I think that the article offers a weak defination of what feminism is.

It is not enough to say 'I believe in the equality of the sexes' without doing anything to further or promote those beliefs.

According to this, one does not have to believe in child care subsidies,affirmative action, or equality for lesbian women in order to be a feminist.

I love this.

I wanted to post this starter from the other thread, as it has been locked.

I think that the quote has a nice political spin to it, but is really unrealistic with respect to current feminist groups. These groups have no intention of embracing the diverse political ideologies that women(and men) embrace in modern society. Then they wonder why so many women reject the term "feminism". Feminists mock conservative women and will not tolerate any woman who is the least bit equivocal in her support for abortion, even though current polls of women show this to be a relative unimportant issue to most of them.

Feminists have eroded their own base because they are condescending to women.

However, she then goes on to completely ignore the 'working towards' part of that defination, by flippantly saying that it is o.k if one wants to rally against child care, affirmative action,or any measures of economic equality - they can still consider themselves feminists. Arrh!!!!

http://www.theonion.com/onion3906/women_now_empowered.html

See what I mean?

[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: audra estrones ]

I think that that to do so would be as silly as a labor activist who rallys against unions and progressive labour laws, or an anti-poverty activists who was against low-cost housing etc.

[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skye88:
Yes, gooogly,
I don't think one can reasonablly call themselves a feminist and then undermine those very principles of equality by supporting ultra-conservative policies.

I think that that to do so would be as silly as a labor activist who rallys against unions and progressive labour laws, or an anti-poverty activists who was against low-cost housing etc.

Why is Feminism any different?

---

What defines a policy as "ultra-conservative"? How do such policies actively undermine equality? Because they do not legislate programs to regulate public and private sector business practices and affirmative action initiatives?
Why is it assumed that the default political ideology for women and minority groups is liberal? I tend to find the Black and Latino communities to be more conservative in their politics. I think it's because they have a higher participation in religious groups.
This is why democrats have traditionally had to play the race card, as a means of garnering their support. As these groups become more prosperous, which they are doing, you will see them begin to support a more conservative agenda, which they are doing.
Arnold got 30% of the Latino vote out here, even though he was running against a liberal Latino, Cruz Bustamonte. He also received almost half of the women's vote. Even in the face of accusations of sexual misconduct. Why didn't women respond by rejecting him? Are they stupid? No. Do they not care about women's equality? Of course they do.

All I hear now on NPR are enraged liberals howling that everyone was duped. Everybody else is wrong! This condescension does not play well with an increasingly educated and informed electorate, minority or otherwise.

[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: Bilbo ]

quote:

---

an increasingly educated and informed electorate

---

Thank you for proving my point.

[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: Bilbo ]

Arianna tried the male vs. female spin. She got killed- by women.
Was it privilege and male muscle that put Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer in the Senate from California?

Yeah, the recent election of the terminator is a really great way to illuminate the advancement of women, and as, you put it, the increasingly informed voting tendancies of the electorate.

This is hardly about liberal condescension, it is just acknowleging that in todays society, with an ever incresing concentration of money and power dominating the media and politcs, it is harder to have fair elections where real political ideas are discussed. It is not suprising that more and more people, even marginalized ones, vote conservatively, since that is all they hear in the corporate controlled media and things like Fox news.

I always have to laugh when I hear people wail about the Liberal Media, and Liberal condescension, since it is obvious this is just a way of shutting down dissent and delegitimizing independent thought.

[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: Skye88 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skye88:
I always have to laugh when I hear people wail about the Liberal Media, and Liberal condescension, since it is obvious this is just a way of shutting down dissent and delegitimizing independent thought.

---

1 )Why are Conservative/Republicans at odds with Feminism?

At their base, I believe that Conservative policies are at odds with feminism. This is because most conservatives have a hard time acknowledging the power imbalances and current systemic inequalies between priviliged and non-privileged groups. They may pay lipservice about supporting women's equality, but they won't actually do anything to promote that equality.

They don't believe in taxes, or in funding valuable social programs. For instance instituting a national child care program would allow working women and single mothers to enter the workforce more easily etc, and go far in promoting womens equality. Right wing groups also tend to be against labour unions, which have beem a great equalizer in terms of rasing wages for women etc.

These are just a couple examples, but fundamentally, right wing conservative politics are mostly about protecting privilige, money, and and the status quo. They do want to break down barriers to promote greater inclusion from disadvataged groups.

2) Why do dis-advantaged groups vote for Conservatives?

I realize there is a tendancy for Liberals to appear condescending when they discuss voting patterns of disadvantaged groups. I would never
assume that someone is stupid because they vote a certain way. However, I think it is harder for people to become informed politically, especially in the United States. Politics, led by a corporate controlled media is more about entertainment, (ie Fox news, than it is about reall discourse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lima Bean:
I am so tired of these threads where we have to defend the most basic and fundamental facets of feminism...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lima Bean:
I am so tired of these threads where we have to defend the most basic and fundamental facets of feminism against assholes who think they know the world better than anyone else.

Feminist Forum, how I do miss thee.

---

In retrospect, I regret starting this thread for two reasons, first because it seems to have been hijacked in a different direction and second because of my login name and history of postings which are right leaning on economic issues that some would think I agree with the hijackers.

It would be a case of stupidity if those who voted for Arnold Swartzenegger were actually "educated and informed," and it would also be forgiveable to speak condescendingly if that were the case. However, as has been pointed out, the election result here is not a case of stupidity, mainly; it's something else.

[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: Skye88 ]

Why? I mean, just because you say it is? Don't women and minorities have greater access to education than 40 years ago? Did he not get a significant portion of their vote. I did not claim that his voters were all well-educated and informed, nor did I claim that well-educated and informed voters voted only for him. What I pointed out was that democrats are losing some of the support of their traditional stand bys- women and ethnic minorities. It is a simple fact borne out by the numbers.

As absurd as claiming that enlightened voting was responsible for Ronald Reagan. Or Brian Mulroney. These "common sense revolutions," to coin a phrase, are indeed revolving patterns, and as such they do not imply increasingly educated and informed electorates.

Again, it is absurd, apparently, because it goes against your own political views. I'm not just implying increased education. The numbers prove it. My point is that as these groups become more financially independent, mainly through increased access to education, many will become more conservative in their views. This phenomenon, again, is supported by the numbers. Also, it is trending upward, not in cycles.

It would be a case of stupidity if those who voted for Arnold Swartzenegger were actually "educated and informed," and it would also be forgiveable to speak condescendingly if that were the case. However, as has been pointed out, the election result here is not a case of stupidity, mainly; it's something else.

Then please explain what else it is. Otherwise, your implication that it was not a case of "educated and informed" people voting for him proves my point- you feel that only uneducated and uninformed people would have done so. Very condescending on your part. Then, you backtrack and say it isn't stupidity, just "something else". Please, feel free to explain what this means.

Since it's claimed--no, celebrated--that increased "education" and "information" has resulted in Arnold Swartzenegger's election, then the bar must not only be very low these days, I suspect it's also serving the hard stuff for free.

Well, you'll get no argument from me that the current state of the educational system in the U.S. is in need of repair. But I'm sure that's not the intent of your point. I'm assuming you're just taking the opportunity to insult his supporters.

[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: Bilbo ]

quote:

---

Don't women and minoroties have greater access to education than 40 years ago?

---

quote:

---

you'll get no argument from me that the current state of the educational system in the U.S. is in need of repair.

---

Sorry, but this is politics according to the Marx Brothers. Continuing:

quote:

---

I think it's because they have a higher participation in religious groups... As these groups become more prosperous...you will see them begin to support a more conservative agenda

---

quote:

---

condescension does not play well with an increasingly educated and informed electorate

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bittersweet:

--it was religion, economic self-interest, and lousy education that did it. That's good enough for me.

---

Wow! You're starting to get it! This is certainly closer than "something else". Of course, to declare that those who supported him all received a "lousy" education, while those who did not(you), presumably received a superior education is still incredibly condescending(to women and minorities- and let's not forget those meathead union members, right?!), but you're starting to understand.

[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: Bilbo ]

quote:

---

My point is that as these groups become more financially independent, mainly through increased access to education, many will become more conservative in their views.

---

quote:

---

you'll get no argument from me that the current state of the educational system in the U.S. is in need of repair.

---

quote:

---

to declare that those who supported him all received a "lousy" education...is still incredibly condescending(to women and minorities)

---

quote:

---

It is not enough to say 'I believe in the equality of the sexes' without doing anything to further or promote those beliefs.

---

True, sometimes the disagreement comes btwn feminists and other women on what that action is though!

As far as NPR is concerned, I remininsce about the days it was truly an alternative voice, an alternative to Clear Channel USA, instead of a tool of the government.

[ 11 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]

Nah, women ignore these things, including sexual harassment involving other women and just vote for what stripe they favor just like men do. Most women simply aren't taught to put themselves first, in terms of voting for a candidate of either stripe who doesn't consider women, property, or even tied for first.

Many latinos including those with Mexican ancestory traditionally hold conservative views on social issues. More of them would be Republicans if only the Republicans of Pete Wilson and his predecessors ilk didn't demonize their ethnic group so much in the guise of criticizing and condemning illegal immigration. It doesn't have much really to do with education, or its quality.

[ 11 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]

On this very board, there are feminists -- generally pretty leftish ones, to boot -- who are strongly opposed to abortion; and any attempt to discuss abortion on the board has always produced a lot of walking-on-eggs tentativity.

It reminds me a bit of the wonderful anticapitalist writings of Jack London, say, marred by his tendency to racism. I really see that as a contradiction. I think the right to control one's own body is a pretty basic human right - if not you are forcing women to have an unwanted child or give it up for adoption.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bittersweet:

I couldn't have made the point better, although at least I'd be aware I'd made it.

---

IMO, many of those who claim to be prolife actually are more concerned with controlling the reproductive capacities of women and trying to legislate their bodies. These are the advocates who believe that life is more important until it is born. Once it's born, it's forgotten. If it's born in a region of the country with a very high infant mortality rate, f.e. some Southern states, tough luck for them!

These so-called prolifers are also distinguishable by positions on other issues involving life such as euthanasia, capital punishment. Many of the faux prolifers are for or against euthanasia, but definitely pro-capital punishment(FRY THEM!. The sincere prolifers tend to be anti-euthanasia and anti-capital punishment, IME.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skye88:
Sorry,

I think that the article offers a weak defination of what feminism is.

It is not enough to say 'I believe in the equality of the sexes' without doing anything to further or promote those beliefs.

According to this, one does not have to believe in child care subsidies,affirmative action, or equality for lesbian women in order to be a feminist.

I am sorry, but that would make for a pretty lousy feminist.

---

quote:

---

I think the right to control one's own body is a pretty basic human right - if not you are forcing women to have an unwanted child or give it up for adoption.

---

Absolutely right IMO but it isn't a basic human right that women can take for granted is it?

[ 11 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]

quote:

---

I guess the Famous Five were all lousy feminists.

---

Gir,

The Famous Five were outstanding feminists, for their era.

But recognizing women as legal "persons," while necessary, is hardly sufficient to creating an fair and equal society for women.

If you believe that the advances of the 1920s were enough for women, then yeah, you probably are a lousy feminist.

I really liked the Onion article, btw, Bilbo.

Googly - I don't know if it is too late in this thread, or if it has been covered elsewhere, but what exactly is your objection to affirmative action? I think there are some legitimate pro-feminist critiques of it, but there are others which pretty clearly are not.

[ 11 October 2003: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

On this very board, there are feminists -- generally pretty leftish ones, to boot -- who are strongly opposed to abortion; and any attempt to discuss abortion on the board has always produced a lot of walking-on-eggs tentativity.

---

Present!

It's not my favourite subject, but, yes, skadl is correct on this.

I am a feminist, I would fall onto the "left" of the spectrum most of the time and I am opposed to abortion as a "solution" to pregnancy in most cases.

What would I do about reducing abortions? As a social liberal, I don't know. I can't make that call as far as the "law" goes. I do want people to really look at abortion in our culture though, and to reduce the occurrence of it.

I do feel that feminism is a big tent, (women ARE 50% of the population) and we usually have compassionate, interesting, throught provoking discussion on a wide range of topics here on the Rabble feminist board.

I'm the minority for sure, but, I am rarely attacked for my views, and most at least try to answer my questions honestly and and accept my views thoughtfully.

This doesn't support a very holistic notion of feminism. In fact it is very priviliged outlook.

I agree that feminism should be a big tent. But the point of having a big tent is to include the voices of women who have been marginalized. Not by watering down our views to accomodate those of reactionaries, who are partly responsible for those marginalized women's original exclusion.

[ 11 October 2003: Message edited by: Skye88 ]

At my age I'm unlikely to be pregnant - and if I should be by accident, I can tell you I'd DEFINITELY have an abortion if only to prevent my ageing ovaries from producing a defective product - but when I was younger, the thought of having children always repelled me. Is it better for society to have unwanted children?

I do consider myself a feminist. I support the right of women to control their OWN bodies by preventing pregnancy from occuring.

Moreover, many women are sexually assaulted, not thinking so much of stranger danger as of incest, date rape and other forms of coercion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogcrazyjen:

Hi, I am new here, and I have been following a few threads for a bit. I don't understand what more feminists need to work on. Women vote more than men, comprise 50% of the work force,only 5% of workforce fatalities, over 50% of the fortune 500, have access to any medical procedures they wish with no barriers, attend college more than men, commit suicide 10 less than men, live longer...

---

quote:

---

And nobody would ever think of sentencing a man to 20 years of slavery (unwanted parenthood) for a stupid mistake.

---

Aren't men sentenced to unwanted parenthood all the time?

That is exactly what women do every day to men, when they have 100% choice about whether to abort or keep an unwanted pregnancy. Women choose, then the men pay for it. Twenty years of 1/4 to 1/3 a mans' salary goes into that same child. Add in the man is not given the benefits of raising that child and you get exactly that-slavery. I do feel that the man seeing his child every other weekend is not parenting-anyone who says that it is, is obviously NOT a parent.

A man and woman are pregnant.

The man waits for her to decide to kill the child, give away the child, or keep the child.If she keeps the child, he then works the equivelent of about 2 years solid, 24/7, to pay for a child for 20 years at 20% of his income and 40 hours a week(these are very conservative numbers.) He has no choice.

The woman has only 9 months of 'slavery' for being pregnant, then she can give up the child with no strings attached, or she can abort with no strings attached, or she can be paid to keep the child.

Seems women have a lot of choices here.

Again, where are those inequalities women have?

No, they don't. Women entering the workforce in salary positions are paid generally higher than men in math/science positions. My husband has seen this first hand in the multi-national company he works in. In non-technical fields, like law, men work on average 10-20 hours more per week than women, which creates the so called wage gap. If you work longer, you should be paid more.
Hourly, women are paid the same hourly wages-by law- and again, work much less than men so are paid less.

They are utterly consumed by one thought: I will not have this baby.

Millions of women, from as far back as we have records, have been in that situation and have been driven harder by that conviction, sometimes, than by their own desire to go on living.

And millions have, indeed, died for it.

Sorry: women choose. You don't even need to give them the legal right to choose, and you don't need to provide them with safe medical care when they do. They will choose anyway. They always have.

quote:

---

. Women choose, then the men pay for it. Twenty years of 1/4 to 1/3 a mans' salary goes into that same child. Add in the man is not given the benefits of raising that child and you get exactly that-slavery.

---

Isolated cases of men skipping out on those obligations have been encountered....

quote:

---

children suffer when resentful males avoid their responsibilities

---

How do you know they're "resentful"? Why can't they just be people who don't want to be a parent, just like women who choose abortion or adoption? Are they necessarily "resentful" of their new life too?

quote:

---

If she keeps the child, he then works the equivelent of about 2 years solid, 24/7, to pay for a child for 20 years at 20% of his income and 40 hours a week(these are very conservative numbers.) He has no choice.

---

And she works 24/7 (probably less than 40 hours/week paid work outside the home--unless some miracle pays childcare for her--but non-stop work all the same) for at least 20 years, and contributes nearly 100% of her income, time, physical and emotional energy and all other resources (as in, everything she has) to raising the baby.

It's one thing to say that men and women should have equal decision making power when it comes to unplanned pregnancies, but I think the reality is that the man, despite legal responsibilities, does not face anywhere near the challenges and serious troubles that a single mom of an unwanted baby has to deal with. It's the woman who will slave away to earn enough money to feed herself and the child, and to keep them both in a safe home with clean clothes and other necessities. It's the woman who's life will be irrevocably altered, all her best laid plans will have to be at least amended, if not scrapped altogether. Her social scene is likely to change, as will all her recreational, educational, and professional activities. EVERYTHING changes in a woman's life when she has a baby (not for better or worse, necessarily, but everything has to adapt to the presence of the child and his/her needs). A man can choose the level of involvement he takes, and therefore has a whole hell of a lot more control over what parts of his life change, and how much.

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Lima Bean ]

Example: If I were to start a thread on female victims of domestic violence, how much discussion on THAT issue would take place before the thread became the second here to focus on female on male domestic violence?

Anyone care to bet on the odds that it would be within three posts?

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]

"It's the woman who will slave away to earn enough money to feed herself and the child, and to keep them both in a safe home with clean clothes and other necessities. It's the woman who's life will be irrevocably altered, all her best laid plans will have to be at least amended, if not scrapped altogether."

OK, The woman should already have to feed, clothe and house herself. The father is not responsible to pay for the mother, only the child. So assuming in the cost of the mother as a cost to parenthood is not relevent. The additional cost of the child should be 50% covered by the father's child support.

The father also may have to scrap plans. Traveling, relocation, future partners, job advancement, college, all may be changed for a man as well.

And being a parent is a 24/7 for both parents. If the mother is being at the very least bit decent the father is getting his minimum 2 weekends a month visits. Right there the weekends are split 50/50 responsibility for the child. The man is also 'losing' half his weekend social life.

Yes, the women get the responsibility of the weekdays. Well, if she is working, then she is spending about 2-3 hours a day with her child during the week (assuming daycare til 5 and a 7-8 pm bedtime). That is a total of 10-15 hours. The man most likely is spending about 8-10 hours working for the money which is going to the child (assuming a 40 hour work week @ 20% support.) So let's see, spend a day with the child, or a day working? Which do you think is better? If you would rather be working, then take the child to his or her dad and go work. I imagine most fathers would jump on the chance to be with their kids every evening.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sisyphus:
...which is why I don't believe in male feminists.

---

quote:

---

How does this jibe with feminist principles? If the substance of feminism is a drive towards equal rights for men and women (and though it hasn't always been, it really should be), then feminists should be prepared to stand up for giving men the same reproductive choices that they enjoy.

---

Some other ideas on freedom of choice, in Eye magazine.

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

My father left and never contributed one dime and the system did not persecute or do anything to him. His loss IMO. My mom went from being a stay at home mum to working 14 hour days to feed and clothe us. We hardly ever saw her.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
I guess the Famous Five were all lousy feminists.

---

Some more

Agreed and very true. I wish the antifeminists believed this about women. They clearly don't. It is perfectly okay for them to vent that hatred on a feminist forum. Apparently not okay for feminists to criticize them for it. Our experiences with deadbeat fathers are ancedotal. Their's with bad women represent the entire or most of the female gender.

BTW, my father's behavior was aided and abetted by the system. He blew it but he was allowed to, by the system.

Still this does not explain why on the feminist forum, I and others here are supposed to drop all discussion of feminist issues to discuss men's pain and men's issues on their terms. There are plenty of other forums available to do that. Plenty.

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]

Female genital mutilation? Yes it happens, and is culturally supported in some countries. How about male genital mutilation? Circumcision. Done for exactly the same reasons, and equally abhorant. But it is commonplace in the western world. Not only that, but feminists from NOW and other left wing groups openly fight any allocation of funds to fight this crime of mutilating our sons. Look at the nearest man you care about. Most likely, his penis was cut apart when he was days old. This very person who is right in front of you. So for any of you who have or will have kids, try fighting for yours.

I guess that is what this is about. The label feminist precludes 50% of the population. And that other 50% has as many disadvantages as women. For every woman who was stuck home there was a man doing a life threatening job(think war, police, fireman, mining). For every breast cancer victim there was a prostate cancer victim. For every woman who was raped there was a man who lost his kids to divorce, or raped in prison
(and yes, I would rather be raped than lose my kids).

Bad things are going on with both sides, yet women seem to think they are the only ones who can be a victim. When we try to bring this up, this inequity of martyrdom, people say we are misogynist. Why is it so hard for you to admit women are not the only ones suffering on this planet? It does not take away from your cause. It does not invalidate it. I love the men in my life-my father, brother, husband, sons, uncles, and their issues are mine, and should be yours as well.

The above doesn't make male circumcision any less wrong. But to imply that the damage is the same is to place an inequality on the genders, meaning that all the above that women go through is the same measure of what males face when circumcised, where the physical complications are much less.

Genital mutilation of women still occurs in the United States and Canada abeit more underground now. It happened in U.S. women until the 1930s to cure nymphomania and lesbianism.

i said nothing about women being the only ones who suffer. Everyone knows men suffer, including everyone here. The point is that people here came here to discuss feminist issues, not men's issues. That decision doesn't negate men's suffering, anymore than discussing men's suffering only at the men's right forum negates women's suffering. Would you go to that site and ever say, what about the women and their suffering? Of course not. I wouldn't go to my fiance's poker game and say, let's not talk poker and talk about bridge instead and only bridge, and if you mention poker, I'll say, "what about bridge?"

Have I said you hate women? Not you specifically.

Do you have any knowlege of who, male or female, I love in my life??? No.

Yet you force false piety on me, assuming I'm a callous person because I choose not to discuss male issues on a feminist forum. Well that's fine. Narrow minded, but fine.

Don't be sad for me, nor assume that I'm callous. If you think that disregarding men's issues on a feminist forum and instead choosing feminist issues to discuss at a feminist forum makes me callous, then what does that exactly say about you?

There are people who do not wish to see women's issues always supplanted by men's issues, especially in a forum specifically set up to discuss women's issues.

For that reason some of us (thanks, Mr. Magoo!) have proposed a "gender issues" forum, for the specific discussion of gender-role issues.

quote:

---

Bad things are going on with both sides, yet women seem to think they are the only ones who can be a victim. When we try to bring this up, this inequity of martyrdom, people say we are misogynist.

---

But why bring it up here? In all forums on this board, there are conventions as to what's on-topic and what's not. The fact that, in this forum, many disrespect the convention doesn't change that.

If you think that the ease and anonymity of Internet posting entitle you to bring up, "courageously," any subject or any point of view anywhere, then I'd challenge you to walk courageously into a Catholic church service, say, and start shouting about how the hierarchy are all criminals who should be shot summarily, then pissed on. Or into an AA meeting and start talking about your preferences in single-malts. Or simply to join a friendly-seeming group of people in some social setting, who happen to be talking about Issue A, and start berating them because they're not talking about Issues B, C, and D, which (in your eyes) are equally or more important.

If a woman came on our board and brought up specific data, as we have done here, we would debate the data, not sling protocol.

No, I think you have proven that your definition of feminism means special treatment for women, and only women. Men do not count.

Feminism has become the new F-word. Just a few more letters. (I like that. I think I will make a new t-shirt)

However, what we have seen today is people coming here, knowing it is intended for those with pro-feminist viewpoints and discussed men's issues and the oppression and suffering of men, not one word about women's suffering or their oppression ANYWHERE in the world except to say well, women may suffer some but men suffer not only as well, but so much more. Women may have breast cancer but men have PROSTATE cancer. The word, 'but' stands in your way in terms of trying to equate these things.

I wouldn't be surprised if you had those negative beliefs about feminism coming in anyway, so being here has not proven anything to you.

Now, I'm off to the men's rights news forum to insist that we discuss female genital mutilation because after all, why should they discuss men's issues when I can come there and tell them what to discuss? What really puzzles me is why if you have such negative attitudes that you want to come here and discuss these topics, teach us the errors of our ways and then make judgements on our lives if we don't respond the way that you want us to.

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]

You talk about the f + three letters word as if it's a bad thing. Funny since another accusation about feminists has been that we're frigid.

oops, that's the f + five letter word.

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogcrazyjen:
I well know, probably better than many on this board, how it is to be a single mother.

---

Reeeealllly?
You know it all do yah? Well, and I'm sure other Babblers will agree, you are not the only woman who has experienced single mother hood.

quote:

---

Female genital mutilation? Yes it happens, and is culturally supported in some countries. How about male genital mutilation? Circumcision. Done for exactly the same reasons, and equally abhorant. But it is commonplace in the western world. Not only that, but feminists from NOW and other left wing groups openly fight any allocation of funds to fight this crime of mutilating our sons. Look at the nearest man you care about. Most likely, his penis was cut apart when he was days old. This very person who is right in front of you. So for any of you who have or will have kids, try fighting for yours.

---

Ha!! Female genital mutilation. Do you even know what it is?
It is cutting off EVERYTHING and sewing it shut! This is done so that a man KNOWS his wife is a tight virgin when he marries her and so she does not recieve any pleasure from sex and will, therefore not stray from the marriage.
Male circumcision, if it were the equivalent of the former, the penis would be cut down to a stub... after all, he can still pee!

My man is circumcised and has no problem enjoying sex. Can you say the same for the woman who has had her clitoris and major (and minor) labia (lips)cut off?

quote:

---

My man is circumcised and has no problem enjoying sex.

---

And if his parents had chopped the end of his nose off he'd still be able to smell too, but would you doubt that he'd been needlessly mutilated by his parents, without his consent, just because his nose still worked o.k.?

(edited to add): I'm not suggesting that male circumcision is "equal to" female genital mutilation. I will, however, suggest that they're both mutilations to children, done without the children's consent, and so they should be equally condemned; there's no need whatsoever to play "zero sum" with them, other than to score victim points.

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

No one is trying to "zero sum" genital mutilation on either gender. You can't -- they are not "equal", as you said yourself.

As for "equally condeming" both practices.
Get real.
If you've been circumcised, your penis is still intact -- you can still have an orgasm, you can still piss in comfort! You're not a victim, those poor women ARE victims!

I just hate when people think it's even close to the same thing. FGM is used simply to "control" women. The same CANNOT be said about male circumcision.
No one says "We're gonna cut off his foreskin so that he doesn't stray from his wife, so he doesn't like sex, so his wife can control him."
This is, however, said about girls who get their sexual organs cut off! CUT FREAKIN' OFF! Completely! DO you get it? Cut completely offffffffff!!!!!!

quote:

---

No one is trying to "zero sum" genital mutilation on either gender.

---

Then why the need to always point out that FGM is worse (and I'm not disagreeing) if not shift attention to it, and away from male circumcision, instead of simply seeing each for what they are: parents cutting off part of a child's body, without the child's consent. What could be more obvious? Here, in big letters:

Circumcision, whether male or female, means cutting off part of a child's body without their consent.

quote:

---

The nose comment was just stupid, btw.

---

I'm sorry you think so. I thought it illustrated that just because a mutilated body part is left in a still functional state after, it's still mutilation. I assume - and hope! - that if a parent chopped off part of their child's nose, that you'd see that as the mutilation that it is. What kind of conditioning has made you think that the end of a penis is any more acceptable? That somehow a child's parents own that child's penis and can do as they wish to it, in a way that they don't own a child's nose??

quote:

---

As for "equally condeming" both practices.
Get real.

---

quote:

---

Bad things are going on with both sides, yet women seem to think they are the only ones who can be a victim. When we try to bring this up, this inequity of martyrdom, people say we are misogynist. Why is it so hard for you to admit women are not the only ones suffering on this planet? It does not take away from your cause. It does not invalidate it. I love the men in my life-my father, brother, husband, sons, uncles, and their issues are mine, and should be yours as well.

---

A couple of things here:

Be wary of generalizing about an entire gender--that's half the population you're talking about, and I hardly think you could ascribe any mode of thinking or perspective to ALL of us. Bad form, that is.

Also, I fully acknowledge that men are victimized by our social constructions in many ways. You cite some good examples with unsafe work, military combat etc. This does not detract from the injustices that women have suffered over the years. This does not negate the necessity of the feminist movement to remain vital and active.

If men are concerned about being subjected to unsafe work or other injustices that seem to be unique to the male portion of society, then I see it as incumbent upon them to take action for change. I would love to see such a movement. I would support it wholeheartedly.

All the same, I'm not about to drop my feminist politics or desire for change just because men are victims of other kinds of injustices. Did men jump up and support women when we wanted to vote? What about when we wanted (and still want) equal pay? What about when we wanted to be able to walk at night without fearing for our bodies' safety, just because we're women? Have men taken up the torch of reproductive rights for us?

The way I see it, if we all fight for what we believe in, both men and women, we can only end up with a more equitable, safer, more balanced society.

My son was not done as an infant and if I ever have another boy, he won't be "done" either.

Sorry Meowful, you are wrong here. It should be a crime no matter what the gender is.

Regardless of the outcome, the act of circumcision should be a crime. Does it suck WAY more for women than men? Yes.

What would men have to have in order for you to consider this equal? A second penis, so that there is one for procreation and one for urination?

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]

Info about the different types of FGM and some effects

FGM is done to inhibit (or destroy) a woman's natural sexual desire.

How anyone can equate the two is completely beyond me.

Like cutting off one's baby toe as opposed to cutting off one's leg.
One has very little effect on quality of life, one has a huge effect.

quote:

---

Like cutting off one's baby toe as opposed to cutting off one's leg.
One has very little effect on quality of life, one has a huge effect.

---

Of course. Would you oppose both being forced on a child, or only the (obviously) worse of the two?

They aren't equal, but they're both wrong. No part of a child - clitoris, foreskin, baby toe or leg - "belongs" to a parent to cut off and throw in the garbage.

Reducing the argument to one of function ignores what mutilation really means: it means someone forcing their will on your body without your consent. Your body part may still function fine afterwards (for example if you've been tattooed against your will), but that's not the point. The point is, someone who isn't you changed your body for you, forever.

If you don't oppose the legality of parents cutting off parts of their children for no medical reason, then you're basically telling them that they own their children's bodies.

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

STOP. Re-read what has been posted.

Nobody is arguing with you about what one is WORSE.

Both acts involve cutting parts of your child's body off against their wills.

Both are wrong. They are different, yes, but, they are both WRONG.

quote:

---

No part of a child - clitoris, foreskin, baby toe or leg - "belongs" to a parent to cut off and throw in the garbage.

---

Also foreskins are not thrown in the garbage. There is actually quite a lot of money to be made from them.

Doctors are paid for them by companies doing research and in turn make great amounts of money.

Saying that enforces an inequality btwn men and women because you are saying that a man losing his foreskin is as abhorrant as a woman losing part of her clitorus(Sunni clitorectormy), all of it(clitorectomy, the most common procedure performed) or it, the labia etc.(Infribulation, practiced in Somalia, Sudan, parts of Ethiopia, Eritrea and other countries) What is so equal about that?

A man's foreskin= woman's clitoris, labia etc. i.e. a woman has to sacrifice more of her body parts, her woman parts to be suffer or be oprressed equally to a man who surrenders considerably less.

Egad!

Egypt and other countries with laws against FGM show how inadequate it is to legislate it out of existance, since it's entrenched as a cultural tradition.

Also, this topic makes me reluctant to post a thread on FGM HERE b/c it would only take a few posts for the conversation to turn around into that involving the 'evils' of male circumcision.

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]

It should be a crime to cut a child's hair (what if at 30 years old he found he wanted to keep his baby hair? Better leave that decision for when he's old enough)

It should be a crime to send your kid to school (what if later in life, he doesn't want to know that in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue?)

It should be a crime to make your child wear clothes, it's completely unnatural....

Good Christ, let's make everything a crime.

quote:

---

It should be a crime to pierce a little girl's ears (what if she doesn't want holes in her ears?)

---

And what if she doesn't? Can I give my child a tattoo as well? I'm sure it won't impede his/her function any. How about a bunch of tattoos and piercings?

I think each person has the right to do with their body what they want, so I don't support piercing body parts or circumcising children when they aren't able to have any say at all in that decision. It's their bodies. Not to say criminalizing body piercing of children makes a lot of sense though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra estrones:
That's sort of my point. I mean, I'm not Christian at all, but some folks say they're not feminist at all. What right do we have to be claiming dibs on certain beliefs, and labelling them how we like?

---

quote:

---

Female genital mutilation? Yes it happens, and is culturally supported in some countries. How about male genital mutilation? Circumcision. Done for exactly the same reasons, and equally abhorant. But it is commonplace in the western world.

---