Sex War (David Byron)
This is a discussion on Sex War (David Byron) within the Feminist/ Misandry anti misandry forums, part of the Why We're Here category; I spotted a site with quite a lot information and to avoid broken links - you already guessed it - ...
- 4th-September-2008 #1
Sex War (David Byron)
I spotted a site with quite a lot information and to avoid broken links - you already guessed it - I am going to poor this information all over you. Muhahahahahahaha.
Often those who criticize feminism make comparisons with Nazis or communists or racists, in an attempt to explain the anti-male stance that represents most of feminism today; especially common is the term "feminazi". In my opinion this term is too easily dismissed as simply an insult. Although its catchy it is no substitute for carefully examining the genuine parallels that exist between feminism and the Nazis for example.
This site will examine evidence that feminism is today the biggest obstacle to sexual equality in the West, and that it has become a sexual hate movement against men in the same way that the white supremacists are a racist hate movement. This is not intended as an insult to feminists or as an analogy made in bad taste. I am not saying feminism is like a hate movement, my hypothesis is that it is a hate movement.
Right away I have to cast out disclaimers. No, I don't hate women. No, I wasn't abused by my mother, or some ex-girlfriend! Yes, I am in favor of genuine equality for both sexes in terms of legal rights and also the more nebulous but just as powerful expectations placed on people. And, no, I'm not conservative politically, I am not religious and I don't believe in limiting people to traditional sex roles. In fact I'm in many ways just the sort of person feminists claim to be.
But I understand that these disclaimers are necessary today, because of the huge success of feminism in presenting itself as not just a movement for sexual equality, but as the only movement. Hence anyone opposing feminism must oppose equality and hate women.
Hang on... "hate women"?
If feminism is for both sexes why couldn't it mean I hate men?
Perhaps there's a clue there.... in any case if you've read this far I hope you will look at some of the short essays on feminism and sexual equality here. Eventually I'll be pulling them together to argue the hypothesis of feminism as a hate movement more linearly. I realize that to many the idea that feminism is about hate sounds like a dismissive put-down rather than a well attested theory. I accept it is my responsibility to provide argument and evidence. Site under construction and I hope you will be patient because I'll get to the former sooner than the latter! For those already familiar with the truth about feminism I hope there is something new for you here, or a twist on an old observation or two.
There are currently two approaches on the site; an essay list which is pretty all over the place and attempt to structure the arguments and evidence for the hypothesis which stems from my definition of a hate movement and the six criteria I list there.
David ByronWhat is a Hate Movement?
A logical place to start a discussion about whether feminism is now a hate movement, is with a definition of "hate movement". But before that, it turns out there's even more of a need to say what a hate movement isn't. It isn't simply a bunch of people who hate another group of people. In particular just because you are in a hate movement doesn't mean you consciously hate all members of the targeted group.
In fact IMO the word "hate" in the phrase "hate movement" is misleading. Usually hate means a very personal and emotional antipathy. It's been said that you can't really hate someone unless you've loved them first. But this sort of emotional intensity isn't always present in members of a hate movement. The word "hate" is simply used different when applied to an individual than when applied to a group. Political hate, or hatred for a group might be quite passive. Its hard to be so wound up about people you've never even met. IMO a more accurate word for what's going on would be contempt.
Some definitions on-line
A hate site is defined as, "an organization or individual that advocates violence against or unreasonable hostility toward those persons or organizations identified by their race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability. Also including organizations or individuals that disseminate historically inaccurate information with regards to these persons or organizations for the purpose of vilification."
One Man's Mind
"You can promote and struggled for the rights of your race, group or religion to help sustain your way of life and provide a better future. The key is to honor every human beings right to the same thing. A hate group wants the same thing but they are willing to deny or suppress the rights of others to obtain that goal. This usually comes in the form of deceitful discrediting, vandalism or violence against the target group."
But most sites that talk about hate movements, tend to avoid defining the concept. I think this is dangerous because of how much power there is behind the accusation. The groups routinely counted as hateful are quick to point out the similarities between them and more acceptable groups. They generally take steps to deny the worst aspects of the label placed on them, for example by explicitly condemning violence or law breaking. Its hard to come up with a definition which is neither too broad, nor too narrow. Well here's my attempt. A hate group,
Advocates lesser rights in law for the target group
Propagates discrimination against the target group
Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral
Teaches that the target group is a threat
Uses lies including historical revisionism to spread these views
Tolerates violence towards the target group
Now certainly it is easy to show that feminism does all this to men as a group, but there is another aspect to a movement being hateful, and not just a specific group. These attitudes and actions must be pervasive and generally represent the leaders the organizations and the ordinary members of the movement. At the same time a movement which does advocate this kind of hate is likely to see itself as justified and try to present its ideas in an acceptable way.
I should say that some people add that political hate like this can only be directed towards a birth group, not for example, a political group. I didn't add this because so many people like to try and accuse me and others of "hating feminists". As you can see from the above I do not. For example I do not say feminists or other hate mongers deserve lesser rights, although many feminists do argue for "hate crimes" ironically. At any rate I omitted this part of the definition to avoid a charge that I couldn't take my own criticisms! Its probably wise to include that seventh criterion in a definition of hate to limit frivolous use of the term. Taken individually the criteria might be legitimately used against certain groups at certain times. For example I argue feminists are immoral (although not inferior) which is the 3rd criterion. The point of limiting the definition of political hate to attacking birth groups is that by birth alone no one deserves to be targeted like this.
Discrimination set in law
Where bias against men is made explicit in law... and how feminism encourages this.
VAWA - Some More Equal Than Others
Adoption and Child Support
Rape shield laws
The Mann Act
Equality law puts women first
Title IX - discrimination against men in Sports
See no evil
It's common for feminists to say women have less rights than men. But have you ever heard one actually come up with an example? My impression of the traditional legal situation in the west is that women were less visible to the law. The law does not exist to grant rights, but to limit behavior and on the whole the behavior it limited was male behavior. In turn the male head would be expected to dispense justice to those within his household. As a result there was less need to limit women's criminal behavior in law. The trend has been to develop from this model of a family group as the unit the law deals with (through its usually male head) towards individual rights and responsibilities, although young children are still seen as dependents in this way.
If this view is correct women did not need rights because their behavior was not limited to begin with. Only by looking at both rights and responsibilities / restrictions do we get a balanced view. A popular example from recent times often used by feminists is the old fashioned definition of rape which many states used to use as recently as a few decades ago. This was along the lines of "when a man has sex with a woman, not his wife, without consent". Feminists zero in on the "wife" part and attempt to say this shows that men had the right to rape their wives. In fact all it meant was that the assault would not be called rape. But interesting to note, is that the same law, by the same logic, gave any woman the "right" to rape any man or woman, and that anyone of either sex could have a right to rape if the victim was male, whether married to him or not. Since men are raped more often than women in the US, this was a considerable bias.
Women were not explicitly given "permission" to rape their husbands, not because women have less rights in law, but because they have more. A husband forcing his wife to have sex was an assault but it was not presumed to carry the special indignity of rape -- forced sexual intimacy with a stranger. The husband's "right" was just an exemption from a larger prohibition -- a prohibition which did not apply to women in the first place!
Properly understood then, the rape example shows how women were more protected than men (only women could be raped) and how men were more restricted than women (only a man could be a rapist). This makes sense if your legal system assumes men are the legal representative of a quasi-legal local/family grouping that dispenses its own justice. Only the legal representative is punished for crimes of the family group. In return that legal representative is motivated to keep order within the family. Simple and effective, but open to abuse. As a result special protections for the dependents were needed to make sure the head did not abuse their position.
That's fine for the Romans but today the same laws that sensibly protected only women and punished only men, are still around. Since men no longer dispense justice to the quasi-legal family group this bias is extremely sexist. In gathering examples of feminist hate I need to show not just discrimination against men in law, which was normal even before feminism, but that these laws were encouraged by feminists.
A look at how supreme court decisions involving sex discrimination as a violation of the 14th amendment equal rights clause or the 5th amendments due process clause has led to a double standard whereby discrimination favoring women is justified and while discrimination favoring men is (rightly) struck down. The court has come to apply a standard of judgment that assumes women need protection in all but the most ridiculous cases, while men do not. In fact it is pushing the same sexual stereotypes it pretends to be attacking.
REED v. REED, 404 U.S. 71 (1971)
A mandatory provision of the Idaho probate code that gives preference to men over women when persons of the same entitlement class apply for appointment as administrator of a decedent's estate is based solely on a discrimination prohibited by and therefore violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
A very reasonable decision striking down an obviously sexist law. I take this as my starting point and searched for all supreme court (sex related) decisions citing this case and developing sex discrimination as a violation of the 14th or the 5th.
STANLEY v. ILLINOIS, 405 U.S. 645 (1972)
Petitioner, an unwed father whose children, on the mother's death, were declared state wards and placed in guardianship, attacked the Illinois statutory scheme as violative of equal protection. Under that scheme the children of unmarried fathers, upon the death of the mother, are declared dependents without any hearing on parental fitness and without proof of neglect, though such hearing and proof are required before the State assumes custody of children of married or divorced parents and unmarried mothers
Yup Illinois really had a law saying the state should, without any hearing, steal the children from an unwed father if the "real parent" of the family died. The sex equality angle is only one of the constitutional rights this piece of shit law breaks. Of course if there's one thing you learn looking over this page its that there are a great many stupid sexist laws out there but this is surely the worst on this page. That the state of Illinois in 1972 was insisting on physically breaking up a family at a time of mourning, and then demanding the father had no more chance of adopting his own children than any other single male (IE none at all): "Illinois law affords him no priority in adoption proceedings. It would be his burden to establish not only that he would be a suitable parent but also that he would be the most suitable of all who might want custody of the children. ...Stanley, unmarried and impecunious as he is, could not now expect to profit from adoption proceedings" And Illinois went to court to try to keep this law!!!
FRONTIERO v. RICHARDSON, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
A married woman Air Force officer sought increased benefits for her husband as a "dependent" under 37 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 10 U.S.C. 1072, 1076. Those statutes provide, solely for administrative convenience, that spouses of male members of the uniformed services are dependents for purposes of obtaining increased quarters allowances and medical and dental benefits, but that spouses of female members are not dependents unless they are in fact dependent for over one-half of their support.
Administrative convenience no excuse for sex discrimination. Men were statistically far more likely to have a spouse as a dependent but that is no reason for discrimination.
GEDULDIG v. AIELLO, 417 U.S. 484 (1974)
California has a disability insurance system for private employees temporarily disabled from working by an injury or illness not covered by workmen's compensation, under which an employee contributes to an Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund one percent of his salary up to an annual maximum of $85. A disability lasting less than eight days is not compensable, except when the employee is hospitalized. Benefits are not payable for a single disability exceeding 26 weeks. ...Appellees, four women otherwise qualified under the program who have suffered employment disability because of pregnancies....challenged the pregnancy exclusion
This one went against the feminists perhaps because the service provided was already identical for men and women. In effect the court said it wouldn't mandate the novel creation of special treatment for women (in pregnancy), even if it turned a blind eye to already existing inequalities favoring women. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. GILBERT, 429 U.S. 125 (1976)is another very similar decision.
KAHN v. SHEVIN, 416 U.S. 351 (1974)
A Florida statute grants widows an annual $500 property tax exemption. Appellant, a widower, was denied an exemption because the statute offers no analogous benefit for widowers. He then sought a declaratory judgment in country Circuit Court, which held the statute violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, finding the classification "widow" valid because it has a "fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation" of reducing "the disparity between the economic capabilities of a man and a woman."
Sexism against men is fine if you claim your intent is to help women overcome perceived disadvantages (not necessarily discrimination) of their sex. Gender wage gap hoax quoted as "evidence". No one suggests that it is merely an administrative convenience to assume ALL women are in need and no men are.
SCHLESINGER v. BALLARD, 419 U.S. 498 (1975)
Appellee, a naval officer with more than nine years of active service, who failed for a second time to be selected for promotion and thus under 10 U.S.C. 6382 (a) was subject to mandatory discharge, brought this action claiming that application of that statute to him when compared to 10 U.S.C. 6401 (under which had he been a woman officer he would have been entitled to 13 years of commissioned service before a mandatory discharge for want of promotion) was an unconstitutional discrimination based on sex in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause
The court decided that since only a man's rights were at stake "it is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise." and that the sexism was justified by on these grounds.
STANTON v. STANTON, 421 U.S. 7 (1975)
When appellant wife and appellee husband were divorced in Utah in 1960, the decree, incorporating the parties' stipulation, ordered appellee to make monthly payments to appellant for the support of the parties' children, a daughter, then age seven, and a son, then age five. Subsequently, when the daughter became 18, appellee discontinued payments for her support, and the divorce court, pursuant to a Utah statute which provides that the period of minority for males extends to age 21 and for females to age 18, denied appellant's motion for support of the daughter for the period after she attained 18
The intent of this law, a rare thing, was to protect men more than women, or rather (and perhaps that explains its existence) boys more than girls, and there were perceived disadvantages to boys that it was addressing. The court dismissed this intention saying, "Notwithstanding the "old notions" cited by the state court that it is the man's primary responsibility to provide a home, that it is salutary for him to have education and training before he assumes that responsibility, and that females tend to mature and marry earlier than males, there is nothing rational in the statutory distinction between males and females". The court seems inclined to dismiss out of hand such "role-typing" ideas even when they are the same ideas (e.g.. the wage gap) used to justify discrimination favoring women. Seems like a just result, but one that contradicts the way a woman's case would be handled.
CRAIG v. BOREN, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)
Appellant Craig, a male then between 18 and 21 years old, and appellant Whitener, a licensed vendor of 3.2% beer, brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that an Oklahoma statutory scheme prohibiting the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18 constituted a gender-based discrimination that denied to males 18-20 years of age the equal protection of the laws
The court went with its "administrative convenience" argument again and dismissed the presentation of evidence that men were more likely to be drunk drivers than women on the grounds that men were still very unlikely to be drunk drivers. It seems that the court is happy to give men equality where it does not do any harm to women.
CALIFANO v. GOLDFARB, 430 U.S. 199 (1977)
Under the Social Security Act survivors' benefits based on the earnings of a deceased husband covered by the Act are payable to his widow regardless of dependency, but under 42 U.S.C. 402 (f) (1) (D) such benefits on the basis of the earnings of a deceased wife covered by the Act are payable to her widower only if he was receiving at least half of his support from her. In a suit challenging these provisions, a three-judge District Court held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by 402 (f) (1) (D) constituted invidious discrimination against female wage earners by affording them less protection for their surviving spouses than is provided to male employees.
By dressing up this issues as an issue of female rights (for the wage earner) not male rights (for the widower) a positive result was achieved. Note how throughout the decision it is treated as discrimination against women. It's easy to see how the blame game would have justified the opposite result at the drop of a hat. Not that the court would be interested in deciding what was fair at this point. Remember the point is whether the law was made with the intent of overcoming female discrimination. In fact arguments that it was were ignored claiming they were "supported by no more substantial justification than "archaic and overbroad" generalizations". WENGLER v. DRUGGISTS MUTUAL INS. CO., 446 U.S. 142 (1980) is a very similar case. Here the distinction between whether the law is perceived as benefiting women (acceptable) or men (unacceptable) is key to the defense: "the Missouri Supreme Court stated that "the purpose of the [law] was to favor widows, not to disfavor them". The supreme court basically replies, no you are wrong, its discrimination against women wage earners so its unconstitutional. Dang. WEINBERGER v. WIESENFELD, 420 U.S. 636 (1975) is an earlier case so I should rewrite this block and move it up. Huh.
CALIFANO v. WEBSTER, 430 U.S. 313 (1977)
Webster asked that his social security payments be increased to the amount he would have received if he had been a woman arguing that the discrimination violated the equal protection clause of the 5th amendment.
Thus, the legislative history is clear that the differing treatment of men and women in former 215 (b) (3) was not "the accidental byproduct of a traditional way of thinking about females," Califano v. Goldfarb, ante, at 223 (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment), but rather was deliberately enacted to compensate for particular economic disabilities suffered by women
ORR v. ORR, 440 U.S. 268 (1979)
...an Alabama court, acting pursuant to state alimony statutes under which husbands but not wives may be required to pay alimony upon divorce, ordered appellant to make monthly alimony payments...
A pretty open and shut case but interesting because the court here makes it thinking clearer than usual IMO.  The law establishes a classification of people, based on sex  to be legal it must serve important governmental objectives and it must be shown that these classification/s substantially relate to achievement of those objectives.  These objectives must be the intent of the law but judging the intent seems to be something which is given more leeway than previously where it had to have been seen to be the intent at the time of making the law. Now it seems any sensible justification anyone can come up with that isn't actually an ad-hoc pretext, will do. classifications are gauged to see if they are an accurate proxy for the objective. That is that the classification correlates well the behavior the objective is interested in, and that nothing better is easily available  Finally the objectives must not be able to be met without the discriminatory classifications, and the "need" to save administrative expenses is not acceptable as excuse.
PARHAM v. HUGHES, 441 U.S. 347 (1979)
A Georgia statute, while permitting the mother of an illegitimate child, or the father if he has legitimated the child and there is no mother, to sue for the wrongful death of the child, precludes a father who has not legitimated a child from so suing. Appellant, the father of an illegitimate child, whom he had not legitimated and who was killed, along with the mother, in an automobile accident, sued for the child's wrongful death
The court said that fathers and mothers of illegitimate children were "not similarly situated" because men could and on this result would have to go to court to try and have the child made legitimate. The court seems very happy to continue to make decisions based on old fashioned prejudices about men's roles and responsibilities, while constantly mentioning the need to make no assumptions about women.
CABAN v. MOHAMMED, 441 U.S. 380 (1979)
Appellant and appellee Maria Mohammed lived together out of wedlock for several years in New York City, during which time two children were born. Appellant, who was identified as the father on the birth certificates, contributed to the children's support. After the couple separated, Maria took the children and married her present husband (also an appellee). During the next two years appellant frequently saw or otherwise maintained contact with the children. Appellees subsequently petitioned for adoption of the children, and appellant filed a cross-petition. The Surrogate granted appellees' petition under 111 of the New York Domestic Relations Law, which permits an unwed mother, but not an unwed father, to block the adoption of their child simply by withholding her consent
The law denies rights to men which the court is usually happy to rectify, but in this case the subject is parenthood. Fortunately the model father in this case is hard to stereotype as a deadbeat and wins albeit with the narrowest of majorities -- four justices dissenting. Its worth reading their "reasoning" to get a handle on how biased their views on sex are. If this comment was taken seriously it would reverse almost every precedent: "if we make the further undisputed assumption that the discrimination is justified in those cases in which the rule has its most frequent application - cases involving newborn infants and very young children in the custody of their natural mothers, see nn. 7 and 12, supra - we should presume that the law is entirely valid and require the challenger to demonstrate that its unjust applications are sufficiently numerous and serious to render it invalid." This is a breathtaking statement and, despite the result, is good evidence of how the court has different standards for men and women.
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATOR OF MASS. v. FEENEY, 442 U.S. 256 (1979)
During her 12-year tenure as a state employee, appellee, who is not a veteran, had passed a number of open competitive civil service examinations for better jobs, but because of Massachusetts' veterans' preference statute, she was ranked in each instance below male veterans who had achieved lower test scores than appellee. Under the statute, all veterans who qualify for state civil service positions must be considered for appointment ahead of any qualifying nonveterans. The statutory preference, which is available to "any person, male or female, including a nurse,"
Following the lead of race-based decisions concerning "disproportionably adverse" laws which are worded neutrally, the court affirmed that discrimination must be the desired intent, and not just an obvious consequence of the law.
KIRCHBERG v. FEENSTRA, 450 U.S. 455 (1981)
In 1974, the husband of appellee Feenstra, without her knowledge, executed a mortgage on their jointly owned home as security on the husband's promissory note to appellant (Kirchberg). The husband executed the mortgage pursuant to a now superseded Louisiana statute (Art. 2404) that gave a husband the unilateral right to dispose of jointly owned community property without his spouse's consent
The interesting point here is not the law, which was certainly sexist rubbish (and had been promptly changed by Louisiana even before the case got to the supreme court -- note that Louisiana is not the appallee), but the fact that "under Art. 2334 of the Louisiana Civil Code, in effect at the time Mr. Feenstra executed the mortgage, Mrs. Feenstra could have made a "declaration by authentic act" prohibiting her husband from executing a mortgage on her home without her consent. By failing to take advantage of this procedure, Mrs. Feenstra, in appellant's view, became the "architect of her own predicament". This argument seems to be the same as the court itself used in PARHAM v. HUGHES but this time they rightly reject it saying, "As we have previously noted, the "absence of an insurmountable barrier" will not redeem an otherwise unconstitutionally discriminatory law" In other words if there was some way for the injured party to avoid the discrimination it is still discrimination.
MICHAEL M. v. SONOMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 450 U.S. 464 (1981)
Petitioner, then a 17 1/2-year-old male, was charged with violating California's "statutory rape" law, which defines unlawful sexual intercourse as "an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female is under the age of 18 years." Prior to trial, petitioner sought to set aside the information on both state and federal constitutional grounds, asserting that the statute unlawfully discriminated on the basis of gender since men alone were criminally liable thereunder.
Its worth reading through this decision to see how craven the supreme court can be when it comes to protecting the little woman. Fortunately there were 3 voices of dissent and the dissenting view lists some of the screw-ups. Court notes that California's stated intent was to prevent (criminalize) teenage pregnancy. This doesn't prevent the court going on irrelevantly in a suspiciously patriarchal way about how much young girls suffer with pregnancy and how young boys never do and are always trying to get some. The court notes that only women get pregnant and then with twisted logic says that since pregnancy is the target of the law it makes sense that only the sex that doesn't get pregnant should be punished. Sorry, isn't that a bit backwards? Most people know it takes both sexes to have a baby, but if you are going to chose just one its hard to see how men are more proximally involved than women. The court then says you couldn't expect a law that punished women for having sex to be enforceable -- oh gee well that is a good reason for sex discrimination of the most blatant kind.
ROSTKER v. GOLDBERG, 453 U.S. 57 (1981)
The Military Selective Service Act (Act) authorizes the President to require the registration for possible military service of males but not females, the purpose of registration being to facilitate any eventual conscription under the Act. Registration for the draft was discontinued by Presidential Proclamation in 1975 (the Act was amended in 1973 to preclude conscription), but as the result of a crisis in Southwestern Asia, President Carter decided in 1980 that it was necessary to reactivate the registration process, and sought Congress' allocation of funds for that purpose. He also recommended that Congress amend the Act to permit the registration and conscription of women as well as men. Although agreeing that it was necessary to reactivate the registration process, Congress allocated only those funds necessary to register males and declined to amend the Act to permit the registration of women
The court pretty much shuffles its feet and mumbles something about giving congress wide deference especially in military matters. Pass the buck time. In the end of course making the selective service register women wouldn't decrease the number of men sent to their deaths, or increase women's share of danger one bit. When it comes to killing only men in war no one is very keen on equality suddenly.
MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN v. HOGAN, 458 U.S. 718 (1982)
The policy of petitioner Mississippi University for Women (MUW), a state-supported university which has from its inception limited its enrollment to women, of denying otherwise qualified males (such as respondent) the right to enroll for credit in its School of Nursing violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In ruling that a man could enter an all female nursing school the court seems to almost surprise itself, "That this statutory policy discriminates against males rather than against females does not exempt it from scrutiny or reduce the standard of review" and the dissenting view (two of nine justices) is telling, "In my view, the Court errs seriously by assuming - without argument or discussion - that the equal protection standard generally applicable to sex discrimination is appropriate here. That standard was designed to free women from "archaic and overbroad generalizations" In no previous case have we applied it to invalidate state efforts to expand women's choices." It seems the reason for the ruling is that Hogan wanted to join MUW in such a stereotypically female course. The court could not stomach the idea, seriously used as a defense, that more women were needed as nurses because of discrimination against women.
LEHR v. ROBERTSON, 463 U.S. 248 (1983)
The significance of the biological connection is that it offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring. If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development. If he fails to do so, the Federal Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie
The court makes it clear that fathers have no rights to their children unless they earn them. Uniquely of all these cases no comparison is made between how the law is applied to a woman in similar circumstances. Hardly surprising since the court totally throws out all their rules and basically just says that a bad father has no parental rights whatsoever. Men must earn their way to equality by conforming to the courts ideas on stereotypical male behavior. "Parental rights do not spring full-blown from the biological connection between parent and child. They require relationships more enduring" is the opinion, but this is only applied to male parents, and at that unwed male parents. This is a clear prejudice.
UNITED STATES v. VIRGINIA et al., ___ U.S. ___ (1996)
(The Citadel / VMI case)
VAWA - Some More Equal Than Others
What is the nature of feminism? Feminists claim it is an equality movement. I claim it is a political hate movement. Surely these two hypotheses are far enough apart that we can test to see which is the more accurate by an examination of the facts?
So here is a fact. VAWA - the Violence Against Women Act is a law which discriminates against male victims of violence by denying them equal protection. Feminists claim this discrimination is exactly the sort of thing they stand opposed to. However feminists on the whole strongly support VAWA. For example NOW does, the Ms Foundation does, the Feminist Majority does. VAWA is often described as the most siginificant step forward for feminism in the 1990's (for example by Naomi Wolf). The law was framed with the help of Catherine MacKinnon the leading feminist jurist. Andrea Dworkin said of VAWA that if the congressmen had understood what they were enacting they would never have done it.... in short feminists are not only endorsing VAWA but they are proud of it. Boastful in fact.
Yet VAWA is sexist. Not only is VAWA sexist but it is obvious and intentionally sexist. You cannot really miss the fact that VAWA treats the sexes differently (and men worse). That's the whole point. Yes the hint is in the name. You can't miss that. But its in the text of the law, the intent of the law and in the execution of the law too.
VAWA is the smoking gun which proves that feminism is no equality movement. Small wonder that feminists don't wish to discuss this. Its like O.J. saying he is bored with talking about dead bodies and knives. How do feminists deflect criticism of them as hypocrites who are pretending to want equality only as a cover for female advantage?
By trying to dismiss, laugh off, ignore or deride.
By admiting that VAWA is sexist and claiming its ok for women to be sexist against men and its good for the government to discriminate against men.
By trying to say VAWA is not sexist.
And all these at once (despite the fact that #2 and #3 are mutually contradictory!)
(link to text here)
Note to self: find out more about the "German" VAWA:
This link might not work.
In Germany another, stricter VAWA law is getting passed in parliament. As you can read, public and media tend to explicitly mention "violent fathers and husbands", violent "beating men". Thus female violence is excluded and implicitly denied. As a result men can be excluded from their own home even more easily soon.
«Strictly against thugs [male form of the word]
With a social plan the socialdemocratic-green government wants to take legal proceedings against violent dads and husbands... In addition the government wants to present a law this year simplifying to give the home of the couple to the woman in case of maltreatment and containing legal regulations for forbidding to contact, molest and approach, according to a report.» (weekly Focus 48/1999, p. 62, 64)
This is a rough translation from the original:
«Strikt gegen Schläger
Mit einem Aktionsplan will die rot-grüne Regierung gegen prügelnde Väter und Ehemänner vorgehen... Außerdem will die Bundesregierung noch in diesem Jahr ein Gesetz vorlegen, das in Mißhandlungsfällen „neben der Vereinfachten Zuweisung der Ehewohnung an die Frau auch ausdrücklich gesetzliche Regelungen für ein Kontakt-, Belästigungs- und Näherungsverbot enthält", so der Bericht.» (Focus 48/1999, S. 62, 64)
Adoption and Child Support
Some comments by Laura M Hagan
Laura is a regular poster at the usenet board soc.men, and a Californian lawyer, here commenting about California -- the supreme court has ruled states do NOT have to inform a father if a mother puts his child up for adoption, although in most cases they try to inform him at least (depending on how worth a father they judge him to be).
In practical terms, tho, it doesn't work out that way.
If Mom wants to carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption, the state does indeed look for Dad in order to give him the option to _take the child himself_. However, Dad _cannot_ simply refuse his consent to adoption and insist that _Mom_ keep the child. Dad has two choices: (1) take the baby, or (2) agree to adoption. In practical terms, when Dad takes the baby, there is rarely, rarely, rarely a CS order granted against Mom. However, if Mom wants to carry the baby to term and does NOT want to give it up for adoption, Dad has no choice and will likely be subject to a CS order. Do you see the inequity here?
Another inequity in CS orders is the difference in the way "child support" is enforced. Court orders are never entered directing a custodial parent to earn (pay) a certain amount of money, on pain of incarceration. Never. A custodial parent is free to quit her job and go on welfare, without interference from the state. An NCP with a CS order just can't do that. A CP with a high-paying career can always quit and go back to school, quit and take up nature photography, or what-the-heck-ever. That's her choice, and she is permitted to make that choice. Even if it results in her having insufficient funds to feed her child(ren), there is no judge in the world who will put her in jail _just for quitting her job._ For that matter, even if her income falls to the point where the kid is eating sporadically and wearing old and ill-fitting clothes, she won't go to jail absent a finding of _willful_ neglect. The NCP, on the other hand, must remain in the job he had when the order was entered, or take a _better_ job -- he cannot quit his high-paying and high-stress job _even for medical reasons_ such as chest pains. If he does, he will go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
This is flatly unfair.
Rape shield laws
Just some links for now.
Melanie Phillips' article from the cover of The Spectator. 10JUN00 UK edition
British government plans to make men accused of rape prove their innocence
Marc Etienne's comment:
I wanted to point out also that California Evidence Code section 1103 expressly excludes prison rape victims from rape shield protection, despite the risk of being turned up. I somehow doubt that the courts uphold that rule when it's a woman who's raped in prison. If and when I ever have time I plan to look into that. Unless someone beats me to it.
Equality law puts women first
From the Telegraph:
Just a link so far
More inequality laws proposed
Mama mia . . . law to make children take after their mothers
Women to get top EC jobs under new bias rules
Austrian husbands must do washing up - by law
Title IX - discrimination against men in Sports
How an "equality" law is used to discriminate against men
Title IX (of the 1972 Education Amendments Act) seems pretty equitable at first glance. A model of "gender-neutral" language. What could go wrong with a law worded this simply?
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance
The short answer is "plenty".
The longer answer is that this wording is far to vague to be of any use to anyone so what happens is that the government has a special group for handling the interpretation of the law. In this case its the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (or OCR). These groups are professional bureaucrats and are often heavily feminist in their thinking. They effectively dictate what the law means.
Here's what the OCR says on the matter.
The 1979 Policy Interpretation provides that as part of this determination OCR will apply the following three-part test to assess whether an institution is providing nondiscriminatory participation opportunities for individuals of both sexes:
1. Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments.
2. Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the members of that sex.
3. Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a history and continuing practice of program expansion, as described above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program
full text from OCR site
The above three part test basically says that an institution has to spend as much on women's sports as men's sports irrespective of how many male athletes or female athlete want to participate. Since usually female participation is around half that of male participation, each individual female athlete must receive about double the funding of her male counterpart. This is OCR's idea of equality, although to be fair they hotly deny it works out that way. Why? Because the original law's wording strictly prohibits exactly this sort of quota system.
Option 1, for an institution is to spend as much on women as men. When it says "enrollments" it doesn't mean enrollment in sporting programs, but enrollment in the university as a whole. All students count irrespective of complete lack of interest in sports. These days women's enrollment in universities exceeds men's despite there being more men than women in that age range. Its the proportion of women in the college that counts. Clearly this is a quota which would mandate spending double on women (if women were only half as interested in sports), and OCR admit it, but they offer two alternatives.
Option 2. doesn't add much. Colleges which aren't at the quota level yet can get out of a lawsuit if they can demonstrate they have been trying to reach the quota. Did I mention this has been law for nearly 30 years? Clearly option 2 doesn't give much but a short term excuse.
Option 3. is where the equality part is supposed to come in. Or ought to. It ought to say "Hey as long as all the athletes are treated the same you're OK!". No need for a quota if women are treated the same as men, right? OCR says no. To qualify under option 3 women must have NOT as much choice and resources as men, but as much choice and resources as they could possibly ever want! Which certainly would exceed what their male counterparts are limited to, unless the college has unlimited funding.
So now we go the the courts
Brown University vs Cohen(lengthy document from which the following quotes are taken)
This suit was initiated in response to the demotion in May 1991 of Brown's women's gymnastics and volleyball teams from university-funded varsity status to donor-funded varsity status. Contemporaneously, Brown demoted two men's teams, water polo and golf, from university-funded to donor-funded varsity status. As a consequence of these demotions, all four teams lost, not only their university funding, but most of the support and privileges that accompany university-funded varsity status at Brown.
Brown University seemed to have a pretty good case. The cuts were not biased in favor of one sex or the other. Men and women had equal opportunities in what had been considered a model of equality in sports. But equality wasn't good enough for some people. Actually its interesting to see what groups backed the suit against Brown University:
Deborah L. Brake , with whom Marcia D. Greenberger , Judith C. Appelbaum and National Women's Law Center were on brief for National Women's Law Center, American Association of University Women/AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund, American Civil Liberties Union Women's Rights Project, California Women's Law Center, Center For Women Policy Studies, Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund, Equal Rights Advocates, Feminist Majority Foundation, Girls Incorporated, National Association for Girls and Women in Sport, National Association for Women in Education, National Coalition for Sex Equity in Education, National Commission on Working Women, National Council of Administrative Women in Education, National Education Association, National Organization for Women Foundation, Now Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Softball Coaches Association, Northwest Women's Law Center, Parents for Title IX, Rhode Island Affiliate American Civil Liberties Union, Women Employed, Women's Basketball Coaches Association, Women's Law Project, Women's Legal Defense Fund, Women's Sports Foundation, and YWCA of the USA, amici curiae.
Brown University argue that the law should be interpreted to mean individual men and women should be treated equally (as opposed to the quota system demand that each sex overall should get the same resources): As the appeals court summarized in ruling against them:
Brown contends that an athletics program equally accommodates both genders and complies with Title IX if it accommodates the relative interests and abilities of its male and female students. This "relative interests" approach posits that an institution satisfies prong three of the three-part test by meeting the interests and abilities of the underrepresented gender only to the extent that it meets the interests and abilities of the overrepresented gender.
Brown maintains that the district court's decision imposes upon universities the obligation to engage in preferential treatment for women by requiring quotas in excess of women's relative interests and abilities. With respect to prong three, Brown asserts that the district court's interpretation of the word "fully" "requires universities to favor women's teams and treat them better than men's [teams]. . . . forces them to eliminate or cap men's teams. . . . [and] forces universities to impose athletic quotas in excess of relative interests and abilities."
Seems pretty reasonable to me. Actually I object to the term "statistically under-represented gender" when the point at issue is how to measure what constitutes equality. So why did the appeals court back the district court, in backing the OCR and saying equality wasn't good enough for women? That women needed more than equality as they say here:
prong three "demands not merely some accommodation, but full and effective accommodation. If there is sufficient interest and ability among members of the statistically underrepresented gender, not slaked by existing programs, an institution necessarily fails this prong of the test."
Well, for one thing there is that idea that if the executive branch of government have issued their rules of interpretation then they effectively become a precedent for interpretation of the original law, but clearly there needs to be more than that or the OCR would be free to do whatever they wanted. In particular Brown University pointed out that the original law explicitly prohibited the sort of quota system that the 3 part criteria effectively mandates. No surprise that what it came down to is the usual "patriarchal" prejudices in favor of protecting women.
It is women and not men who have historically and who continue to be underrepresented in sports, not only at Brown, but at universities nationwide. See Williams v. School Dist. of Bethlehem, Pa. , 998 F.2d 168, 175 (1993) (observing that, although Title IX and its regulations apply equally to boys and girls, "it would require blinders to ignore that the motivation for promulgation of the regulation on athletics was the historic emphasis on boys' athletic programs to the exclusion of girls' athletic programs in high schools as well as colleges")
So at base the reason the court knows that women are being unfairly treated when they only get equal treatment with men is that "everyone knows". Funny. I thought the law was meant to be blind. Instead of assuming they knew which way sexism runs before hand maybe the court should have put some blinders ON? Again the court relied on "knowing" that women were discriminated against (instead of simply not as interested in sports as men) in explaining:
According to Brown's relative interests interpretation of the equal accommodation principle, the gender-based disparity in athletics participation opportunities at Brown is due to a lack of interest on the part of its female students, rather than to discrimination, and any attempt to remedy the disparity is, by definition, an unlawful quota. This approach is entirely contrary to "Congress's unmistakably clear mandate that educational institutions not use federal monies to perpetuate gender-based discrimination," id. at 907, and makes it virtually impossible to effectuate Congress's intent to eliminate sex discrimination in intercollegiate athletics.
In effect the court ruled that legally any difference between numbers of men and numbers of women participating in sports MUST be due to discrimination and could not be due to differences in interest levels. As a result the effective quota system is endorsed and women must receive about twice the funding of men.
In the course of the trial on the merits, the district court found that, in 1993-94, there were 897 students participating in intercollegiate varsity athletics, of which 61.87% (555) were men and 38.13% (342) were women. Cohen III , 879 F. Supp. at 192. During the same period, Brown's undergraduate enrollment comprised 5,722 students, of which 48.86% (2,796) were men and 51.14% (2,926) were women
That's 20% of the men and 12% of the women participating.
See no evil
Defining male rape out of existence
The bogus statistics and outright lies that feminists produce help them to get prejudicial legislation and prejudicial court rulings. You'll often see congressmen or supreme court justices parroting feminist myths. This in turn leads to sexist enforcement of sexist laws, and discriminatory funding for advocacy "research" which is intended to give only one result -- more for women again.
When lies are accepted and repeated by the government it makes a real difference. It can easily turn an otherwise "gender neutral" law into effective discrimination for example. Here are some examples of how the government twists the figures to make sure that women are seen as victims, and male victims are ignored. There are two main sources for crime statistics which the US government publishes. Both use sex discriminatory definitions.
This is how the FBI define rape for purposes of their uniform crime reporting:
FORCIBLE RAPE DEFINITION Forcible rape, as defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Assaults or attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.
FBI web site
"According to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s definition, the victims of rape are always female" (scroll down one page from the definition to see where they admit this).
Here's how the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey defines male rape out of existence despite claiming the new wording was designed to measure rape more accurately.
The redesign of the National Crime Victimization Survey
After an extensive 10-year redesign project, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) has been revised. A redesigned questionnaire was in wide use by January 1992. One goal of the redesign was to produce more accurate reporting of incidents of rape
and sexual assault and of any kind of crimes committed by intimates or family members.
US Department of Justice
Definitions of violent crimes
Rape: Carnal knowledge through the use of force or threat of force, including attempts; attempted rape may consist of verbal threats of rape. It includes male as well as female victims.
The definition from the NCVS interviewer's manual is as follows: "Rape
is forced sexual intercourse and includes both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle."
From page 6 of the same report
So when mommy brushes little Tommy's teeth that's rape technically, but if a woman holds a gun to a man's head or threatens his children and forces him to have sex with her, or forces him to perform cunnilingus, it does NOT count as rape unless he has a vagina or she has a penis or a "bottle" to put inside his anus or mouth. Another excellent example of a so-called "gender neutral" definition.
If the same definition of rape was defined as forced "envelopment" instead of "penetration", emphasizing the female part of the sex act instead of the male, almost no rapes of women by men would be counted. The definition assumes the rapist is male and is defined accordingly. Rape should be defined as forced sex regardless of the sex of the attacker.
Amazingly, even when the rape of men by women is the target of the research this sort of bogus definition is applied. Here for example the recent (July 2000) National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey co-sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) directly claim that the survey measures the rate of male rape by their female partners.
The survey consists of telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 8,000 U.S. women and 8,000 U.S. men about their experiences as victims of various forms of violence, including
intimate partner violence. ...
link to adobe version
Most of the respondents were, of course heterosexual, meaning that references to rape of men meant rape of men by the female partners, but on page 29 the report attempts to explicitly filter out same sex relationships and reports that whereas 4.4% of women are raped by their male partners, only 0.2% of men are raped by their female partners. Despite the sex biased title, the survey clearly presents itself as a gender neutral examination of rape and other sexual crimes. Here's the definition used for rape.
For purposes of the survey, “rape” is defined as an event that occurs without the victim’s consent and involves the use of threat or force to penetrate the victim’s vagina or anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or object or the victim’s mouth by penis. The definition includes both attempted
and completed rape.
Page 5 of the report
Once again a woman forcing a man to have normal sexual relations simply doesn't count as rape. She has no penis and he has no vagina. Hardly surprising then, that the survey feels able to conclude, "Women experience more intimate partner violence than do men."
State laws that refuse to recognize male rape by women
I was hoping the above bias would not be reflected in actual rape statutes but that may turn out to be false. It looks like some state rape statutes are based on the old rape=women ideas still, and even where the more modern "sexual assault" style definitions are used female rape is sometimes defined to a lower status, but this will need some checking.
Alabama Not rape (or sodomy). Classed as a misdemeanor (sexual misconduct) although it would count as sexual abuse too, if they were not married.
AlaskaNotsexual assault in the first degree. Classed as sexual assault in the second degree.
Arizona Hard to say but this one looks like it might be fair.
The Second Sex
How feminism declares that men are inferior as human beings.
All Men Are Rapists
A new creation myth
All Men Are Rapists
Who said that?
Its a well know feminist quote, but I often see it being mis-credited. Usually by someone criticizing feminism these days. Was it Andrea Dworkin? She denies it. Catharine MacKinnon? Not quite. It comes from "The Women's Room" by Marilyn French and is spoken by a fictional character in the book,
Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relations with men, in their relations with women, all men are rapists and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, their codes.
Now admittedly that quote is representative of the book, and the book was a thinly veiled piece of feminist doctrine, and the phrase was picked up by real women of the time, and the book was the most popular selling feminist book of its time, and continues to sell well today... however a quick internet search for the phrase reveals that it is currently mostly used by critics of feminism and by feminist pages with a "not" in front. As in "not all men are rapists". Interesting that some feel this needs to be said... quite reminiscent of the way the KKK explicitly say they oppose violence...
Correction: It seems Marilyn French also used the phrase in her own voice in an interview, but I'm trying track this source down.
At any rate their seems to be some distancing from this phrase by feminists !
Nevertheless I want to use this phrase as an example of the endemic anti-male sexism within the feminist movement. Not so much the use of that precise word-for-word phrase, which seems to be graduating from a rallying cry of feminists, to be come more a rallying cry of their critics, but the presumption of the general concept of male = rapist, or "all men are potential rapists", for which it has become a symbol.
Let's begin by stating the obvious. Anyone who believes this is a bigot. 'All men are rapists' is taking one of the worst crimes recognized and saying it represents the universal nature of men. It is saying men are evil. It is also saying women are universal victims who should fear men. Both clear signs of hate. But is this hate really representative of most of feminist thought?
"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, in 1974
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
"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"
"[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)
"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated. You might think that's too broad. I'm not talking about sending all of you men to jail for that." -- Catherine MacKinnon "A Rally Against Rape" Feminism Unmodified
A new creation myth
Interpreting the bible to prove man's inhumanity to woman.
How feminism teaches men are malformed women
The lies of feminism
Manufacturing victims and oppressors.
As feminism loudly complained about the problems facing women (while ignoring or adding to similar problems facing men) society was quick to react and step in to protect women. Society has traditionally protected women more than men -- often in a very patronizing way. Feminism built on this pro-female bias and highlighted increasingly minor issues facing women. Today feminism has no big issues left so what must it do to maintain the illusion of the oppressed woman? Manufacture myths and lies. Not to say everything is perfect for women, but whenever I challenge a feminist to name an issue facing women, invariably the reply is a fake issue based on lies and deceit.
Gender wage gap hoax
The Rule of Thumb
Gender wage gap hoax
Feminists want equal pay for women
Unfortunately they don't want equal pay for women who do equal work, they want women to be paid the same as men quite irrespective of how much longer or harder or in what profession the men work. If you think this sounds like a ridiculous way of describing "equal" pay then you'd be right, but this is what feminists have been using to claim women are paid "less" than men for decades.
National Committee on Equal Pay -- Equal Pay Day
The NCEP is the semi-official voice of feminism on the wage gap and they think its fair that if a woman works less than a man, she should still be paid the same as he is. Although if you search hard, they do admit their 72% wage gap isn't due to discrimination, its still the figure they hold up to women as "unfair"
"Hold an event at a local grocery store and illustrate what 72 cents on the dollar will buy today."
In 2001 Equal Pay Day will be on a Tuesday because,
"Tuesday is symbolic of the point into the new week that a woman must work in order to earn the wages paid to a man in the previous week. In other words, because women on average earn less, they must work longer for the same pay."
Perhaps men need to celebrate an Equal Work Day and take of Thursday and Friday to represent how little work women do compared to men --- and still demand to be paid the same?
Women lead the way in protesting the fraud
Both of these testimonies were put forward by female economists.
Testimony put before the US senate recently.
"In fact, as early as 1971, never-married women in their 30s who had worked continuously earned slightly higher incomes than their male counterparts."
Testimony before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission\
"The average wage gap is not proof of widespread discrimination, but of women making choices about their educational and professional careers in a society where the law has granted them equality of opportunity to do so"
The Equal Pay Day Sham
by Katherine Post, Director of the Center for Enterprise and Opportunity
"When one begins to account for those choices, as I reported in our 1995 study ...the wage differences disappear"
US Department of Labour Women's Bureausays,
"June O’Neill has cited a study using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth which found that among women and men 27 to 33 years old who have never had a child, women’s earnings were close to 98 percent of men’s earnings."
June O’Neill, The Shrinking Pay Gap, Wall Street Journal, October 7, 1994
Government complicity in spreading feminist deception is the norm
British EOC polls women on attitudes to the so-called wage gap -- and deceives them by suggesting their figures are comparing like with like -- equal pay for unequal work?
The White House says,
Even after controlling for differences in skills and job characteristics, women still earn less than men. While there are a variety of interpretations of this remaining "unexplained" differential, one plausible interpretation is that gender wage discrimination continues to be present in the labor market
One other plausible interpretation is that men are paid more because they work longer hours -- something the White House economists "forgot" to take into account. Oops!
The Rule of Thumb
Let's deal with the facts briefly first. Here is a new popular form of this common myth spread by feminists:
Myth 1: Woman abuse is a new social problem.
Fact: Woman abuse is not new. It has been condoned throughout history. For example, the widely used term "rule of thumb" comes from a 1767 English common law that permitted a husband to "chastise his wife with a whip or rattan no wider than his thumb." 1
1. Deborah Sinclair, Understanding Wife Assault: A Training Manual for Counsellors and Advocates (Toronto, ON: Ministry of Community and Social Services, 1985), 172
Here's what the folks at Urban Legends have to say about it all. Note that the Oxford English Dictionary claims to have found references to the phrase "rule of thumb" as early as 1692, which makes this particular feminist version of it being derived from a law 75 years latter, even less likely.
But the question I am more interested in, is not the etymology of a phrase, or even the nature of laws in pre-17th century England, but how this myth became so popular among feminists and why they chose to fabricate lies. It's difficult to see how it could be anything other than a deliberate lie when you are quoting from a nonexistent law. Again the choice of date seems arbitrary and simply set at random in the past. Obviously this fairy tale was not set long enough back. Pages like Urban Legends debunking, are not hard to find on-line with a search engine, and most famously the myth was criticized in Christina Hoff Sommers' Who Stole Feminism, so why do feminists repeat this myth so often? What has the etymology of a phrase got to do with domestic violence? What has the state of English common law a few centuries ago got to do with policy today? Why is this myth so well liked with those who hate men?
Spread the Hate
The key elements of the myth are that it was violent men attacking innocent women, and that it was the law. Violence by men, against the women they supposedly loved most, so casual as to become a by word -- a popular saying.
The Rule of Thumb myth is feminists way of expressing and propagating their view of men as the most vile and sadistic demons imaginable. They repeat this myth about men because they want to believe it is true. And they want to make others believe it too. Setting the scenario in far off ye olde England lends enough enchantment to make the claim seem credible --- after all were they not violent times for everyone? But there is no reminder of that context --- quite the opposite point is made "throughout history" men have done this goes the myth. In other words this is what men are like. The myth is told to us as if it is saying something profound about the basic relationship between men and women. Men are evil and women are victims.
even the Just a quick link/article for now.
NIH Retracts Claims of the Exclusion of Women
A man's history of feminism
Contesting the myths surrounding feminism's early years.
Herstory - Silicone Heroines
Abigail vs John Adams
The issue of the vote has become burned into the feminist psyche. Even when asked to name issues facing women in the West today many feminists name the vote and have to be reminded that women born in the 20th century always had the vote. Why is the vote still such a popular issue for feminists? And how do feminists use myths about the vote to spread their hatred of men?
Feminists present the issue of the vote as a symbol that women were oppressed by men throughout history. They say the absence of the vote was substantial discrimination and they point to "winning" the vote as a symbol of heroic women victorious against evil men. All three of these statements help to spread the feminist propaganda view of the sexes.
In fact the history of the development of voting rights shows that even early feminists themselves had little interest in the vote for women and "patriarchal" legislators often raised the issue before women's groups did. The gap between men and women gaining the vote was often a few decades and in many cases men and women gained the vote at the same time. Further back in history women often had the vote on the same basis as men --- wealth and power. But as with most of the comments on this site this essay will consider only the history of the vote in the west in relatively recent history (since 1750).
Views on the vote at the birth of feminism.
Writing in 1897 Jessie Cassidy of the the National-American woman suffrage association commented:
The first organized demand by women for political recognition was made in the United States in 1848, at the memorable Seneca Falls Convention. That suffrage should be included had not beforehand entered the minds of those who issued the call for the convention, but it was suggested during the preparation of the Declaration of Independence and incorporated in the list of grievances submitted by the committee. It came like a bombshell upon the unprepared convention, and after long discussion was passed by only a bare majority. Lucretia Mott was one of those who at that time could not see her way to support it.
read the full source at the Library of Congress on-line
Lucretia Mott, of course was the senior co-host of this convention, recognized as the "birth" of feminism (in the US at least!) If the vote was really seen as such an important issue why had these feminists not even thought about it? And when they had thought about it many were not interested in supporting it. As a report in the Seneca County Courier said,
THE FIRST CONVENTION EVER CALLED TO DISCUSS THE Civil and Political Rights of Women,
Seneca Falls, N.Y., July 19, 20, 1848
Resolved, That it is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise.
The only resolution which met opposition was the 9th, demanding the right of suffrage which, however, after a prolonged discussion was adopted. All of the meetings throughout the two days were largely attended, but this, like every step in progress, was ridiculed from Maine to Louisiana.
read the full source at the Library of Congress on-line
These men and women at the forefront of women's rights and all unanimously in favor of every other much ridiculed resolution at the convention did NOT all feel that women's vote was worth pursuing. Lack of a vote was not seen as necessarily meaning inequality for women. Women's suffrage was the least of the issues. It is not surprising that the rest of the population, both men and women, were largely against women's suffrage.
Jessie Cassidy continues to comment on the state of women's suffrage in mid-19th century Britain:
It was not still 1869 that public agitation for suffrage was begun in England. In that year John Stuart Mill presented the subject in Parliament. Considerable local franchise has been secured, and the cause of the admission of women to full parliamentary suffrage steadily gains.
read the full source at the Library of Congress on-line
In fact between 1866 and 1884 eight proposals for some sort of women's vote were put before the British parliament. This was at a time when most men could not vote in England and years before Emmiline Pankhurst, the British suffragette leader formed the Women's Franchise League in1889.
The same pattern repeats in Canada. The first attempt to give women the vote came in 1885. Was this a result of years of heroic struggle by women? The first women's group to support women's vote in Canada was the Toronto's Women's Literary League --- 1886.
Feminism becomes fixated on the vote
Interest in women's suffrage amongst feminists grew and by the1870's or so was replacing the more practical rights and privileges which had been the priority of earlier feminists. One reason for this was that legislators were very quick to listen to women's groups on these genuine issues, and they were quickly addressed. Another was that the vote was seen as a way of gaining further advances and privileges for women. Feminists mistakenly assumed women would vote en masse for their increasingly sexist ideas. This was despite the reality that women often were the biggest opponents of women's suffrage.
Victoria Woodhull became the first woman to address a congressional committee in 1871, and her subject was women's suffrage, but she had opposition:
A group of women numbering one thousand, including Catherine Beecher, General Wiliam Sherman's wife, and the wives of senators congressmen, and prominent businessmen, had signed a petition against female suffrage. They claimed to represent the majority of the women in the country in the belief that the "Holy Scripture inculcates for women a sphere higher than and apart from that of public life; because as women they find a full measure of duties, cares and responsibilities and are unwilling to bear additional burdens unsuited to their physical organization."
Notorious Victoria (p83)
By 1893 a feminist speaker would declare that,
It is often said that the chief obstacle to equal suffrage is the indifference and opposition of women, and that whenever the majority ask for the ballot they will get it.
What Women Want: The Ideas of the Movement
How long was the gap between the majority of women wanting the vote, and men handing it to them? When precisely did women "ask"? Apparently in the US, not quite by 1903, although men were almost of a majority opinion for women's suffrage.
"I am surprised beyond all things to find how many men are favorable," Harriet Taylor Upton informed a friend while campaigning for suffrage in Ohio. "Now if only stupid women would get awake and yell we might make it." But feminine silence remained smothering. As a fair belle told one ... organizer in Mississippi, "You know we women do not desire to be other than we are." From a train chugging across the "dead level prarie" of South Dakota, Anna Howard Shaw angrily wrote home to Susan Anthony that, "The women don't want the ballot...that is true here and no mistake."
The Myth of the Monstrous Male (p211)
How big was that gender "vote gap" anyway?
Ask someone if they know when women "won" the vote and there's a fair chance they will know that the 19th amendment was passed in 1920. It's easy to look this information up for many countries. But in researching this essay I've discovered how hard it is to find the same information for men. It's almost as if someone wants you to think men have always had the vote --- men have always been "the patriarchy" --- in power.
In fact for the countries where I've been able to find a source for the date at which time the majority of male citizens of a country could vote and compared it to the same date for women the date is often the same (often the country simply didn't exist until recently). For example in Britain a majority of men first had the vote after the Representation of the People Act 1918. The same act enabled the majority of women to vote too! This is hardly the tale of woe and oppressive discrimination that feminists have been using to berate men with for decades. The reality is that women's voting rights came as the result of a natural progression of democratization in Western countries. Typically the majority of women would gain the right to vote in a country a few decades after the majority of men, but as I say it is very hard to tell when men "won" the vote.
In Australia women "won" the vote in 1902. But Australia has only existed as a country since 1901. The individual states either had no voting prior to federation (in which case women "won" the right to vote a year after men) or conformed to the pattern of women gaining the vote a few decades after men.
In 1867 the British North America Act created the state of Canada and at that time most men could not vote. With the Wartime Elections Act of 1917 most women could vote for the first time (this is an estimate it might be a year or two years latter).
New Zealand proudly boasts of being the first country to give women the vote in 1893. A slightly harder date to track down is when New Zealand became a country - 1840 with the Treaty of Waitangi, but for our purposes a better date might be the first popularly elected prime minister after self-government was achieved, 1856. Did the majority of men have the vote from the countries inception?
Women in Sweden gain the vote in 1921. Look carefully. The same site says that men gained the vote in 1907. Women in Norway gain the vote in 1918. Norway had only had a parliamentary system since 1884, and was part of Sweden until 1905.
Finland counters New Zealands claims by saying in 1906 Finnish women could not only vote but also stand for election -- the first in the world. But what about the men? A recognizable country since 1809 and an independent state since 1917, Finland had its first real parliament in 1863. But when did the majority of men have a vote?
As for the USA it seems to have one of the worst gaps of all (hard to tell but I suspect France might be the worst 1848-1944). Even though many states had given women the vote by 1920 most were the smaller, newer Western states --- states where the ratio of men to women was often high because of immigration. Women had high status in the West. Trying to guess when the majority of men first had the vote is a lot harder. Black men, native American men, men between 18 and 21, and men living in territories not states could not vote before 1870. This census data for 1870 excludes most territories from consideration unfortunately. I'd have to guess a slight majority of male Americans could vote in federal elections by 1869 -- just prior to the 15th amendment. Most states in America eliminated other restrictions such as wealth or religion by around 1820-1840 which would make the USA gap a huge 80-100 years. Ironic for a country known for its record on women's liberties in the 19th century.
Right to vote expanded as a gradual process
Of course the reason for the large gap in the US was an early democratic tradition there. In other words it wasn't that women were given the vote late, but that men were given it early. 100 years must be gauged against a process which started, in the English tradition, as far back as Magna Carta 1215, or even earlier.
In addition whereas giving the poor or the Catholic or the ex-slave a vote was seen as vital to political representation of an entire cultural group, votes for women, (and later votes for 18-20 year olds) were more an expansion of the tendency of government to deal with individuals directly instead of through family groups. Individualism rather than justice. !8-20 year olds received the vote around 1960-70 (depending on country) but obviously this late date is not an indication of how oppressed that group of people were.
These differences were considerations for would-be reformers.
The strongest advocate of women's rights was the libertarian William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879), editor of the Liberator, who insisted that antislavery was a battle for human rights, not male rights. Many of the abolitionists who opposed Garrison on this agreed that women were self-owners but resisted mixing woman's rights with antislavery for fear it would hurt the latter cause; Theodore Weld exemplified this position. Through his encouragement, Angelina Grimke, Sarah Grimke, and Abbie Kelley became the first women in America to do lecture tours before audiences that included men. Nevertheless, he admonished them to stop introducing woman's rights into their speeches.
"Is it not forgetting the great and dreadful wrongs of the slave," he asked Angelina, "in a selfish crusade against some paltry grievances of our own?"
Read the entire essay by feminist Wendy McElroy on-line
But feminist hyperbole and rhetoric insisted that their condition was indeed fully as a horrific as actually slavery. And if it came down to basic human rights for blacks or an essentially symbolic (though deserved) right for women, feminist leaders Stanton and Anthony soon became racists.
The Fifteenth Amendment assured that the right to vote could not be abridged because of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was objectionable to feminists because it made no reference to sex.
Male abolitionists almost universally rejected women's claim to suffrage, insisting that this was not the time to stress women's rights. "As Abraham Lincoln said, 'one war at a time," counseled Wendell Phillips, "so I say one question at a time. This hour belongs to the negro."
Feeling betrayed, Stanton and Anthony repudiated the Republican Party, thus breaking with many of their abolitionist friends. They began to court the traditionally pro-slavery Democrats and to associate with the prominent racist George Francis Train, who lectured with them and financed the initial issue of their periodical Revolution; its motto was "Men, their rights, nothing more; Women, their rights, nothing less."
Stanton and Anthony's activities split mainstream feminism in two. To the sharp criticism of their racist connections, Anthony replied, "Why should we not accept all in favor of woman suffrage to our platform and association even though they be rabid pro-slavery Democrats."
Read the entire essay by feminist Wendy McElroy on-line
Gender based voting patterns today
Today of course women vote more often than men, both in absolute numbers and by proportion (this is true overall but especially so the younger the age group - in older age groups men vote more often). Part of this may be to do with the remaining restrictions that apply to voting such as residency --- many US citizens are denied a vote because they have move into a new state recently --- but the difference by age seems to suggest that increasingly men are feeling that the political process just doesn't represent them any more.
The difference in gender registration and turn out shows a trend over the last 20-30 years with men steadily voting less and less. Incidentally even though the percent differences are small (around 2%) the result is highly significant --- these figures are not a poll of so many thousand people (with a margin of error) but an actual head count of every US citizen who voted. 2% represents one million male voters.
Herstory - Silicone Heroines
Ada Lovelace - first computer programmer?
Ask any feminist about history and you get the standard reply. Its all about men and talented women were unfairly ignored by male patriarchal historians and blah blah blah.... This always amuses me because in trying to research any details about history I invariably find that its easy to find a page about women, but there's almost never an equivalent page about men.
For example try a quick search on AltaVista for "women's history". You are given a choice of six different subsections to look under, and the search term returns so many hits it is truncated as "about 100000". There's the national Women's History Project, Women's History Month and a huge number of excellent sites to choose from. Now try searching for "Men's history". No subsections to choose from. About 300 hits and they all seem to be sporting events.
Ah say the feminists, that's because all history is about men. Well famous men anyway. Ordinary men, like ordinary women, don't get featured, and ordinary men don't have a month where their history is examined. History, especially pop-history, is not about men, but about exceptional people who made big waves, and most of them were male of course. Why of course?
The feminist claim behind "herstory" is that many women were just as talented as the men, but patriarchal sexism wrote them out of the history books unfairly, and feminists have put them back in! One good example is Ada Lovelace who is credited with being the world's first programmer for her notes on Babbage's Analytical Engine.
Are the claims true? Or has Ada been "artificially enhanced", a silicone heroine?
It is often suggested that Ada was the world's first programmer. This is nonsense: Babbage was, if programmer is the right term. After Babbage came a mathematical assistant of his, Babbage's eldest son, Herschel, and possibly Babbage's two younger sons. Ada was probably the fourth, fifth or six person to write the programmes. Moreover all she did was rework some calculations Babbage had carried out years earlier. Ada's calculations were student exercises. Ada Lovelace figures in the history of the Calculating Engines as Babbage's interpretress, his `fairy lady'. As such her achievement was remarkable.
Dr Anthony Hyman,Exeter University,The Babbage Pages
Here's a more sympathetic version of events from her biographer
When this book went to press, I decided to check out the rumors that are responsible for creating a new myth-- that Ada was an incompetent mathematician and did not write the Notes. Some scholars said there were previous programs to the table of instructions for the Bernoulli numbers, now considered the first program. At the Science Museum in London I found previous unpublished programs, but comparing them to Ada's table of instructions for Bernoulli numbers is like comparing arithmetic to calculus.
Betty Alexandra Toole, Ada: The Enchantress of Numbers
But these opposing views are closer than they seem; both agree that if the description by Ada of the way the engine could be used (if it had ever been built) to calculate Bernoulli numbers, constitutes a computer program, then others had been there before her, most obviously Babbage himself of course.
But computers also need software. Whilst a schoolboy at Totnes, Babbage had begun to think about a universal language of signs. By 1826 he had derived the Mechanical Notation. This provided the initial basis upon which the Engine could be instructed to perform a wide variety of different analyses. A number of colleagues assisted Babbage in further developing some of the ideas and methods that would have given a proper computer language. The best known of these is Lady Ada Lovelace, after whom the computer language ADA is named. How much pioneering work Ada actually did is debatable. Probably Babbage deserves the title of the world's first computer programmer - an epithet usually applied to Ada
Ada made a lot of contributions, especially for her clarity of vision, and is (IMO) a far more interesting figure than Babbage, but her work, like many in history, can't easily be described in a sound bite. Not the first programmer, but something else. Do we really want to communicate to women, that even someone like Ada needs a feminist affirmative action program to be considered famous?
Women in history
A lot of people are brilliant, insightful but don't quite make it to the number one slot. Both men and women. The truth is if you are in the number two slot you need something to make you more memorable, or history will pass you over. Being a woman, often the only woman, makes you more not less likely to be remembered.
Abigail vs John Adams
Feminism and Patriarchy face off, or rewriting history?
Abigail Adams is now famous on a thousand feminist sites (and many not so feminist sites) as the earliest US feminist, for her tongue lashing at patriarchal chauvinist-pig and husband John Adams (founding father and 2nd US president). In fact the phrase "remember the ladies" is popularly used among the hundreds of feminist pseudo-history sites. For example at feminist.com their women's history coloumn takes its name from this quote by Abigail, and their presentation is pretty standard.
In 1776, Abigail Adams penned a letter to her husband, congressman John Adams, asking him to please “remember the ladies” in the “new code of laws.” She wrote, “I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands.Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could.” John Adams’ answer was that he could not help but laugh at her “saucy” letter.. What he did not realize was that his wife had become the first in a long line of American women to assert her desire for women’s rights. The words of Abigail Adams would echo through American history, a rallying cry for other activists who believed in the equality of the sexes.
Pop-history becomes sex war propaganda. Was Abigail really asking for equal rights for women? Were Abigail and John really poles apart politically? Was she really a feminist heroine facing down her chauvinist husband? The feminist reinterpretation makes the couple's exchange into a miniature morality play. Big bad uncaring and evil man vs the bravely independant and freedom loving woman. Just the sort of propaganda a feminist movement wishing to stereotype and vilify men would seek to create.
In fact, there are no indications in the Adams papers that Abigail disapproved of the existing hierarchy within marriage. Thus Abigail did not request the equality of women in the "Remember the Ladies" letter, but asked only for a husband's discretion regarding his power
Jennifer Shingleton, The Concord Review
Abigail and John's political views were considered so close that in some cases her views on, for example Shay's rebellion, are taken as a good indication of his views.
Abigail Adams' letters are important because they demonstrate, as Jefferson said, "the weight which her [A.Adams] opinions had with him [J.Adams]." As Abigail Adams influenced John Adams, we can deduce that her correspondence generally represented Adams' opinions. Her letters of the pre-revolutionary period of the 1790s to Mercy Warren and John Adams, revealed a lively discussion of contemporary political issues. The Adams's, over time, formed a dark impression of the civil disorders in western Massachusetts Indeed, John Adams' later writings regularly used the Shayites as an example of seditious and low behavior
John Adams: the Pragmatic Idealist, Alexius Wierbinski
If anything it seems to be John who brings up the idea that women might be treated as equals, perhaps because it was just this sort of question that he was considering at the time. He goes on to use women's suffrage as an example in a letter to James Sullivan the next month as he talks about the principles of representation and who ought to be able to vote:
It is certain in Theory, that the only moral Foundation of Government is the Consent of the People, But to what an Extent Shall We carry this Principle? Shall We Say, that every Individual of the Community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly to every Act of Legislation? No, you will Say. This is impossible. How then does the Right arise in the Majority to govern the Minority, against their Will? Whence arises the Right of the Men to govern Women, without their Consent? Whence the Right of the old to bind the Young, without theirs.
Letter to James Sullivan,John Adams, 26 May 1776
John Adams was against the vote for men with no property because he believed that such men would be too easily swayed by their landlord to vote however he instructed them to (in fact this is the way it usually did work out when the vote became more universal). This was especially likely because ballots were not secret and poor men even into the 20th century were often pressurised to vote a certain way.
The Same Reasoning, which will induce you to admit all Men, who have no Property, to vote, with those who have, for those Laws, which affect the Person will prove that you ought to admit Women and Children: for generally Speaking, Women and Children, have as good Judgment, and as independent Minds as those Men who are wholly destitute of Property these last being to all Intents and Purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, cloath, and employ them, as Women are upon their Husbands, or Children on their Parents
Same source as above
Within this context John's reply to Abigail a month earlier, that women are already the one's in control should not be seen as entirely serious.
Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Altho they are in full Force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would compleatly subject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight. . .
Feminism and violence
How feminism endorses violence against men.
Is 10% too much?
Valarie Solanas was a disturbed and mentally ill woman who wrote a lively piece about hating and killing all the men in the world and called upon other women to join her in the "Society for Cutting Up Men" or SCUM. The piece itself is a snapshot of the breezy sexual hatred that typified the radical feminist groups of the time. If Solanas had not gone a step further and actually shot Andy Warhol in 1967 it would have remained unknown.
But Valarie certainly had her 15 minutes of fame for putting into practice what might have sounded like hyperbole. What was the reaction within the feminist movement to her shooting? What is the attitude in the movement today towards this advocate of gender genocide?
It's hard to think of a comparable case with a man seriously endorsing the death of women. So hypothetically let's say OJ Simpson were to write an angst-filled tract labeled "How to Keep your Woman" in which he claimed that women were animals useful for nothing but sex, who ought to be beaten into submission, or murdered if they got out of hand. What do you think the reaction would be?
Well here is what happened to Valarie. She had two recognized leaders within the women's movement supporting her at her trial. Florynce Kennedy represented her and called her "one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement." Ti-Grace Atkinson (the New York chapter president of NOW) said she was "the first outstanding champion of women's rights." The manifesto was included in a published anthology of important feminist works and continues to be recognized as a serious contribution towards feminist thought.
The SCUM manifesto is easy to find on line and is one of the common links on feminist web sites. Here is a copy held on-line at Sweet Briar College in a collection called "Gifts of Speech - Women's thoughts from around the world". The manifesto can be found on many sites and is freely available. Despite this, and the fact that it is over 30 years old, it is one of the highest ranked sales at Amazon among feminism / women's issues and gets many positive reviews. It is frequently suggested reading in colleges and universities for women's studies courses.
This is equality!?
SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Men's Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves, men who, regardless of their motives, do good, men who are playing pall with SCUM.
.... to aid men in this endeavor SCUM will conduct Turd Sessions, at which every male present will give a speech beginning with the sentence: `I am a turd, a lowly abject turd', then proceed to list all the ways in which he is. His reward for doing so will be the opportunity to fraternize after the session for a whole, solid hour with the SCUM who will be present.
What does it say about feminism that the reaction to a deranged loony and an attempted murderer's juvenile scatological rambling is to hold it up as serious political commentary? Put it another way -- how bigoted and violent would a view have to be for it to be rejected by feminism, if one which explicitly calls for the murder of all men, and is written by an attempted murderer is not rejected?
I am not trying to claim feminists literally agree with the SCUM manifesto. I am merely trying to show that feminism is entirely accepting of the SCUM manifesto as a contribution towards feminism. I hope most feminists would treat the call for genocide as an expression of contempt for men, rather than as a serious suggestion. But its amazing how many feminist comments seem to take it at face value:
I recently read Valarie Solanas' SCUM manifesto, and although her main claim to fame would be the attempt on Warhols life, I was turned on by her ideas . They were way out there and even though they seem to contradict each other at times they pack a punch. I love it but maybe i'm just into her style of writing. Can't say I'm much of a politcal type, i'm in my own groove and people could screw what they want, but i was interested in knowing if her Society for Cutting Up Men ever materialized. And any opinions on Solanas' ideas or similar ones by others. I don't mean just ANY woman who had an anti capitolist idea. I mean women(or fags) who wanna stick to the MAN in a really no holds barred way etc... thats what i'm into what can i say. guys are idiots includding myself(valerie has put a spell on me).
Is 10% too much?
Sally Miller Gearhart's comments that men ought to be reduced to 10% of the human population. Here Mary Daly applauds the idea.
WIE: Which brings us to another question I wanted to ask you. Sally Miller Gearhart, in her article "The Future—If There Is One—Is Female" writes: "At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we were to create and preserve a less violent world. 1) Every culture must begin to affirm the female future. 2) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. 3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race." What do you think about this statement?
MD: I think it’s not a bad idea at all. If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore.
A lot of original work by Andrea Dworkin is available on-line at the Andrea Dworkin Online Library, run by Nikki Craft.
Dworkin argues that sex and rape are the same thing in her short essay, The Lie
Men believe the pornography, in which the women always want it. Men believe the pornography, in which women resist and say no only so that men will force them and use more and more force and more and more brutality. To this day, men believe the pornography and men do not believe the women who say no.
In The Night and Danger sherepeats the usual line that men use rape to collectively oppress and hold down women.
For a woman to walk on the street at night is not only to risk abuse, but also--according to the values of male domination--to ask for it. ..... A woman out in the night, not on a leash, is thought to be a slut or an uppity bitch who does not know her place. The policemen of the night--rapists and other prowling men--have the right to enforce the laws of the night: to stalk the female and to punish her.
She makes the a direct comparison between romance by men and rape & violence by men,
This is the essence of so-called romance, which is rape embellished with meaningful looks.
Night is the time of romance. Men, like their adored vampires, go a-courting. Men, like vampires, hunt. Night licenses so-called romance and romance boils down to rape: forced entry into the domicile which is sometimes the home, always the body and what some call the soul.
She does explicitly say all men are rapists in an indirect way while co-opting therace issue to attack men,
The black male, in the South hunted at night to be castrated and/or lynched, becomes in the racist United States the carrier of danger, the carrier of rape. The use of a racially despised type of male as a scapegoat, a symbolic figure embodying the sexuality of all men, is a common male-supremacist strategy. .... And so, among the women, night is the time of sex and also of race: racial exploitation and sexual exploitation are fused, indivisible. Night and black: sex and race: the black men are blamed for what all men do;
Last edited by Marx; 4th-September-2008 at 12:33 PM. Reason: removed approximately 7,000 'hosted by' images... pheeew!The men's and fathers' movement needs to make sure it never sees females as the enemy,but only misandry--whether from females or from males.If not, we'll become like the bigoted feminists that this movement was formed to oppose.Glenn Sacks
Fecks Warcraft File:
- 4th-September-2008 # ADSAdvertisement Circuit advertisement
- Member Since
- Advertising world
- 4th-September-2008 #2
Re: Sex War (David Byron)
A lot of broken references on this site. They above posts filters a lot of them out and covers all from the Feminist = hate movement argumentation. What I found interesting is debunking the myth that especially women in the 3rd world have it worse than males in the 3rd world:
Men in the 3rd world
Rwanda genocide '94
Combating the myth that women are oppressed in foreign cultures
One site really sticks out as the best for reporting mass killings of men and not just women. If you want to shame a feminist who is claiming women are an oppressed class because of having to wear a veil in Afghanistan may I recommend this site:
Although the site reports gendercide against both sexes and the introduction makes clear that men, and not women, are the usual targets of gendercide:
We believe that state-directed gender-selective mass killings have overwhelmingly targeted men through history, and that this phenomenon is pervasive in the modern world as well. Despite this prevalence of gendercide against males -- especially younger, "battle-age" men -- the subject has received almost no attention across a wide range of policy areas, humanitarian initiatives, and academic disciplines. We at Gendercide Watch feel it is one of the great taboos of the contemporary age, and must be ignored no longer.
I'm not in favour of women having to wear veils of course nor am I saying this is the worst that happens to women or men in Afghanistan. The point here is that feminists have politicised these issues and used them as sex-war propaganda against men. Even though men are overwhelmingly the true victims here, victims who happen to be women should not be ignored.
The Gender Page
Quotes courtesy of Jocelyn. Need verifying (she said)
Dr. Adam Jones, CIDE, Mexico City "Gender and Genocide in Rwanda":
"Accordingly, when the genocide ended in July 1994, Rwanda was left with a staggering demographic disproportion of adult women versus men: many authorities estimate that the adult population today is approximately 70 percent female. This article will use the "gendercide" framework to examine the 1994 events in Rwanda and their regional-historical context. The gendering of the killers as well as the killed will be considered - for example, it is also little-realized that the perpetrators of the genocide included large numbers of Hutu women."
David Buchanan, Amnesty International (Vancouver) "Gendercide and Human Rights":
"But having one particular identity has resulted in more suffering in human history than any other: that of being male. This often surprises the uninitiated... Separating out the men from the women and then killing, torturing and/or detaining the men has become so pervasive that when it happens it is often not the men, but the women or children, who receive journalists' attention."
Dr. Augusta C. Del Zotto, Syracuse University "Quasi-Morticide and Male Youth of Color in America":
Imagine a complex system of social discourses and practices that convinces you that you do not deserve to live. In the U.S., most African American boys expect to die before age 25 (Kunjufu, 1998). Likewise, many hispanic boys have acquired the perception that life is vicious and short, and expect a violent death at an early age (Hoard, 1999). The end result of such expectations is "quasi-morticide" -- the ritualized, self-fulfilled prophecy of young males of color. "Quasi-morticide" is a term coined by African-American physicians at John Hopkins University in the mid-1990's. It involves young males taking their behavioral cues from a circuit of culture (institutions, pop culture, etc.) which lead them to an almost guaranteed early death. Quasi-morticide theory assumes that a process of "male seasoning" occurs whereby males of color are "groomed" at an early age to begin choreographing their own deaths. Concepts of free will, self-determination, and pride of self are relinquished for ninilism informed by a self-hating view of race and class and gender. In this way, quasi-morticide is recognized as perhaps one of the most insidious forms of internalized colonialism within our post-modern era (West, 1995).Taliban
Gender apartheid in Afghanistan
Feminists claim that Afghanistan under the Taliban is a gender apartheid state and promote lists of attrocities that they say shows women are suffering (more than men) in Afghanistan. Closer examination of first hand accounts of life in Afghanistan shows that although the Taliban do impose gender apartheid the feminist account is exagerated, selective and deliberately biased so as to ignore the often far worse (but different) treatment of men within the country.
The purpose of this essay is to show that men are suffering at least as much as women, and to give an example of how feminism's own sex prejudices in insisting that women deserve more sympathy and media attention than men, have been projected onto the Taliban. In examining feminist myths about Afghanistan I am not defending theTaliban gender apartheid system. In fact in many ways feminists and Taliban agree that men and women should be separated out, and to a large degree they agree on why -- the supposed depravity of men. I am also certainly not seeking to dismiss the plight of women (or men) in Afgahnistan --- which is terrible, but just not all that much to do with gender.
The RAWA list
In tracing the source of many of the misconceptions about women in Afghanistan I came to see there was a pretty standardised list of attrocities that seem to be circulated by the web site of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA). On the internet text gets copied and re-worded slightly, exagerated and re-told. However the source most often given for the list was RAWA. Here is their version of the list of issues for women in Afganistan,
women are totally deprived of the right to education (all girls’ school have been closed down), of the right to work (all women have been ordered to remain in their houses and employers have been threatened with dire consequences for taking up female employees), of the right to travel (no woman can venture out of the house alone and unaccompanied by a prescribed male member of the woman’s immediate family), of the right to health (no woman can see a male doctor, family planning is outlawed, women cannot be operated upon by a surgical team containing a male member), of the right to legal recourse (a woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s testimony; a woman cannot petition the court directly – this has to be done through a prescribed male member of her immediate family), of the right to recreation (all women’s recreational and sporting facilities have been banned, women singers cannot sing least their female voices ‘corrupt’ males, etc.), and of the right to being human (they cannot show their faces in public to male strangers, they cannot wear bright coloured clothing, they cannot wear make up, they can only appear outside their houses clad head to foot in shapeless bags called burqas, they cannot wear shoes with heels that click [least the clicking sound of their feet corrupt males], they cannot travel in private vehicles with male passengers, they do not have the right to raise their voices when talking in public, they cannot laugh loud as it lures males into corruption, etc. etc.)
see the original page
The statement about women's testimony being worth half mens and the redundant sounding statement that male surgeons cannot operate on women, appear to be unique to the RAWA list. I've been unable to find any basis or reference to these statements in any other sources (UN, US government, Amnesty, PHR, other journalists, other feminist groups or Taliban spokemen). The rest of the list is certainly based in fact but is exagerated and fails to mention that the situation for men is often as bad. As a whole though, the RAWA site prefers to attack the Taliban than ommit cases of discrimination against men, and so I will be using pages from the RAWA web site itself to point out problems with the list.
Education of women and girls
The Taliban have never said that the education of women is to be banned. What they have done is close down many schools for both sexes because most of the teachers were women, and as part of the policy of dividing the sexes women have been told to stay at home as much as possible. Mixed classes are not allowed of course. The Taliban have also rejected as communist most of the old textbooks, and many of the school buildings have been shelled and bombed. Most of these issues effect both sexes equally. As the RAWA site says (July 22 2000) 95% of children in Afghanistan do not attend school. But the 5% left does not exclude all girls by any means. RAWA reports that UNICEF claimed in January 2000 that "Primary school enrolment for both girls and boys is low" (10 percent of the girls in Afghanistan and 25 percent of the boys). Estimates vary quite a bit, but one thing to bear in mind is that school enrolment for girls in rural Afghanistan has always been low, even before the Taliban.
The repressive edicts that so outrage the West have long been the practice in most of rural Afghanistan, where 80 per cent of the population live. In the rural regions around the western city of Herat a year before the Taliban took control, there were, according to Save the Children UK, nearly 75,000 boys at school and fewer than 2000 girls. In the Afghan countryside women have never gone to school, left the village unaccompanied or chosen their husbands. There is no need to ban television - there aren't any sets.
Jason Burke of the Observer contests the media impage of the Taliban
The unoficial Taliban ambassador to the UN, has this to say on women's education in Afghanistan (16 March 2001)
Similarly we don't have any problem with women's education. We have said that we want education, and we will have education whether or not we are under anybody's pressure, because that is part of our belief. We are ordered to do that. When we say that there should be segregated schools, it does not mean that we don't want our women to be educated. It is true that we are against co-education; but it is not true that we are against women's education.
We do have schools even now, but the problem is the resources. We cannot expand these programs. Before, our government numerous curriculums were going on. There were curriculums that preached for the kings, curriculums that preached for the communists, and curriculums from all the seven parties. So, the students were confused as to what to study. We have started to unify the curriculum and that is going on.
Recently we reopened the faculty of medical science in all major cities of Afghanistan and in Kandahar. There are more girls students studying in the faculty of medical sciences than boys are. But they are segregated. And the Swedish committees have also established schools for girls. I know they are not enough, but that is what we have been able to do.
Sayyid Rahmatullah Hashemi in a lecture at the University of Southern California
The Taliban will need a lot of medically trained women because they intend to segregate medical services completely. The Swedish committes mentioned above is the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan's Education Technical Support Unit (the SCA's ETSU) and they have been sponsoring education of girls in Afghanistan for some time.
Women and the right to work
A story about poppy cultivation (August 20 2000) demonstrates that RAWA were aware that many women still do work outside the home, even outside of the medical sector where they are common. RAWA representatives continue to propagate the list which includes saying women have no right to work even through into the present day. (RAWA media list to 2001 last entry at present August 10 2001). As with the education issue RAWA's complaints are best representative of the small minority of elite women who lived and worked in Kabul and some other larger cities. It is Kabulis that are usually the women interviewd by reporters and featuring in reports. For example the PHR report on Afghan women's health recorded that the average interviewee had 12 years of education, which is incredibly high compared to even the pre-war national average. The emphasis on Kabul City is mentioned by this eye witness:
Over lunch and dinner at the UN mansion (with exercise room, satellite television and bar) they chronicled the horrors of the lack of health care, the treatment of women and generally how life sucked and apparently just for women. There was even a standard journo junket. The first stop was to see Mullah Qalaamuddin, the deputy head of the Religious Police (the Department for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice), where every writer was assured to get a few giggles from the latest fatwah: no paper bags, no white socks, four fingers of beard and no picture-taking. Then off to a barber for a little humor, a clandestine visit to a girl's school, pack a lunch for the Friday executions and then back to Peshawar to file. The object of their journalist lust? The dreaded burqa, a garment worn by every women outside of cosmopolitan Kabul for centuries but suddenly held up as being a sign of the devil in Kabul. Not many paid attention when Hekmatyar made it mandatory long before the Talibs showed up. The writers never really mentioned that they were in the most destroyed city on earth, a militarily occupied zone with a war raging 15 kilometers to the north, rockets raining into the city and young men are pressganged. Somehow in their zeal to create women's rights in a country staggering to its knees, they forget to mention the complete lack of jobs, housing, medical care, health services and education for men
Many women in Kabul were employed in government offices and schools before the war. Offices now destroyed or abandoned. Amazingly the Taliban continued to pay these female office workers and teachers even though they were sent home woth no work to do as the RAWA site again recorded when they were finally fired from their non-existent jobs along with many men, in April 2000.
In September 1996 when the Taliban captured Kabul, their Supreme Leader Mulla Mohammad Omar issued a decree that women workers should stay at home, but promised to keep paying them regularly.
Female personnel, most of them teachers and administrative staff, came to their offices once or twice a month to sign their names and to receive the equivalent of five US dollars as monthly wages.
read the whole article at the RAWA site
And that five dollars was the going rate for male teachers who were still working for the money! This article in the New York Times (February 2000) estimates the unemployment rate in Kabul at 70%. Were women so much worse off?
An estimated 70 percent of the working age population of Kabul is jobless. For men, work is hard to find; for women, it is forbidden. Afghans in the countryside are thought to be better off; they can live off the land. In Kabul, there is nothing to reap from the dead factories or the shuttered stores.
read the full article
Somewhere I have a source saying 20% of women employed in Kabul....... if so the ratio of male to female employment is about the same as in Western countries for Kabul.
Women must be accompanied by a male relative
This regulation, if it was comprehensively enforced, would be far and away the worst of the list, (bad for men as well as women since the men have to spend their time escorting the women) and in theory its true. With the exception of the forced conscription of only men its probably the most sexist regulation in Afghanistan. In fact these two laws combine in a particularly ugly fashion --- because of the war, the death of so many adult men, and conscription, many women simply don't have any close male relative.
Fortunately comprehensive enforcement of this regulation would be impossible on so many levels and there are many exceptions both in practise and officially.
War widows for example, are allowed to travel alone and to find employment within restricted occupations as long as they don't have to work closely with men. The public transport in Kabul is segregated - meaning that any use of women only buses presupposes no male escort. In rural areas the rule is widely ignored as are many of the other religious rules enforced in Kabul. Despite the hysterical exagerations in some places I have found no indication that any woman has been killed for breach of the religious police laws. Regulation of these laws in Kabul seems to be like the speed limit in the US. Typically an offender is let off with a warning... but you never know your luck. Again from the RAWA site an activist visits Kabul without a male escort for several days and recorded no incident with the religious police because of it. The one incident she did have was over her wearing the burqa improperly.
One day my friend and I went to a bazaar to buy something. I was not used to wearing the burqa, since it was so very gloomy. So, I was wearing it so that my face was revealed, when suddenly a woman came toward me and shouted that a Talib was coming. "Please cover your face!" she said. I saw the reaction of the Talib from behind the burqa. He walked close beside me and his horrible and dreadful appearance made me shudder with fright. I thought he would whip me, but he contented himself with saying some bad words. It was the first time that I experienced a Talib's anger and it was very frightening.
read Sajida Hayat's full account
Another punishment is to be made to make a sort of prayer or public penance for the 'crime'. But as above it seems that wearing the burqa correctly is enforced more, and men have dress codes comparable for those of women.
Kabul has a curfew during which neither sex may be out and about.
Land mines are one of the most obvious public hazzards (after the religious police?) in Kabul and other parts of the country. Both in and out of the army men and children are more likely to be casualties than women. Now that women are forced to stay home men's exposure is increased further. War Child's investigation of landmines in Afghanistan (and other places) in 1995 found that one in ten (living) adult males in Afghanistan had been involved in a landmine incident. Kabul is the most heavily mined capitol in the world. Estimates of casualties by sex are harded to get data on because women's fuigures are aggregated with childrens (and most people in Afghanistan are children). Combining the report by the Human Rights Watch 1999 of 30% of landmine casualties being children, with the US State Departments estimate of 1998 that 40-50% of civilian casualties were of "women and children" suggests something like 60% of casualties due to men, 30% to children and 10% to women. Taking into account that half the population is children the proportional rate for children drops to approach that of women, but men seem to be hit at something like six times the rate of women. Number of incidents overall averaged 10-12 per day in 1998. Together with disabilities from the war and from birth defects due to ill health there are about 7-8 hundred thousand disabled people in Afghanistan now. A highly visible minority.
Dress codes of the religious police
The RAWA list correctly says women must wear the burqa, and they also list some other redundant rules about wearing white and not having lipstick --- but if you are wearing the burqa then who can tell any of that? There are also dress codes for men. In addition to suitable traditional clothing (no shorts for example) the man must wear a turban and most controversially he must grow a beard that is a minimum length such that it extends from his chin the length of a fist. Initially men were given 6 weeks to grow this beard. An impossibility for many men. This item on the list is accurate but it applies just as much to men as to women. In fact the RAWA site contains many reports of men detained or beaten for not having a regulation beard. Another restriction on men but not on women is that men must attend a Mosque for prayers five times a day whereas women are assumed (as per sex segregation) to pray at home during these times. Many of the arrests by the religious police were of men on the streets during these prayer times.
Who gets the worst of it from the religious police?
Occording to a Physicians for Human Rights report published by the AMA (which the UN and US government are happy to quote from as authoratative) which was interviewing Afghan (in fact only Kabuli) women about their health, it seems that men might be detained (arrested) by the religious police considerably more frequently (say six times as often as women) and that their arrests are likley to be for longer and far more likely to include what they called "torture".
This really shouldn't be suprising to anyone. What police force in all the world arrests and hassles women as much as it does men?
Is the burqa unhealthy?
One of the more absurd aspects of the reporting on Afghanistan has been the idea that the burqa causes ill health. Reporters have suggested that women are run down by (silent?) tanks because they cannot see clearly, or even more ridiculous that they lack vitamin D because they don't get enough sun light! Female correspondants seem to take especial delight in commenting on how they felt they were asphyxiating or worse while wearing this traditional garment! Meanwhile the real biggest killer in Afghanistan for both sexes? Diarrhoea.
Women and Health
RAWA's list claims that women cannot see a male doctor, and also claims all doctors are male since the women cannot work. Neither are true, but taken together they suggest that women in Afghanistan have zero health care of any kind. This is quite untrue and is understandably a very common confusion as a result of the circulation of the list. Once again despite continuing to circulate this list RAWA have been aware that their statement is false for a long time. The actual policy for women towards male doctors is that they may see a male doctor but the woman must be accompanied by a male relative -- which is supposedly a redundant restriction since women are supposed to be accompanied by a male relative when in public generally. Here is the article on RAWA (June 1998) where the Taliban announce this "new" restriction.
Naturally no male patient may be treated by a female doctor (and yes there are female doctors and medical staff) and the Taliban are working towards total segregation but I suppose they realised it wasn't practical to prevent woman seeing male doctors until there were enough functioning segregated facilities. As of June 2001 the Taliban are able to claim the conditions for women have improved a great deal since they took control of Kabul (and when we are talking about hospitals we are once again talking about only the largest cities)
Health facilities for women have increased 200% during Taleban administration. Prior to the Taleban Islamic Movement's taking control of Kabul, there were 350 beds in all hospitals in Kabul. Currently, there are more than 950 beds for women in exclusive women's hospitals. Some hospitals which have specifically been allocated to women include Rabia Balkhi Hospital, Malali Hospital, Khair Khana Hospital, Indira Gandhi Child Health Hospital, Atta Turk Hospital, Kuwait Red Crescent Hospital, Contagious Disease Hospital and T.B. Hospital. Moreover, there are 32 mother and child health clinics. In addition to this, women receive treatment at ICRC and the Sandy Gal Orthopaedic Centers. In all these hospitals and clinics, women work as doctors and nurses to provide health services to female patients.
read the entire article
The PHR report from back in 1998 criticised the Taliban for reducing the number of women exclusive hospital beds from 25% of the total (before the Taliban) to 20%. However the report did not attempt to quantify what sort of proportion would have been fair (since more men with serious injuries are coming in from the ongoing war and men's much increased exposure to landmines).
Although Taliban officials announced in January 1997 a policy of segregating men and women into separate hospitals, they did not strictly enforce it until September 1997, when the Ministry of Public Health ordered all hospitals in Kabul to suspend medical services to the city's half-million women at all but one poorly equipped clinic for women. After 2 months of negotiations with officials of the International Committee for the Red Cross, the Taliban reversed its policy and agreed to readmit women into most hospitals. However, despite this policy reversal, women have less access to hospital care than they did before the Taliban had banned women from hospitals. Prior to September 1997, approximately 25% of the medical and surgical hospital beds dedicated to adults were available for women. As of May 1998, only 20% of hospital medical and surgical beds dedicated to adults were available for women while 70% were allocated for men. Besides shutting female patients out of the hospitals, the Taliban also banned female hospital personnel, including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and technicians, from working in any of Kabul's 22 hospitals until the policy reversal, when women were allowed to return to their jobs.
PHR: Women's Health and Human Rights in Afghanistan 1998
I haven't much to say about this minor complint on the list. The Talibs have banned a large number of forms of recreation for both men and women and usually on the exact same terms. One exception is that public team sports have all been banned for women as I understand it, whereas I think there's a functioning football stadium in Kabul (handy for those public excutions too). I don't know if there was any public team sports for women before the Taliban.
Conscription - the most sexist law in Afghanistan?
What would a list for men like the one circulated by RAWA look like? What issues would be on it? The biggest issue would be the fact that just like in all the wars the world over only men are forced to pick up rifle be removed from their homes and go and shoot their fellow man, or be shot, killed or disabled trying. Its a huge piece of discrimination against men. So big that it is rarely rememebered. If a woman is accidentally shot it hits the newspapers. A few hundred dead soldiers in some small battle is no big deal. Conscription in Afghanistan can include boys as well as men, although its hard to measure the rate. Certainly conscription is the single most unpopular issue in the rural areas where journalists rarely report from. Millions have died during the war of Soviet occupation and the 10 years of civil war since. Almost every family in Kabul has had a death from the war. Why is this not considered "gender apartheid" by the journalists and feminists who rightly express concern for the limits placed on women and their movements? Being conscripted is a lot bigger limitation on your movements than being forced to take a male relative with you if you leave your house.
Its not considered gender apartheid because its so common no one sees it. Besides.... if this was recognised as gender apartheid then every country in the world would have to be called a gender apartheid state. But in the US considerations of the draft seem very remote. In Afghanistan war is life. Most of the present population was born since the wars started.
Some might say, well men are expected to go to war. That's just the way it is. The Taliban would certainly agree with that. That's exactly the sort of attitude of fixed gender roles and the duty of men to protect weak women that is behind their sex segregation. Unfortunately no one told them that women can have it both ways as they can in the West -- pretend to be too weak to fight but at the same time demand they are strong enough to not need a male protector.
Gender separation -- Taliban vs Feminism
Feminists say that domestic violence shelters must be sex segragated. And the demand that not even a transgendered woman (a woman who was born a man and had surgery; legally changed sex) can counsel another woman who has been raped. Many women support the idea of living lives entirely segregated from men. Its called lesbian separatism. Many feminist utopias feature sex segregated societies. Feminists endorse the idea of "women's spaces" where men cannot be. You may recall the case of Mary Daly the feminist religious professor who refused to teach men in her classes?
Sexual harassment law vs Taliban's religious law
Think of sexual harassment laws. They are very similar to the way the Taliban religious police operate. Sexual harassment laws pick on potentially trivial details like a man telling a sexist joke and punish the man. Is this any different from punishing a woman for showing ankle? As with the Taliban the punishment may be a minor ticking off and public humiliation or it may be severe (loss of job). In both cases, Taliban and femminist, it is essentially random what will be seen as ok and what won't. That inconsistency is what leads to anxiety. Laws should be well defined. Sexual harassment laws also have in common with the Taliban religious police the concept of on the spot justice without any of the usual protections of law. No due process. Employers and Universities set their own rules and set their own review procedures. The individual has no right to due process, witnesses, trial or the presumption of innocence.Rwanda genocide '94
Its sexist against women when half the male population is dead
UN Welcomes Rwanda's New
Property Laws for Women
March 20, 2000
United Nations - A senior U.N. official welcomed on Monday Rwanda's new inheritance law that allows females as well as males to benefit from land and other properties. Rwanda's parliament adopted the legislation, that allows legitimate children of a deceased to ''inherit in equal parts without any discrimination between male and female children'' late last year but its constitutional court gave its approval this year.
Since the genocide in 1994, in which some 500,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed, some 45,000 households are headed by orphaned children, 90 percent of them girls, according to Olara Otunnu, the U.N. envoy for children and armed conflict.
''I congratulate the Government of Rwanda for taking this bold step to rectify an injustice created by this age-old practice. This is a practical way of redressing one of the consequences of the genocide,'' Otunnu said. Some two-thirds of the world's nation have equal rights inheritance laws, although they are not all enforced.
And we have quite a few essays as well:
Just Sex War
If you want sexual equality why would you ever join an explicitly sex-biased movement? Whether it's feminism or masculism does it make any sense to advocate explicitly for just one sex if your goal is justice and equality for both? This has tended to be my thinking for a while now, but recently I thought I'd turn that around and instead ask, if a legitimate sex-biased movement for sexual equality did exist, what would it look like?
Early Christian philosophers asked if there could be such a thing as a just war, or if all war is inherently wrong. Some came up with a qualified "yes". War could be right, if it was fought for a good cause but in addition it must do little harm and considerable good. Now in the sex war the sides are not men and women in two disjoint groups, but rather those two groups are the targets, or the land fought over. Its about whose concepts of gender will come to be accepted by society, including people who never worry about these issues.
I am not literally questioning whether struggling against gender injustice is right or not. I take it for granted that it is. I am questioning to what extent it is legitimate to deliberately use a sex-biased approach to sexual equality on a "the ends justify the means" basis. This is the issue at the heart of the original just war concept. Does a goal of peace justify violence? Does equality justify bias? Here are my criteria for a sex-biased sexual equality movement then, where this bias might be justifiable.
1. Have knowledge of both sexes' issues and experiences
2. Try to objectively assess the issues and ensure that the one sex you advocate for is significantly disadvantaged
3. Don't scapegoat or blame the other sex
4. Do no harm. Don't introduce 'reverse' sexism or 'affirmative' action
5. Consider the movement to be short term with limited goals and aims.
6. Reject ideas based on sexual exclusivity and divisiveness, e.g. that "only women can really be feminists"
7. Carefully distance yourself from those who would usurp the movement or use its name for sexist ends.
8. Ensure there is no way to achieve your goals through a movement without an explicit sex-bias.
In putting together the list I am trying to think over my reasons for not identifying as a masculist. IMO feminism has failed on every single one of these criteria, and on most it failed even from its earliest beginnings. What of the men's movement? Have they learned from the mistakes of feminism? I think they have as far as the first four points go. I think they have problems with the last four points.Equity feminism - a contradiction
Does the word "feminism" have any meaning?
This is the central contradiction hidden behind the stance of those who claim to oppose sexism but continue to use the feminist label. On the one hand they are forced into a position where they must deny that they are anything to do with what passes for normal feminist sexism these days. Statements like "feminism means different things to different people" or "This is what I mean by feminism" make feminism a meaningless title. On the other hand they continue to insist that being called a feminist is important to them because it represents "equality". Well they can't both be true. Does feminism have any objective meaning or is it entirely whatever the feminist says it is?
What they are really saying is this,
"I want feminism to have my meaning; equality but I can see that to many it means the exact opposite; sexism, prejudice and bigotry. Since I don't want to get blamed for all that I'll pretend it has no meaning at all when it suits me to deny my involvement with a sexist movement, and pretend its meaning is vital when it suits me to claim I am fighting to recover the true meaning of the movement.
Equity feminists so-called need to quit trying to cover up the damage they do by associating with hate. If it is genuinely their opinion that the feminist movement is redeemable from the bigots who they recognize are running the show at the moment, then they need to be very clear what they are doing. Because the bigots certainly are.
The so-called gender feminists have no problem recognizing the enemy and laying claim to the movement. They will tell you that anyone who says the are pro-life for example, but claims to be a feminist is a liar. Women and men claiming to be feminists who have dared to criticize feminist hate propaganda have received death threats. There's non of this "feminism means different things" nonsense coming from the gender-feminists. Their beliefs are exclusive. Only equity feminists seem to be happy with a movement that is just as accepting of hate as of equality. I have not yet met an equity feminist who has told me that even the worst examples of feminist bigotry, such as Andrea Dworkin, is not a real feminist.
Does "feminism" have a meaning?
The Feminist Majority Foundation obviously thinks feminism has a clear enough meaning. This hate group have chosen their name on the basis that inflating the number of feminists people think are out there, as they do, is good for pushing their hateful policies. They even have a special page for registering as a feminist: The feminist census.
IF THERE'S ONE THING POLITICIANS AND BUSINESS LEADERS UNDERSTAND, IT'S NUMBERS. THE MORE WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE CENSUS, THE MORE DRAMATIC THE IMPACT
There's nothing new about pushing for your political views by using the word "majority" of course. It's a sound principle that you will have more influence to push whatever position you want if you can show or make it seem that many people agree with you.
Stand up and be counted... as what?
Just like voting for a political party there is power in a mass of people declaring their support for a label. But once you have filled out your Feminist Majority census form, once you have stood up and declared you are a feminist --- in a sense once you have "voted" for feminism, who is controlling the power that your political statement translates into? We all know it isn't the "equity" feminists.
Just as the common German people were responsible for voting Hitler into power so equity feminists continue to "vote" for feminist sexism. This is true whether they agree with the sexist policies or not. It's time they took responsibility for their actions instead of pretending they are Humpty Dumpty. If they do not want to be held accountable for their part in feminist hate then don't support it.
If there was ever one favorite excuse for feminist sexism it is this:
"Of course there are some extremists..."
As with many slogans the phrase does not invite any sort of critical analysis. It's never followed by evidence, and no challenge is expected. It's a given. All movements have extremists. Everyone knows that! What could you possibly say to argue against such a self-evident fact? It might even be said that its a healthy thing for a movement. Well.... is it?
Movements do have extremists, but in what sense is the word used by feminists? An extremist within a movement is someone who agrees with the movement's essential tenets but emphasizes them beyond the norm, until their views begin to conflict with common sense or the law. Often condemned or criticized by their own side they are a minority view, which is often an embarrassment, but can also express ideas in a purer form which the mainstream might latter endorse fully.
Now let us look at how this favorite feminist excuse uses the term. Typically they will be replying to an accusation that feminism is not an egalitarian movement. Perhaps examples of specific feminists making obviously sexist comments like "All Men Are Rapists". They admit that some "extremists" are obviously not interested in sexual equality, but that these people do not represent real feminism.
The flaw here is that extremists do believe in their movements' issues. Passionately. Hence "extreme". But feminists call people "extremists" when they don't believe in sexual equality at all. These people (e.g. Marilyn French, Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, Valarie Solanas, etc., and groups such as NOW) are not dismissed as unrepresentative of feminism for wanting equality too much but for not wanting it at all! They are not extreme-egalitarian they are anti-egalitarian. If feminism were about equality these people would be condemned as enemies offeminism.
Two explanations are possible for this confusion by feminists between 'extremist' and 'enemy'. The first is that they don't know what the word extremist means and genuinely believe that all movements contain people, even popular leaders, who are openly working precisely against the aims of the movement.
The second explanation is that, yes, these people really are feminist extremists, but that feminism is not interested in equality -- only in women. Then they fit the meaning of extremist very well. They are pro-woman as all feminists are, but they take it too far. Unfortunately this second explanation, most likely the true explanation, contradicts what the feminist apologetic was trying to say -- that feminism is not just about women, rather it is about sexual equality; both sexes.
All movements have extremists within them, true, but how many movements have enemies? Popular people within them who are actually opposing the very basis of the movement? This is the fiction feminists are trying to foist when they say, "Oh yes there are sexist feminists but they are just extremists.". Anti-male bigotry is a natural and tolerated result of a movement that is biased towards women, but would be inexplicable and anathema in a genuine sexual equality movement.
For example, the pro-life movement has extremists who break the law to harass women seeking abortions. But these extremists are often denounced by other pro-lifers. They are not leaders in the movement. And most importantly these extremists are actually pro-life in their views. There are no enemies in positions of leadership. Peter Singer for example, is not somehow thought to be pro-life.
The animal rights movement has extremists who threaten scientists involved in animal experiments. Respectable animal rights groups disassociate from these tactics. But no one doubts that these terrorists are interested in animal rights.
Feminist extremists are telling us something about feminism. They are telling us that open bigotry against men is an acceptable philosophy for a feminist. They are telling us that feminism is not an equality movement even in theory, but at best a movement within which equality is tolerated alongside its opposite.
What would a genuine egalitarian extremist look like? For one thing they would probably risk breaking the law for their cause. But what we usually mean by extremist is someone who goes too far in the right direction. How can you want too much equality? Is it even possible? I think it is. I think an egalitarian goes too far if they become procrustean.
The word comes from an ancient mythological Greek bandit, Procrustes, who was so committed to equality that he would lengthen his victims on the rack, or cut them down to equal size by removing their feet. As an example, today we could say someone was procrustean if they demanded that since women have the right to demand abortion over the wishes of the father, that a father should have the same equal right to demand that the mother have an abortion, over her wishes -- or else neither one should have the right.
I don't think I've ever met someone who said this seriously unless they were pro-life in the first place! True egalitarian extremists must be very rare indeed.
No Good Feminists?
A reply I posted to The American Partisan's board
James, you seem to ascribe to the "good cop, bad cop" view of feminism. You say there a lots of nice feminists out there and although the bad feminists are a tiny minority by some fluke they have been the tail waging the dog for many decades.
To be brief: I just don't believe that.
What have all these wonderful "equity" feminists been doing for the last 40 years please? Its clear that some are now getting uneasy as the backlash builds up and have decided to throw a few of their worst bigots to the wolves, but for the last 40 years its apparent they have been very happy to have these people doing their dirty work.
You attempted to tell us that feminism was about equality. That's like telling me MacDonalds is a vegetarian restaurant. In fact I think they've just brought out some new salad thing -- so that's probably far too strong a case to be comparable. Most feminist literature I have read is far more honest in saying feminism means more for women. What you really mean is you WISH feminism meant equality.
Get a clue. F-E-M-inism.
It doesn't help your case if you can't be honest enough to recognize the obvious. Someone might think you were a feminist yourself acting like that! If you genuinely think feminism is about equality my apologies, and I have a bridge you might be interested in buying....
Certainly some feminists are worse than others. On the whole the more involved in the movement the worse the feminist is. Ignorance is bliss. But since you obviously are not ignorant then start of by recognizing facts.
If you look at what is meant by hate and you look at what feminists are saying about men the conclusions are obvious. The most outspoken voice of feminism on men is the one that says men are inherently subhuman. Violent, criminal, stupid, emotionally stunted, sadistic rapists. Feminists are working away to eliminate men's rights and build up special protections for women. These are NOT extremists. This is the normal view of men within the movement. This view is being propagated and even in some cases made into law. The KKK are probably green with envy at what feminists get away with.
The extremist view is that all men should be killed and women should in the mean time only have sexual relations with other women to avoid the stench of men. Meanwhile "turd" men who support feminism castigate themselves and other men while feeling unworthy to bear the holy name of "feminist" and so call themselves "profeminist men".
Frankly you know this is all true. You just want to argue that it should all be ignored for the sake of feminists who claim its nothing to do with them because they are nice feminists. Maybe if they hadn't felt it was nothing to do with them things wouldn't have turned out that way. Too late now anyway. If the bigots "stole" feminism then the "equity" feminists were driving the getaway car. Its more than a little late to pretend to be surprised.
Any right minded person in favor of equality should have nothing to do with this hate movement except to condemn it.The average feminist
Is the average feminist a nice 'grrl', or a sexist liar?
These days there's a tendency to be cautious about saying people are basically all good and kind. We know there's a strong tendency for people to be influenced by authority figures and by the need to fit in, and this can easy get them to justify in their own mind immoral behavior.... and a lot of people don't need much of an excuse....
But perhaps when I say "people" I should really say "men". We understand men have a dark side but still tend to think of women as pure and innocent. One of the objections frequently raised to the hypothesis that feminism is a hate movement is that surely normal average feminists are nice grrls? Surely feminists who are ordinary women couldn't be supporting the lies and the sexism? There must be some "mistake". Perhaps feminism has been "stolen" from these righteous and innocent women by a tiny minority of "extremists".
Well, in my experience, yes, the average feminist fits very well with the hypothesis that feminism is hate. If you are experiencing anything different then its likely that you need to dig beneath the paper thin exterior that feminists present to the world. Don't just ask if they support equality. They all say they do. Ask them on a specific topic. Immediately you'll start getting a different kind of reply. My favorite topic to prove this point at the moment, is the latest addition to the Violence Against Women Act. This is a good topic to gauge feminists on because (1) the act is explicitly discriminatory against men. (2) its very easy to confirm this, and (3) almost all feminists will support VAWA but lie about this fact (if they express an opinion).
Its amazing how easily this works!
If there's a feminist handbook, page 1 must tell them to lie about VAWA
I swear its a compulsion for feminists to lie about VAWA. There seems no other reason why, lemming-like, they all rush to repeat the same obvious lie again and again and again! No, not absolutely every feminist will, lie, but if they say anything at all, I'd say a good 80% will lie. And because its so easy to check the facts these lies often become increasingly forceful, desperate even, to convince people that the feminist is totally sure of what they say. Well let's have some real on-line examples....
From About.Com's Women's Issues board.
"Oh, but you know what? Despite the gendered name of the law, the actual law IS gender neutral."
"May I say then, that this is an important reason for you to read the whole bill? To merely read the title and a couple of excerpts is not really going to tell you anything, and you may have a distorted view of what it really says."
"I also disagree that VAWA projects a bigoted stereotype. Read the act. It doesn't. If you're referring to the name, I can meet you halfway and agree that perhaps it's not inclusive enough, or accurate enough to describe what the act does."
In reply to a quote from the text of the act on the government site for VAWA:
"The reason is because this is for the Violence Against Women Office, which specializes in crimes against women. How many times do I have to tell you this?
This section of distribution is specific for that office"Pro-feminism
If feminism is an anti-male hate movement then what about the male feminists? Can these men really hate themselves (or rather feel contempt for themselves)? I think the answer is "yes" and the term pro-feminism is an example of this.
Profeminist is a term used by many male feminists who feel that to call themselves simply 'feminist' would be inappropriate because they are not good enough to be feminists. Only women can be true feminists.
Why do you call yourselves profeminist and not just feminist?
The simple answer is that it is inappropriate for men to call ourselves "feminists". This argument takes a variety of forms, including the following: Feminism is a movement and a body of ideas developed by, for and about women. Men can never fully know what it is like to be a woman.
Pro-feminists remind me of the lowly turds which Valarie Solanas suggested would help to kill other men on behalf of their female betters. The self-loathing in the writing of some of these men is truly sickening (I'm thinking of John Stoltenberg here). The mere existence of the term as a generally accepted title for many male feminists speaks volumes about feminism and its contempt of men. It is good evidence of feminism as a hate movement because it is pervasive and along with Lesbian Separatism it outlines a hierarchy or caste system within the feminist movement with members judged according to how much of the taint of maleness they have. "Taint" is a word they will really use to describe men's support for women's feminism, as you can see in an example of pro-feminist self-flagelation and bigotry from the NOW debate board. (I was able to post initially, before their censorship policy began.)
I have many reservations in regard to posting on this page. While it is a wonderful resource for us to perhaps read and begin questioning our own views and behaviors, I feel that, in a way, the site is tainted by men's comments. I do, however feel the overwhelming desire to respond to David Byron's attacks.
I believe that all men are potential rapists. Regardless of my community obligations, friendships or social status, I am a potential rapist. Given this, I would like to say a few things to Mr. Byron. I find your statement claiming that more men are raped than women to be ludicrous. If for no other reason than this: most rape goes unreported. I can't remember the actual statistic, but, I know that every time I guess, it turns out to be worse than I thought.
As a matter of fact, David, if right now someone presented me with accurate data to support the fact that more men are raped than women, if YAHWEH descended from the heavens and fully backed the claim, it would not matter to me. It would not matter because of this: It is men who are raping people. Men forcefully and violently impose themselves on people every second of every day. Even when we're not realizing that we're doing it, we're doing it. Even when we look back at past relationships and situations and think, "Wow, that was me at my best," it really wasn't us at our best. Men don't have a best yet. Men gave all of the best to women, forcing them to assume roles as accepting, loving and nurturing people.
No one deserves to be raped, David, obviously. In the case of a male, however, I can only guess that the temporary loss of privilege would muster at least a second or two of clarity. I know two white men that have been raped, one as a small child and one as a teenager. Both of them stand out to me as being extraordinarily sensitive toward the power dynamic in male-female relationships. However, these men are both potential rapists.
To respond to your other point, there is no sexism toward men. I can honestly say that I belive this to be the truth. Hatred of women is so ingrained in this country, it's so massive that people like you can consider yourself to be underprivileged. That sir, is a feat. I am not going to try and guess the exact injustices to which you can be referring, but, I will say this: Any time you detect an inequality favoring women, it is an abstraction of the truth. If after close consideration of all the facts, you still consider the inequality to be apparent, let it slide. Be uncomfortable. Give up some of your privilege.
At one time, I believed radical feminism to be extreme. I thought it to be a militant organization of man-hating lesbians. This is exactly the view we are forced to see from the perspective into which people like you and I are born. It is a brainwashing of the worst kind. It's terrifying and it's not going away. All that we can do is reconcile it within ourselves and try to simultaneously give up our privilege and use it in positive ways to promote change.
In closing, I would like to say this: It is the year 2000. Things are serious. This is crucial, David Byron.
Not all male feminists are like this of course, but I'd say about half are.Jokes
A little while ago I came across a man-bashing jokes web site run by a woman named Helene. Looking at the jokes, many of them were pretty awful, and some little more than blatant vilification wrapped in the form of a joke. In full crusader mode I decided to take her to task over the sexism of presenting men (only men) in such brutal stereotypes! Oh yes!
But what I wasn't counting on was being bowled over by the graciousness of her reply. All the more surprising now that I know how much hate-mail she used to accumulate on that site, mostly from angry guys. Well of course I have to sing her praises, because in a short time she had completely turned me around on this issue. Though I like to think I am open minded, it doesn't often happen that I am persuaded so quickly. I was deeply impressed with Helene.
When is a Joke Not A Joke?
The key attitude of a hate movement is contempt. But many jokes are based on a similar idea of making fun of someone or of some group. What is the difference between ridiculing a group and having contempt for a group? The form of words involved might be the same. Both might use and spread negative stereotypes of the group to make their point. Perhaps it would be better to ask, if a joke makes use of negative stereotypes, when is it legitimate to use it as a joke, and when does it become contempt? When is a joke not a joke?
For some I think the answer will be that all use of negative stereotypes is wrong. This is not so much an issue of freedom of speech --- because not all speech that is "wrong" is banned --- but it is saying negative stereotypes in the form of an awful joke are never appropriate.
Jokes have an appropriate use --- to facilitate intimacy and communication; to help people get along; to be funny. Helene's story of how she came to start the menjoke page (which she has now placed on the site) shows that even the worst jokes can be successfully used this way at least sometimes.
Jokes have an inappropriate use too --- vehicles for contempt, where the underlying current of the joke is this is how things really are. I think I've seen too many jokes used like that.... kudos to Helene for reminding me that women who really detest men don't exchange jokes with them --- they keep as far away from men as possible.
Satire and Parody
Men Control Everything!Magic Y chromosome
The purpose of a hate movement's lies is to spread their stereotypes and vilification of the target group. All wars have propaganda and in the sex war their is plenty of propaganda. Fairy tales are a good vehicle for a lie because they are difficult to falsify. However there is a problem. What good does it do me to convince people that, say, all men in the past were routinely and casually oppressive towards women, if I can't move that into the now? The men are not the same men as today, and the women are not the same women. How can this help show men today are oppressive? How can it be used to push for harsh limits on men today? In the same way how can stories of oppression in a far away country be turned into a justification for concrete sexist laws "protecting" women from men in the West? In the USA?
It's a simple enough idea. One man guilty? All men guilty. Maleness itself is guilty. To be a man is to be guilty. Or to be black. Or to be a Jew. Or to be gay. The target group must be stereotyped and their individuality denied so that stories about men in the past behaving badly (whether true or false) are an excuse for reprisals and revenge against totally different individuals today.
It's the magic of the Y-chromosome. Sin is passed on from father to son in feminist doctrine just as it is in some Christian doctrine. As a possessor of a Y-chromosome you are accountable for all the sins (real or imagined) of any other man throughout history.
Perhaps you've heard feminists say, (and I know I have many times) as an excuse for some man-bashing or sexism, "Well men have had their way for centuries, now it's our turn" and maybe you thought the revenge justification was petty, but that misses the point. Revenge on whom?
Group guilt is a good sign of a hate movement and it is pervasive throughout feminism at all levels. This is why feminists generally dismiss violence against men if the attacker is another man. It's just men attacking men they say. Of no more moral consequence than if a person had decided to assault and beat up themselves. Men deserve it. Men deserve everything because everything is men's fault. Don't try to think about it too rationally. It's only possible because of the magic of the Y-chromosome.Censorship
Lazy enough to slap another post to a board until I can rewrite my thoughts here. This was in reply to comments on the iFeminism board.
::Usually feminist boards censor
::this type of discussion
: -They do not on this board.
I have the distinction of being the very first person banned and censored from several feminist boards who seemed to pride themselves on their commitment to freedom of speech and so on *before* my arrival. In such cases the rules of the forum are usually changed after the fact to prove the administrator was within the rules for banning me.
My general experience with feminism on this issue is one of incredible hypocrisy.
The most recent example was the Ms magazine board. Shortly after my arrival I made my usual spiel about how feminist board always censor conflicting opinions. Again on cue the administrator and regulars assured me no one had ever been banned. Within two weeks (and that's actually pretty good for a feminist board) the board had new rules about posting. Several of my posts were censored. Many threads were started to specifically ask for me to be removed by the freedom loving feminists.
I repeatedly asked very specific questions about the wonderfully vague new rules for posting. I asked if specific words would be counted as illegal, leading to a ban. The administrator refused to answer any of my questions three times -- replying each time but refusing to specify one way or the other.
I went on holiday (I'd mentioned I would be away for 5 days) and came back to find I had been banned on the last day before my return. Reason specified was the use of the words I had specifically asked about. I was told these words were obviously offensive. Words were "liar" and "bigot".
The administrator did not mention my being banned on the board despite twice promising to me that she would mention if she banned me (in response to my mentioning that typically the feminist administrator will seek to ban someone and pretend they left of their own accord). Because of the 5 days I was away before I knew I was banned this tactic worked especially well in this situation and there was little protest about the censorship by others.
This sort of behavior is typical and is not limited to "gender" feminists such as you'd expect from the likes of Ms. I was also the first person banned from "Feminist Utopia"
This is what you would probably call an equity or individualist feminist board. In this case again the rules were changed specifically to ban me (just after the ban in this case) and discussion of the ban was censored on the board.
In summary, yes feminists will put up with a certain level of disagreement so long as it is getting nowhere past their usual defenses of dismissal insult and lies, but a fundamental criticism is invariably banned. Where banning is not an option the feminist simply run away [see alt.feminism for example]Lesbian Separatism
More soon. For now a quotation or three......
"Feminism is the theory, Lesbianism is the practice"
Who said that?
"The New Victorians", René Denfeld p31,
"But for feminists there is one thing that ties all men together -- no matter whether they are poor, rich, white, Asian, black, religious or atheist--and current feminists have seized upon this one thing as the identifying patriarchal link, and thus, the wellspring of all oppression.
That, in short, is the penis.
While this may sound absurd--and is--leading feminists have developed a theory that labels male sexuality and the practice of heterosexuality as the foundation of sexism and virtually all other forms of oppression. Feminist theorists have gone beyond blaming male-dictated law for sexual inequality and now blame what they term the "institution" of heterosexuality, or heterosexual sex. "I believe that we must explain how heterosexuality is central to our oppression," declared a paper presented at a 1981 London conference on sexual violence, "and urge women to withdraw from heterosexual relations."
This paper, "Obscuring Men's Power," can be found in Women Against Violence Against Women, ed. Dusty Rhodes and Sandra McNeill (Only women Press, 1985), p. 260. This theme was echoed throughout the conference on violence. A paper titled "Sexual Pleasure and Women's Liberation" by Margaret Jackson (p. 217) asserts that there "seems to be a widespread assumption that sexual pleasure is something every woman has a "right" to, whether with herself, with other women, or with men." Not so, according to Jackson, she doesn't see "how we can ever assume consent under male supremacy, and it is difficult to see how a philosophy of "anything goes" can help us to work out a feminist sexual practice." Jackson concludes that "the whole ideology of sexual liberation can to a large extent be seen as a backlash" against feminism.
"Olga Vives, chair of NOW's national lesbian rights taskforce, stated in the March 24th 1992, issue of _The Advocate_that she estimates that 40% of all NOW members are lesbian."
"The New Victorians" René Denfeld p42.
Feminists often mention that women are more than half of the population. What they fail to mention is that from birth men are the majority. Men die at higher rates than the "oppressed" women even at younger age groups. If there was equality in death feminists would be able to claim women were a true minority. Would they be happy then?Humpty Dumpty Feminism
There's glory for you!
I don't know what you mean by "glory," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. Of course you don't--
till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"
But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice
When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
tone, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor
The question is, said Alice, whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.
The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master--
Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll
As usual Alice's intuition is correct. Words have meanings, but the favourite way for a feminist to deflect criticism of their involvement with the rest of the feminist movement, is to say "but my feminism isn't like that". In saying this they are admitting they know that much of feminism is bad news. They also implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) agree that much of the leadership of feminism, and the most well known feminists are the worst sort of sexist bigots. In other words that if there are good feminists and bad feminists, it is the bad feminists who are in control.
But when they say that have their own version of feminism they do not claim an exclusive right to the movement. Very rarely will any feminist say "those people are not feminists". Rarely I have seen it, in the most extreme cases of outstanding bigotry, such as Andrea Dworkin, but it would be hard to deny that, for example, Gloria Steinem is a feminist. No. Instead the claim being made is that there are many types of feminism and that it is appropriate for both bigots and egalitarians to call themselves feminists. Any challenge to any specific feminist about their accountability for the wrongs of the movement as a whole can thus be met with "oh that's not me".
But these claims are disingenuous. Feminists are proud to be feminists. Its often said that saying you are a feminist is itself a feminist act. The feminist webring, for example specifically requires a graphic logo so that feminists will clearly and proudly identify themselves. If feminism is so open to all philosophies that egalitarians and sexual bigots are equally acceptable, then what is there to be proud of? What are these people proudly saying when they say they are a feminist?
There is a fundamental dishonesty about pretending that feminism is so open as to be a meaningless term when the issue is accountability, and then saying you are proud to be a feminist. Clearly feminism has a set of core values and these values are quite compatible with bigotry. It is these values which all feminists endorse and are proud of. But what core value could be wide enough to include, on the subject of gender relations two so apparently opposite camps? It is this (the definition of feminism which Naomi Wolf uses in Fire with Fire in fact): feminism is all about more for women.
But no matter what Humpty Dumpty feminists say the word means, feminism remains a movement run by sexist bigots, opposed to sexual equality. Knowing this, feminists who still proudly support the movement and help to give legitimacy to what would otherwise be seen as the ramblings of lunatics, have a charge to answer.Child of the Glacier
This is an extract from an essay -- I think it was called Child of the Glacier by M.Adams which appeared in Men Freeing Men (edited by Francis Baumli). I'd like to find some more stuff by Adams because I think it is a great piece. Unfortunately because of copyright this is only an extract. (paragraphing may be different from original)
One Sunday morning in the spring of 1961, my family had invited our next-door neighbours to go to church with us. I was nine years old. After parking the car, the seven of us were walking the several blocks down St Paul Street to the Church. My mother, my sister and the woman from next door walked and chatted together, while my father and I, the man from next door, and his son walked silently behind. It was a bright spring day and I was full of a child's energy. I decided that I wanted to be the one to point out our church to the visiting neighbours, and I began to run ahead of the group to do so.
I never got the chance; as I ran ahead, my father grabbed my wrist and yanked me back violently, hurting my arm and almost pulling me off my feet. "Never walk in front of the ladies!" he said sternly, still holding my arm. "That's not polite! Always walk _behind_ the ladies!" Immediately, two thoughts came into my nine-year-old mind. First I wondered why in the world men should have to walk behind women, and I decided that I didn't like that rule. Then it occurred to me that my father would never have yanked on my sister that way, no matter _what_ she had done. From that moment on, I hated - consciously - anything that anyone expected from me simply because I was male.
I imagine I was one of the first masculinists... or at least one of the youngest, for it was with _conscious_ awareness and a _conscious_ opposition that I mentally noted and logged every form of discrimination against males that I encountered for the remainder of my childhood. At that age, it was athletic expectations and the training in points of etiquette that plagued me. I was expected to participate in every boy's sport, to _want_ to participate, and to do _well_ -or at least to keep trying until I _could_ do well. Whenever I tried and failed, I was mocked and chided; whenever I said I wasn't interested and refused to try, I was severely scolded. Girls, I could see, were not expected to perform in these capacities, and though I could never quite see what it was they were doing on the other side of the playground, it always looked a lot more interesting, a lot more imaginative, a lot more creative... a lot more fun.
In addition to "walking behind the ladies", there were such customs as opening doors, pulling out chairs, having to stand whenever a woman entered or left the room, and having to pay for things. The "ladies first" syndrome always made me fiercely angry. The old "I can hit you, but you can't hit me back because I'm a girl" routine angered and humiliated me beyond description. That boys were always dealt much more severe punishments for a given act than were girls would throw me into a rage. It was significant to me that these unfair customs and punishments were condoned and administered by adult _women_ as well as by adult men. No matter how many times my parents and teachers told me that these things were traditional and correct, none of it made sense to me and I couldn't tolerate any of it.
Though these were conscious sensibilities, I learned quickly never to express them to my elders, who considered them naughty and maladjusted. From about the age of eleven, the pragmatic ramifications of sexism became more serious; any task or chore involving physical strength or exertion was automatically to be done by males; any task or chore involving risk or danger was automatically to be done by males. Meanwhile I continued to catalog, in my mindful of the sexist attitudes, policies and laws that I had observed or experienced. Sometimes, I would try to talk about these ideas to other kids my own age. None of them understood, none of them were interested. In the course of growing up, they had managed to adjust, and they didn't seem to care. During those pubescent years, I discovered that the sore spot on my life created by etiquette was malignant, and that it festered and grew, with the coming of adulthood, into something horrible called "chivalry".
Chivalry dictated that men risk their lives for women, and accept death outright if it meant saving a woman. It was a fearful moment when I realised that the term "innocent women and children" no longer included me. It was at the age of fourteen that I decided to strike the word "coward" from my vocabulary. The word and the concept were entirely sexist to me, and had no meaning. I entered high school in 1967. I was growing closer and closer to the Viet Nam war. At age fifteen, I began to have an obsessive, maniacal fear of the military draft. The urgency of the draft/war situation prompted me to start expressing my beliefs about sexual equality. I did so compulsively, crazily thinking that if I convinced enough people that I was right, the wheels of sexism and war and selective service would grind to a screeching halt just before my eighteenth birthday.
I would try in my own confused way, to describe a society where men and women would be truly equal. I always tried to demonstrate that the advantages of such a system would be tremendous to _both_ men and women. I had been able to figure out the more basic, obvious aspects of women's liberation on my own, and I never failed to include them in my argument. But this was in 1967, and not even the current wave of the women's movement had reached our part of the world then; of course nobody shared my views, nobody really even understood, and most people thought I was crazy. There was little else in my life at that time to offer any solace or diversion.
These were my adolescent years, and my avant-garde outlook on sex-roles played havoc with my concept of sexuality. There was the normal emotional bind created by the clash between my sexual attraction for women and the Mariological guilt-complex instilled in all young men. While I was trying to convince myself that I shouldn't feel guilty about my sexual desires, the whole thing was further complicated by a feeling of deep hurt that women did not seem to return those desires (to men in general). I not only wanted girls, and felt guilty about it, but I also wanted for them to want _us_, and was insulted by the fact that they didn't. There were some girls who were more sexually free and aware, but they invariably favoured the macho-jock types, and regarded me as a waste of a male body.
Those girls who intellectually prefered more sensitive boys were almost always extremely prudish, which served only to aggravate my sexual guilt. Despite the fact that my sexual feelings were completely heterosexual, I began to realise that there were certain aspects of the female sexuality of which I was jealous. Women seemed to have a purely aesthetic sexuality, while the male sexuality was mostly functional, more directly related to role performance. Certainly, I was able to see that the aesthetic value placed on women had been taken to a dreadful extreme, and that women suffered some brutal consequences for it. Nevertheless it was easy to see that, in ways both passive and active, women _enjoyed_ the aesthetic nature of their sexual image. The male "aesthetic" was really just another measure of their capacity to live up to the role expectations; men didn't really enjoy any of the kind of sexual attention that women got.
It occurred to me that in terms of sexuality, men and women needed to move _toward_ one another; women moving away from the aesthetic extreme that made them sex-objects, and men moving away from the opposite, functional extreme that made them objects of risk, strength and performance. I would have liked to have been a little more of a sex-object, myself! But I didn't dare express those feelings then. Not in 1967.
High School phys. ed. was, for someone like me, pure hell. The expectations were bad enough, in addition to having to put up with the usual bullying from most of the other boys in the class. I was labeled a "sissy" and mocked accordingly. But they could see that I was a different breed of sissy. I was an angry _assertive_ sissy - something they had never seen before - and for that they hated me. The teachers were perplexed to hear blunt expressions of what I thought about their sessions of mindless semi-violence. It was less fear than pure contempt that I showed for sports like football and lacrosse. I told them that I saw no reason why I or anyone should be required to participate if they didn't want to.
The bullying would often become violent - it was a pretty miserable time for me. Finally in the winter of 1968, when it came time for the annual four-week period devoted to wrestling, I rebelled. I refused to wrestle. I told the teacher that I would _not_ wrestle, and that furthermore, I would not even don my gym suit. The teacher warned me that if I did not wrestle, he would fail me for the entire year. I told him to go ahead and fail me - a pretty bold move, considering that the Baltimore County Board of Education had just passed a law requiring every student to pass three out of four years of high school phys ed. in order to graduate. ......
Open Letter to Men's "Activists"
I'm not sure how old this open letter by Robert Sides is
Wherever men's rights "activists" gather, 90-95% remain passive.
Christina Hoff Sommers, not Warren Farrell, writes pro-male pieces for the NYT and WSJ. Mona Charen, not Robert Bly, challenges the idea of women in the military. Men simply no longer know the difference between thinking and doing. Even on (the Internet), Betty and Gisele call for action...not men (who seem content to talk forever and ever and ever and ever while their ship not only sinks, it lays barnacled on the ocean floor).
This is very odd, since whenever men DO get off their duffs, media DO respond by printing their letters, etc. Nonetheless, like infants, most men still expect reporters to be mommy-mindreaders who "feed" them without their having to DO anything. Over and over and over and over again, cyber-groups form saying they're going to act. Then, they do everything BUT act.
From time to time, someone says, "Hey, we're still just talking, not acting. Feminists both talk AND act. When are WE going to act?" Then the group starts talking about acting. They wonder what "action" means, and in what context. Alternate spellings are offered. Historical roots are dug up. Angels are counted on the heads of pins. And on and on the b.s. goes. Fire consumes the "House of Men" because given water, men refuse to use it.
Inactivism aside, this also gnaws: In one of my posts, I wrote...Pretend I'm a reporter. I've read an (Internet) mailshot. Now...Whom do I call to talk about it...Groups attract talkers and dissuade doers, dilly-dallying all the live-long days.
It seems men's groups actually LIKE reinventing wheels. They have no sense of urgency. Their "patience" and "reason" and "Big Picture-itis" lets femi-madness like a cancer grow. All that's required for evil to stop is for good men to stand up and kick ass. Yet men won't.
Passivity, acquiescence, and modern maleness let [anti-male] feminism grow. The meek do indeed inherit the dirt.
Media do NOT ignore men [I doubt that]. They ignore meek, mild, tepid, silent, "nice" groups. Guys have been talking like schoolboys for a long, long, long time. The only reason feminists win is because men won't do more than talk. Men's groups leave the field wide open to NOW, never opposing it. Men refuse to play the media game. Grown men whine over media they never use. They cry, "The NYT is biased!" Yet they never do anything for reporters to cover. When you ask such men how many letters they've actually written, it's usually "zero."
Men are such ball-less babies.
Honest to god, it's amazing any males have jobs. They have no concept how to use PR judo, how to get covered by even hostile papers, how to spin disasters to advantages, and so on. What's worse, you can't tell them anything, show them anything. After a while, you think 'Geez, these guys are so stubborn, blind, and pig-headed, I think their exes were right to dump them. Even Mother Theresa tires [tired] of talking to walls."
Women's groups contact media daily. They repeat known lies forever. Yet men think a hundred guys emailing one Truth to each other online matters.
Men sit on a beach raked with enemy gun fire, playing cards. They ignore calls from others to seek cover and fight back. Modern men have a death wish, Big Time.
Men's groups are always "going to" put ads here, send letters there, do this and that. Only they never do. They're Walter Mitty, facing Panzers in their minds, pushing grocery carts for hen-pecking wives in reality.
Guys now think putting messages in email bottles will "kick-ass." In another thirty years they'll go, "Shazam! Maybe we should hold some creative, attention-getting events, too."
You roll on the floor watching them, guys desperately trying to find their butts with both hands. And failing.
Told and shown- time and again- what works (that is, what grabs media's attention, what media can be used for, what politicians look for), men's groups CHOOSE to act deaf, dumb, blind, lame, and halt.
Some say it takes "weeks" to get media addresses, for example. Yet anyone with Internet access and 2-3 search engines can download, sort, and log-by-category (country, state, county, province, city, etc.) email addresses for several hundred media outlets (print, TV and radio) in 1 hour.
Period. I know. I just did it.
Ah, what's the use...
I'm going rogue again. I've done media alone before, I'll return to it now. Only this time, I'm going to bash males. Not for being men, but for NOT being men. The public has the right to belly-laughs.
Tales of grown men losing their honor, kids, jobs, savings, and lives while playing Keystone Kops WILL entertain the public. So get ready for some multi-media hoots.
Media DO carry pro-male stories when, once every blue moon, men do more than blather. They also carry feminist stories because women always act. They've also printed/aired a lot of my words/thoughts. So they'll positively LOVE my tales lunacy in the non-moving men's movement...the gangstas who wouldn't shoot straight.
Look, I've cried with men. Coddled them. Coached them. I've economically carried, emotionally consoled, and small-talk kvetched with hundreds of guys. No matter. Men want to fail. It's time the public knows what "really" goes on in men's groups.
So check your local papers. Read 'em and weep. Let the tears of laughter flow.
(Who knows, maybe men will finally get pissed off enough to ACT! Then again, given the lure of beer, peanuts, and watching football..) Spare me lectures on "misandry," too. I've no patience for it. I've been at this -actively - for 20 years. If you've done more, I'll listen. If not, stuff it.
Gender war rages all around. The time for false, ms-placed outrage is long past. Men had 3 whole decades to get pissed at the real enemy: fembots. Getting angry with me now for pointing out the obvious is just more male hooey. Anyone who wants to know why men are in such a sorry state needs only to study the boneheads "leading" most (all?) men's group. Kindergartners could whup their collective behinds.
After 30 years of non-stop, one-sided feminist bombardments, men STILL "think" about whether to fight back or not. They spew pearl-like nuggets of wisdom like, "we need to unite under one big umbrella." then to absolutely nothing to make that happen. Any man showing balls, who will slap a woman who slaps him, is immediately pulled down by weenies who think Boy Scout essays matter.
God help us: women DO have bigger testicles today. Money in hand, copy ready, weak-willed crybaby men couldn't even follow-through to put one tiny ad in one small paper. Then these same guys have the gall to say feminism is "failing" since NOW has "only" 250,000 members and "only" comment on every gender issue under the sun.
It's time to round up all males over age 12 and put them on feminist farms. Let them pull plows and be useful. Just give them beer and let them sit at computers at night, whining to each other about how hard their lives are. Then watch them fall over each other each day, showing Big Nurse how many acres THEY can till for the humans (females)!
Modern men: ice cream cones on their foreheads, "kick me!" signs on their backs.
Robert Sides, MA.
PS. If hearing all this makes you angry, good. There's still hope for you then. Now, you can either (1) vent on me - who's done more alone than most men's groups combined (not bragging, just stating the facts) or (2) unite and fight, marching against feminists. No "leader" will galvanize you. Men who want to fight WILL, though bare-handed and leaderless. Men who don't want to fight will sit on their backsides no matter who tries to lead them (El Cid, Saladin, Washington, DeGaulle, Peter The Great, Ho Chi Minh, etc.).Having your cake and eat it
A post I made on the NOW board before their decision that to keep their boards pro-feminist certain people would be banned from the board.
We know women are paid the same as men when they chose to work as hard as men, so what explains the fact women earn less than men? CHOICE. Choice by women that is, because men have far less choice than women over how to earn their livelihood. This lack of choice for men is a sign of the discrimination against men in our society.
Imagine there's a party buffet and all the men and women are lined up separately. The women are told they may take any of the items at the buffet. Anything at all, or they can pick and chose some of this and some of that.
The men however are told they can only take cake. Its cake or nothing. They have no choice.
Now its easy to see this represents discrimination against men, not women. No woman is going to demand to be placed in the men's line! Even if she fully intends to load up with nothing but cake, she's better off with the CHOICE. Hey, cake isn't such a bad thing, right? But most people, given the choice, aren't just going to take cake are they?
All the men of course will take all cake.
Then the feminist hoaxers come along and they decide to compalin that women are soooo oppresed by the fact that they have the priviledge to all those choices men don't have. That's tough, how are they going to hoax people like that when its so obvious women are better off?
Simple: they only count cake. Nothing else counts. They actually pretend there isn't anything else going on at all --- sort of ignore that and hope no one catches on. They scream loudly "it so unfair that the men have more cake! the women must be given more cake!".
They prove men have more cake --- not by comparing men with the few women (eg single women to pierce the analogy!) who chose to only have cake --- those women got just as much cake as the men did. No, they compare the total amount of cake men get with the women, but they don't count in any of the other stuff the women choce to get instead of cake.
What a hoax! What a good way of making women hate men, and of campaigning for discrimination against men. Soon the government steps in and say women need to be given more cake because feminists have "proven" that they get less.
Feminists have managed to pull of their anti-male discrimination AND blamed men AND pretend they are only wanting equality! Talk about having your cake and eat it.
But for those of us who are for genuine equality between the sexes two things follow:
 We must recognise that men are discriminated against in the choices society puts before people. We also need to see women who chose to not be so involved in the workplace by choice, that their contribution is as valuable as working harder --- feminists have to deny this because their hoax relies on ignoring all the options except "cake".
 We need to repudiate the sexist hoax that claims women are paid less, and we need to recognise that those who perpetuate this hoax (if not simply dupes of the feminist movement) are working AGAINST sexual equality for their own ends.
I also include a comment by "BlueBells5" asking for clarification:
Ok, I don't understand the whole "party buffet" analogy. Why do you believe men don't have choices? I personally see men as having as much choice as women as to what profession they would like to enter, if any at all. Granted, a man who does not take on a profession at all is seen as a bum more readily than women tend to, or at least that's how it is around here. But still, men do have a choice as to what job they want, do they not?
And my reply:
The cake represents the "choice" of (any) full time dedicated professional employment. The only realistic choice (except "bum" and "criminal") open to men. The buffet represents the choices open to women that men don't have. For example full time stay at home parent, (or even simple spouse without any children), or part time worker contributing to a spouse's major income, or hobbyist pursuing a "career" that is picked more for enjoyment and personal fulfilment than for wages, or work full time, have children, take time off for them and return to work..... or any combination of these.
Basically women have flexibility and can tailor their lifestyle choices to suit their temperment --- and they are constantly congratualted and advised on how to do all this. Men have the same one "choice" they have always had.
Now its not an awful choice by any means -- so I say "cake", but its also true that most Americans are now saying they would prefer to work less and see more of their famillies / have more time for themselves. Everyone says this, but women have the real power to make it happen in their lives. That's the true power --- control over your own life. Choices. Women have them and men don't as far as lifestyle choices go.
Of course I'm not saying its absolutely impossible for a man to make these choices, but like you say, a man without a job is a bum, a woman without a job is a bride. The expectations and pressures on men are what account for the difference in wages. But its not who has to earn the money that shows power. It's who SPENDS the money once earned. That's overwhelmingly WOMEN.
Women are children
From a post to the NOW board.
I do feel that this issue again demonstrates how feminism treats women as if they were mentally deficient -- children in fact.
Want to stay home instead of being "independant" (ie living off government funding provided by taxes paid by men), well you must be stupid say the feminists. Want to get a job you prefer that pays less? Oh say the feminists you can't have chosen THAT, you must have been "oppressed". Here women in a foreign culture chose to pass on a tradition. Feminists say the women must be idiots -- or is it mind-controlled by the men in their society? Too idiotic to be evil, women are pure and innocent as only babies can be normally. And they have as much control and responsibility as a baby too, occording to feminists.
If a woman chooses to cut up her neice or daughter, it can't possibly be her intelligent and informed choice. No, they must be duped. Under duress of the evil male hormones. No mind of their own. No contribution or reflection of their will on society. That's presumably why feminists can say that women were oppressed by men for all of human history and like zombies they never thought to so much as complain until the 19th century?
Women must receive ALL the help in DV, and even though they are mugged less often than men, women need to "take biack the night". Well its not like they could ever just get out there the same as men is it? You wouldn't expect little children to go out at night. Special this, special that, feminists demand their little children need everything special.
Mary Daly says women's brains don't work when their are men around. Or maybe, its that women don't think straight like men do, as Gilligham has suggested. NOW obviously agree, and so does MS. Big strong women can't be expected to have to put up with a male perspective can they? And on Ms they even have female-only threads just for the exceptionally feeble-minded.
Feminists are constantly lumping women and children together. "There's no excuse for violence against women and children" and so on. Its just the same attitude that the evil so-called "patriarchy" had in the 19th century with their "women and children first" policy. Treating women so delicately. Making sure that a gentlemman must be on his best behaviour and not say "leg" in front of a woman. These days we have (in adifferent thread) a woman suing for sexual harassment because one man said she had nice tits just once.
Oh yes, sex. Women don't like sex say the feminists and the patriarchy - at least not with men. That's the definition of rape, just as a man could be charged with rape back then even if the woman consented, because she wasn't considered to have the mental will power to do it properly, so feminists today say all heteosexual sex is rape because women collectively have no will to resist evil men.
Look at the modern prudes here, and compare with the old "patriarchy". Feminism? Its just the same.
It feels like spamming now...alot on argumenting certain points and I am sure you will not always agree with this guy but he definately made some interesting points....anyhow...enjoyThe men's and fathers' movement needs to make sure it never sees females as the enemy,but only misandry--whether from females or from males.If not, we'll become like the bigoted feminists that this movement was formed to oppose.Glenn Sacks
Fecks Warcraft File:
- 4th-September-2008 #3
Re: Sex War (David Byron)
Phew. Feck ! (as they say in Ireland).
Byron does his homework fairly thoroughly and has it all organised well. Such a lot of sound and well analysed material.
There was one small point very slightly wrong in the section on Voting:
Western Australia enfranchised women in 1901 (just before federation) and before the rest of Australia in order to get the right vote for WA to join the Federation which was about to come into being.
The other Colonies occupying various parts of Australia didn't have women voting, nor many men. One had to own property to vote.
There were many, many more men in WA owning property, as the city of Kalgoolie - the gold mine city and a tent-city at that- was almost wholly male and almost every man owned a small patch to mine on ! They outnumbered the voting men of Perth (the only other city in WA) where the sentiment for joining the Federation was split.
Kalgoorlie men didn't want control of their gold going East and would have prevented WA becoming part of the new Australia.
The Perth women, however saw the East as a the nearest shopping mecca!
The women's vote swung the decision to join the new Federation.
Of course with WA being the only one of the new States of the Federation with a women's franchise and so many ordinary working men having the right to vote, even if they lived in a tent, they could easily outvote even the most populous States in the East. So those States quickly enfranchised their women too along with the ordinary men.
Nothing to do with sex Equality.
Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum
Love the Sinner but not the Sin.
“ For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. “
(and within ourselves)
(Ephesians 6:12 (KJV)
A Feminist is a human being who has lost her way and turned vicious.
If you meet one on the road as you Go your Own Way,
offer kindness but keep your sword drawn.
Re: Sex War (David Byron)
""When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
tone, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor
The question is, said Alice, whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.
The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master--
here is the raison d'etre for the feminit politically correct cant
us mere males have to force our meaning through their claptrap convertor before they dane to understand us
the Gramisci inspired feminits have actually commandered the English language and are using their doggerel as a weapon against us mere males
" wimins right to choose" ie the right to drop their commitments with men of mutual obligations any time they feel like it at no cost
- 4th-September-2008 #5
- Member Since
- Nov 2005
- My Blog Entries:
Re: Sex War (David Byron)
OMG! I just deleted 7,000 of those 'hosted by' images... and now there's MORE!►My blog / Your Blog
The most offensive thing you can do to a feminist is treat her with FULL equality.Wife : "I dreamt they were auctioning off dicks. The big ones went for ten dollars and the thick ones went for twenty dollars."
Husband : "How about the ones like mine?"
Wife : "Those they gave away."
Husband : "I had a dream too...I dreamt they were auctioning off pussy. The pretty ones went for a thousand dollars, and the little tight ones went for two thousand."
Wife : "And how much for the ones like mine?"
Husband : "That's where they held the auction."
You may also enjoy reading the following threads, why not give them a try?
- By Marx in forum Chit chat (MAIN)Replies: 1Last Post: 9th-January-2010, 12:03 AM
- By frostyboy in forum Female PaedophilesReplies: 0Last Post: 17th-December-2009, 03:15 PM
- By Tyrael in forum Campaigns & NewsReplies: 4Last Post: 30th-May-2007, 04:37 AM