he's going to start treating us as equals, the way we deserve? yeah, i'll believe that when i see it.

Yeah, he hasn't been harsh enough. Go ahead, call us sluts, whores, cunts, and tell us we deserve to be raped, beaten, and abused. We're not going anywhere.

Besides, who else is going to push the baby-killing-as-foreplay agenda? It MUST be done!

"I have come to the firm conclusion that I’ve not been nearly harsh enough in my treatment of feminists. And today I plan to start treating them the way they deserve to be treated."

It's almost an outright threat, isn't it. It almost implies he's going to start physically hurting feminists. Or, more likely, he will encourage others to do so, while maintaining a flimsy plausible deniability.

I like the fact that to support his anti-feminism, he cites his lack of belief in evolution.

What's his supporting evidence for, say, opposing gay rights? An attack on the concept of gravity?

“..the way they deserve to be treated.� What the fuck does he mean by that? This guy’s a college professor!?!

I love his Feminists = Charles Manson analogy. He could work for the Onion.

I'm finding myself wishing that a lot of things are satire, lately, no matter how clear it is that they're not. The fact that people actually think like this is just overwhelming.

He's right about one thing, though: dead babies are HOT. Maybe if the world would just accept our dead baby fetish, we wouldn't have to hide under this guise of equality, anymore. I mean, why do they think that we yell out "oh, BABY" in bed, anyway?

Okay, I'm just going to stop now.

It sounds like Mr. Adams is just about ready to give us all spankings and send us to bed without supper. We have been very naughty girls.

Lack of scientific evidence in Darwinism? While Darwin wasn't 100% correct, the theory of evolution has stood up remarkable well over the years.

And while reproductive issues are important to feminists, why do people think it is the only issue. What about stopping violence against women, or equal pay, etc.

When he says he is going to treat feminists the way they deserve to be treated, does that mean he will pay a woman the same amount as a man and not treat her in a sexist and condescending manner?

Actually, bear, I'm getting the deep and unsettling sense that he means he's going to beat and rape us whenever we come in contact. But hopefully he just means that he's going to keep acting like a major jackass who is bitter because every woman he's ever met doesn't want to have sex with him and/or have his babies.

The only way to deal with a reactionary attention-whore like Adams is to deny him that which he craves.

You're making our high school look bad, Mikey.

Replace "whore" with "junkie" in my above comment, it's more apt and less charged.

I had know idea dead babies could be so useful! And here I've just been eating them.

"Babies...not just for breakfast anymore!"

Choice does seem to be the sole unifying issue for feminists. Other issue areas such as race relations or even grooming decisions will have those who identify as feminist in conflict as soon as the discussion moves beyond friendly banter.
The movement certainly is centered around a practice that is not joyful or life-affirming even if it is sometimes a grim necessity. You don't have to be against abortion rights to find enthusiasm for the practice distasteful.

"I have come to the firm conclusion that I’ve not been nearly harsh enough in my treatment of feminists. And today I plan to start treating them the way they deserve to be treated."

Yes, because we sluts just love a little rough treatment.

I'm disgusted. I think I'm going to vomit.

BadMartin, not sure if this is good or bad, but just sayin: there are feminists who are pro-life.

So really there is no unifying factor, except that we all agree women should be treated like human beings. How to accomplish that is what we're less in agreement about.

You know- this guy reminds me of a rap video. They both cover tiresome subjects. Why does the arguement against feminism always fall back on the right to choose? Why do people think that if the choice [to have an abortion] was removed, all abortions would stop? It isn't that feminists in general want to see babies killed, it's the simple fact that if the choice has been made (for whatever reason) to terminate a pregnancy we only want a safe, clean facility that SHOULD allow a measure of confidentiality.

Besides- why don't they ever bring up the OTHER issues that feminists argue for? Like the equal pay, and fair treatment stuff? They never argue that... but then, maybe that would just lead to an over-due asswhooping from the ladies! Hell hath no fury...
:)

This guy's a university professor? How did he even pass university with such poor logical argument and critical thinking skills?

Perhaps he threatened to shoot the dean's dog.

"slut-sympathizer-slash-sociologist"

WTF x10

Scumbag indeed, but are these people even worth engaging? Like you can't argue with someone that crazy, and even trying to refute him make it seem like he could potentially have a point that could be proven or disproven through rational debate.

Whenever I'm feeling lazy and unmotivated to do something I always think of sexist asshsoles i've met. It usually gets me all hyped up and gives me the motivation to do work to help put myself in a position where I can prove the assholes wrong. This guy has just given me another motivation for when I'm sitting around trying to decide which of the million projects i'm tossing around in my head, to work on first

fuck the ignorant assholes...I can't believe they think it's okay to talk like this...and usually they're the first ones to tote Christian Virtues.....blows my mind

The fact this biologist acquiesced to Adams' assertion there's no evidence for evolution means:
a)the biologist is an ignorant and unqualified idiot, since there is evidence and it's sound and a professional should know that.
b)Adams is lying through his teeth.
c)Adams is telling the truth as he remembers it but he's wrong about how the conversation went.
d)This is based on some hairsplitting point such as the difference between Darwin's original theories and modern evolutionary theory (which has a lot of genetic aspects Darwin didn't since the existence of genes and DNA wasn't known at the time of writing).
I'd write more, but I'm too erotically aroused from thinking about those dead babies. Ohhh, man.

I named my vibrator "dead baby"

Sam Clemens had this clown pegged:

"He's issing into the wind before a self assembled crowd."

So, I just got back from having a lunch break. However, all I've had is an apple because I was really hungry for having an abortion of Mike Adam's baby. And then, you know, eating it. Raw. *slurp*.

What I'm boggling at is the manipulation of the sociologist's (oh, sorry -- slutologist's) words, which are clearly about rape (i.e., a woman getting pregnant by a man she "might not know" and "might not even like"). A few sly linguistic maneuvers and POOF! we all want to PRESERVE OUR RIGHT to have sex with strangers who we don't like!

Yep. That's why *I* vote.

Why do people think that if the choice [to have an abortion] was removed, all abortions would stop?

This attitude always amazed me, too. In the fantasy world these people live in, no one in human history ever drowned or exposed an infant. No one ever used herbal abortifacents, either.
Nope, prior to the invention of abortion as a medical procedure, there was no such thing as an "unwanted" pregnancy.

The feminists invented that concept, because they're evil baby-haters.

I just got a message, I thought I'd share it:

Shinobi! Your search "People so stupid they are not worth the carbon they are based on" has new results!

Newest Entry: Mike Adams

“The movement certainly is centered around a practice…�

BadMartin, it might be more a case that *opposition to* feminism is centered around choice, along with the resultant publicity. Choice gets the most highly charged response from opponents and politicians, so it makes for good TV.

Opponents of feminism seem to successfully portray feminism exactly the way you’ve stated it, that feminism is simply about abortion and nothing more. That way they label the entire movement as immoral. Remember Falwell blaming feminists for 9/11? Feminists, abortionists, and gays, I think.

The easiest moral “sell� against feminism is abortion, so that’s what opponents stick to…because they might get tongue-tied if they tried to talk about preferring a patriarchal society that keeps women “in their place�, popping out kids and fetching slippers. Even though that’s exactly what many opponents of feminism prefer.

How often do you see anything in the press about something as mundane as the pay gap? Not often enough, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Goodyear case notwithstanding. Not a whole lot of publicity about it, though, and yet it persists, damaging millions of women every single day.

The need to be treated equally is probably something feminists have very little disagreement on. I would call equal treatment a more unifying issue than choice, despite media portrayals.

"the feminist mantra that a 'woman has right to control her body' is not a reference to the fetus at all. It is simply a reference to her own body and her desire to share it with those she 'might not know' and “might not even like'.�

This is bad?

I'm torn. He clearly writes the most provocative way possible to the maximum amout of attention. So the best thing would be to completely ignore him and not give him the attention he so clearly craves.

Yet at what point is something so cravenly written that it needs a response?

I doubt his piece's audience is for anyone other than feminists. He's not trying to convince non-feminists (both women and men) to agree with him. He wants feminists to get angry at him. His argument is so name-calling and hostile and frankly non-sensical that it's not even really an argument but one long insult.

Jessica, essentially he wrote it for you, and women like you (bloggers) to get angry at him. And it work. He's hoping you'll write about it and then he can gleeful write about your anger about him.

Again, I'm torn. I think ignoring the little fucker might actually be the way to make him mad. But sometimes things are so vile it's hard to ignore. But honestly, I would suggest maybe, in the interest of denying him oxygen, not writing about him anymore. The less Technorati hits he gets the better for us.

Oh my god, this pig is a professor?! I guess it's not surprising seeing as how he's teaching in NC. And WTF about the "freely fornicating biologist" and " slut-sympathizer-slash-sociologist"? So if this biologist sleeps with a woman he's just met, that's just Darwinian, but if the girl sleeps around, she's a dirty whore. That's one hell of a rehashed double standard if I ever saw one. What an asshat.

What is really disturbing about Adams's argument, aside from its misogyny, is the selectivity of it. Adams ignores the fact that men are also having sex with women they "might not 'know' and 'might not even like.' Men are equally complicit with unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Pregnancies require that a man and a woman have sex. Adams ignores this, and instead lumps all of his hatred and bigotry onto women.

Apparently, Adams believes it's ok for men to have casual sex with women, but not for women to have casual sex with men, and that women have to deal with the consequences on their own. Men cannot be held accountable, because they cannot be considered a part of the problem, at least not for Adams.

I suggest we contact the advertisers of townhall.com, where Adams's columns are published, and inform them of the hateful and threatening comments made against women.

What is really disturbing about Adams's argument, aside from its misogyny, is the selectivity of it. Adams ignores the fact that men are also having sex with women they "might not 'know' and 'might not even like.' Men are equally complicit with unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Pregnancies require that a man and a woman have sex. Adams ignores this, and instead lumps all of his hatred and bigotry onto women.

Apparently, Adams believes it's ok for men to have casual sex with women, but not for women to have casual sex with men, and that women have to deal with the consequences on their own. Men cannot be held accountable, because they cannot be considered a part of the problem, at least not for Adams.

I suggest we contact the advertisers of townhall.com, where Adams's columns are published, and inform them of the hateful and threatening comments made against women.

My understanding of (and disrespect for) the underpinnings of modern feminism was actually fostered by a biologist who once made a very candid remark about the foundation of his support of Darwinism.

It is typically the anti-feminists whose attitudes and arguments rely on biological predeterminism (i.e, "Darwinism").

Mike's comment looks to me like thinly veiled, nonsensical pandering to anti-science fundies.

BadMartin, not sure if this is good or bad, but just sayin: there are feminists who are pro-life.

So really there is no unifying factor, except that we all agree women should be treated like human beings. How to accomplish that is what we're less in agreement about.

True that, Legally Blondeez.

(Random stats: when you break down the "middle" part of how women feel about abortion - i.e. the area between keeping current legislation and making it completely illegal - it turns out that a lot of women want substantial restrictions on the procedure. Some 51% of women, according to a Princeton study, either want a complete ban or legality only for life, health, rape, and incest. Yet, some 88% of women identify themselves as feminists. That means that there's at least 27% of the women out there who are both pro-life and feminist.

"Feminists want to have sex without getting pregnant and therefore are murdering whores. Yeah, that's a new one."

Actually that's not new at all. Pro-life Christian zealots (and their like minded kind in other religions) have hated women (all women) for that exact reason probably since the dawn of civilization. What distinguishes humans from every other animal (except dolphins) is that the females have the ability to enjoy sex, and with the use of science can regulate the procreating process within themselves. Christian zealots hate both realities, because they dictate that the future of humanity can be determined by the will of women rather than by the will of god. Men can only control the future of humanity if they can control women, but women are not dependent on men to determine their own destiny or choose when and where they want to procreate (if they want to procreate at all). He who controls the uterus controls the universe, but the only way "he" will control the uterus, is if he rapes her or shames her into giving him complete dominance.

"I have come to the firm conclusion that I’ve not been nearly harsh enough in my treatment of feminists. And today I plan to start treating them the way they deserve to be treated."

hahahahahaha
hahaha
hahahaha
oh man. I'm shakin in my baby murderin' boots.

BadMartin, not sure if this is good or bad, but just sayin: there are feminists who are pro-life.

There are also anti-racists who support Jim Crow! Just because you call yourself a feminist, doesn't make you one. I think the idea that women have a right to bodily autonomy is pretty much a core value of feminism. Certainly there are feminists whose own personal ethics don't jibe with abortion, but who support the right of women who don't share their values to have one. That makes them pro-choice. But women who think other women don't have the right to determine if and when they will have babies? Women who think the government has the right to use women as ambulatory incubators? Women who think rights that no born person has should be granted to an embryo to the complete detriment of the woman carrying it? Not feminists. Sorry. That's the patriarchy in a nutshell: women aren't people, they're vessels! Advocating this line of thinking is anti-woman, plain and simple. I don't care how much you advocate for equal pay or an end to domestic violence and rape, as long as you believe that women aren't autonomous human beings who have a right to self-determination, you are holding women back. Why should women get equal pay when they could be home having babies like they're supposed to? Why shouldn't men rape women or beat them up? It's not like women have the right to determine what happens to their own bodies. The "women aren't people" nonsense that is the foundation of the anti-choice philosophy is also the root of every other problem women are up against. Anti-choice is anti-feminist.

This guy's a university professor? How did he even pass university with such poor logical argument and critical thinking skills?

Perhaps he threatened to shoot the dean's dog.

Wouldn't shock me. He'd tie it up, first, though--he's a fan of the canned hunt. Shooting tame animals tied to trees in a 5' x 10' paddock makes his dick feel bigger.

"Women who think the government has the right to use women as ambulatory incubators?"

More correctly they want to give government jurisdiction over the womb.

As a man I am pro-life in that I would be against my wife getting an abortion (if god forbid our BC method failed), but as voter and a citizen I am pro-choice, because I do not want government to be granted possession of my daughter's or my wife's body. Our bodies belong to the jurisdiction of no one, save ourselves. That's more than just a feminism position, that's a pro-privacy position based on a desire to keep the control over one's own body kept out of the political or judicial clutches.

it seems that this diatribe is devoid of any knowledge of history and science, let alone a coherent logical statement.

i am not a woman, but i am a feminist, and i think that his rail against feminism and that it is only imployed to have more sex at the expense of babies(i can't even understand the gall to type something like that, first of all) skirts on something important.

if we take his argument seriously for one second (as much willpower as it takes) he seems to leave out feminists who a)are celibate b)are in monogamous relationships c) are men d)are in sexual relationship that would not yield a pregnancy and many other groups and individuals that i can't seem to conjure right now.

one of the issues of combatting the negative stigma on feminism is the monolithic stereotypes that have no basis in the real world.

adams' new definition of feminism (ha!) fails to account for the myriad people, backgrounds, and life trajectories feminists embody.

and i bet you he knows that and it scares him.

"and i bet you he knows that and it scares him."

someone with that much hate inside them is obviously VERY afraid of a LOT of things.