I received a comment today about a blog entry I made back in September 2006, "What Feminism Has Done For Me" (link: http://awomanagainstfeminism.blogspo...ne-for-me.html). She is obviously a well-educated woman, who has the courage of her convictions. I have no problem with that, and as you know, I will publish just about any comment I receive. But her comment revealed to me that she is operating under the mistaken notions that feminism has fed us all. I am publishing her comment, and my response, here. I would ask that people don't come across with anger, as she is obviously well-intentioned, just mistaken. But of course, you must speak from your heart. Here it is. I have put her quotes in italics...

I'm sorry you've experienced such an angry version of feminism or that it appeared angry to you. Feminism does not have to be so bitter . . . it is actually quite beautiful and I think you know this, your just afraid to admit it.

You could not be more mistaken.

I think it's strange that as a girl you learned to respect yourself and believe in yourself, all of which is beautiful, and now you hate the source of that empowerment. Why? Have you ever asked yourself where your rage comes from? Who told you it was wrong to question our social institutions?

I don’t disagree with you that respecting and believing in oneself is beautiful. What you’re not seeing (and the thing that I missed as well) is that we were told this at the expense of the boys. It was a two-pronged message: girls good, boys bad. Not only that, but girls weren’t being denigrated before feminism. Depending on the encouragement she received, a girl could always do just about anything. That is exactly the chance the boys had. Yes, there were “traditional” men’s and women’s roles, but if a woman wanted to step out of her role, and could prove she had the ability, she was given a chance. We were already “empowered” (I hate that word). And come on. Please. When were you ever given permission to question our social institutions? To do so is to become a pariah at the very least.

If women didn't challenge the social structure of gender roles I would not be able to practice law today. Face it, the fact that we are able to go to college, have a career and live independently did not happen coincidentally or even naturally. Women fought long and hard so that we could be where we are today. It's sad that you forgot and that you even blame feminists for being angry. Women do have a right to be angry but feminists are not nearly as angry as society thinks we are. I think men are much angrier because we are speaking up and project their fear on society, on people like you who are afraid to think for themselves.

Wrong. If you were wealthy and had the drive, you most certainly would have been able to practice law. Or medicine. Or chemistry. Or journalism. Or anything else. Incidentally, these two things - wealth and ambition - were required for men who wanted to enter professions as well. The vast majority of the population never got that chance. There were plenty of women’s colleges. There was even the occasional woman who got into a men’s college. They were separated, yes. In my opinion, that is the best way to learn, away from the distraction of the opposite sex. The quality of the education was the same. What in the world do you think women have to be angry about? Nothing but the lies and half-truths spoon-fed to us by feminism. I have to say, it appears you have been on that diet for a loooong time. Men aren’t angry because women are speaking up. Men are angry because they are discriminated against and denigrated daily in our social structures and laws.

How ridiculous to bash a movement that has given you the freedom to post this blog in the first place! Did you know that if your husband disapproved of this in the early 1800s he had every legal right to "punish" you in what ever manner he thought was appropriate? Things have changed and we have the women's rights movements of the mid 1800s and 1960s to thank for that. You say that the feminist movement brain washed you into hating men but could it be possible that society has brainwashed you into thinking feminists are nothing but man haters? I'm tired of being labeled as a fem-nazi or man-hater just because I speak up against violence against women and other important women's issues. It is not a crime to have your own opinion and it doesn't mean you hate men just because your opinion is different from theirs.

If by “punish”, you are referring to the “rule of thumb”, that is a well-known myth that has been disproved countless times. Yes, some husbands beat their wives. Just as some husbands today beat their wives. It was no more legal then than it is now. I’m surprised that you don’t know that, being a lawyer. Things certainly have changed. Now women are expected to be men, and men are expected to be women, and the family has fallen by the wayside. We are taught to deny our nature, and that is sick and a crying shame. Feminists do hate men, my friend. That is why they require them to deny their masculinity. I know you don’t realize this, but do some research. It’s all there in black and white. As far as speaking up against violence against women, kudos to you. But who is speaking up against violence against men? Do you realize that domestic violence happens about equally from the man to the woman as the woman to the man? Do you also realize, that women are far more likely to use a weapon, and seriously injure, maim, or kill the man? Do you finally realize that all she has to do is say he was abusing her, and she had no choice to kill him because she couldn’t leave, and she will be the object of sympathy instead of scorn? You are correct, it is no crime to have your own opinion, and you are certainly entitled to yours, but you are basing it on lies and half-truths. You’re obviously a smart lady. Look at ALL of the facts, not just selected ones, and draw your conclusions from there.

More...

The female lawyer, being an expert on laws, somehow manages to 'skip' the part that men were held responsible for women's wrong doings back in the 1800s. I guess it goes both ways? Oh wait, this is feminism we're talking about here... they only recognise the parts they deem necessary.

Kelly, it appears to me that you are greatly more 'educated' that she. Her convictions require no courage as yours do, as her's have the full weight of the misandric laws working to support them. Her convictions are as second-hand and artificial as her chosen profession which has been gained through rote learning rather than deep understanding. Her ethical standards do not admit truth or individual exercise of experience as they are simply those written in her Bar Association's handbook.

She is also enamoured by airy-fairy notions which I am glad to see you taking her to task on. Feminism is 'quite beautiful' indeed! There are none so deliberately blind as those who worship at Mrs Justice's statue.

Tell her to look at her feet.

They are Clay.

Someone, anonymously, of course, posted a comment directing us to a website about early women's rights. Actually, it looked fairly accurate, although I really only read the part she or he referred me to all the way through. Here it is, and my reply:

Anonymous said... http://www.nycbar.org/Library/FeaturedExhibitions2.htm

Read the section on "Women as Lawyers". They faced significant struggle because of their gender. Prior to the first wave of feminism, it was extremely difficult for a woman to pursue certain careers (such as law), and prior to second wave feminism, discrimination in hiring practices was plenty prevelant. Modern women do indeed owe some of our freedoms to feminism.
8:03 AM
KellyMac said... Here is the pertinent section referred to by Anonymous 8:03 am:

Women as Lawyers

In Maryland, Margaret Brent, arrived in the new country in 1638, received a land grant in St, Mary's City and subsequently handled legal matters for Governor Calvert. It wasn't until 1869 that a women, Belle Mansfield, (pictured at left) from Iowa, became the first attorney licensed to practice law in the United States. In the same year, Myra Bradwell from Illinois was denied admission to the state bar on the basis of her sex. Also in 1869, Lemma Barkaloo became the first women law student in the nation, attending Washington University in St. Louis after being refused admission to the Law School at Columbia. The following year, Ada Kepley, became the first women to earn a formal law degree in the United States, graduating with an LL.B. from Union College of Law in Chicago, now known as Northwestern University. Katherine "Kate" Stoneman became the first woman admitted to practice law in New York. She did so against enormous odds; supporting herself as a teacher and working nights, weekends, and summers as a clerk to an Albany lawyer until she graduated in 1898. She was the first woman to pass the New York State Bar Exam, but her application to join the bar was rejected because of her gender. The reason given by the three Supreme Court justices who denied her admission were "No precedent," "No English precedent," and "No necessity." She then launched a successful campaign to amend the Code of Civil Procedure to permit the admission of qualified applicants without regard to sex or race. These and many other pioneering women have built the foundation for equality in the legal profession. According to the 2005 ABA Commission on Women in the Profession, women represented almost 30% of practicing attorneys and over 47% of new students entering law school.

In the matter of the application of Mrs. Myra Bradwell for a license to practice law, 1869
55 Illinois Reports 536, 1869-1870

In 1869, Myra Bradwell (pictured at left) passed the Illinois Bar Exam with honors. She then applied to the Illinois Supreme court for admission to the bar. The court refused her application because she was a woman. The decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bradwell v. Illinois despite Bradwells's argument based on the Immunities and Privileges Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. The opinion of Justice Bradley in the case reflected the nineteenth century society belief about women not participating in the workforce, "Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life." Eventually, Illinois changed the rules for admitting women to the bar. In 1890, Bradwell was admitted to the Illinois bar and in 1892, she received a license to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, she was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1890, and received a license to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1892? Is it a type-o? Does it mean to say 1980 and 1982? Cause that's WAY before modern feminism. In fact, isn't is pretty much in Susan B. Anthony days?
1:24 PM

Yes, I think you've hit it exactly. She wasn't taught to think, she was just taught a LOT of case law, and how to use it to manipulate her arguments, but she wasn't taught any critical thinking. No one is, at least in this country (USA). It's something you have to pick up on your own.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think it's done that way for a reason. To keep the masses ignorant and believing what we're being spoon-fed in sound-bytes.

Or just a pragmatist?