I have a great interest in feminism, but find myself at variance with feminism.

Which may allow others to call me an anti-feminist.

I challenge a number of assertions made by feminists quite often, but I do have detailed reasons why.

However, I will not post here if it is to upsetting for other posters who just want to "rabble" about whatever instead of seriously look at the issues.

My belief is to try and solve the problems, I do not feel that feminists are aiming to do such things and have basically become nothing more than anti-male propaganda preachers.

It's unfortunate that things have come this way, and loving people so much I am left with great concern over it.

quote:

---

I do not feel that feminists are aiming to do such things and have basically become nothing more than anti-male propaganda preachers.

---

quote:

---

kind of declaration isn't really the way to open up friendly and useful discourse.

---

Well those are my feelings based on anything I've encountered with feminism so far.

I declared it so that I wouldn't mislead anyone, or that anyone was confused as to why I made such a post.

Granted the feminists on this forum maybe completely different and far more objective than the ones I've previously encountered.

Like I said no offence, but I don't want to beat around the bush and get right to where people stand on this topic.

I did say I would not post if it was to upsetting to other posters.

[ 03 October 2003: Message edited by: Dan Lynch ]

quote:

---

If you want to buy a car, do you sit around looking from the outside wondering what the salesmen will take for that car? Pinning all day long hoping you can get the car? No, that's pretty fricking ridiclous isn't it?

You have to go in and talk to the guy to find out if he will take a lower price, or a price you can deal with. It may be a one of a kind car, but that's no matter, you're still negotiating and you can't let that out of the bag unless you really think it will help your position.

Timing is crucial. It's not always price that get's the car; it's how badly the salesman wants to sell the car. Women are no different.

---

Women do the same thing. They make comparable qualities based on what they think they can get and what they can get.

This works for either men or women. Women will want to know what type of man he is. They will have to initiate some sort of communication to get a closer look at what they like to see.

Right is right, there is no exception. The issues I concentrate on are domestic voilence mostly.

I have even met the woman who started the first modern women's shelter. I teach self-defence to both men and women.

So is it that only a good mediator is one who believes in feminist ideals?

I'll leave. I came here with good intentions I stick by that. I've done my homework and it really tears me up inside to see what feminism is doing to women these days. Keeping them angry, using them as a type of soldier, denying them their nature.

History is riddled with the same ideologies just as it is riddled with the blood of its destructionism.

I used to be a "feminist" minded person. I used to fight for feminist causes. In fact I actually still do.

I judge people on an individual basis not a collective basis. Right off that tears down the walls of religion, race, sex, and any other thing we use t stereotype. It takes longer but it's beyond all this automatic prejuduce that subjectivism releases on the world.

quote:

---

My belief is to try and solve the problems, I do not feel that feminists are aiming to do such things and have basically become nothing more than anti-male propaganda preachers.

---

I guess when you come into a forum with a rather aggressive attitude...and this:

quote:

---

I've done my homework and it really tears me up inside to see what feminism is doing to women these days. Keeping them angry, using them as a type of soldier, denying them their nature.

---

quote:

---

I'm going to be brutally honest - that's how I like to write - so don't get too pissy when I say this, because I believe it's true. I like to be seen with a hot girl so that I can feel confident about myself.

---

quote:

---

Maybe it's better to teach him about feminism then to attack him without even trying; that won't do anyone any good .

---

I agree but he has had plenty of time to read the feminism thread and seems like perhaps a non listner????

quote:

---

I agree but he has had plenty of time to read the feminism thread and seems like perhaps a non listner????

---

I agree that he does, but it's always a good idea for us to indemnify ourselves by trying to point out his biases; whether or not he listens is his problem .

[ 04 October 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

quote:

---

If there ever were a guarantee that someone has nothing to say about feminism (or, probably, anything), that's it.

---

quote:

---

I agree that he does, but it's always a good idea for us to indemnify ourselves by trying to point out his biases; whether or not he listens is his problem .

---

I'll gladly listen to what you have to say.

I'm sorry you think I'm aggressive with my comments, but you've already accused me of trolling. My experience with trolls is that they get onto boards and pretend to be something they are not. It's like a weird covert opperation of psycho-politics that I've seen both men and women do respectively for feminism and masuclism and other issues.

That is why I told you right up front who I am and what I feel. I'm not here to pretend to be nice and trick you or try to decieve (not that I can). I am telling you how I feel about the current state of feminism, right up front so there is no mistake.

quote:

---

I have been reading your threads and have resisted comments on some of the issues.

---

Don't resist.

quote:

---

Intense situations make people confuse emotions in your favour: one study had an attractive woman interview men in the middle of a rickety canyon footbridge and others near the exit, and most (rather than few) of the men interviewed in the fear-evoking situation later called her for a date.

---

I remember this study. The way I remember the point of it , was that men, after a near danger experience, seemed to take a risk in that manner.

So, like sky diving as a life threatening risk, people who are bold do bold things. Such as tell someone you think is attractive that they are.

quote:

---

I'm sorry you think I'm aggressive with my comments, but you've already accused me of trolling.

---

[ 04 October 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

Edited to add: I thought you were referring to what I was saying, since you were quoting me.

[ 04 October 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

I have topics such as Honour Killings that I have written on and like I said I met Erin Pizzy first woman to open a modern women's shelter.

To me, rape and domestic violence at the two key attributes of feminism.

quote:

---

Erin Pizzey was the founder of a women's shelter in Chiswick, England, the first modern battered women's shelter in the world. She found that of the first 100 women who came to her shelter, 62 were as or more violent than the partners they tried to escape from -- only to return to their partners time and again because of their addiction to pain and violence, violence that they persistently did their best to bring about.

---

I discuss the theory of "prone to violence" in my self defence courses. It works for both men and women. Men are often prone to familiar scenarios in which women are violent to them or where women want violence from them or it's a mixed scene.

It's either a two way street or it's one on the other. The most notable research I have found constantly proclaim the violence is within the 12% range of the population.

This is where I go more liberal in this regard, but my feelings are that the police and their public policy is to just simply lock up and usually the male. But more and more I see them doing the same to women.

I don't think these policies are doing these families any good and in marital break down false accusations are becoming a startling uprising. In the end it seems like it is the lawyers who never lose no matter who wins.

quote:

---

her objective view

---

And it's objective because... it agrees with you?

quote:

---

in marital break down false accusations are becoming a startling uprising.

---

Are they? How are you so sure that the accusations are false? Whose objective view are you using here?

quote:

---

or where women want violence from them

---

Hey, tell me about it brother! Not a day goes by that I don't run into some uppity skank who is obviously trying to get me to smack her one. I don't bite, of course, because I'm above all that. Besides, she'd probably bring a false accusation against me.

quote:

---

Many feminists seem to like this as many push for divorce on large scale in my opinion

---

Many like who? Got any names? You sound like a typical woman-fearing loser to me (this is just my objective view, you understand). You can't find a woman who'll get trapped into a bad marriage with you like in the old days, and so you invent an anti-marriage cadre of feminists to direct your frustration at.

There's no conspiracy against marriage. People are breaking up because their relationships suck, plain and simple. They didn't used to have the option and now they do, but you don't like them exercising that option and so you need a scapegoat in the form of divorce-pushing feminazis.

Wise up. Do you really think that anyone would get divorced on someone else's say-so, as if they were recommending a movie? The problem is you, buddy. You're the one who thinks that purchasing commodities is analogous to finding love and partnership. You, and others like you, are the ones who need to come to a new kind of peace with the power of women, kept down for so long. Relationships (your own, at least) will stand a much better chance when this happens. Once you stop being terrified of the strength and beauty that is the human female then you'll be alright, but first you have to ADMIT THE PROBLEM. It seems you're a long way off from that.

Unfortunately, I have to be the one to break the bad news to you: the coming century and millenium will belong to women, as they come out of the shackles of a tyrannical culture and take their age-old position as the leaders of families and communities.

quote:

---

Some women who are beaten become violent in response. Go figure.

---

quote:

---

Many like who? Got any names? You sound like a typical woman-fearing loser to me (this is just my objective view, you understand). You can't find a woman who'll get trapped into a bad marriage with you like in the old days, and so you invent an anti-marriage cadre of feminists to direct your frustration at.

---

Interestingly enough your descriptions are exactly like the Red Chinese who strongly encouraged divorce among their followers. In that case it didn't matter which way, either men or women. The issue was over who was a communist and who was not.

quote:

---

There's no conspiracy against marriage. People are breaking up because their relationships suck, plain and simple. They didn't used to have the option and now they do, but you don't like them exercising that option and so you need a scapegoat in the form of divorce-pushing feminazis.

---

quote:

---

Wise up. Do you really think that anyone would get divorced on someone else's say-so, as if they were recommending a movie?

---

Yes I do.

quote:

---

The problem is you, buddy. You're the one who thinks that purchasing commodities is analogous to finding love and partnership. You, and others like you, are the ones who need to come to a new kind of peace with the power of women, kept down for so long. Relationships (your own, at least) will stand a much better chance when this happens. Once you stop being terrified of the strength and beauty that is the human female then you'll be alright, but first you have to ADMIT THE PROBLEM. It seems you're a long way off from that.

---

It's interesting how you describe this as a power struggle. You accuse me of regarding the relationship as a commodity, then you go on about rightful power. So which is it? Is it about love and romance or is it about submission and power? I'll gladly admit the problem. The problem is the inability to discuss the the contraversy in an adult manner.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, I have to be the one to break the bad news to you: the coming century and millenium will belong to women, as they come out of the shackles of a tyrannical culture and take their age-old position as the leaders of families and communities.

---

Actually no it won't belong to women. It will belong to the exact same percentage of people it has always belonged to. The power of women is nothing more than a distraction for other elites to gain far more extensive power than even ever before. Women are being used and it's about time people woke up to that reality.

The sort of "power" fluxes you refer to has to be enforced by a police state. Your Stalinistic version of women owning this century may indeed take place, but not under honesty integrity or self suficency. It will be under dependancy, reportitive and malicious rule.

I already understand the beauty of women, otherwise I wouldn't be here.

quote:

---

BOOGEDY BOOGEDY BOOOOOOOO!

---

quote:

---

I was exposing a fault of my own in a sarcastic fashion and to a larger extend a universial fault.

---

quote:

---

No, it isn't universal, but yes it is pathetic. I wish you good luck in someday feeling better aout yourself; in the meantime, I don't think feminists have much to learn from you.

---

quote:

---

Interestingly enough your descriptions are exactly like the Red Chinese who strongly encouraged divorce among their followers. In that case it didn't matter which way, either men or women. The issue was over who was a communist and who was not.

---

I really can't figure out what you're talking about here. What do communists have to do with anything (besides being your lastest whipping post, as you put it)? I'll assume that this only makes sense through your predjudice-addled brain.

quote:

---

This isn't about my likes or dislikes.

---

No, I forgot. You're objective.

quote:

---

Wise up. Do you really think that anyone would get divorced on someone else's say-so, as if they were recommending a movie?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I do.

---

Really? Is that what you would do? If not, why would you think others do it? Because not everyone's as objective as you are? Or are they just stupid?

quote:

---

It's interesting how you describe this as a power struggle. You accuse me of regarding the relationship as a commodity, then you go on about rightful power. So which is it? Is it about love and romance or is it about submission and power?

---

Apparently you missed the last several thousand years of human history so allow me to fill you in: women have been kept downtrodden by men in varying degrees for a long, long time. Submission and power. I see this changing, hopefully for good, and a new age of equality arising. Love and romance. Away from one, towards the other. My advice to you is to get with this change so that you won't become anymore despised by women than you already are.

quote:

---

Your Stalinistic version of women owning this century may indeed take place

---

All I meant is that they would come into their own and not be held down by patriarchal social structures, but your kooky vision of a feminist dictatorship is all the verification I need that I'm absolutely correct about you. The idea of women's equality terrifies you and so you try to redefine it in terms that you're more comfortable with. Looo-seeer! "Those uppity women are out of control! If you let them divorce their abusive husbands then who knows what they'll do next!" Well, they won't be doing it with you, whatever it is.

...on edit, responding to Lynch's post.

[ 05 October 2003: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

edited to make clear that I was responding to Audra.

[ 05 October 2003: Message edited by: Jacob Two-Two ]

The second (and I understand if the moderator thinks that this is over the line for being too personal), I have to say that it sounds as though you have...ahem...rather little experience with relationships. I recall the 'market' metaphor as attractive when I was a 17-year old boy, and it seems pretty laughable now.

I really can't figure out what you're talking about here. What do communists have to do with anything (besides being your lastest whipping post, as you put it)? I'll assume that this only makes sense through your predjudice-addled brain.

quote:

---

Apparently you missed the last several thousand years of human history so allow me to fill you in: women have been kept downtrodden by men in varying degrees for a long, long time. Submission and power. I see this changing, hopefully for good, and a new age of equality arising. Love and romance. Away from one, towards the other. My advice to you is to get with this change so that you won't become anymore despised by women than you already are.

---

Yes, feminists keep quoting that slogan 'women have been kept down since the dawn of time'. Sounds right out of an Orwell novel.

Maybe there is no hope for the future. Simply put the arguement that you make is that women will return or rise to their 'rightful' place. Still denoting a power struggle. But on the road all it has done is make women fighting for their right to be dependant on men. Wether directly or indirectly this is what's happening.

I gurantee you this form of dependancy will not lead anyone to their "rightful place ", all it will do is create more misery for more people.

Like solving the problem of Honour Killings. Oprah has a great show on how tragic honour killings are, and indeed they are unjust and the pentalty far outweighs the crime. However Oprah fails to mention a large factor in Honour Killings. That factor is that it is women who always get the ball rolling in honour killings. 9 out of 10 honour killings could be avoided if women did not turn against other women.

Either for vengence, or competitiveness or even true women are the ones who make the accusations in these cases. By culture it is men who are obligated to fill out these honour killings and if they don't they themselves are also subject to being murdered by others.

Oprah also fails to mention the many men who run away with their daughters or wives to protect them from the killings. But there is a method to Oprah's madness. It's called ratings. Oprah knows her demigraph, she is selling a show, she's not solving the world's problems. And oprah has the bank account to prove it.

However I agree fully that feminism will be able to destroy honour killings eventually. Feminism was designed to tear down traditions. This perticular one I will not miss.

quote:

---

All I meant is that they would come into their own and not be held down by patriarchal social structures, but your kooky vision of a feminist dictatorship is all the verification I need that I'm absolutely correct about you. The idea of women's equality terrifies you and so you try to redefine it in terms that you're more comfortable with. Looo-seeer! "Those uppity women are out of control! If you let them divorce their abusive husbands then who knows what they'll do next!" Well, they won't be doing it with you, whatever it is.

---

Does telling a cat it has to bark in order to be equal to a dog make sence? Does telling a gazelle it has to swim in order to be equal to a whale?

I made a point about certain groups who have mastered the art of confusing natural habbits. Personally I see that as cruel.

quote:

---

Okay, everyone, I'm finished taunting Mr. "baby, you can be my car" now. Sorry for dragging this out for the sake of my own amusement.

---

Taunting is all you've really done. You never explained your position, nor proved it, just violently expecteded me to accept it and called me names.

I for one do not think it is that simple and I would like to point out that the feminist movement and the men's movement have many things in common. Both groups want to end chivilry for one. Both groups are concerned about the images on screen that potrays there indentity and so on.

Not sure if I read you correctly you made it seem like women are still interested in marriage. Many feminists I have come across are not, many in the men's movement is opposing marriage. The complicity of marriage/divorce may have some common ground for feminists and the men's movement.

My assertion here is that if feminists want to rid the world of 'chivilry' and so do masculists (or whatever they call themselves) wouldn't it be easier to have them combine forces to nullify such a concept? There is more.

Seems however that I am getting flamed off rather than open discussion.

Should I ever be in need of a powerul emetic, I'll keep your posts in mind.

quote:

---

That factor is that it is women who always get the ball rolling in honour killings. 9 out of 10 honour killings could be avoided if women did not turn against other women.

Either for vengence, or competitiveness or even true women are the ones who make the accusations in these cases. By culture it is men who are obligated to fill out these honour killings and if they don't they themselves are also subject to being murdered by others.

---

This has got to be over the line for the rules of this forum, and the board as a whole!

Yes yes, I've descended to personal attack! You have accomplished your mission, and may leave feeling all smug and vindicated.

[ 05 October 2003: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

quote:

---

This thread is nearly too painful to read, but I have to say, Dan, that two things seem clear to me.
The first is that, as Clersal says, you do seem to know bugger all about feminism. Feminst thought (and politics) is quite varied, and is a far cry from the unidimensional straw woman you (and many like you) put up.

---

If feminism is so varied than why not call it individualism? I see this arguement a lot and frankly I only see it as a defence mechanism in order to shut down its critics. As if it doesn't exist when its not conveniant and then does when it is.

quote:

---

There are few areas of social or political discourse that are as self-critical (I mean this in a good way) as feminism has been, and the result is a body of ideas that frankly has had to stand up to a lot more than you have to offer, without a whole lot more reading.
The second (and I understand if the moderator thinks that this is over the line for being too personal), I have to say that it sounds as though you have...ahem...rather little experience with relationships. I recall the 'market' metaphor as attractive when I was a 17-year old boy, and it seems pretty laughable now.

---

Does that mean you are going to offer us a metaphore that better explains it?

quote:

---

Anyway, if you feel beseiged you probably shouldn't....people here seem to be going lightly on you, while rightly not engaging you in a dialogue you clearly aren't equipped to have.

---

Other than the constant personal attacks nobody has really said anything to me. I asked to be here, I asked to discuss points of view. I want to know why this perticular groups thinks the way they do and compare it up with other points of veiw I have seen in the past.

Unfortunately what I get back is that I am just wrong, stupid, relationship inept, a loser and so on. Nothing of what I would consider qualitative to people who try to learn new things. But these are the responses I've got in the past on these subjects which has led me to the belief that the sexes are falling into a type of "cold-war". In reality I feel it is a left vs right (in over simplified terms) but that they've transmutted the ideology into "feminism" as a reformation.

quote:

---

This has got to be over the line for the rules of this forum, and the board as a whole!

---

Well this is what I'm talking about. I'm coming from a completely different world than where the posters are on this board.

Is this harsh? To over the top? One poster claims that there is no group more subject to self critisim that feminism, yet this post is so obscure. Seems odd.

If I were a feminists I would have responded with "Well it's because the patriarchy keeps women down and divided against eachother. If it weren't for that these things wouldn't happen."

Possibly true, but I don't feel it is.

quote:

---

Yes yes, I've descended to personal attack! You have accomplished your mission, and may leave feeling all smug and vindicated.

---

quote:

---

Ok...a couple of pointers; drop the red-baiting; believe me, it's not working. Distance yourself from whiny "masculinists", that doesn't work either. Stop sounding so "calmy hysterical" about women's role in society; women have always been here, always will be, and each individual woman has the choice of being exactly as strong and assertive or petty and weak as you (or I) can choose to be. Finally, pick one specific issue to discuss; father's rights is a good start (but be prepared to be challenged) and go from there. And, since you haven't been banned yet, your whine about being censored and your "voice oppressed" is pretty lame.

---

I think masculists are a very important part of the conversations. Calling them whiny is a form of suppression tactic. But I don't consider myself a masculist I was just trying to point out that feminists and masculists have common ground on many issues which I find ironic.

I don't understand the term "red-baiting". Does that mean communist comparisons?

Ya, I know women can be all of those things. That was my point.

This is sort of an open thread. Picking one topic is fine with me, this thread is a general outview of where I am coming from. It was also intended as I said to be open and upfront and to ask that I be able to post considering that I have such a contradictory veiw point from the feminists I have met so far.

What is it exactly about "feminism" that troubles you?

Where are you getting your definition of "feminism" from?

I read through this thread ready to respond to your questions and thoughts, but then you started going on about Communism and such.

Then you started talking about it being the fault of women that women are murdered by their male family members. That's right out.

quote:

---

What is it exactly about "feminism" that troubles you?

Where are you getting your definition of "feminism" from?

---

I am making observations of what I feel feminism is. What troubles me about feminism is that it is keeping women angry and dividing the sexes based on ideological bases not to excel women but to deconstruct society.

quote:

---

I read through this thread ready to respond to your questions and thoughts, but then you started going on about Communism and such.

---

Communism and feminism have many similiarities.

quote:

---

Then you started talking about it being the fault of women that women are murdered by their male family members. That's right out.

---

Yes; that women make the accusations that start the wheels in motion for the honour killings. It is violence against women, but it is violence against women by other women.

quote:

---

Is there something substantial that you would actually like to discuss about feminism, or are you just baiting people into "yelling" at you on a message board?

---

Of course there is something substantial I would like to discuss about feminism. I would like to put an end to honour killings. But looking at the reasons why honour killings take place we can see the root cause and possibly find a solution to it. Unfortunately what we are fed is that men just kill women to get their jollies off in regards to honour killings. This is not the case.

I would also like to put an end to domestic violence, or at least to better understand it. Most feminists claim dv is a one way street, that it is always a male on female issues and that it's about control. I say differently, that it is mroe complex.

So sometimes my questions are "do feminists really want to solve the problems, or would they rather create hysteria in order to collectivise and control women"?

quote:

---

I am making observations of what I feel feminism is

---

quote:

---

On what do you base what you "feel" feminism is? Have you read some feminist theory? If you have, I'd be interested to know what it is so that I could read it myself.

---

No I have not read anything from a feminist directly.

Just quotes like wanting to "reduce the male population to 10%". Or "All men are rapists, thats what they are". "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle". Stuff like that.

I never read the 'Feminine Mystique' but knowing that Friedan was a hard core commie I assumed that much of it had communist ideals in it.

OK. So, Dan.

This is my working definition of feminism:

Feminism is the belief that women have suffered under historical disadvantages in the past; that these disadvantages persist into the present; and that individuals and/or society ought to correct these imbalances so that women come into a position of equality with men.

(a) Do you agree or disagree with this as a definition of the term 'feminism'?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Lynch:

No I have not read anything from a feminist directly.

---

quote:

---

Communism and feminism have many similiarities.

---

Well, they have one at least. They're both frequently the fixation of paranoid nutcases. KOO-KOO! KOO-KOO!

quote:

---

Feminism is the belief that women have suffered under historical disadvantages in the past; that these disadvantages persist into the present; and that individuals and/or society ought to correct these imbalances so that women come into a position of equality with men.

(a) Do you agree or disagree with this as a definition of the term 'feminism'?

(b) Do you agree or disagree with the philosophy stated above, irrespective of whether you believe it actually reflects the viewpoints of modern feminists?

---

My answer to a). Yes, I do believe it is a term of feminism to describe themselves as victims of oppression and other sorts of suffering.

I believe that both men and women have suffered historically. Men were obligated to their work and women to theirs. Nature having its way with us has seperated us into working catagories. So no, I do not believe that women were worse off then men, what I do believe is that there was class oppression significantly. Women had advantages that men did not vice versa, but in the end it tallied up. However feminist doctrine rarely discusses men's roles and men's sufferings in history.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:

Well, they have one at least. They're both frequently the fixation of paranoid nutcases. KOO-KOO! KOO-KOO!

Okay, I'm really gonna leave this thread now.

---

I think there are more commonalities than just the one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Lynch:
[QB]

No I have not read anything from a feminist directly.

Just quotes like wanting to "reduce the male population to 10%". Or "All men are rapists, thats what they are". "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle". Stuff like that.

---

I can't think of any mainstream feminist who declares they want to kill 90% of men or that we are all rapists. Replacing one form of gender-based repression in favour of another wouldn't be feminism anyway. The "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" saying is just meant to humorously show that women are individuals in themselves and don't need to be "completed" with the approval of men.

quote:

---

I never read the 'Feminine Mystique' but knowing that Friedan was a hard core commie I assumed that much of it had communist ideals in it.

---

quote:

---

But it's not feminist ideals that really bother me, rather the feminist public policy making that is beginning to harm us all

---

How so, exactly?

[ 06 October 2003: Message edited by: Doug ]

Also, I'm not clear just what it is in that column that pertains to "feminist public policy making" or how it's harming us. As a rule, feminists don't make public policy. Indeed, those who make public policy would generally be regarded as quite anti-feminist.

I think the problem that you're having here is that you have your own, very singular and subjective definition of what feminism is and while you have admitted not to have any first hand or academic knowlegdge of feminism, you have still attempted to dismiss its merits. So, perhaps what you are calling "feminism" and what the rest of us are calling "feminism" is not the same thing. That could create a problem. Pehaps you could begin by defining your terms. You tell us what you think feminism is, first, and then perhaps you can get some useful debate on its merits or shortcomings.

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Lynch:
Or, the child support system the was set up by the soviets which is being used here in Canada to this day.

---

This is bad?

[ 06 October 2003: Message edited by: clersal ]

quote:

---

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future--If There Is One--Is Female

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by clersal:

This is bad?

[ 06 October 2003: Message edited by: clersal ]

---

It could very well be bad depending on the reasoning behind its inseption.

quote:

---

Have you read some feminist theory?

---

quote:

---

No I have not read anything from a feminist directly.

Just quotes like wanting to "reduce the male population to 10%". Or "All men are rapists, thats what they are". "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle". Stuff like that.

I never read the 'Feminine Mystique' but knowing that Friedan was a hard core commie I assumed that much of it had communist ideals in it.

---

quote:

---

I hate to break it to you, Dan, but you are going to have to read more than that one book to join in an informed discussion on this rather broad topic. If you're having trouble, maybe some of your buddies at Mensa can help you out?

---

Well what about this article from the "ifeminist" site?

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0812roberts.html

She of course is the great grand daughter of former prime minister Pearson.

quote:

---

hey i just ran across the source of most of our new friends philosophy. dan you really shouldn't believe everything the media tells you.

---

Actually the media told me that women were raped at a rate of 1 in 4. The media told me that domestic violence was about 95% male on female. The media told me that the wage gap was about .75cents to the dollar.

These are the things that are pounded mostly in the media. Erin Pizzey was basically black listed from publishing and feminists destroyed as many of her books as they could get their hands on.

But the things remain the same the popular assertions made by feminists have two sides to the story and one side often doesn't get air play.

For example, the most quoted research on sexual harrassment in highschool 'hostile hallways' show that boys are just as likely to be sexually harrassed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I'm actually quite enjoying letting babble's male feminists take this on. One of the few times when I don't mind men dominating a feminism thread.

---

Exactly it is pervavsive which is why I wrote it. But not just on a male level on a female level as well. The article works both ways , which I made clear. But it does not entirely mean I meant them as a trophy the acquisition was on the egos of the sexes and individuals. Is it misogynistic? No more than it is misandric I guess.

"
i work as a shop steward in a trade where women are beginning, against incredible resistance, to gain a foothold.every time a woman is dispatched from our union office to a job, I expect and invariably encounter serious discriminatory activity, and this within a relatively educated workforce.many of these workers would beat to a pulp anyone who treated their spouse,or daughter as badly as their own mostly thoughtless actions involve."

These are your personal experiences, but is there more to it? This is a competitive world and if the girls want to compete against the boys is it not fair or should thier be some sort of chivilry involved? I could go on about how men in female dominated jobs also face the same sort of issues, namely nursing and such. But what the combined issues do relate to is an end to "old thinking". Which is exactly how the Red Chinese worked.

" again,shallow,stupid and destructive.
you may well fear ,as I'm sure many other men do, that as women advocate with greater degrees of organization and strength,that your own relative power within the system will diminish."

My own power within the system? You must be joking. I do not fear anything from women. I have a perception of which way things are headed. Those fears are from the evolution of whats going on. My feelings are that men are killing themselves and their wives in regards to the court system and the selfishness of politicians to seek power by misleading women at large. Men and women killed eachother at equal rates for years. With divorce laws favouring women murder amongst women has gone up while murder against men has gone down. The "system" is treating men unfairly and unjustly which is creating a hostile environment of men seeking reparations through murdering their families and themselves. Meanwhile whiteribbon campaigns go on the discussion of this compliciant problem is supressed and seen only as one sided.

" and if you are as shallow,self-centered and insecure as your posts indicate, you may well be right.
the role of feminists, just as any other activist group is in advocacy, and to that end there are many roles, from the radical red-eyed raging emasculator to the mediator and legislator. it is not their role to apologize for fighting against an entrenched social order which seeks to inflict harm and repression against them. "

quote:

---

Originally posted by redshift:
that's us commie reds, danny-boy. ruthless and relentless.surely you've heard of the red menace?
and now you've got the pink menace to worry about too.
and your solution is what?for all the good little girls to go home, stay bare-foot and pregnant and not bother us men when we're working, cause we'll take care of things?
you must feel pretty comfortable working on a flat screen.

---

Are you projecting onto me what it is you think I believe on those subjects?

However on point, it's very possible that women's liberation is entirely a hoax on those fronts. That women in the workforce did not give women power, but rather power to the financial elites who had a larger pool of labourers to choose from and therefore lower wages.

That before all of this in fact women did work but only if they had to. The majority of women choose to stay at home and tend to homemaking duties.

Do we live a better existance now because of women in the workforce? I doubt it. I'd say we are all living from paycheck to paycheck and the generations behind me are barely doing that. Living at home until 30 and so on.

My quest isn't to put women back in the kitchen but I have no qualms of looking at the whole picture of who else it is that benifits from women's liberation movement.

quote:

---

That before all of this in fact women did work but only if they had to. The majority of women choose to stay at home and tend to homemaking duties.

---

Time out for a little history lesson.

Pre-industrialization, women worked. All women worked, alongside men, and "homemaking duties" were their work. "Homemaking duties" didn't mean dusting or wiping fingerprints off the refrigerator or whatever other trifling thing that phrasing suggests; it meant growing and harvesting food, carrying water, cooking meals, making wool and fabric, knitting and sewing clothing, rearing children, caring for the sick and the elderly, collecting fuel for the fire, feeding livestock - many of the same things that men were doing, and then some.

With the Industrial Revolution and the move off the farms and into cities, middle-class women in effect lost their jobs. Their men, who were allowed to be educated, participated in the new economy. Perhaps women just decided that they didn't want to be educated and go out to work? En masse, they were given the option of learning and owning business and running factories, and answered with a collective "no thanks!". Or was it more like they were told by their husbands and fathers that it wasn't appropriate for women to be educated, that it wasn't right for girls to be too learned, that they would never find husbands if the had too much education. It's no secret that boys were sent to higher education and girls were not - that's not a "feminist" myth. Working class women continued to work - they worked in factories, they worked as servants,they raised the children of the upper classes, they worked in their homes. And if middle and upper class women weren't participating in the economy (which, of course makes their labour meaningless) they were still participating in benevolent work, the roots of modern social service.

What about during WWII? Did women not work when the men were away at the war? Who ran the factories and businesses? Women did, while at the same time tending to their homemaking duties of preparing food, cleaning, making clothing, raising children, caring for the elderly. During the war, free or low cost childcare centres sprang up over night to allow women to get out of their homes and into the factories. At that time, it was considered unpatriotic for women not to work. But when the men returned from the war, what happened? Just as suddenly as it was women's duty to work outside the home, it became their duty to stay home with their children. Strange, how during the war years, children thrived in day care centres but as soon as the war was over, they needed the intimate care that only their mother and no else could give.

The notion that women "don't work" stems from the 1950s, and even in that time, women worked. Working class women were in the labour force alongside men; middle-class women worked in their homes. It was considered their "job" to keep a clean house and to be a comforting partner to their husband. Housework, I'm sorry to tell you, is work. Ask anyone who's ever scrubbed a floor on her hands and knees, or who's broken his back scouring an oven, or has ironed acres of clothes and linens.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Lynch:

That before all of this in fact women did work but only if they had to. The majority of women choose to stay at home and tend to homemaking duties.

---

HAHAHAHA. But of course tending to homemaking duties and the 10 kids without pay is not work????

HAHAHAHA. Try it Mr Lynch. That is called REAL work. Sheesh.

[ 06 October 2003: Message edited by: clersal ]

I don't like that we have an economy which all but demands a two income household. One parent should be able to stay home with their young children and not have to go out and "earn a wage" just to live.

I'm hopeful that there will be a push to change that in the future.

I read the "Overspent American" and it was very educational. It details the "keeping up with the Jones's" phenomenon which germinated in the 1950s. "The Fifties" - a journal of women was really interesting too. It illustrates many of the points you make, women shouldn't be too educated, they should find a smart husband instead, etc.

I think that it could be done, staying home with little ones while the other partner works earning a decent wage. The answer, IMO, is skills training and education. Both partners should have a marketable skill which earns them enough to live comfortably. THEN they could make the choice to stay home with their young children.

I realise that affordable child care is needed for many parents, especially single ones, however, I don't feel comfortable with the idea of a universal daycare system with young children cared for by strangers while both parents earn wages all day for the "economy".

There should be a way for parents to express themselves in the workplace, to fufill their educational and proffessional goals, AND to raise their children themselves, primarily at least.

quote:

---

. Both partners should have a marketable skill .....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by clersal:

Staying home is a marketable skill.

---

I meant marketable skill in our economy, to earn wages outside of the homestead if NEED BE, not to imply in any way that raising children and running a household isn't a SKILL.

Sweet Lord, it's hard enough to run a place in a frugal manner without children! It's skilled for sure. I just meant that both parents should have the opportunity to learn a marketable trade or skill if they WANT it, and stay home with small children.

I guess I'm projecting my own experiences.
I'm very hopeful for the future, I think the balance of work and family, men and women can be struck. We live in interesting times.

[ 08 October 2003: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

quote:

---

not to imply in any way that raising children and running a household isn't a SKILL.

---

quote:

---

Staying home is a marketable skill?? To what company?

---

Who is talking about companies? I think a man or woman who wants to stay home and look after the kids should be paid for the work they do.

quote:

---

..... then we'll have to ask why it is that so many people get this job despite being totally unskilled for it.

---

quote:

---

I think a man or woman who wants to stay home and look after the kids should be paid for the work they do.

---

I've seen this idea brought up many times before, and I think it ignores the fact that one is paid for work primarily because the work doesn't directly benefit you. For example, if you paint someone else's house, or shovel their driveway, or wash their hair, you expect to get paid. That's your benefit in this arrangement, and it's why you do it.

Would you expect to get paid to paint your own house? Shovel your own driveway? Wash your own hair? If so, why, and by whom?

So why would you expect to get paid to raise your own children?? And by whom?

quote:

---

Quite a few people hold down jobs that they are lousy at. They keep em' too.

---

Really? Then what's a "performance review"? What's meant by "dismissed with cause"? What's a job interview all about?

The idea that all someone has to do to draw a paycheque is decide to lead a life seems to me a little bit naive. Again, where's the money coming from?

What's more, I agree there may be some totally unskilled, unsuitable kid making subs at the local sub shop, and he may very well put too much of that oily dressing on my sub, and I may end up ruining my tie as I eat.

But that's small potatoes compared to someone who has absolutely no parenting skills, nor any desire to get any, having and raising children.

Well, there are gonna be a lot of little kids running about unsupervised, and sometimes they will be running because they've been freaked out by all the old people wandering aimlessly and exposing themselves to all the little kids running about unsupervised.

The tellers were mostly men and had to go fight regardless, leaving the banks without employees and having to higher women fast. With the start of the cold war the only positions men held were managerial ones in banks.

Now I noticed that we started talking pre-industrial revolution. Where men and women were working side by side. Not to mention that someting like 35% of the population had to be farmers back then.

Are you telling me that women were still oppressed under that arrangement? It sounded pretty equal to me. How do feminists claim 7 thousand years of oppression?

I never implied that homemaking wasn't work I don't see why there was a derailment based on that.

It could very well have been told by their husbands and fathers as well mothers that their place was in the home. Men were told they had to be in the workplace. Eitherway there was no two ways about it.

I find that interesting about feminists, which is why I call them commies because they use the same tactics, I guess I figure they are the same thing. It was the mothers who influence the daughters and prepared their daughters for motherhood. This was what marriage was about. Nor did they have the luxery of living to 80 or taking a year off school to tour europe.

Which raises my question about daycare. Don't people realize that like Hitler, those who are desperate to get a hold of your children really only want to do so to indoctrinate them?

quote:

---

1 lb. boneless chicken, cubed; AND/OR
1 lb. shrimp, boiled in Zatarain's and peeled; OR
1 lb. leftover holiday turkey, cubed; OR
1 lb. of any kind of poultry or fish, cubed; OR
Any combination of the above
1 lb. (hot) smoked sausage, andouille or chaurice, sliced on the bias; OR
1 lb. diced smoked ham
1 large onion, chopped
1 bell pepper, chopped
3 - 6 cloves garlic, minced (amount to taste; I like lots)
4 ribs celery, chopped
3 small cans tomato paste
4 large Creole tomatoes, peeled, seeded and diced; OR
1 28-oz. can tomatoes
8 cups good dark homemade chicken stock
Creole seasoning blend to taste (or 2 - 3 tablespoons); OR
2 teaspoons cayenne, 2 teaspoons black pepper, 1 teaspoon white pepper, 1 teaspoon oregano, 1/2 teapsoon thyme
2 bay leaves
Salt to taste
4 cups long-grain white rice, uncooked (Some people like converted rice, others prefer good old Mahatma. I use Uncle Ben's converted, as the rice doesn't get sticky or lumpy that way.)

In a sauté or frying pan, brown the chicken, sprinkling with Tony Chachere's seasoning if you've got it; a bit of salt, black pepper and red pepper otherwise. Don't brown if using leftover cooked bird, but you still might want to season the meat. Tear or cut the meat into bite-size pieces.

Brown the sliced smoked sausage or andouille and pour off fat. In the pot, sauté the onions, garlic, peppers and celery in oil until onions begin to turn transparent.

In the same pot, while you're sautéing the "trinity", add the tomato paste and let it pincé, meaning to let it brown a little. What we're going for here is an additional depth of flavor by browning the tomato paste a little; the sugar in the tomato paste begins to caramelize, deepening the flavor and color. Keep it moving so that it browns but doesn't burn. Some friends of mine hate this step, so you can skip it if you want, but then it won't be Chuck's jambalaya. :^)

Once the vegetables are translucent and the tomato paste achives sort of a red mahogany color, deglaze the pan with the about 2 cups of the stock, scraping the bottom of the pan to mix up any browned bits, and stir until smooth, making sure the sautéed vegetables, paste and stock are combined thoroughly. It should be fairly thick.

Add the Creole seasoning, tomatoes and salt to taste. Cook over low-medium heat for about 10 minutes. Add the meat and/or seafood and cook another 10 minutes; if you're using seafood, be careful not to overcook it.

Add the rest of the stock, check seasonings, and stir in the rice, combining thoroughly. Cook for about 20-25 minutes, or until the rice has absorbed all the liquid and is cooked through. If you haven't checked your seasonings before adding the rice, it's too late! It's much better for the rice to absorb the seasonings while it's cooking. Check seasoning anyway, then turn the heat down to low-medium and let the sauce thicken up a bit, with the pot uncovered, stirring frequently, for about 10 minutes. Stir thoroughly to combine all ingredients. When the jambalaya has thickened up a bit and has reached the "right" consistency (you'll know), it's done.

Serve with salad and French bread.

---

Of course, they were. And the law recognizes that contribution -- now.

But until the 1970s, Dan, in Canada, a farm wife, an any-kind-of-wife, could be turfed out of her home with nothing, not a penny, by a husband who claimed that the only contribution to property that should count was a contribution of money.

It was just such a case that got the law changed, Dan.

quote:

---

And if you think that there are any public systems now in place to compensate for the unpaid labour of the (mainly) women ...

---

Actually, I'm suggesting that the children are, themselves, the pay. You shouldn't be looking after your own children for money, you should be looking after them because they're yours. "Whole Village" platitudes aside, in modern culture they're yours, and yours alone. You get to name them, dress them, take them to the church of your choice, attempt to instill in them the moral code of your choice, force them to go to bed when you, and you alone, want them to... etc.

I'm not suggesting that we don't need more readily available child care - we do! - but I'd much rather see this childcare used by women or men who would like to do something outside of the home, rather than paying people to do something that primarily benefits them, and which they're going to do anyway. Again, it's too much like expecting to be paid for washing your own hair.

Boy, it sure is neat getting the 100th post.

100 whole posts in this thread, would you look at that.

But, how do we do it? Do we offer a base amount of monthly income to those who want to stay home and raise children, doing the community thing? Would that be more benificial for society as a whole? Could we tie it into some community service? Would this have to be a municipal level progect?

Mr. Magoo,

SOCIETY benifits from well-balanced children raised by parents who aren't stressed to death, no?

That is the difference between paying someone to wash their own hair and paying them to raise their own children.

I'm not saying that parents should be rolling in it while staying home, I'm sure they can make some of their own money from home, but, we should at least level the playing field when it comes to taxes.

We, as a society, should try to veer away from our consumerist culture so that we don't have so many living to work, piling up debt to "keep up" with the pace.

http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1257