It's all well and good to criticize chastity belts, but I don't see much discussion of a gigantic force that always holds women down-- gravity.

That's right, gravity is designed to benefit men, who have thicker bones. Gravity causes women to fall to their deaths out of windows. It makes buildings collapse, hitting women the hardest. It messes-up women's cars when an inconsiderate construction man topples from the tenth floor and smacks into the hood, spraying blood and organs all over the place.

The laws of physics were written long before women had any voice. If women had had more input, the laws of physics would have been kinder, gentler, and more nurturing, rather than conflict-oriented. But we can undo this oppressive, patriarchal so-called 'natural order' which stops women from rising. And we can do this by demanding huge special assistance programs so we can look forward to the day when women finally overcome this heavy burden and soar high into the clouds.

You just reached new heights in paranoid ranting. If you think that contraception is an unnatural evil designed only to benefit wicked women who don't want to wear out their bodies with repeated child-bearing, I'm sure you're willing to forgo other unnatural medications that prevent wear and tear on your body. You know, like cholestorol medication, asthma drugs and the like.

Well excuse me for speaking-out against the things that prevent women from rising. I think you're not very serious when it comes to exposing the forces that conspire to drag women down!

(And I don't understand why so many people get the impression that many self-described feminists have no sense of humor and get offended way too easily. How do people ever come-up with silly notions like that?)

I'm sure we find your name-calling and mocking about as funny as you find the insults tossed at you. You know, insults like: you've gone off the deep end, you're full of self-loathing, you are threatened by women, you're overcompensating for some kind of uh deficiency, you've got mommy issues, etc. Funny, right?

C- it's funny you should mention that. Winning arguments through intimidation and shame-based name-calling is usually the option of first resort among the most regular posters here.

"You think my arguments are based on self-serving double-standards, one-sided and selective descriptions of society, specious claims of victimhood and undisguised attempts to tap-in to female anger with emotionally-manipulative oversimplifications? Well, that's because you're sexist and racist and you subconsciously yearn to dominate and control me! I'm oppressed in ways that only I can describe and your refusal to defer to my wishes is just further proof of my oppression!"

By now, I'm sure you've discovered you can handily quiet most critics that way. "I'm a victim, so shut up" is the nucleus of every counter-argument here. The discourse literally rises no higher than that. If you ever wonder why I show so little respect, it's because I can't respect any person who tries to win their arguments by pretending to be a victim in an attempt to exploit other people's desire to be fair. It's conniving, manipulative, dishonest and cowardly.

Ladies, it isn't like you *have* to observe Abstinence Week. There people who choose to do it and those who don't. Then there are those who see it as their god given talent to bitch that an idea is bad, WHILE NOT SUGGESTING A BETTER ONE INSTEAD. That's the key. Until your "better" idea comes along observe a respectful silence for those who are actually acting against a problem.

As for better choices; the choice women have is that they can either choose abstinence or they can risk pregnancy. Quite frankly fuck off with the "give me more choices." I mean, that's the same exact choice men have. They too can only abstain or risk getting a girl pregnant. They too have been told to fuck off when asking for "more choices" with pregnancies. So I won't be remise if I suggest things be equal and fair.

Oh yes, women aren't sluts at all. When they sleep around with fifty men in one night it's not because they have a lack of morals or are sluts. It's called be LIBERATED.

Sorry to burst your bubble, sweethearts, but men AND women who have sex with anything that moves are sluts in my books.

With the divorce rate being as atrocious as it is, it must mean only one thing: the men must want 15 year old virgin girls barefoot in the kitchen. Oh WAIT. SORRY. Women initiate 75% of all divorces. Guess they must get tired of screwing the same man out of his money, thanks to current divorce laws.

Instead of practising chastity week, why not practice SAFE and RESPONSIBLE sex. Or better yet, teach young women the have STANDARDS so that they don't spread their legs to everything that comes their way. Don't thank me for this rant, thank the likes of Britney Spears and Cosmopolitans that have created a new generation of Lolitas.

Maybe Bush was right to undertake abstinance. At least it's teaching students to have morals.
-DingBat

PS. BTW, I'm female, so before you go on calling me sexist or patriarchal, think of this: todays society isn't just unfair to men, but it's degrading to women.

Hey Vox. Just because you mistakenly think your hostile and unfunny jokes are a riot doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humor. You've been pitchforked way too many times by my jokes to honestly think that you tired stereotype can be true.

As for the rest of you--give me a break. How fucking dumb do you have to be to think that "sluttiness" is what gets women pregnant and that pregnancy is a proper punishment? Any sexually active heterosexual woman is a likely candidate for pregnancy, especially if she isn't using contraception as you wish.

Men have choices, too. Wrap it up if you don't want a baby. And fall on your knees and thank a feminist that you have that option because if it weren't for feminists' hard work, there wouldn't be any legal contraception for you.

Hey you kids- listen to Amanda. She's right, you know. If it weren't for the groundbreaking work of feminists, we wouldn't have such social innovations as:

A movement that claims to represent all women, while overlooking the embarassing fact that most women won't identify themselves with it.

Very spirited denials that battered lesbians exist (because admitting it would undermine the idea that women are never violent in their relationships.)

Defense for women who gave birth to drug-addicted infants because of smoking crack while pregnant (prosecuting the mother for child abuse might suggest that fetuses have rights.)

Huge numbers of corporations and organizations that are absolutely terrified of being falsely accused of sex-discrimination, (thusly making companies leery of hiring women.)

And there are many more things, too! The list goes on and on.

"Very spirited denials that battered lesbians exist (because admitting it would undermine the idea that women are never violent in their relationships.)"

That's just bizarre. Who do you think has denied that battered lesbians exist?

Why, a number of abused lesbians out there have made exactly that "bizarre" charge.

Here's an article which touches on the subject in the Greenwich Village Gazette: http://www.gvny.com/columns/guests/girshick03-09-01.html

The person who wrote that article clearly is a feminist, so she's doing the groundbreaking work of feminism. And incidentally, Amanda blogged about woman on woman rape a week ago. You know: Amanda. A real feminist. A person who bears very little resemblence to the fantasy feminist who exists only in your head.

True feminism champions equality for both sexes, correct? There are two ways to do this 1)you can either rise to the 'level' through hard work or 2)drag those above you down to you.

Real feminism chose option 2, so as a "real" feminist you need only deride male accomplishment to get equality. In this way, yes, Amanda is most certainly a real feminist.

Well Sally, that settles it beyond a doubt: no one ever denied the existence of female abusers, even though the article I referenced is mainly about that subject. It's good that you're willing to not see the things that go against the conclusions that you have a fond emotional attachment to. Whatever makes you feel good must be correct.

Now Ryan, be nice-- you're just angry because you are being told to give-up your life of untrammeled power and privilege. Your so-called 'logical reasoning' never rises any higher than the crudest and basest self-interest, which is why you have problems adjusting to all the sublime intellectuality that is getting bandied-about around here. I respectfully suggest that you get yourself a bigger brain in order to match what comes naturally to Sally and Amanda. Once you learn to stand on your hind legs and make the right phrases, you'll be minimally tolerated.

"Well Sally, that settles it beyond a doubt: no one ever denied the existence of female abusers, even though the article I referenced is mainly about that subject."

What you said, actually, was that denying the existence of female abusers was a feminist innovation. And that article proves exactly the opposite. Feminists didn't need to innovate in order to deny woman-on-woman violence: the mainstream culture was doing just fine at that. The feminist innovation was to *attend* to lesbian domestic violence, not to ignore it. You only know about the issue because feminists brought it to your attention. And my hunch is that none of the Feministing ladies would deny woman on woman domestic violence. I certainly haven't seen them do so.

Incidentally, if you read a lot of feminist thought, you will hear about many other instances of bad things that feminists have done. Feminists have always examined and criticized our own movement in an attempt to make the movement better. We have always debated, sometimes bitterly, how to address our imperfections and exclusions. Feminism has always been imperfect, and feminists are usually aware of this. You can, and I'm sure will, use these debates to discredit the movement, but to me, it's a sign of our strength that we're willing to raise and discuss our own problems. And it fundamentally disproves your notion that feminists are self-satisfied ideologues who never challenge their own assumptions.

Anyway, it's a waste of time arguing with you, since you possess a delightful combination of ignorance, stubbornness, arrogance, and stupidity, so I think I'm done with you.

"we're willing to raise and discuss our own problems. And it fundamentally disproves your notion that feminists are self-satisfied ideologues who never challenge their own assumptions."

Sally, I whole heartedly laughed out loud when I read that. Willing to raise and discuss your own problems? Really?! You can say the words but it doesn't make them true. Taking this site for the example. These women hate to see men call them on falicies in their posts. How do they respond? The way you word it makes it sound like they actually listen to the argument *then* respond. Sometimes I can swear that they just jump into calling him a jerk-mysogenist without actually reading ANYTHING he writes. What? Can you only criticize yourself or something?

If this site is any indication of what feminism is then it means that feminists are self-satisfied ideologues who never challenge their own assumptions.

I'm going to avoid all of the above completely and just throw in my 2 cents.

My problems with things like "Chastity Awareness Week" are not with the concept of chastity itself. Should you wait until you find the right person? Hell yes!

However, living in Texas for the past 10-11 years, I've found that things of this nature usually look ONLY at chastity and abstinence and are used as a *replacement* for contraceptives. The kids here are getting told that they need to wait until after marriage, yes, but at the same time they're getting told that condoms just plain don't work (the sex ed programs at my high school were quite literally a joke). I have a serious problem with that.

Secondly, these programs tend to presuppose two things: first, that everyone subscribes to a religion or belifs system that makes sex before marriage a sin (should you wait until you find the right person? Hell yes! Should a ring be a requisite? Not necessarily!). Secondly, these programs, in ignoring or debasing birth control, are assuming that, once a woman gets married, she wants to risk getting pregnant every time she has sex. Somehow, I think not. No matter how much you love children, I'm pretty sure most mothers would appreciate a break every now and then.

In principle, I'm not against chastity programs. It's just that, in practice, they tend to create just as many problems as they solve.

Personally, I'm waiting for the day someone can be completely nonpartisan and just teach "Hey! Wait for sex! It's worth it, damnit! But when you do get it on, here's how to lessen the chances of getting a bun in the oven before you're ready!"