TOPICS:
SEP 17, 2003 06:09 PM
stwar said:
OK, there are many things I wanted to post but then this just occured to me - is it just me or does anyone else think it's weird that most of the arguing on this thread has been done by men?
Yes. One reason I've lurked and read and not posted.
When there was a thread earlier on, announcing (or publicising, I'm not quite sure which) the existence of a feminist group here in the Groups section, the longest discussion that went on in that thread was between Cubist Poet and myself. (Two men, in case that wasn't clear, heh.)
As a counterpoint, I'd add that most of the negative comments directed at feminism on that thread came from female SG members.
The world is a complex place, no? 
SEP 17, 2003 07:52 PM
Uncognitive said:
So you don't know if you're talking about "most feminists", but you have iron-clad yet unproven certainty that you're talking about "many" feminists.
No, it is proven. As I said before, I base that statement on personal experience. I've been to feminist meetings, rallies, and concerts. I've talked to thousands of feminists, hundreds of those who made it clear that they saught to debase the male population to some degree. I saw the 'a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" shirts (guess what, that's debasing).
Actually I did. You brought up Title IX, which isn't "debasing men" if you ask me, and you brought up some random unattributed quote about "all men are potential rapists", which I also don't think "debases men".
You don't think that claiming that all men are potentially violent assailants is a debasing statement? Would you feel the same say if I went around saying that all women were potential gold diggers? whores? I guarantee that there would be plenty of people claiming that I was demeaning and debasing women if I said that.
About Title IX, are you joking or have you just been living under a rock for the past 20-30 years? While the goal and intent behind Title IX was certainly worthwhile, the interpretation and application of it has been used many times to damage male sports programs in ways that in no way further or aid the cause of encouraging female participation in sports (which isn't to say that it hasn't been used to help female sports a great deal, but to say that it has been used to damage male college sports programs in ways and circumstances in which there was no benefit for female programs to be had at all). The use of the proportionality test as the only safe harbour from investigation and litigation has caused huge and widespread damage to male sports in the US. When a commision was formed to review this and other factors of Title IX, it was almost universally decried by feminist organizations.
When the commision announced it's recommendations for the law to be clarified, and for means to be provided to show Title IX compliance in the other tests besides strict proportionality, as well as recommendations that male sports not be cut or capped simply to satisfy proportionality, this was also widely decried by feminist organizations.
Here's the commissions report.
http://www.aahperd.org/nagws/title9/pdf/CommissionFinalReport.pdf
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=7472
Womens groups have vowed to fight the attack on Title IX, rallying yesterday outside of the Hotel Washington, where the Commission meetings are being held. In the audience at the hearings today were Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women and Martha Burk, president of the National Council of Womens Organizations, as well as Donna Lopiano of the Womens Sports Foundation and leaders of the National Womens Law Center. Sharyn Tejani, legal director of the Feminist Majority, and Smeal spent the day briefing press on the impact of Title IX on women and girls.
Ah, so even if a large majority of organized feminist organizations take political action to protect abortion rights, it can't be a "feminist goal" because 100% of feminists don't subscribe to it.
Ok, so now I"m attacked for being exact in my wording? Can you blame me considering how much effort you put into twisting misinterpretting and changing what I say?
I didn't say that they represented a "majority of feminists"
Actually, what you said was
I've provided plenty of examples that, to me, show how a large majority of modern feminism is either geared towards protecting existing rights (i.e. the right to privacy as applied to abortion) or, as you phrased it, "fighting for equality in other areas".
To which I responded that you hadn't even begun to prove a large majority, to which you responded with those three organizations. So I'll repeat, to continue your argument to conclusion you now need to show that these organizations represent a (and sorry I was mistaken in using the word majority, you actually said "large majority) "large majority" of feminists.
Wow, no wonder you have trouble keeping track of what I said, you can't even keep track of what YOU said.
, just that they represent more of the feminist movement than this phantom army of "man demeaning" feminists you claim exists.
1) that's not what you said.
2) nobody was claiming otherwise.
Robin Morgan, the woman who made that quote (and who also said that the women's movement would eventually free men as well) was never the president of NOW. She was the editor of Ms. for three years. So that gives us one person who said something that you think debases men.
You're right, she was never president of NOW, my mistake. And yes, that's one person along with all of those people who support her. Did you forget about those? These people are considered feminist leaders for a reason.
Really? Care to show me this "plenty of support", or are you just making a baseless assumption?
Oh come on, are you really going to try arguing that Dworkin hasn't enjoyed feminist support? You're kidding right?
Try this quote from the guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,511930,00.html
The feminists who adore her and flock to her lectures sit so rapt it is tempting to use the word rapture
Not to mention that for any womens studies or gender bias courses in college your've got a great chance of seeing her work as required reading.
Or you could stroll over to the Andrea Dworkin website and be proven wrong. I dislike Dworkin for her stance on many issues, but I don't think she's "debasing men"
Hahaha... did you even read that page? Nothing on it responds to what I said.
Even if I did agree that she is, that now gives us two feminists who "debase men".
two feminists and also their supporters
SCUM was never and still isn't an organization. It was an essay written by one woman, Valerie Solanis. Much like Dworkin, care to show me what "support" it has other than being "hosted all over the internet"?
You mean besides the support that she had from NOW, who's New York chapter leader described her as "the first outstanding champion of women's rights." and another leading member Florynce Kennedy described her as "one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement"
http://www.womynkind.org/valbio.htm
Hmmmm?
Come on now Uncognitive, this stuff isn't exactly secret. If you aren't aware of this, you shouldn't be arguing the subject.
Oh, so it's my fault for not notcing the "many" "man-hating feminists" you can't provide examples of.
Yeah uncognitive, it is your fault. If I were to make the claim that there were a lot of toyotas on the road I'd have a real hard time supporting that. I could point to buying and ownership statistics, but none of that comprises solid evidence of actual toyotas on the road. At some point you have to be able to walk outside and open your damned eyes to the truth though. That I can't provide a list of 10,000 toyota drivers in no way invalidates the claim.
Maybe if I close my eyes and believe in them really, really hard, they will appear like cranky elves. 
Your eyes are already closed, maybe if you try opening them...
And examples of those actions would be what, exactly?
When morgan says that it's not fair to bring a womans sexual history into a trial, but it is fair to imprison men who haven't been proven to have broken any laws... that example enough?
Again, this all rests on what your personal definition of "demeaning men" is. What actions do these feminists take that take away the *rights* of men? What *rights* did men used to have that have been taken away by feminism?
Wow you're all KINDS of confused now aren't you. For one, you'd think after all of the complaining I'd done you'd at long last make sure that you weren't misrepresenting my statements, but no, there you go again. A little trivia for you, I haven't used the word demean ONCE in this discussion. And yet there you go putting it in quotes.
For another, I don't think that ANYONE has made any claims about women denying any rights to men... Where'd you get that from anyway? Do you just *make up* arguments to respond to?
I don't presume to speak for Morgan, but I don't lay the blame for feminism's "bad rep" just on examples of feminist radicals.
Feminisms "bad rep" naturally doesn't have strictly radical feminists to blame, but that's where a very healthy portion of the blame belongs... It's that section of their population that very actively threatens the rest of the population, and therefore is very rightfully considered threatening.
Plus, this "bad rep" varies on how you define feminism. "Feminism" can include such things as saying that women should have the right to vote, or have the right to enter the workplace. It includes wanting to end domestic violence and rape.
How delightfully irrellevant... You do know what a "reputation" is right? You do know that the entire problem is that the "bad rep" doesn't] vary on how you define feminism, right...? That's the point, one faction of feminists does or says something, and the entire group gets a bad reputation for it.
Your arguement was "many" as in "a large indefinite number of" feminists were acting to "advance women by demeaning men".
Right? Am I misrepresenting you?
YES, I'm dumbfounded, but you are yet again misrepresenting me. You're quoting me as saying something that I never said. I can't fucking believe it. After all of that, you can't even be bothered to check your damned quotes.
You haven't proven the "large" portion of that. You've thrown out hypotheticals, but have shown examples of three actual people, zero actual organizations and zero actual political actions that qualify. You want everyone to assume that there's a large number of man-hating feminists out there.
I've shown examples of three people who each enjoyed or enjoys large feminist support, one organization (two actually, as NOW threw it's support behind Solanas), and one 30 year political action. I could keep on going if you want, but it's going to start getting boring.
Not to mention that Morgan herself provided testimony...
I believe it's a vocal minority
In a population as large as the feminist population is, any minority that is heard will have to be sizeable. If there weren't many of them, they wouldn't even be a vocal minority.
Except for the Ms. magazine message boards, those ladies are nuts.
Gee, they have around 7500 members...
stwar
United Kingdom
October 2002
SEP 17, 2003 05:11 PM