that you, as a woman, once more set yourself up as the victim yet again. Is this a college course you fems take? Is there a book or cartoon that teaches you this? Its amazing how it always comes down to you being a victim.

Yes this is my attitude and yes, don't bother. If you have a serious discussion bring it. But if its little girl snickering and "men are evil" labels then don't waste my time.

Tell you what. Ask a question that isn't begging or vague and I'll try and answer it.
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Mr. Bad on May 16, 2007, 11:31 AM
Ok folks, stop right here.  Since when does a movement's own membership get to define themselves to the extent that it trumps outside observers definitions?  Answer:  Apparently only in the case of feminism.

Fuck that.

Consider this:  White Supremacists have defined their movement as a "civil rights movement."  Neo-Nazis have defined their political stance as one of "White equality."  The KKK have defined themselves as "a movement devoted to political equality between the races."

Bullshit.  All of the above are exactly the same thing as feminists defining themselves.

I say we strip the right to define their movement away from feminists the way we have for the White Supremacists, NeoNazis, KKK, et al.   It is completely appropriate, and IMO long overdue, that feminism be defined by outsiders who are able to observe the actions of the movement for themselves and define it based on their/our own real-life experiences, not based on the mountain of bullshit propangada spewed over the past 4 decades.

I'm done with letting feminists define the movement to reflect the image they want to project to the public.  Let's define feminism ourselves, using fact-based criteria not feminist horseshit weasel-words.

</rant>

(edited once to undo repetition)
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: brian44 on May 17, 2007, 01:12 AM


That biological differences exist between the sexes is beyond dispute.

To argue that such differences has no bearing on violence is also very unrealistic.

For example if men and women commit domestic violence at a similar rate, women will get hurt more. Not because of more evil will from men, after all they initiate equally, but simply because men are bigger and thus hit harder.

I find it ironic that you blame us for trying to deny logical consequences.


If men and women commit DV at a similar rate, women will appear to be hurt more because of the vast under reporting of men. Yes, we have bigger muscles, but women are extremely efficient in their violence. Long nails can do a lot of damage to a face and a sharp object found in the kitchen can be very destructive. They are also more likely to target a weak spot. What women lack in sheer power they make up for in pure viciousness.


I have read a lot of feminist literature and very, very often will it say some trait is biological when it favours women and that it is a social construction when it somehow disfavors women. Then they will hide behind "yes, but there are different kinds of feminisms". Well, how appropriate. This way feminism will never be made to account for it body if incoherent ideas.


Yes, I've always observed this myself.
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Mr. Bad on May 17, 2007, 03:04 AM
I have read a lot of feminist literature and very, very often will it say some trait is biological when it favours women and that it is a social construction when it somehow disfavors women. Then they will hide behind "yes, but there are different kinds of feminisms". Well, how appropriate. This way feminism will never be made to account for it body if incoherent ideas.


Actually it's worse than this:  My experience tells me that we can't even trust academic literature any more if it comes from the humanities, soft sciences, and in some cases, the hard sciences.  Academia has become so politically correct that pissing-off the feminists is a one-way ticket out, even if you're tenured.  Sure, they can't fire you directly, but if you try to publish findings that show women in a negative light it will never see the light of day.  And since the addage "publish or perish" is key in the hard sciences, well, you do the math.   (In my experience for the most part humanities, especially areas like women's "studies," and soft-sciences are really lame and thus don't require real scholarship any more, and in the case of women's "studies," never did) 
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: bachelor tom on May 17, 2007, 07:37 AM
@Kate: Is it not true that if women delay or forgo pregnancy the overall birthrate goes down?
If we do not breed enough to replace ourselves what happens?
Do we make up the shortfall with immigration? Or simply allow the general population to dwindle?
Can Western culture survive if the Westerners disappear? Do feminists even want Western culture to survive?

And if Westernized women discard their ancient duty to bear children how do they experience that on a personal level? Is a woman without children really a healthy happy woman? Doesn't nature remind her every month for 40 years that she is the bearer of new human life?

Aren't feminists saying that the choices of individual women are more important than the needs of the whole society? Doesn't every choice we make have a cost?
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: brian44 on May 17, 2007, 07:59 AM

@Kate: Is it not true that if women delay or forgo pregnancy the overall birthrate goes down?
If we do not breed enough to replace ourselves what happens?
Do we make up the shortfall with immigration? Or simply allow the general population to dwindle?
Can Western culture survive if the Westerners disappear? Do feminists even want Western culture to survive?


Here's quite an irony: at the present rate of birth and immigration, a possible majority Islamic UK state could be achieved within just a few generations. An Islamic state must be the exact opposite of what feminists want.

BTW, whatever happens, white anglo saxons/celts will be small minority.
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: bachelor tom on May 17, 2007, 08:23 AM


@Kate: Is it not true that if women delay or forgo pregnancy the overall birthrate goes down?
If we do not breed enough to replace ourselves what happens?
Do we make up the shortfall with immigration? Or simply allow the general population to dwindle?
Can Western culture survive if the Westerners disappear? Do feminists even want Western culture to survive?


Here's quite an irony: at the present rate of birth and immigration, a possible majority Islamic UK state could be achieved within just a few generations. An Islamic state must be the exact opposite of what feminists want.

BTW, whatever happens, white anglo saxons/celts will be small minority.


Yes it is ironic, one theory is that feminists actually want this subconsciously, ie. they are looking for stronger men than they see around them in the West
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: brian44 on May 17, 2007, 08:34 AM



@Kate: Is it not true that if women delay or forgo pregnancy the overall birthrate goes down?
If we do not breed enough to replace ourselves what happens?
Do we make up the shortfall with immigration? Or simply allow the general population to dwindle?
Can Western culture survive if the Westerners disappear? Do feminists even want Western culture to survive?


Here's quite an irony: at the present rate of birth and immigration, a possible majority Islamic UK state could be achieved within just a few generations. An Islamic state must be the exact opposite of what feminists want.

BTW, whatever happens, white anglo saxons/celts will be small minority.


Yes it is ironic, one theory is that feminists actually want this subconsciously, ie. they are looking for stronger men than they see around them in the West


Maybe feminism is just one huge long nag to make men eventually snap and stand up to them then...
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on May 17, 2007, 04:15 PM

Quote from: Kate
Neonsamurai - your beef, as you put it, with feminism is related to the fact that it is woman-centric. As I've already argued, I don't see this as a problem per se. It's not a secret, i.e. NOW is explicitly titled 'for women.' The reason is that feminism, specifically feminist activism and organisations, identify the inequality already existent within society as far as it relates to WOMEN. So they are reacting to already existent inequalities etc. This does not necessarily mean that feminists don't care about men, or that men cannot be pro-feminist, but you're correct in asserting that issues primarily associated with men are not such organisations' priorities. I ask you, why should they be? This isn't a heartless question! I don't think these organisations are stopping men from gaining rights that they don't have, and I don't think feminism is about hating men. Your argument rests on the assumption that equality for women already exists in every area. Maybe you think it does. But that is a different discussion.


Thanks for replying Kate. Your right that the Fawcett Society and NOW are organisations for women and in being so they only look at half the problem. You can't talk about 'equality' and only look at half of the problem, so it's clear that they aren't interested in equality as such, just more rights for women.

It's like going to a marriage guidance counselor with your wife and having them only listen to your wifes problems. Just solving the issues that she has with the marriage doesn't mean that it'll make everything better, it will just breed resentment, which if you like, is where we are now. Feminism will only go so far and then it will fail to solve women's problems, which is the postion it is in now, since most of women's problems involve men. When we all thought that it was about 'equality' we were a lot more receptive, but they're still using that word to campaign for some very women-centric rights.

My example about the pensions is a classic case for this. The fawcett Society are campaigning for women to recieve an equal pension to men, even though on average they will contribute much less to it. In this case they want an equal outcome, not equal treatment, which is a pretty huge difference. Kate, how would you address such an issue? Should the average woman who works 14 years less recieve the same pension as a man who's worked 14 years longer and retired later? Or should we scrap the UK pension system and force everyone to get a private pension (which would also discriminate).

Asserting issues such as these will also impact on men, one way or another. Be it through our taxes or where the country's money is spent.

As you've asked, why should NOW or FS care about men's issues considering they are based around furthering women's rights? Well when you look at it like that, they clearly shouldn't. But how are these organisations funded? If they are private companies then by all means they can behave how they like. But if they recieve government donations to operate (provided by taxes raised mostly off the backs of men), then surely they are biting a sizeable chunk of the hand that feeds them. Can an organisation funded by the government or who are registered as a charity be allowed to promote descrimination under the pretence of equality?

Do you know of any Men's Rights Organisations funded by the government? Should F4J recieve grants from the Home Office, or be registered as a charity?

But my argument against these feminist organisations doesn't rest on the presumption of equlity, but on these feminist organisations definition of equality which I fear is very subjective. Who decides when we have reached true equality, and when we have what will NOW and the Fawcett Society do?

I reckon they'll just pretend that there's still descrimination.

Thanks for reading.


Love the post, thought I'd bump it up.
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: dr e on May 17, 2007, 05:54 PM
Hey Jessy!  Good to see you.

E
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on May 17, 2007, 06:50 PM
Thanks Doc.   I've been a bit busy in the past while so I haven't checked in.   I'm a bit tired of fighting the relentless evil of feminism to be honest, at this point the bias is so obvious I tire of educating the incorrigible.   

The memes of the MRM or human rights movement lay simmering beneath a layer of cultural disbelief, but beyond that there is recognition and the faint beginnings of understanding  that discussions of gender and sex are not the sole province of feminists. 

News coverage is expanding.  The seeds of critical thinking against the cultural marxism feminism has imposed are being planted in the fertile gardens of the everyday mind.  I think there is some traction here, though it's verrry slow....
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: brian44 on May 18, 2007, 12:04 AM

The memes of the MRM or human rights movement lay simmering beneath a layer of cultural disbelief, but beyond that there is recognition and the faint beginnings of understanding  that discussions of gender and sex are not the sole province of feminists. 


I've been sowing my own little memes since before I knew what they were, before there was a MRM. I post on the internet these days (in the early 90s I actually wrote to people on snailmail) and talk to as many individual men as I can. Sometimes I get instant agreement, sometimes I get that look of faint recognition as something dawns on them. This is just my quiet way of doing something, as I'm not the sort of person to go on demos or stunts. I hope the people I talk to will talk to someone else and get a chain reaction going. Maybe there will come a point where feminism makes so many men so unhappy with their lives that the MRM will become a mass movement?
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on May 18, 2007, 05:54 AM

Thanks for coming back!

Quote
TBQ, your argument 'the numbers speak for themselves' as regards to boys is fair enough, yet I don't see that same argument 'the numbers speak for themselves' being made by MRAs with regards to rape statistics, DV stats etc. i.e. statistics that show men at fault, or women as primary victims of harm, are strongly contested by MRAs in many areas. Personally, I think that is well and dandy - statistics should be questioned, no problem with that. They should be placed in context and discussed. So:
80% Ritalin users - where did you get this stat? This is, indeed, worrying.
80% teen suicides - I was aware that boys commit suicide more often in the US, but that girls attempt suicide 3x as often as boys. So I don't really agree with making suicide a male-only issue, nevertheless I would support male-oriented services (as well as female-oriented ones) and research into gendered differences in suicide methods and motivations. Do you know of any research that points to reasons given for suicidal tendencies in teens? As far as I am aware, peer bullying is often cited as one of the main reasons. But I would need to research further to comment more on this.


Yes, men commit more violence. Yet VAWA is not violence BY men act, it is violence against women act. It is victim centric. Men are victims of overall violent crime more often than women, by a rate of at least 2:1; 3:1 for murders. We do not know how many men are victims of DV. Studies show a minimum of 17% victims are men (DOJ crime reports), maximum of slightly over 50%. 
Rape, we again do not know. According to Warren Farrell, the number of men raped in prison may exceed the number of women raped out of prison. Again, just because it is men raping, does not mean the men who are raped are not victims.  I think it is irresponsible to assume women are greater victims and deny men services when we know there are victims. There have not been enough studies looking into prison rape to be able to say what the rates are. That in and of itself is shamefull.

Ritilin-I will have to find it.

Suicides-Yes, girls attempt suicide more often. I see this as a cry for help. I see this as girls know they can get help, and this is a way to do so. That is good that they seek help, and I support programs which look to help kids get help without having to go to such extreme measures. They should not have to injure themselves to feel they can get help. I also grew up ( anecdotal evidence here) with many girls who used a suicide attempt for attention and as a badge of honor. I also know on guy who did the same to get my attention, so it is not only girls. But in my expirience, if a person wants to kill themselves, they either do it, or they do it so severly it has lifelong consequences. Boys get the job done at a much greater rate. I think this shows the lack of support given to boys. And support in female form (talking therapy) is not support to most boys.

Here is my beef. We look at girls unsucessful attempts as more important to fight than boys actual deaths. This seems to me pretty biased. IMO there should be programs to help boys specifically equal in number as the ones which help girls specifically. I think we probably agree here, but you are not in the majority as far as feminists are concerned, as this would be taking money from girls.
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: bachelor tom on May 18, 2007, 06:41 AM
Here's a basic question for gender feminists: if women are equal or superior to men, how or why did they allow men to exploit them for thousands of years? isn't that a logical and social impossibility? shouldn't there have been gender parity already in pre-history?

If politically correct liberalism is the current orthodoxy, isn't Kate doing what young women usually do ie. support the status quo?
Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Mr. X on May 18, 2007, 10:12 AM
Quote
Yes, men commit more violence. Yet VAWA is not violence BY men act, it is violence against women act. It is victim centric. Men are victims of overall violent crime more often than women, by a rate of at least 2:1; 3:1 for murders. We do not know how many men are victims of DV. Studies show a minimum of 17% victims are men (DOJ crime reports), maximum of slightly over 50%. 


One example I use is imagine you are walking your dog and a stray dog attacks your dog biting it and causing it to bleed severly. Do you say to yourself "Well 100% of all dog bites are committed by dogs and this is a crime of dog on dog so therefore I will not take my dog to the vet and I will let it bleed to death because the perpetrator of the crime is a dog"?

100% of all murder is committed by humans. Since a human killed a human, no murderer should be tried and brought to justice because this is a crime of human on human?

100% of all abortions are committed by women. If a woman aborts a female fetus we should not care because that is one woman doing something to another woman?

60% of child abuse is caused by women but we should not do anything when a woman beats a gilr because that's a crime of girl on girl?

Title: Re: Up here Kate! Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Candide on May 29, 2007, 02:56 PM
Well Katie and company, I think it best to let the feminists speak for themselves.  I'm going to note in passing that sharing my experience on feminist boards in a reasonable tone has resulted in my posts as well as others being deleted.  This is FAR more the rule than the exception.  It WAS amusing to repost what they had deleted on one board on another.  As promised earlier, here goes:

                        Selected Feminist Quotes


"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE."
Marilyn French (her emphasis)

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

"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey."
Marilyn French

"All men are rapists and that's all they are."
Marilyn French, Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)

"We live, I am trying to say, in an epidemic of male violence against women."
Katha Pollitt.

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
Catherine MacKinnon

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it."
Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.

"The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. The cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid down and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used."
Andrea Dworkin

"The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations...obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign."
Marilyn French

"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release."
Germaine Greer.

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students.

"Men renounce whatever they have in common with women so as to experience no commonality with women; and what is left...is one piece of flesh a few inches long, the penis. The penis is the man; the man is human; the penis signifies humanity."
Andrea Dworkin

"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs."
Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.)

"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence."
Judith Levine

"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.'
Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)

'To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."
Scum Manifesto. (Valerie Solanas)

((Delaney Nickerson, of the American Coalition for ABUSE AWARENESS, refers to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as "The Fucking Molesters Society". (Miami Herald, April 3, 1995) The ACAA is a lobbying group, which includes Ellen Bass (co-author of THE COURAGE TO HEAL), and Rene Frederickson, leading feminist psychotherapist and strong proponent of repressed memory theory.))

((At the STONE ANGELS satanic ritual abuse conference in Thunder Bay in February, 1995, the following was contained in the handouts at a conference supported financially by the Ontario Government: FMS stands for: FULL OF MOSTLY SHIT; FOR MORE SADISM; FELONS, MURDERERS, SCUMBALLS; FREQUENT MOLESTERS SOCIETY.))

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things."
Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men.)

"Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do."
Popular Feminist Graffiti

"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love,' for the men women share their lives with--husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers."
Judith Levine, My Enemy, My love

"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of 'sex acts'...includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder."
J. Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document, (A southern Women's Writing Collective: Women Against Sex.)

"All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck".
Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000. Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University. 1995 settlement.

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."
Andrea Dworkin; from her book Ice and Fire .

"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it "Her". Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination.
Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women

"On the Left, on the Right, in the Middle; Authors, statesmen, thieves; so-called humanists and self-declared fascists; the adventurous and the contemplative, in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom."
Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women.

"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.".
Journalist Sylvia Fraser

"We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable."
Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women.

Catharine MacKinnon ( ) maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women's exploited labor." In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state's nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid--ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed--they're "hiding from the truth." The family isn't a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to "breed" them for that purpose.
Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window; (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al tenets of misandric belief.)

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

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."
Robin Morgan

"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group--skin, color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative--for they have no power but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers".
Robin Morgan.

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
Andrea Dworkin

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference."
Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist".
Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey (p. 86).

"(Rape) is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear".
Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will p.6.

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..."
Sheila Jeffrys.

From 'A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:

MALE:...represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.

MAN:...an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched...a contradictory baby-man...

Letter to editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate". "......Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is: if you don't like it, bad luck--and if you get in my way I'll run you down."
Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia. 9 Feb., 1996.

"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal--a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students--I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of persuading students that women are oppressed," said Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women.

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex."
Valerie Solana, SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men.)

"Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact."
Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood.

Another posting on FEMISA: "Considering the nature and pervasiveness of men's violence, I would say that without question, children are better off being raised without the presence of men. Assaults on women and children are mostly perpetrated by men whom they are supposed to love and trust: fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers."
Both quotes taken from Daphne Patai's excellent critical work,
HETEROPHOBIA

"At Brandies I discovered Feminism. And I instantly became a convert... writing brilliant papers in my Myths of Patriarchy class, in which I likened my fate as a woman to other victims throughout the ages."
Heather Hart 7
"Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive... women didn't go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not Rambo."
Jodie Foster in The New York Times Magazine.

"The prejudicial, man-hating cant of militant 'gender' (victimal) Feminists has foolishly served only to reinforce a counter-sexist prejudice that holds ALL women to be likewise self-serving, manipulative, irrational, unfair...now organized into a kind of monolithic Collective Shrew, throwing a massive slo-mo cultural tantrum among us. It is the classic tactic of infantile Passive Control, a strategy vehemently protested against by Equity Feminists, who are none of that (as is no mature adult)...

"What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'

"It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised."
Gladden Schrock, from The Tyranny of the Underdog.
Title: Yet another feminist bites the dust. Same old same old.
Post by: dr e on Jul 28, 2007, 11:22 AM
Where's Kate?  Maybe like Where's Waldo.  Maybe not since it has now been over two months and no sign of Kate.  Looks like Mr X was correct.  Kate really was not interested in the exchange of information.  Like feminists who have visited here before she never really stood her ground and explained her views as a feminist.  She did not argue her beliefs.  And so it goes.

I hope that guests can read through this thread and get a sense of the frustration that many here feel.  This thread is filled with examples of men and women who felt that feminism has harmed them in some way.  The personal is political right?  Wrong.  That's only if you are a woman and a feminist.

Title: Re: Another Feminist bites the dust. Same old Same old.
Post by: Cordell Walker on Jul 28, 2007, 11:36 AM
more to the point, where is who me?............................I was having fun pissing on her R Kelly style(intellectually of course)
Title: Re: Another Feminist bites the dust. Same old Same old.
Post by: Mr. X on Jul 28, 2007, 04:16 PM

more to the point, where is who me?............................I was having fun pissing on her R Kelly style(intellectually of course)


who me? was a poop-n-run. Just spews out some poop to kick the hornets nest then runs away.
Title: Re: Another Feminist bites the dust. Same old Same old.
Post by: devia on Aug 08, 2007, 12:02 AM
<<<<I hope that guests can read through this thread and get a sense of the frustration that many here feel>>>

No doubt.

Like the people out that disagree with you to the point where they can see no point in disagreeing with you hence they be let out of the fold?
Title: Re: Another Feminist bites the dust. Same old Same old.
Post by: dr e on Aug 08, 2007, 03:31 AM

<<<<I hope that guests can read through this thread and get a sense of the frustration that many here feel>>>

No doubt.

Like the people out that disagree with you to the point where they can see no point in disagreeing with you hence they be let out of the fold?


Usually when people disagree and are met with new information that offers a different way of looking at things the intelligent person will begin to change their views and see their mistakes in thinking.  Those who lack intelligence and are intellectually rigid and bigoted will likely "see no point in disagreeing" and will leave.  And so it goes.
Title: Re: Another Feminist bites the dust. Same old Same old.
Post by: Candide on Sep 30, 2007, 02:56 PM
That poor academic feminist and the "studies" she wants to debate cut no ice here.  EXPERIENCE IS UNASSAILABLE  :sunny:
Title: Re: Another Feminist bites the dust. Same old Same old.
Post by: ClarkCable on Dec 13, 2007, 02:09 AM
Feminism hurts girls as well as boys. Does being taught to view human history as an enormous exercise in oppression give you a winning or losing attitude towards life? Does it help to be taught to hate men, to pity yourself, to be a narcissist who blames men for all of life's disappointments?

Feminism and the abuse industry glorify female failure and demonize men-- not just particular men, but men in general.
Title: Re: Another Feminist bites the dust. Same old Same old.
Post by: Lysander on Dec 28, 2007, 11:20 AM

Now tell me.  Does this system hurt the boys?

DUH.




Of course it hurts the boys!  That is why we are seeing the results in the wider society today.  I don't believe for one moment that what the feminists bleat on about with regard to male behaviour in the past was anything like as bad as they like to make out.    If there has been any gender which has really suffered in so many ways  throughout history then it's the male.  Women have never, ever been subjected to the same level of horrific experiences as have men.     It is all hype, like most of what these silly deluded women continually rant on about like demented banshees all suffering from the same condition proved in psychology - penis envy. 

No way would I accept the conditions as set out in the opening post.   You could say that men themselves are responsible for allowing the present state of affairs to come about in which men are increasingly being disadvantaged in so many ways, men who seem to have become brainwashed by the perversities of feminsim.    More and more women are now similarly bainwashed with the doctrine of male culpability and are to blame even for female shortcomings.   Much of society seems to want to place the blame on men for everything, more or less - feminism's main objective seems to be the promotion of the image of the innocent victim women, and the true facts of many situations are either ignored or manipulated so as to be as far away as possible from the actual truth.

Until we can cure so many men of the mangina complex then the feminists will continue to ride roughshod across social and family and legal life in western societies with the main target being the male sex.   It's a travesty.
Title: Re: Another Feminist bites the dust. Same old Same old.
Post by: Dutch269 on Jan 28, 2008, 03:35 PM
Hi, I'm new to these boards.

This stuff from Kate is the same I have read all over the web, and it's the same stuff I hear to my face from co-workers, friends and strangers. These people try and put thier own definition to feminism, and flat out ignore everything else. I would give them examples of my own life experiance and they would tell me its a stereotype!!

How can it be a stereotype if I was the subject of the abuse, are they telling me I imagined it all!!!

Heres a perfect example, I hope its ok to post this link, its from a fem site I posted on, and her position is the same as Kates, and the same as several women I work with.

http://homoacademicus.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/ill-be-a-post-feminist-in-the-post-patriarchy/
Title: Re: Another Feminist bites the dust. Same old Same old.
Post by: Zencommand on Feb 24, 2008, 09:15 AM
"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."
Andrea Dworkin; from her book Ice and Fire

One regret that I have is that I wasn't there to see the life go out of this pig's eyes when she died.
I truly hope she died alone writhing in agony.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: foldedintobeauty on Mar 08, 2008, 01:05 PM

Yes, feminism hurts boys; so much so that if it were within my power I would remove boys from the custody of feminist mothers.


that's extreme
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: foldedintobeauty on Mar 08, 2008, 01:09 PM



That is interesting, Brian44.

I don't know your age or circumstances but you speak of decades so you must have some age on you.

I never felt harmed by feminism until my divorce but I have felt extremely harmed since that point.

I was shocked -- absolutely shocked -- at how I was treated.

I didn't feel harmed as a child or even a young adult.

I probably predated the worst abuses.

I graduated high school 1979.

I don't think these got really bad until the 1990s and after.


I'm in my 40s. My earliest memory of feminism was a programme about the redundancy of men, broadcast in the early 70s. There were aggressive feminist lesbians supporting the argument that women could one day reproduce without men, as only two X chromosomes were necessary.  They spoke of a man-free utopia where all evil would be eradicated without men. It was a studio debate, with a lot of hatred towards men. As I was a boy at the time, I found it quite disturbing to think that there were women out there that didn't think I was needed, or even deserve to exist. This left a scar on me. I'm old enough to remember a time when women did need men and the media didn't take every opportunity to destroy our self image or confidence. I remember a time when women were feminine. And I also remember a time when I didn't get depressed watching films or programmes where my gender was ridiculed to sell products or appeal to women. BTW, I have been complaining about the negative stereotyping of men since the 80s. I think at the time, most men didn't actually notice what was going on and why they didn't feel as good about themselves. Nearly all of the men I spoke to about this agreed with me after watching the media from a new perspective.


you seem like a nice guy, brian. but women don't NEED men. women desire them. have you ever been ridiculed by men for speaking out? just curious...
Title: Re: Another Feminist bites the dust. Same old Same old.
Post by: Cordell Walker on Mar 08, 2008, 01:17 PM
all of us have been ridiculed by men and women for speaking out
and men dont need women either sweet cheecks
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Mr. X on Mar 08, 2008, 02:43 PM

you seem like a nice guy, brian. but women don't NEED men. women desire them. have you ever been ridiculed by men for speaking out? just curious...

And men don't need women. We certainly do not need their approval to be men.
Title: Re: Has feminism hurt boys and men?
Post by: Cordell Walker on Mar 08, 2008, 02:55 PM


Yes, feminism hurts boys; so much so that if it were within my power I would remove boys from the custody of feminist mothers.


that's extreme


whats that I smell, ..............it aint my mexican agriculture burning, nothings on the stove.................oh yeah..............I smell hypocrisy
are you not the same woman who is running around the internet giving advice on how to cut dad's otu of their children's lives, yet taking away kids from geder nazis is extreme................I could have worked out the double standard even in my BLTC days :rolle: