this is what we are up against

Started by dr e, Jan 20, 2005, 11:26 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Malakas

Long ago , in a universe far away, I wrote:
Quote
I've said it before and I'll say it again until hell freezes over. Feminism did us a huge favour. Some men woke up, thousands more became deeply suspicious, millions more learned to stop listenening to the messages of their oppressed forefathers. Without the feminist epidemic we might still be toiling the same old toil as domestic appendages under the magic spell of 'patriarchy'.
This very day, Roy wrote:
Quote
The thought occurred to me that if feminists ever figure this out and take on an "appreciate men" strategy, then men's rights will be set back another 200 years....
Because ya'll know we'd fall for it... again!
Thank you Roy! That concept has been bothering me for twenty years and you're the first person I've encountered that feels the same.  :oh-yeah:
'm an asylum seeker. Don't send me back.

ampersand

Quote from: "Niall"
Well even though this is an old thread, I just couldn't resist taking ampersand to task on this particular comment:

Quote
Chirstina Hoff Sommers is one of the country's leading anti-feminists. She's also a Republican activist (you can read her pro-Republican articles most election cycles). She long ago quit being a college professor to go work for a right-wing think tank.

She's no more a feminist than you are, Beste.


Ampersand, I don't know if you're still around or not.


Not really. But a friend saw this and emailed me.

I think I've addressed most of your questions on my blog at one time or another. Regarding why I don't consider many of the writers you mention to be feminists, you should see this post about Cathy Young. The thread has some interesting discussion in it - Cathy was nice enough to post several times in it. Comments #174 and #175 will give you a fairly accurate impression of where Cathy and I currently stand, I think.

Regarding so-called "equity feminism" and "gender feminism," I wrote a three-part post explaining my views about those neologisms - but part three is probably the part that you should read, to answer your questions.

gwallan

Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Niall"
Well even though this is an old thread, I just couldn't resist taking ampersand to task on this particular comment:

Quote
Chirstina Hoff Sommers is one of the country's leading anti-feminists. She's also a Republican activist (you can read her pro-Republican articles most election cycles). She long ago quit being a college professor to go work for a right-wing think tank.

She's no more a feminist than you are, Beste.


Ampersand, I don't know if you're still around or not.


Not really. But a friend saw this and emailed me.

I think I've addressed most of your questions on my blog at one time or another. Regarding why I don't consider many of the writers you mention to be feminists, you should see this post about Cathy Young. The thread has some interesting discussion in it - Cathy was nice enough to post several times in it. Comments #174 and #175 will give you a fairly accurate impression of where Cathy and I currently stand, I think.

Regarding so-called "equity feminism" and "gender feminism," I wrote a three-part post explaining my views about those neologisms - but part three is probably the part that you should read, to answer your questions.


Ampersand you have the opportunity to debate here - we wont ban you for breathing the same air you know(and even if we did we'd have the courtesy to at least tell you).
But if you only come here to promote your own blog forget it and piss off.
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.

Niall

Thanks for providing me with the links, Ampersand. I'll respond in more detail later today when I have the time.

S.I.G.E.

Ampersand,

I was reading your blog (which I was banned from for reasons never explained)last night, in reference to the Duke Rape case, and I couldn't help but notice a comment from "Ginmar" to another poster:


First, lets review point one of the moderation policy you wrote for your blog:

I'd like the discussions here to be respectful. By that, I mean not merely refraining from swearing at each other all the time, but actual respect for other posters, which means treating everyone you deal with as if they were as wonderful and important a person as you yourself are.


ginmar Writes:

May 24th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
And....this proves what, exactly?

Amp, can you ban this stupid fuck yet or what? He's just wasting time now.


This was in response to "Steven", who was simply trying to conduct a civil debate with Ginmar, AND REFRAINED FROM PROFANITY THE ENTIRE TIME, yet you banned him at the behest of Ginmar, contradicting the moderation policy you wrote yourself.



Why don't you just take down the moderation policy?

S.I.G.E.

Ampersand,

Your blog and its moderation policy remind me exactly of a kid in my neighborhood named Joel Berger.  He had a really cool basketball hoop, and he invited us over to play.  He used the basketball hoop to get friends.  The only problem was, if we started beating his team too badly, he would make us leave, "Its my ball, its my hoop, you can't beat me, go home!!!"

dr e

Hi Amp good to see you.

I would recommend folks check out post #91 to get a sense of how Cathy Young thinks about this feminism.  Post #90 just before it is also excellent.  I find myself agreeing with most everything she says including that there is plenty of room for criticism of both feminists and  MRA's.

Cathy Young said:
Quote
Frankly, I believe that the term "feminism" has been so debased by its practitioners that I'm not particularly interested in laying claim to it (and I also think that it inherently has overtones of being "for women," rather than "for gender equity" -- which isn't always the same thing). However, I think that the term "anti-feminist" has a very clear dictionary meaning: someone who opposes equality of the sexes. I therefore consider the term to be both pejorative and, in my case, inaccurate.


I agree with her point that "anti-feminist" is used to disparage and belittle.  I would appreciate your not using that towards myself or others on this web site.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

dr e

SIGE, you have been on Amp's blog discussing the Duke case?  Now that is worth a look!  Do you have a link?

Banned ya did they?  How about that.  Were you beating on Joel's team again? :roll:
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

S.I.G.E.

No I got banned long ago, I was just reading it last night.  I got banned in April for trying to present the defense side of the Duke rape case.

Galt

Quote from: "S.I.G.E."
I got banned in April for trying to present the defense side of the Duke rape case.


What's funny is that it's looking more and more, at least to me, that you are going to turn out to be right.

It may not even go to trial ... we'll see.

dr e

If he is correct and the Duke team are innocent will Hugo reinstate Mr Bad?  Will Amp reinstate SIGE?  Will the media provide as much ink about the maligned boys as they have so far to discredit and shame them?
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Niall

Quote from: "ampersand"
Regarding so-called "equity feminism" and "gender feminism," I wrote a three-part post explaining my views about those neologisms - but I think part three is probably the part that you should read, to answer your questions.


OK I'm back, and have had a chance to read it. And as promised...

(Note the following quotations are all from the sections of Ampersand's blog referenced to me above.)

Quote
Ironically, although self-dubbed "equity feminists" often say they’re continuing the traditions of first-wave feminism, it’s doubtful any first wave feminists would have signed on to an ideology so extreme in its pretense that feminism has nothing to say beyond formal legal equality that it believes that rape has nothing to do with misogyny or gender bias.


This statement is nothing but deliberate obfuscation. The first wave feminists had clearly defined goals. They wanted the right to vote, own property, to run for political office and what not. They wanted the same equal rights under the law as men. These were Goals that were achievable and goals which progress toward them could be measured. We have no knowledge of what they believed about rape, simply because elimination of rape wasn't part of their political agenda. And the reason it probably wasn't was because it was beyond the realm of what they set out to achieve. Futhermore the whole concept of rape being a means by which the patriarchy uses to keep women down just didn't exist back then. That was a uniquely post-modern theoretical perspective developed by the second wave (gender) feminists during the 70s. So your argument here is little more than a smokescreen.

Quote
One odd effect of Hoff Sommers’ formulation - in which equity feminists do not perceive any social problem of anti-woman beliefs (a position very at odds with first-wave feminist thought, by the way)


And this is unclear to me. Perhaps you can help clarify.

What exactly do you mean when you say "equity feminists do not perceive any social problem of anti-woman beliefs"? Do you mean that equity feminists don't think (Western) women are held back by widespread discrimination cultural misogyny, perpetrated by some abstract and ill defined "patriarchy" to keep women in their place? If that's what you mean then yeah, you're absolutely right. And I think Sommers and other equity feminists have made their beliefs pretty clear regarding that.

But if that's not what you meant, then could you please tell me what it is you do mean.

Quote
additionally think feminism’s only legitimate goal is formal equality under the law - is that the category of feminists who can be considered equity feminists is astonishingly narrow.


And what other goals, do you think equity feminists should be pursuing, if they wish to earn the distinction of being feminists worthy of that label? (I already have a pretty good idea about what some of your answers to this will probably be, but I'll wait to hear them from you first.)

Mr. Bad

Quote from: "Niall"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Regarding so-called "equity feminism" and "gender feminism," I wrote a three-part post explaining my views about those neologisms - but I think part three is probably the part that you should read, to answer your questions.


OK I'm back, and have had a chance to read it. And as promised...

(Note the following quotations are all from the sections of Ampersand's blog referenced to me above.)

Quote
Ironically, although self-dubbed "equity feminists" often say they're continuing the traditions of first-wave feminism, it's doubtful any first wave feminists would have signed on to an ideology so extreme in its pretense that feminism has nothing to say beyond formal legal equality that it believes that rape has nothing to do with misogyny or gender bias.


This statement is nothing but deliberate obfuscation. The first wave feminists had clearly defined goals. They wanted the right to vote, own property, to run for political office and what not. They wanted the same equal rights under the law as men. These were Goals that were achievable and goals which progress toward them could be measured. We have no knowledge of what they believed about rape, simply because elimination of rape wasn't part of their political agenda. And the reason it probably wasn't was because it was beyond the realm of what they set out to achieve. Futhermore the whole concept of rape being a means by which the patriarchy uses to keep women down just didn't exist back then. That was a uniquely post-modern theoretical perspective developed by the second wave (gender) feminists during the 70s. So your argument here is little more than a smokescreen.


The idea that rape is used by all men to keep women down is a paraniod delusion in some feminists and a deliberate ploy for others.  All but an infinitesimal - and statistically insignificant - number of men not only don't condone rape, they vigorously denounce it.  Same thing with so-called "patriarchy" vis-a-vis being a paranoid delusion in the minds of some feminists and a deliberate ploy for others.  The latter group of modern feminists have exploited both rape and "patriarchy" to create a state of near-hysteria in ordinary women (and some gullible men, e.g., Ken Dolls, misinformed chivalrous men, et al.) so that feminists attain a level of support that they otherwise would not have.  


Quote from: "Niall"
Quote from: "ampersand"
additionally think feminism's only legitimate goal is formal equality under the law - is that the category of feminists who can be considered equity feminists is astonishingly narrow.


And what other goals, do you think equity feminists should be pursuing, if they wish to earn the distinction of being feminists worthy of that label? (I already have a pretty good idea about what some of your answers to this will probably be, but I'll wait to hear them from you first.)


Come on, that's too easy:  Modern feminism is a movement dedicated to enhancing the already substantial female privilege that women in modern First World nations enjoy; as they've stated many times, this sort of political maneuvering is all about power and control.  If modern feminism were truly about equality under the law there would be no VAWA, feminists would marching in the streets to eliminate rape shield laws, bias against men in divorce and child custody, reproductive choice for men, etc.  That feminists not only don't work for those goals, but indeed actively oppose all of the above says all we need to hear re. the true goals of feminism.
"Men in teams... got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements; a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean-spirited to acknowledge."  Camille Paglia

Go Up