Anti-feminist mail bag!
Sometimes one sentence speaks a thousand idiocies:
You come across as a man hating group - the only reason nobody does or says anything is because you hide behind your vaginas.
The depth of thought is astounding.
*Scurries back behind labia*
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Anti-feminist mail bag!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/8251
Jesus that's funny. The visual image made me laugh out loud. Maybe he's hoping you accuse him of hiding behind his penis, with the accompanying obvious implication?
Clearly he/they don't read the side or they would see there is plenty of debate and exchange, not only among women but among men and women and men and men who read and participate.
Of course I must be a "self-hating man" who cowtows to women because I'm interested in progress and equality, just like I'm a pacifist because I'm a liberal. Lol.
I'm wielding my vagina as a shield right now, actually. It's a little tough to hold onto at first, but once you get the hang of it, it really deflects those tractor beams.
hahaha I didn't know my vagina granted me ultimate protection! What's next, invisibility?
miktacular, after the age of 50 or so (your mileage may vary), your vagina WILL grant you invisibility!
Well, sometimes having a vagina does grant invisibility... that is to say... we get ignored by virtue of having XX chromosomes rather than XY.
Hiding behind it though... how... that seems foolish and dangerous.
For the record, though, I don't hate men, but I only like the ones who treat me like a person... that's about 50/50...
I have actually never heard the plural form of vagina used so you have to at least hand him that.
Wouldn't it be more logical to hide inside a vagina? Just sayin'.
Gotta love it - advocating for women's rights must mean that we hate men...
DEPLOYING VAGINA SHIELD! (Now this guy can't say anything to me! HA!)
Flyinfur: Well said- however, there are numbers of men out there who appreciate maturity and experience. Others however try to live a second childhood.
Has anyone else here noticed how these letters have a pattern? As soon as I saw the headline, I immediately began guessing at the content of the letter...
1. "You all are man-haters."
2. "You all are lesbian bull-dykes"
3. "You all need to suck my d*ck"
4. "You all need to make me a samich"
Seems like those four themes are repeated a lot- well, I hit one out of four in this letter anyways
Ha! That's great!
Am I the only one it makes want to actually MAKE a vagina shield for the next feminist protest of interest? We can march along together with them like Roman centurions. LOL
Feminists often come across as man-haters, and many people on this site are no exception. This is what I hate about populist feminism. Many women are too busy hating reality and dissing men to actually achieve clarity about what they can do.
Stop reacting, gals. Become intelligent and fight the damn beast inside first. It's natural to feel betrayal in your 20s, but get over it as quickly as possible so you can move on to real progress.
Wait, so all this time I was hiding behind vaginas because it was fun and exciting, but really it was the VAGINAS that were keeping me safe?!
So this is the future you want for me and all young girls? You want us all to be man-hating, world-hating, cynical, obscene, vulgar, and cruel? You want us all to hate everyone who disagrees with us? I must ask, how can you all live with so much hate? Seriusly, thanks for all you've done for teenage girls like me. This site is soooo inspiring and empowering to me/sarcasm. Just spending a little time on this site makes me want to throw myself under a bus. I never ever ever EVER want to be like you women.
"DEPLOYING VAGINA SHIELD!"
i love it!
"So this is the future you want for me and all young girls? You want us all to be man-hating, world-hating, cynical, obscene, vulgar, and cruel? You want us all to hate everyone who disagrees with us? I must ask, how can you all live with so much hate? Seriusly, thanks for all you've done for teenage girls like me. This site is soooo inspiring and empowering to me/sarcasm. Just spending a little time on this site makes me want to throw myself under a bus. I never ever ever EVER want to be like you women."
Molly, you don't speak for this teenage girl!
whatshername, vagina shields for all! We are Legion.
Bohemian Belle and Molly sound like they need a bit more education...so girls (if you are girls), lighten up and let us make of the ass hats that send this kind of mail our way. I'm sure our amazing/awesome/wonderful/kick-ass/hero-to-me editors get plenty of it, and laughing just has to be used once in a while to cope.
Lovely swan song there, Moll. Don't let the cyberdoor hit your ass on the way out. From what I can tell from your posts here, you weren't looking for inspiration or empowerment, but a fight. Not surprising that when no one took your bait, you make a big pouty post and leave.
It's a shame you didn't actually read anything when you were here. You might have learned something other than the propaganda you've been fed your whole life.
Bohemian Belle/Molly: Laughing at people who are jerks to you is sometimes the best way to remind yourself and them that you will not allow them to have the power to intimidate or control you.
And laughing at them isn't hating them, hate is usually reserved for people with power who abuse it not ineffectual borderline retarded people who hide behind the anonymity of the internet. Or sock puppets, for that matter.
Oh, and I'm a male who posts here often. I don't toe the party line much of the time, but I don't get any hate; yeah, sometimes people dislike me or some opinion I have or even how I state it but if you think dislike is the same at hate then you've not a lot of emotional experience.
They are so cute when they try to type.
Ha. Wait. We hate men because we hide behind our vaginae? Or we hide behind our vaginae because we hate men?
To understand feminist, I think you have to understand what patriarchy and privilege are, otherwise, it does sound like "man-bashing" or conspiracy theory. Patriarchy and privilege are rather abstract concepts, so I guess that's why many troll-y people can't seem to wrap their brains around feminism.
I would recommend going here: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/
first and reading through though the "Where to Start" section before tackling this blog.
I think that the equating of feministing with man-hating is a boring old tactic.
where was i recently? someone said somewhere, "women should never underestimate how much they are hated".
Discourses aimed at estimating the depth and breadth of patriarchy are labelled man-hating.
yet hate, here, is used in very different ways (according to me.)
The ways in which women are hated by society are so productive, so baroque, so opulent, so symphonic, so polyphonous, so insidious; from the disciplinary power that controls the limited range of acceptable personalities, to the statistics on rape and assault; a womans body and a womans being are always up for debate, in the peatree dish, under the microscope, jumping the hoops, productive as can be is this kind of hate.
the "man-hate" attributed to feministing, on the other hand, isn't productive at all. It doesn't create anything, even if it exists. The times I've felt myself slip into a dark resentment, or, "man-hate" session, I took none of such ideas seriously. I regretted such thoughts, because "man-hating" is part of patriarchy.
"man-hating" as a term exists because of patriarchy, whereas the hate women experience IS patriarchy.
You see how they are diff?
So if, in fact, my vagina really does protect me, I think I might love it even more. Think I could get it to shield me from the rain outside long enough to fetch my laundry? I think I can avoid getting struck by lightning, since scorched vagina wouldn't smell nice at all.
Few reasons why Men hate Women:
- A Man has sex with an underage girl he gets 5-20 years in prison. A Woman has sex with an underage boy she gets 6 months parole.
- A Woman falsely accuses a Man of rape, his life is destroyed (Ex - Duke university). And nothing happens to the Woman.
Behind the vagina? That doesn't even make any sense!
Personally, I prefer to see it as hiding in the warm folds of the labia.
The vulva, I mean, I didn't mean to favoritize any part :(
This made me laugh. Thank you, I needed that :)
trollbegone is here! buhbye now.
Mark K.: I assume you have citations, being that you're so convinced that women are so worthy of hate.
Zula's got the idea ("Wouldn't it be more logical to hide inside a vagina?"). You've gotta flip your cooter inside out and hide inside like one of there jobbers: http://blog.craftzine.com/archive/2008/02/knit_chicken_n_egg_reversible.html
Mark K.: I assume you have citations, being that you're so convinced that women are so worthy of hate.
I've got ten dollars that says the only citations Mark K's got are for disorderly conduct.
molly, if you never EVER EVER EVER EVER (throw in a few more evers so we'll know you REALLY MEAN IT) want to be like the women here, then don't.
and then remember all the "man-hating, world-hating, bitter, cruel" women before you who fought for your right to be whatever sort of person you want to be, in an environment free of judgment and discrimination.
we don't just fight for ourselves, we also fight for you.
even though you're being a flagrant jackass.
I don't hate men, I hate the patriarchy. Why is that so hard to understand?
Mark K:
1) The disparity in sentencing of men vs. women in sexual assault cases is reflective of the infanitilization of women in general. It may seem to work out to the advantage of a very few women, but it is symptomatic of something which works to the diadvantage of all women. That being the general belief that women are incapable of being responsible for themselves which ends up being an excuse for men to take responsibility and authority away from women.
As to why you, personally, are so invested in that small injustice I can only assume you got a 5-20 year sentence at some point.
2) False rape accusers being let off: You cite Duke, there are other examples. And yeah it must really suck to be falsely accused and have your life disrupted for it. But you are deciding to tar all women with that brush, when in fact the guilt resides with the individual who makes a false claim and those who would exploit the false claim for personal gain (most notably a male prosecutor). When I was 14 I was attacked by gang members while minding my own business going to a night club. The gang members were POC, I walked up to a cop (who saw the whole thing) to ask for help and he threatened to arrest me for disorderly conduct or something. He was white. So now you tell me, I clearly suffered several layers of injustice. Which group do I decide to hate because of it? Blacks, whites, cops, men?
By deciding to blame a group for the acts on individuals you are simply being lazy.
How old do y'all think Mark K is?
Hah! Remember the one who accused us of using our vaginas to get stuff? Mine STILL dispenses M&Ms when I crank my arm.
I'm sure Mark K has been obliterated by the Troll B Gone by now, but what a pathetic "list" of supposedly legitimate reasons why men hate women. We women COULD hate men for a long, long list of reasons. ACTUAL RAPE is among them. But I won't waste my breath on that.
Mark K--
Although this article is specifically about high profile-ish cases involving teachers, it does examine the idea that female sex offender don't get punished
http://www.slate.com/id/2134158/
Lottie, Molly wasn't expressing an opinion, she was picking a fight. We're allowed to call people on bad behavior when they behave badly. And there's nothing wrong with reflecting language back at them in a way that calls attention to just how much of a jackass they're being.
That is so typical in these circles.
Just because you don't like what she had to say doesn't mean it's not her opinion. Unless you're a mind-reader, you don't know what her intent was.
But I guess it's more convenient to simply erase her opinion than to actually deal with it.
From what I've seen, Molly didn't behave any worse than what I witness on a daily basis on this blog. It just so happens that her opinion doesn't line up with the majority so it's OK to call her a jackass.
Way to create a safe environment!
Oh, I almost forgot... what some of the folks here don't seem to realize is that their responses to Molly actually validate what she said.
hahahaha jesus christ. thank you, jessica, for continuing to be my go-to gal whenever the relentless "feminists/women aren't funny" spiel needs to be refuted.
As to the OP, I've just spent the last two hours trying to hide behind my vagina just to see if it could be done. I can't figure it out. But I'm pretty sure I pulled a muscle...
Lottie, let's look at Molly's comment:
So this is the future you want for me and all young girls? You want us all to be man-hating, world-hating, cynical, obscene, vulgar, and cruel?
She's calling feminists names. This is picking a fight, not expressing an opinion. "All feminists are man-hating lesbians" is a tired (and fully disproved) stereotype, so not only is she picking a fight, she's factually incorrect in her assumptions.
You want us all to hate everyone who disagrees with us?
Again, this is factually wrong and still picking a fight, not an opinion.
I must ask, how can you all live with so much hate?
Another attempt to pick a fight. It may be her assumption that feminists are filled with hate (based on the obvious fact she has no knowledge of what the feminist movement is really about), but the fact that she assumes things incorrectly does not make her assumptions into opinions.
Seriusly, thanks for all you've done for teenage girls like me. This site is soooo inspiring and empowering to me/sarcasm.
Funny, I didn't see you jump on her for mocking feminists. Hmm.
Just spending a little time on this site makes me want to throw myself under a bus.
This is either true or an exaggeration. This is not an opinion, either.
I never ever ever EVER want to be like you women.
Again, this is either true or not. This is not an opinion.
Most of this comment was baiting for a fight. That is jackassery. That gets called out. I'm not saying that she can't pick a fight on this forum or be a jackass in general. I'm just saying that that we don't have to roll over and take it.
lottie, as of right now, molly's comment is up there, so why are you complaining about "erasing" her opinions? and i KNOW that's her opinion. uhhhh, i didn't say it wasn't. i just implied that her opinion is quite ridiculous. which is (stay with me here!) MY opinion!
and when someone who's never met me or anyone else here makes the blanket statement that we're all "man-hating, world-hating, obscene, vulgar, and cruel", yeah, they've earned themselves the jackass label. (i'll cop to obscene and vulgar, though.)
Lottie, why are you attacking the editors and commenters when it was Molly who began her commenting by insulting everyone at the site? We are entitled to defend ourselves and point out why she's wrong and/or being inappropriate. Stop holding feminists to a higher standard. Contrary to what SOME people insist, this site is not all serious, all the time.
If you consider misogynist-hating to be man-hating, you reveal a lot about what you think of "men" as a group.
Lottie, Molly came into a thread about women in sports to ask why we supported "killing little babies." Any explanations to her were ignored. Her only other contribution here that I could find was this rant/flounce.
So this is the future you want for me and all young girls? You want us all to be man-hating, world-hating, cynical, obscene, vulgar, and cruel? You want us all to hate everyone who disagrees with us? I must ask, how can you all live with so much hate? Seriusly, thanks for all you've done for teenage girls like me. This site is soooo inspiring and empowering to me/sarcasm. Just spending a little time on this site makes me want to throw myself under a bus. I never ever ever EVER want to be like you women.
if that ::points upwards:: is all she got from this site, then at best she was not paying attention or has poor reading comprehension. At worst, she was a troll. Based on the comment she left in the women and sports thread, I'm leaning towards troll.
I have seen some people in the Cirque de Soleil get paid good money for hiding behind their vaginas.
And lottie, as to proving Molly right by our reactions, her hate-worthy posts also prove us right.
I meant that to say her hate-FILLED posts prove us right, although they are certainly hate-worthy. Freudian slip, I guess.
mama mia, that just made me laugh out loud, thereby embarrassing me while i am sitting in my cubicle pretending to work. thanks a lot! ;)
And if she's a jackass for making a blanket statement about people she's never met, what are you for labeling someone you've never met as a jackass?
Lottie: "And if she's a jackass for making a blanket statement about people she's never met, what are you for labeling someone you've never met as a jackass?"
Specific.
baddesignhurts: If you get caught pretending to work, well, just hide you know where...
I don't have a lot of time (one of the things I hate about this site is how time consuming it can be) so I'm not going to address every comment point by point. I would like to address a few things in general, though.
First, I did not see Molly's "baby-killer" comments or anything else. In fact, this is the only comment of hers that I have seen. Seeing as she has obviously been, uh... making a name for herself, I can understand the frustration and the accusations of picking a fight.
The one thing that jumped out at me, though, was the irony of calling someone a jackass right after declaring this a judgment-free zone [paraphrase]. That's all I was addressing in the first place.
Also, even if her comment was intended to pick a fight, it could still very well be her opinion. The two are not mutually exclusive. We don't get to declare that someone's opinion isn't really an opinion regardless of their reason for stating it.
I was not attacking anyone; I was expressing my opinion. This is something of a touchy subject for me because I am often treated badly called names, accused of trolling, etc. any time I make a comment that's not in line with the majority opinion. And, in my experience, this is something of a trend on feminist blogs. To be honest, it hurts to be treated that way, especially by people who claim to represent my interests, one of which is the freedom to speak freely.
So, I admit to jumping to Molly's defense because I am sensitive to seeing someone get jumped on for stating an unpopular opinion (and that is how it appeared to me). But it was not my intent to try and silence anyone else or to attack anyone. And I apologize if that's how I came across.
Mama Mia made me laugh.
I'm honestly surprised such a light hearted thread got such a troll response. And let me express my SHOCK and AWE that people posting calling us all names for laughing about VAGINA SHIELDS weren't greeted with a warm reception! SHOCK AND AWE!
Livia_Augusta, if you're still here, I think we need a name for our platoon! VAJLEJ!? :D
By the way, Lottie, I have sometimes felt the way you feel, so I understand feeling kind of alienated in comments.
Mark K,
I can agree with you on the first part. There are a lot of double standards concerning sex with a minor. A female is always considered a manipulated victim, even if she consented, and even if the age difference was rather minor (i.e. boy was 18, girl was 16, etc). The idea behind this seems to be that a girl can't make decisions about her own body, so she must automatically be a victim. That's not to say that 20 something creepsters who hang out at high school parties, shouldn't be stopped. Boys on the other hand are given a lot more credit for their consent when they are underage. So while it is considered inappropriate for an older woman to sleep with an underage boy, it is brushed off, and laughed at much more often. I, and many feminists, find this to be a horrible double standard, which is another symptom of patriarchy.
All I can say about your second point is that it is now the most overused stock evidence of how "most women lie about rape." The Duke players were never brought to court, and the case was dismissed because there wasn't sufficient evidence. I call that the system working. I think there is plenty of blame to be placed on the media for practically hanging them before any sort of hearing took place. However, what were the police supposed to do? If women falsely crying rape is such a huge problem, what do you propose we do about it? Automatically assume that any woman is lying about that? Scrutinize her sexual past? The truth is that many more women are raped and never report it, than those who make up the stories to get money, etc. When it comes down to it, the police must take any claim of rape seriously and investigate it. The real problem lies in the fact that the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" has been totally stripped of it's meaning, and replaced with Nancy Grace demanding that defense attorneys be prosecuted for daring to give someone their right to a fair trial.
You'd swear the Duke men were thrown in jail for life without receiving a fair trial or something.
When rape-apologists like Mark K write about the injustice of the Duke case, to what are they referring?
The men were never tried, never convicted, never wrongly punished for anything. They are free men. The justice system DID WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO. And yet the fact that the men were questioned AT ALL is reason enough for men to HATE women. As if women, as a sex, have anything to do with what went wrong with the Duke case.
I have to think that men like Mark K believe it's an injustice whenever a man is accused of rape, period - whether he's done it or not, convicted or found not guilty.
A few people posting here don't seem to understand the simple concept that hating patriarchy and objectification of women is NOT the same as hating men.
Apparently, it's perfectly okay to be hated for being a woman, to be hated for being a feminist, to be hated for being liberal and intelligent - but don't even dare at hinting at the slightest bit of disdain for men, or the traditional system! No no!
And I think some people understand the difference, but simply do not see the distinction actually being made.
Um, Lottie? You seem to think that just because something is a personal opinion, it's somehow sacrosanct. It's not.
First of all, everyone is entitled to his or her own informed opinion. Ignorant opinions are worthless. So if someone can't back up their view with something, they deserve to be called on it.
Second, opinions are like buttocks -- everybody has them, but it's not always appropriate to air them in public. I happen to think that Rod Stewart is vastly overrated. Do I subscribe to Rod Stewart fan forums to air this opinion? I do not, because it would be rude. So why should anti-feminists get special dispensation to subscribe to feminist websites to annoy us?
Regarding Mark K. and his statement, the first problem with a statement like that is that his list of reasons for men to hate women is two points long. You know why? Because there really isn't any real reasons for men to hate women. Where would we be without you? Meanwhile, if a woman wanted to hate men, the reasons she could use would be pretty much endlessly long.
Second, regarding rape and false accusation, the number of women that falsely accuse men of rape are inconsequentially small, especially compared to the number of men that rape women who don't report it. Maybe if men could be convicted based solely on the accusation we could get somewhere. The problem isn't women taking advantage of the system to harm men, it's men taking advantage of women that are too frightened to use the system. If a woman could just call the police anonymously and report a name, knowing that the man would be convicted, rape would cease to be a problem.
Just want to put out there, Molly's email address comes from a "Kevin." Very common for "teenage girls" these days, I'm sure.
...wait...you guys should sell shirts that say, "deploying vagina shield" or something like that. I mean...I see too many positives coming out of that one.
Logrus: They are so cute when they try to type.
I have the same defense mechanism. The world is adorable to me. I just want to hug it.
...wait...you guys should sell shirts that say, "deploying vagina shield" or something like that. I mean...I see too many positives coming out of that one.
Logrus: They are so cute when they try to type.
I have the same defense mechanism. The world is adorable to me. I just want to hug it.
Just want to put out there, Molly's email address comes from a "Kevin." Very common for "teenage girls" these days, I'm sure.
Good god, if you're not even smart enough to troll under an internet pseudonym, what does that say about you? It's not like it would be hard to set up a free yahoo or gmail account with the name "Molly" or even some non-name like bebopalouiedoo245 or something.
Of course, I feel compelled to ask if Molly, Mark K and Bohemian Belle all come from the same IP address. Or the same junior high school?
You know, "shield" made me think of police badges. What if we all got something like that but shaped like...
Nah... I'm just full of bad ideas tonight.
SPCaprioli: That's not my quote.
"You want us all to be man-hating, world-hating, cynical, obscene, vulgar, and cruel?"
1. Molly Kevin must have never visited a blog like "I Blame the Patriarchy," if s/he is still of the opinion that the ladies here are a bit cynical. (Not a dis on IBTP, I'm just saying... this is a bit more "laid back")
2. Is this an objection to vulgarity in general, or just to women daring to speak about things like sex and politics while occasionally employing the use of sarcasm and "obscenities?"
3. Yes, some feminists probably hate men... and some men hate women. But don't label me a man-hater. I work in a male-dominated field. Virtually everyone I associate with in person is male. I enjoy their company, I value their opinions, and I embrace their friendship. They're great people. However, the fact remains that we live in a society that still objectifies and dehumanizes women. It's much, much better than it was. But until there's equality, feminism is necessary. So please, read a bit more of this site. Perhaps you'll get a better idea of where we're coming from.
I don't know what my sudden affinity for the phrase, "a bit" came from in that post. Geez.
lottie, because you are making an effort to be reasonable, i'm going to try to be serious here. (it'll be hard for me, but i'll try.)
when i talk about an "environment free of judgment", by that i mean PRE-JUDGMENT. meaning, i won't judge molly or someone else based on characteristics that aren't bearing on "her" intellect/abilities before judging "her" based on what dr. king referred to as "the content of [one's] character". those characteristics include but are not limited to: sex, gender, race, age, blah blah blah, you know the drill.
however, once "she" revealed the content of "her" character, by stating something moronic like "all feminists are man-haters and world-haters" and "baby-killers", LET THE JUDGMENT BEGIN!
so, once again, my judgment of molly = flagrant jackass. what makes me different is that i have EVIDENCE of "her" jackassiness, whereas "she" has no evidence of my man-hatiness.
comprende?
A while back in these comments y'all started arguing about Molly's post.
So, not trying to start any fights, I'm going to toss my opinion into the mix.
Maybe we should all just accept that sometimes people are ignorant and laughing at them is often a good way to cope with that. The other thing I wanted to say was that Molly already sees you all (I'm saying it as "you" because, with me being a teenager, she left me out of the mix she was directing her anger at, even though I share the same ideals as you) as man-hating, let's not be feminist-hatin' too? The way I was taught, feminism enveloped all sorts of women and all the opinions and perspectives under that roof. If Molly identifies as a feminist, cool beans. If the women and men she calls "man-haters" identify as feminists too, cool beans. But please, can we stop fighting with each other? We have a gender spectrum to balance...
This wasn't worthwhile bringing to light. It just shows a person who is incapable of behaving above the level of a petulant child, nor capable of defending their position in any way more complex than personal attacks. Such a writer should not be rewarded with attention, but left to toil in obscurity with their own hate-filled thoughts.
I'm sure you receive smart emails, but yet you post these stupid childish ones. I guess feminist are afraid of smart men, and rather have the only contrary opinion be stupid. Also by "vagina shield" he means you can make blatantly sexist comments, and get away with it. Jessica you said the comment once, "be a man". Thats sexist and a degrading comment, yet you weren't labeled a sexist. Feminist are aloud to make sexist degrading comments and go away unharmed. I wish I had a Vagina Shield, it is very useful.
"be a man" is a typical phrase used in spoken english. It's origins are certainly of a sexist nature, because it indicates that only a man can suck it up and be brave. I personally don't like that phrase, but it still creeps into my vernacular occasionally. Just as how the phrase "so and so doesn't have the balls" seems to still blurt out sometimes, and I always cringe afterwards. Just because Jessica used it once does not mean she actually believes the sentiment behind it, it just means that a common phrase in our language has inevitably become a part of her vocabulary.
I have yet to see "hiding behind your vagina" said before now, but maybe that's the new slang that's sweeping the nation. Who knows, I've been out of the country for 9 weeks. (I come home Sunday and plan to deploy my vagina shield as soon as we enter American airspace :-D)
Actually DevilLover, I have yet to see a smart email from an anti-feminist come my way. Seriously, they're all "cunts" this and "sluts" that.
Also, I never said "be a man" in the context you're saying. In my anti-misogyny online video, I'd used air quotes when I said "be a man" (and come out and stop posting anonymously) because I obviously don't equate bravery with any one gender and was using the phrase to make a point. So...yeah.
[tongue-in-cheek] But wouldn't you want your shield to not be something designed for penetration?
Here's your vagina shield and your invisibility:
In California, you cannot be a domestic violence victim unless you have a vagina.
If you're a man and your wife beats you, you're not a domestic violence victim.
*
o California Health and Safety Code
+ HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 124250-124251
124250. (a) The following definitions shall apply for purposes of
this section:
(1) "Domestic violence" means the infliction or threat of physical harm against past or present adult or adolescent female intimate
partners, and shall include physical, sexual, and psychological abuse against the woman, and is a part of a pattern of assaultive, coercive, and controlling behaviors directed at achieving compliance from or control over, that woman.
Here's your vagina shield and your invisibility:
In California, you cannot be a domestic violence victim unless you have a vagina.
If you're a man and your wife beats you, you're not a domestic violence victim.
*
o California Health and Safety Code
+ HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 124250-124251
124250. (a) The following definitions shall apply for purposes of
this section:
(1) "Domestic violence" means the infliction or threat of physical harm against past or present adult or adolescent female intimate
partners, and shall include physical, sexual, and psychological abuse against the woman, and is a part of a pattern of assaultive, coercive, and controlling behaviors directed at achieving compliance from or control over, that woman.
Here's your vagina shield and your invisibility:
In California, you cannot be a domestic violence victim unless you have a vagina.
If you're a man and your wife beats you, you're not a domestic violence victim.
*
o California Health and Safety Code
+ HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 124250-124251
124250. (a) The following definitions shall apply for purposes of
this section:
(1) "Domestic violence" means the infliction or threat of physical harm against past or present adult or adolescent female intimate
partners, and shall include physical, sexual, and psychological abuse against the woman, and is a part of a pattern of assaultive, coercive, and controlling behaviors directed at achieving compliance from or control over, that woman.
sorry if this comment appears multiple times. the page timed out more than once.
High Ruler of Nothing said:
In California, you cannot be a domestic violence victim unless you have a vagina.
If you're a man and your wife beats you, you're not a domestic violence victim.
See, what you were just quoting there was the California Health and Safety Code, specifically the section setting up shelters for women and children. If you bothered to read the section, you would have seen that it's chapter 6 of "Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health".
But that's not the connection you made. Let's see...
You said:
And let's turn to the California Penal Code, specifically, section 13700:
Not a domestic violence victim if you're a man?
Nope - Myth: Busted.
open_sketch: "Second, regarding rape and false accusation, the number of women that falsely accuse men of rape are inconsequentially small,"
Perhaps someone here will know better, or have an article or something to link to, but don't false accusations of pretty much all crimes happen? I seem to recall that false accusations of rape are pretty uncommon compared to false accusations of other crimes.
And yet ... if you notice, people seem to get REALLY riled up about even the POSSIBILITY of falsely accusing a man of rape. I don't seem to see people getting riled up about other false accusations. I think that is very, very telling.
Lottie: "They shouldn't. And I haven't argued that they should."
You kind have.
Aw, I didn't mean to run High Ruler of Poor Research from the thread.
Theaetetus, you rock!
It's pretty funny, though. Is that the sort of poorly-researched nonsense Glenn Sacks is giving his minions as evidence that women rule the world and men are downtrodden victims of their malehood?
Does anybody else think that DevilLover is the author of the original e-mail? I see a similarity in tone.
The thing is any of the raesons gien for disliking feminism: false rape accusations , imprisonment for having sex with a minor , men are not domestic violence victims(myth!!). These exist because of we live in a patriarchy they were not 'invented' by feminism. The reason that men are imprisoned for sleeping with an 'underage' woman is because society thinks young women shouldn't have an opinion and that their sexuality needs to be controlled. I'm don't know how you thought that men were not domestic abuse victims in the eyes of the law but certainly is is not 'manly' to admit to being abused by a woman whereas (and granted not as much nowadays in the west) but abusing women used to be perfectly acceptable and still is in many countries. I agree with you actually that men should be comfortable enough to report being abused and that while there has to be laws concerning underage sex that they need to be changed and that if two 15 year olds have consensual sex then of course the boy should not be imprisoned. And this is what feminism is about , ensuring that we have equal rights. You need to redirect your anger!
The reasons you give for disliking feminism all exist because we live in a patriarchal society. Feminists never decised that men shouldn't get custody , should be imprisoned for having consensual sex etc.. You need to redirect your anger and realise that feminism is about us all having equal rights. And we too think some of the things mentioned are unfair because the patriarchy/gender stereotypes affects men too.
OK, I've done it. At this very moment, I am sitting here hidden behind my vagina. I don't know how long I can hold this pose, though. It's a bit crowded and I'm starting to get a crick in my neck. Plus, it's really hard to type like this.
Lottie: "They shouldn't. And I haven't argued that they should."
You kind have.
"No I haven't. If you think I have, please show me where."
Um, on several occasions you've said we should just allow their opinions. Even if the opinions are obviously coming from a troll (and that was beyond obvious), and/or from someone who is obviously an anti-feminist.
marilove: I agree with the gist of your point, that people (specifically men) seem to be concerned with just one kind of false criminal accusation. Totally correct.
However it is both wrong to say that rape is the only thing that is a concern, or to try and say that there should be parity of concern.
I would submit to you that sex crimes, in general, would be something that have people concerned about false accusations. Rape, molestation, any kind of sex crime.
As to why someone would have at least a bit of a good reason to worry is that unlike shoplifting, or theft of any kind (I'll get to murder in a moment), a sex crime of almost any sort will:
1) probably get into the news in your home town somehow, before trial and even if you're exonerated the news will probably not pay much attention to that and people certainly wont.
2) FSM forbid, if you actually get falsely convicted of a sex crime you are fucked in so many more ways than even a murderer. You could live next door to a convicted killer and not know it, but by law a RSO has to be registered in a database of some sort.
2a) The common perception, which is probably based at least on some truth is that people who are sex criminals in jail get a lot worse treatment than killers or thieves, etc.
The reason I didn't mention murder specifically: Well if you are accused of murder then someone has to actually be dead. Sure, you may not be the killer but a crime actually did happen. With molestation and rape an accusation alone can really fuck you up based on nothing other than someone's mental illness or whatever it is that compels people to make such a false accusation.
Now personally I'm not too worried about being falsely accused of a sex crime. It just seems a lot more likely that I'll die from smoking and I'm not quitting that so why worry about less likely stuff, you know? But I can understand why some folks who are prone to worrying about stuff that they can't control would be worried about false accusations of sexual battery or rape or molestation. I don't agree with them, usually; although black men who date white women have a history of being imprisoned or outright lynched when the family of the white woman catch wind of it, but given our fear driven media who convinced the majority of our nation at one time that Saddam Hussein a known secularist dictator who killed fundamentalist Muslims frequently was backing a fundamentalist Muslim leader who had previously vowed to kill Saddam it's not too surprising that some people get taken in by the hype. Is it?
Oh, I do have a legitimate fear that one day I will have to pee really bad and do it in a bush or an alley then get arrested and have to explain to my neighbors why I'm in the sex offender registry. And that's not a joke, that shit happens. Streakers and people who need to pee pee get busted for sex crimes. that is really fucked up.
Theaetetus, bless you. Very little gives as much satisfaction as seeing willful ignorance implode on itself.
Lottie, as a minority in every aspect of my life save education, I appreciate you standing up for minority opinions. I, too defend Molly's right to have her say. However, I roundly reject the substance of her opinions and assertions. Those who have posted to likewise reject her may have used saltier language than I myself tend to, but that should not distract us from the substance of their rejections.
ChelseaEff, what a phrase, but so resoundingly true: "The ways in which women are hated by society are so productive, so baroque, so opulent, so symphonic, so polyphonous, so insidious." You put my frustration into words. Thank you.
Mintmullaly: just so.
Logus: My younger sister, at 19, got busted for having sex with a 16 year old boy we grew up with, in her truck on the side of the road. We were very afraid she would have to register as a sex offender, but thankfully she got a decent judge. It was really close, and she ended up spending some time in jail. So yes, it happens to girls, too. (For the record, she had JUST turned 19 and he was nearly 17 and they have known each other a long time ... and in fact, I am pretty sure it was 100% consensual, knowing the two of them.)
Also, I am fairly sure that all felons are on public record. I was actually looking at a site recently where you could plug in an address and they'd give you a mapped list of felons in that area -- including names, ages, and the crimes they were convicted of. So, that is false that you don't have to "register" if you aren't a sex offender; it's all public information, anyway (at least in the state of Arizona). I wish I could remember that site, it was actually pretty nifty. I learned of at least 3 people I went to high school with have been convicted of arson or sexual abuse near where I grew up!
Logrus said:
I agree... In many of these areas, the mere accusation can be incredibly damaging, resulting in people getting suspended or fired from their jobs, even before any trial occurs, because the employer (justifiably) doesn't want to take any risk of liability.
I think what would be best is a mandatory gag order in these trials, until the sentencing phase, when details can be published. That would protect the privacy of the accused innocent and prevent juries from being biased by press statements. And by releasing details during sentencing, it would still allow other victims with accusations to come forward.
Only problem with this is that the sensationalist media (which I happen to work for) wouldn't stand for it, the bastards.
marilove: It may work differently in your state, but an RSO has to inform his or her neighbors of their status as a sex offender. Also once off probation a non sex offender is no longer in any database, at least in my state.
And I didn't say this happens to men only, but was specifically commenting on the maligning of a male's stated concern over the issue. Women, particularly women who work in and comprise the bulk of public educators have just as much reason to fear a false accusation. Which is to say, not really a lot of reason, but an understandable paranoia some people have.
My sister is afraid of spiders, it's an irrational fear to most people but it's not something I can't sympathize.
Note to all the actual feministing friends & members: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
Seriously, they're like pit bulls. Once they get that taste and clamp down, you can't shake them until way after they're dead!
But for times like these, I love internet short hand. My response to all the hateful comments can be summarizes thusly:
STFU. GTFO.
(I'm not going to put more effort in then they're willing to...^^)
In response to the actual post:
There are so many things wrong grammatically ("nobody does or says anything"???) and metaphorically, that I'm having a little trouble processing the depth of stupidity therein.
However, I would like to propose that we officially change the plural of vagina to vaginis. C'mon, just say it out loud! (Like, martinis, only cuter and with no age limits or nasty side-effects). So much fun to say!
And winner goes to the first person to show photographic evidence that you did, in fact, make a vagina-like shield!
Funny, of all the magical and wonderful things I've found my vagina can do, I've never felt that it protected me from anything. Quite the opposite, actually.
Danyell: What about "Vaginistas"? It has a real revolutionary flair to it, don't you think?
Of course it would preclude some cooperative efforts with some Latin American allies, because everyone knows Sandinistas and Vaginistas don't mix.
Logrus: It sounds more like a feminist gang than a plural...not to say that it doesn't still have appeal in that sense...
My only concern is that we'd pronounce vaginis like martinis.
"vuh-gee-nee-s"
Personally, I like the typically unused official plural, vaginae.
Hmmm, so far women have been accused of voting with their vaginas, using their vaginas to get what they want (like M&Ms or jewelry I guess- us wimminz lovez flowers and chocolate!); I've even seen "you feminists just want to throw your vaginas around and get your way". Now we're hiding behind them? Is anyone else getting some really literal mental images from all these at once, btw?
Oh vagina, is there anything we can't use you for?
We could probably figure out how to use them for transportation or something. The Flying Vagina. The Speedboat Vagina. Hey, it'd be good for the economy!
Honestly, with the exception of the clitoris, I've never found having a vagina to give me much of an advantage at anything. You'd think they'd clue in...
also, I really love "vaginae". I hadn't thought about that being the official linguistic term, but it makes total sense and I now can't wait to use it in a sentence! Thank you, sir no one!
"Actually DevilLover, I have yet to see a smart email from an anti-feminist come my way. Seriously, they're all "cunts" this and "sluts" that."
This man would like a word with you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCBMsaEiKxc
He also issues a challenge to you here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIdivhs1wk
I suggest you watch these, and respond.
SarahMC (@9:43): rape-apologists like Mark K
When did Mark say that rape was ok or a woman's fault? I think you're spinning his comments to vilify him.
Does he have to say
"Rape is bad, men or women who do it are bad.
False accusations are bad, men or women who do it are bad.
Abuse is bad, men or women who do it are bad."
for you to not assume the worst of him?
From the content of the few conversations I've had with you - you seem very adept at changing what is said into what you want to hear.
To the group in general:
If the patriarchy is what you hate, and the patriarchy is a near synonym for men*, how is it a logical falicy that you hate (or appear to hate) men.
(Modus Ponens)
If A then B
If B then C
ergo If A then C
To avoid this, your language really needs to be reformed to use mysogynists instead of 'men', or sexists (because then that'll include women).
*(I know that "patriarchy" isn't "men" - in general this board uses 'men' instead of typing out 'mysogynists'. This does two things: it makes the claim that all men are mysogynistic, and it creates the claim that mysogynist haters are man haters.)
I'm not saying it's wrong to hate a social structure that places you at a disadvantage - but keep in mind that you aren't powerless. Mark was pointing out some of the ways the patriarchy is exploited by some women to punish men. So his use of "women" doesn't translate to "women" at all - but rather 2 things, the patriarchy, and the individual women who exploit the system to punish men. He didn't bring up rapes that go unreported, he was specifically talking of the ones that are falsly reported.
And if you don't think media coverage for the duke boys (and yes, it's a tired example - but it's very socially prolific) negatively affected their lives - then that's a strawman argument. The team disbanded. They were hounded by society. Sure, legally the right actions were taken - but if that's all you point out, then you're submitting the argument that the patriarchy only extends to the legal system. It doesn't (and I'll be shocked if anyone argues that point).
Over the last twenty-five years, leading sociologists have repeatedly found that men and women commit violence at similar rates.
The 1977 assertion that “the phenomenon of husband battering” is as prevalent as wife abuse is confirmed by nationally representative studies,
Here's my source - a law student's paper (and he cites his sources as well)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=html&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2F64.233.167.104%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcache%3AC8rL_rB1Bc4J%3Awww.law.fsu.edu%2FJournals%2Flawreview%2Fdownloads%2F304%2Fkelly.pdf%2Bdomestic%2Babuse%2Bby%2Bwomen%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26cd%3D1%26gl%3Dus&ei=gMORSNbVIYKIigGX1ezqBg&usg=AFQjCNHMoVeDQlkwypElfbhEsdjSjwAK7w&sig2=INdXxKTvNgdBLWxnGL89Ng
And here's some evidence about female sexual predators. Percentages are all over the board which points to shaky evidence and non-repeatable procedures.
http://www.canadiancrc.com/female_sexual_predators_awareness.aspx
and for some more light reading, here's some on false rape accusations:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html
It's reported at 2% - but if the prosecution is successful, then it would count towards the 98% and against the 2%. So this statistic (off the top of my head without reading the statistical procedure) is hazy.
I'm going to go ahead and point out that I'm not saying:
rape is ok,
those guilty of committing it shouldn't be punished,
it's in any way a woman's fault.
Just so SarahMC can't pretend that I'm a mysogynist just because I disagree with her.
I watched part of the two videos. I only watched about half, because it didn't seem like there was much substance to them. I'll briefly address it, and there's alot more that could be said, but I have to get back to work sometime. Here's what I took away as his complaints:
1. His comments got deleted:
I don't know the content of his comments, but keep in mind during the whole youtube fiasco there were many, *many* comments deleted. Even some long-time feministing posters had their comments deleted. Again, I never saw this particular guy's comments, but I've seen as few people get banned here, and they usually deserve it.
2. Some oppression does trump other forms of oppression:
As Jessica said in the video, feminists do care about what's going on in other countries, and there are some that devote their work to helping women in other countries. Some forms of oppression are clearly more painful than others. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make our own lives better.
I won't put my story here, because you probably wouldn't believe me. But it is my experience that there are really horrible things happening in the US. And I want to help women get away from these kinds of abuse. It is not because I think it's the most important issue in the whole world, but it is because my personal experience allows me to understand their situation and I think this is where I can make the most difference.
3. Feminism is bad and wrong:
He seemed to dismiss all of feminism after only going into a few issues. I'm sure he has more to say. If you want to discuss the basics of feminism, I suggest trying Feminism 101, a site specifically designed for these kinds of debates (unlike feministing, where these are generally taken for granted).
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/
Perhaps I should have just called Mark K a lying misogynist, James?
He is acting like a rape apologist because he's insinuating that women should not report their rapes, because god forbid they're wrong about who raped them and the poor guy is "ruined" because of it. The demonizing of female rape victims (thanks to Duke!) intimidates women into keeping their rapes a secret. Yay for rapists!
I notice you don't take issue with his using those two inaccurate scenarios to justify hatred of women. A number of people on this thread have refuted his claim that female sexual predators are not punished (hell, they make the national news). And I have personally refuted his suggestion that women, as a whole, are to blame for the fact that THE MEDIA milked the Duke case for all it was worth. Again, the justice system worked in that case.
If you think it's OK to hate women because a miniscule number of us makes false rape accusations (the same percentage of false accusations for other crimes, btw), then why don't you hate men as a group too? Considering the fact that some of them are caught by Chris Hanson, trying to rape kids who are home alone?
SarahMC: "god forbid they're wrong about who raped them"
You are assuming that "false accusation" means that they were raped by somebody, when I'm taking it to mean that they weren't raped, but they are saying they are.
His argument about the rape bit was twofold.
A woman (not women in general, you're broadening his argument by reading 'women') makes a false accusation (no rape occurred) against a man. The accusation is enough to damage/ruin his life. There is no legal recourse for false accusation.
These are all true statements, all you have to do is accept his premise scenario of 'A woman makes a false accusation of rape' - and the rest falls into place. No where is anything said to the effect of 'rape, and the under-reporting of actual rape is not a problem' - that isn't said. Not by me, not by anyone. It's a rediculous thought. No one thinks that. It's like saying "Women who have abortions enjoy it" or "Abusing another person is a good thing."
Another problem with your point is that you are considering the rape victim in the Duke case to actually have been raped, when it was found that she wasn't. So shouldn't you be saying "the demonizing of the false rape accusor"? I'm fine with that. Making false accusations is bad. It has nothing to do with when a woman is actually raped. That woman wasn't raped.
I'm reading what Mark is saying as "women who aren't raped shouldn't report that they were raped." Do you disagree with that?
I'm not arguing that the judiciary system worked - but justice isn't just in the judiciary system. Do you think it is fair and just that their lives were harmed when they didn't commit the crime they were accused of? (Note that I"m not saying they committed no crime, prostitution is illegal from what I understand.)
His other point was that men are more harshly punished for sexual abuses. This is a more complicated issue than anyone has devoted time to talking about so far in this thread. Nature of the crimes, percent reported, percent misreported. I just pointed out (and cited!) that the statistics are wildly inaccurate on how often women sexually abuse. In 1970 it was 2%, in 96 it was 39%, in 97 it was 25% - the slate article had it at 40% again. I'm for equal punishments for equal crimes. Right now there is not enough information presented to give a clear picture on whether or not that's happening. The cases presented by the media don't give enough information, therefore they present the idea that women are being treated more favorably than men in their punishment. I'm not going to dismiss the anger that that creates. If we wanted to get further into that "why men hate women" of Mark's - we'd have to talk about reality vs perceived reality and their differences. (If an individual is only presented with something in a way that shows it to be unfair, is it wrong for that person to be upset about that perceived unfairness?)
I already rephrased my opinion to line up with his with one caviat - that "men hate women because" translates into "men hate patriarchy and the individual women who exploit it." So your last paragraph was another weak argument because I'm defending his hatred of the individual and not the group.
Also, I've really kept myself out of this - any claims about what I believe won't stick because I've not stated a position. I've just restated Mark's in a way that's defensable.
footnote: I find slate's article title ("Are teachers who sleep with boys getting off?") a little distasteful.
I'd be willing to be dollars to donuts that the "1977 Study" that James alludes to uses the Conflict Tactics Scale as their method for determining the rates of violence. If I had more time, I seek it out and debunk the hell out of it. Alas, I don't have the time, but I will note this:
Conflict Tactics measurements are almost always going to misrepresent the situation, which would appear much different if it was shown in context; for example, the scale has violence like pushing, slapping, grabbing, etc, as "low level" violence, (and coincidentally, these are the forms of violence men are most likely to engage in most cases of DV)whereas brandishing a weapon (whether or not it is used) is a "higher level" of violence (and again, when faced with a larger, stronger man threatening her/causing her to be fearful, women are more likely to pull a knife out of the kitchen drawer to keep him at bay). Without context, most violence can be made to look as benign or horrendous as the person presenting the data wants it to appear. Things like isolating her from family and friends, teaching her children to disrespect and participate in verbal abuse, etc. are not visible using the Conflict Tactics Scale.
If your position is a patriarchy-hating one, then I am sympathetic. But I know that's not true in Mark K's case.
And 1977 was over thirty years ago. I don't know much about the Conflict Tactics Scale (though I'd love for you to debunk it, kaylagrrl), but I do know that trends in society change and methods of compiling data change.
RAINN is a wonderful organization that helps ALL victims of sexual violence; they have some statistics.
Nope, the study was the one done in 77 by steinmetz, not the one you're referring to in 80 by straus and gelles that brings Conflict Tactics into the picture.
Don't worry about the doughnuts though - the study that my source was citing, I just looked it up and it's full of crap logic.
SarahMC - Conflict Tactics debunked...
(I'm copying someone else's argument against it here)
here are three major flaws in Straus' work. The first is that he used a set of questions that cannot discriminate between intent and effect [16]. This socalled Conflict Tactics Scale (or CTS) equates a woman pushing a man in self-defense to a man pushing a woman down the stairs [17]. It labels a mother as violent if she defends her daughter from the father's sexual molestation. It combines categories
such as "hitting" and "trying to hit" despite the important difference between them [18].
Because it looks at only one year, this study equates a single slap by a woman to a man's 15 year history of domestic terrorism. Even Steinmetz herself says the CTS studies ignore the difference between a slap that stings and a punch that causes permanent injury [19]. Indeed, after analyzing the results of the U.S. National Crime Surveys, sociologist Martin Schwartz concluded that 92% of those seeking medical care from a private physician for injuries received in a spousal assault are women [20]. The NCS study shows that one man is hospitalized for injuries received in a spousal assault for every 46 women hospitalized [21].
Even if we ignore all of the reviously mentioned flaws in Straus' CTS studies, they are bad science on a second set of grounds. Straus interviewed only one partner, but other studies [22,23] that independently interviewed both partners found that their accounts of the violence did not match. Also a study by Richard Gelles and John Harrop [24] using the CTS failed to find any difference in self-reporting of violence against children by step-parents versus birth-parents  in vivid contrast to the actual findings that a step-parent is up to 100 times more likely to assault a small child
than is a birth parent [25,26]. Any research technique that contains a 10,000 percent systematic error is totally unreliable.
In fact a third independent case can be made against Straus' study. It excluded incidents of violence that occur after separation and divorce, yet these account for 75.9 percent of spouse-on-spouse assaults, with a male perpetrator 93.3 percent of the time, according to the U.S. Department of Justice [27]. The Straus study relied on self-reports of violence by one member of each household, yet men who batter typically under-report their violence by 50 percent [28]. Finally, the CTS does not include sexual assault as a category although more women are raped by their husbands than beaten only [29]. Adjusting Straus' own statistics to include this reality makes the ratio of male to female spousal violence more than 16 to one.
----------- End of Copy Paste --------
SarahMC - my point, and my opinion is as follows.
Any society that has any sort of gender role (which is all of them) isn't fair to men or women as individuals. In my mind, if discourse is going to happen, it shouldn't be arguing as much as it should be an expression of personal experience to help someone else understand a different point of view.
I also approach conversation looking to give the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Mark intended to say that all women deserve to be hated because they're manipulative and that they attack men who didn't do anything. Maybe he meant that the system is unfair and the injustices perpetrated due to it's inherent unfairness are deplorable and that there are areas that men get screwed too. I would rather come looking for the second option rather than the first.
On the topic of man-hating:
Feministing doesn't really seem to be a website that is built to enact any sort of change. I've been reading, though not posting, for long enough to see a pattern of a main page post of a specific example of 1 man or 1 small group of men behaving stupidly - and then a message board full of frustration at the intrinsic unfairness of gender roles. If a random man/guy/boy/dude/whatever comes in here and doesn't separate the initial post (of a single example) and then the venting of frustration that frequently follows - what we see is easily interpreted as pack of man-hating women complaining about all men (in the message board) because of the actions of a few stupid ones (in the front topic).
I'm sure you know the difference between "I feel" statements, and statements of fact. "I feel" can never be denied, assuaged, or repaired. The front page is fact, typically pointed at with evidence - and the message board is a community that expresses emotion. I believe than men and women communicate differently. I see that most guys don't use "I feel" statements, or recognize them when they are presented with one. (Maybe that's due to the gender role placed on young boys and men that emotions are weak, maybe it's because of slight chemical differences due to testosterone vs estrogen - I'm not saying I know 'why' for sure, but the result that men and women can't seem to understand each other is pretty obvious to me).
Another thing about me is that I"m not going to be an apologist for society and how it is structured. I'm not going to refer to it as the 'Patriarchy'. I'm not going to pretend that there's not a 'Matriarchy' that exists as well. Just like I can't see how the Patriarchy surrounds all of life (because I'm a man), I'd say that a woman can't see how a Matriarchy exists (because she's a woman). Women have power. So do men.
I identify feminism as when women want the type of power that is regarded as masculine/held by men - and they feel prevented from having it, by men.
The flip side of that coin exists, but as a friend of mine said to me yesterday - "We're not far enough away from the period of time that women looked to gain equality to men that men can look to gain equality with women."
James,
First I want to apologize for being unnecessarily snippy towards you. Please understand that we are all accustomed to being harassed and insulted by people who hate women and want the whole world to know it. If I misjudged you, I was wrong. I think we all appreciate contributions from men, as long as we are not mocked right off the bat for being feminists, etc.
I am taken aback by your assertion that Feministing is not the kind of site that enacts change. I question what posts you've been reading.
Feministing was one of my first exposures to online feminism, and by taking part in this little community, I have grown as a feminist and learned A TON. Education IS an agent of change. Consciousness-raising IS a method of change. I guarantee you that many women have been empowered by what they've found on this site, and have gone out into the world to create their own change.
The MSM does not report on gender issues in an intellectual, thorough, thoughtful manner (if at all). Nor does it address any of the other forms of injustice we are concerned about. Feministing is a service to those of us who want to be informed about that sort of thing. Because of sites like Feministing, we are aware of things we weren't aware of before. We can write our representatives about things we see here. We can donate to good causes we've read about here. We can make better informed decisions about our consumption, our political candidates, and our lives in general.
It gives us the tools we need to affect change in small ways. The San Diego news station modified the text of the victim-blaming article, because we called them and told them why their language is wrong. This also comes to mind.
The editors regularly announces progressive-minded events in different cities. They review books (and WRITE books!).
Once your eyes are opened to all the forms of injustice in this world, all the acts of bigotry, it is impossible to close them ever again. It can get pretty depressing. Feministing reminds me that I am not alone, and it provides a bit of levity (Monty, the "Friday Fuck You," funny little videos, Random Acts of Feminism...) too.
Geez, we wasted all these years to get access to birth control when we could have just deployed the vaginal shield all along!
I think devillover is my ex-husband.
"Nope, the study was the one done in 77 by steinmetz, not the one you're referring to in 80 by straus and gelles that brings Conflict Tactics into the picture.
Don't worry about the doughnuts though - the study that my source was citing, I just looked it up and it's full of crap logic."
Thanks for quoting NOMAS to me--I've worked with them before. I have to say, though, I find it interesting that you quote "crap logic" (not to mention crap appparently of your own making, "Over the last twenty-five years, leading sociologists have repeatedly found that men and women commit violence at similar rates.
The 1977 assertion that “the phenomenon of husband battering” is as prevalent as wife abuse is confirmed by nationally representative studies" ) then respond as if you really had the knowledge all along re: Conflict Tactics. Yet the info that you casually dismiss comes DIRECTLY from Straton's essay, but you don't quote that part and attempt to pass that off as knowledge you already possessed. So if you knew what you were talking about, then why make the blatantly false assertion about "leading sociologists" in the first place? Sorry, but when someone tries to pass that off as the "factual" basis for an argument, I can't help but believe that your assertions are disingenous at best.