Recently in Anti-Feminism Category

For those of you on the Bust magazine email list you already got this.  

I guess Jessica (Valenti) did an interview in which it sounded like she called Bust Magazine not feminist and (seemed) to make fun of the DIY movement.

here is the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/magazine/15fob-q4-t.html

here is the link to Bust's blog post about it:

http://www.bust.com/blog/2009/11/16/et-tu-jessica-qbust-not-feministq-really.html

although Bust.com seems to be down at the moment.

I say respectfully and without snark:

Jessica, would you like to clarify your statements?

2 things: sometimes in my head I see or hear things from feminists and think to myself "I wouldn't call them feminists."  But I know what it is like to be told I am not a feminist/Christian/real woman/what ever I self identify as because I don't meet someone else's "criteria and it sucks, and second criticizing people in public is a BIG deal It should be done with thought and care.  

*******

Editor's note: Thanks for the post. I actually did clarify in the comments section on BUST. I'm reposting my comment after the jump.

I had a truly horrible day and no one to vent my frustrations to. Let me start out by saying I love english. I just hate my english class. My teacher frequently passes out essays written by feminist authors and we discuss them. I don't know if it's because I live in a relatively affluent neighborhood or a conservative state but the people in my class are either unaware or just unwilling to learn about any view that doesn't fall under their ridged set of morals. I generally don't like to voice my opinions in class because I'm worried about how people will react to them; however I just couldn't contain myself today.
We were reading an essay by Linda M. Hasselstrom in which she explains her decision to carry a concealed weapon. Hasselstrom asserts that she's been the victim of attempted rape on several occasions. This scarred her enough to take self-defense classes. However while practicing with her husband, she learned how close you must be to your attacker to use martial arts. She decided it wasn't worth the risk to confront a 220-pound male unless she was extremely well trained in martial arts. Her last resort was to buy a gun. She was given the opportunity to use it when she was accosted by several teenagers who were urinating on her property. When she rolled down her window to confront them, they laughed and began to shake her car. She then pointed her gun at them and told them to get off her property. They did. Hasselstrom laments, "it is a shame the only way women can achieve equality is by carrying weapons."

I'm a fan of blogs and news sites, and sites that direct me to blogs and news sites, and one of those is called reddit.com. Now, I often get the feeling that the reddit community is male dominated, more than often actually. A lot of posts are very intellectual, but some, on the other hand, make me sick to my stomach.

The title is "I just hit my girlfriend". While this is a fake, fabricated story (as indicated by the end of the paragraph), WARNING: it is disturbing.

I honestly cannot speak right now. I want to verbally assault every single commentor, I want to look them in the eye, I want to scream. I want to say that it is NOT okay to make jokes about domestic violence, about physical assault. I'm at a loss of words - commenting will do nothing. I'm forced to crawl back into my little hole and let the clan of manhood laugh over something they think is funny - to demean a woman, to make a joke out of it. I cannot believe so many people think this is funny. What is wrong with our society?

Sorry if this posts seems rushed or not well thought out - I'm in a state of shock, of anger, and I don't know what to do or where to displace these feelings.

Yet another conservative hack holds fourth (ad nauseam).

From "Dignity has a place on Halloween":

I could opine to you that dressing like a slut is not in the "true spirit" of Halloween, although -- let's be honest -- it kind of is. Halloween likely will never be a holiday wherein we treat ourselves and each other with the proper respect. Although many have said provocative Halloween dress is just a fact of life on college campuses, I refuse to idly stand by.

You should know this, Starbucks Girl: You are worth so much more than to flaunt your body around like an object. Not just on Halloween, but every night. And no matter what they said in "Mean Girls," Halloween is not a holiday during which you can dress like a slut and get away with it -- it's pretty much always frowned upon by rational and sound-minded people.

I know you might think this is what your boyfriend wants to see. And he probably does! What red-blooded male doesn't enjoy seeing young women parade around half-naked along Grand River Avenue? Halloween always has been a holiday during which we've attempted to satisfy our carnal pleasures. And now that most of us men have outgrown the fleeting joys of candy, we'll settle for eye candy instead.

But it doesn't have to be this way, Starbucks Girl! The only ones who can reverse this trend are you and your fellow ladies, one by one. Do you expect the majority of men to encourage you to dress modestly? No -- you and your fellow women are the ones who can do the most to reclaim and affirm your dignity.

And don't be fooled by those so-called "feminists," Starbucks Girl. Dressing up in a racy costume is not just another way to display your "feminine pride," or your "sexual freedom." You're just selling yourself out as an object, and in no way does dressing like that help to garner you any respect.

I feel for you, Starbucks Girl. I know it's not easy for women like you to find costumes that consist of more than one square foot of fabric. As I briefly walked through a Halloween store, I was hard-pressed to find any female costume that wasn't a "sexed-up" version of something innocent. So it might take some creativity from you and your peers to find a costume that shows off your brains rather than your breasts or booty.

So that's a friend of mine who is the opinion writer at the State News at Michigan State University. I'm interested to hear what ya'll have to think about a column such as this considering we are the "so-called feminists" that he mentions. Have at it!

Last night I watched the 1951 Swedish film, Miss Julie , which was based on the play of the same name written by August Strindberg. Strindberg's tortured psyche and resulting tumultuous love life must certainly have factored in to the equation, as he sees the relationship between men and women as being a combative, loathing affair in which both sexes are driven together only by carnal lust.  The two main characters, Miss Julie and her nominal lover Jean, spend the majority of the film variously exchanging insults, spilling forbidden details of each's dysfunctional childhood, while desperately striving to keep away the barely concealed desire that so strongly pulls them together.  This, to Strindberg, is what characterizes every romantic pairing at its basest core. 

While I might not agree with said statement, I do grant that the playwright does deserve some praise for being ahead of his time to some degree.  Power dynamics, particularly those regarding types of privilege are explored in much detail, especially the means by which gender inequality trumps class distinction and vice- versa.  Miss Julie holds power over her working-class, though highly educated lover because her background is aristocratic.  Jean, however, has power over Miss Julie because he is male and is not restrained by upper-class values.  Ironically, the aristocracy is shown to create its own needless restrictions and its own cages, and though the working-classes might have less money or influence, they also live lives of greater freedom than their social betters.  As for Jean and Julie, their flirtation is as much about control as it is about lust, and in it neither character wins the upper hand for very long.  Instead, we the audience are left with a maddeningly unresolved squabble that, by the film's conclusion, is never really put aside.

Hello everyone,
My first post, although I have been reading posts for some time. I have been a feminist for many years, and have always been outspoken when I hear someone making a sexist remark. I frequently comment on various websites about feminist issues, and I must say, the hatred for women, and feminists in particular, is ASTONISHING!! I recently commented on an article about gay right to marry, and reading the responses to my comment was heart-breaking. I am not gay, but stated that I was in favor of equal rights for everyone, and that discrimination based on gender, race, sexual orientation, or other, was wrong. One response to my comment referred to African-Americans, Gay American, and then to "Vagino-Americans!" I assume this comment came from a white male, and I reminded him that most likely his mother was a vagino-american, and lucky for him, or he wouldn't be here. He responded with the most foul language you can imagine. There were many other men who commented in favor of gay rights, but not one man or woman who stuck up for me. Why aren't men progressing at all? Haven't all of us suffered enough at their hands? I am 56 years old, and I don't see one bit of progress from the original '60s women's movement. It's so disheartening that I want to weep for myself, my daughter, and all of us vagino-americans.

Last night I threw a birthday party for my live-in boyfriend at our loft inviting all of our friends. I have a boyfriend who identifies himself as a feminist and is quite possible one of the best guys I've ever met. His friends on the other hand.....

So the beginning of the night goes well. We served limoncello cocktails and conversation was great. My boyfriend was all smiles and I was really glad that I could put together this event for him.

We had already discussed a month or so ago that there would not longer be any hookah smoking (tobacco for those who don't know hookah) at our home if people had been drinking (this came about as a drunk person knocked it over, burning my hand and ruining my favorite rug at our last get together).

Well last night someone felt the need to bring their hookah over (wtf? I mean I wouldn't just light up a cigarette in someones home). My boyfriend was somewhere else in the house so I confronted the smoking group and told them that we didn't allow hookah in our house. They gave me the dirtiest look and said they'd go upstairs to smoke it ( which is STILL in my home). I felt so non-verbally attacked I went along with the compromise and as they passed me I heard them calling me a bitch making fun of having a purple velvet couch (i.e. nice things) and being a prude. It really got me to thinking....if I could've have located my boyfriend and he said the same, there would been a total apologetic nature and immediate cessation of smoking I KNOW IT. It just threw up a big flag in my face that if a woman is trying to be mature, strong, and stand up for her domain...she is automatically a witch. bitch, fill-in-the-blank misogynist term.

This brings me to the biggest and worst situation of the night (trigger warning) - One of our guests (my good friend's husband)  had a bit to much to drink to say the least. We ended up finding him asleep in our bed. She began apologizing and trying to wake him up. After several attempts of "Hey honey you need to get up" she switched to "Get up now! You're embarrassing me!" All of the sudden he jumped up and started kicking our bedroom furniture and punching the wall next to his wifes head. She was screaming crying and ran out our bedroom to have another friend find her convulsing in the hallway. I was the only one to see the incident so people were asking me what happened. I was outraged and ready to call the cops. I was shooing everyone out of the party when several of the male guest who know my friend's husband came up to me and said "Ya know he would never actually hurt her...he was just drunk". I exclaimed "WHAT!?"  How could that act be justifiable no matter what? And more than anything....something like that IS abuse whether he actual made physical contact with her at all. Why is it that men are so protective of each other when they didn't even see the happenings!?  It was physical intimidation and emotional abuse! As I was crying, and yelling, I heard someone say: "Why is she so worked up?" and one guest responded "Because she is a man-hating feminist who makes everything a bigger deal than what it is." I was irate, told my boyfriend to get everyone out the door and went and locked myself in my room.

I'm getting to the point where I feel like I just can't interact with people anymore. How is standing up for yourself and the ones you love a punishable act?

Hi all. I'd like to first start by saying that I consider myself to be a feminist and have many strong feminist opinions. I don't agree with objectifying women and am disappointed on a daily basis when I see it happening everywhere in society, the media, etc.

With all these opinions that I have, I find myself facing a personal dilemma. I love dressing "sexy" for Halloween.

For the past several years I have worn pretty revealing costumes, and have basically been contributing to what I have come to believe is a detriment to our world. I like the way the costumes look on me and I enjoy the compliments that I get. Part of me feels guilty about walking around like a sex object and I feel like a hypocrite. Does anyone else ever experience these feelings?

I guess I'll file this one under anti-feminism, since I'm feeling a bit guilty for betraying my feminist beliefs.

This is my first submission to the community here at feministing.com. I was made aware of this site, and of Jessica Valenti in my graduate women's studies class at East Carolina University. I've been walking around feeling all empowered after reading Full Frontal Feminism, having deep conversations with male friends about the state of feminism and sexism...basically just on a feminist high. A couple of hours ago, I decided to check ECU's student paper, as I'd never read it before. What I saw made me feel like I'd been sucker punched.

Here's a link.

This article was written by a woman and allowed to go to press by a female editor-in-chief. Just when I thought that our generation was of a similar mind, someone comes out with crap like this.

Saw this floating around.  good question!

MCCOY MOUNTAIN
ART, FILM, & LITERATURE GUILD  OF AMERICA

Ms. Priscilla Painton

Simon & Schuster Editor in Chief

RE: ASSHOLES FINISH FIRST, Secretive Tapings of Anal Sex without The Girl's Consent, Corporate Douchebaggery, and the Epic Failure of I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell

Despite the fact that teenagers nationwide are going to hear gem pick-up lines like "get away from me or I'm going to carve another fuck hole in your torso", what truly crowns this film as an epic fail is its apologetic attempt to masquerade gratuity as an Apatovian bromance. --http://www.thelmagazine.com/newyork/we-hope-you-can-still-get-alcohol-poisoning-in-hell/Content?oid=1291260

"Little Italy is fighting back against Tucker Max 's controversial ad campaign . Yeah, that poster on the right says, "Blind Girls Never See You Coming." Va fan culo, indeed." --http://gothamist.com/2009/09/21/tucker_max.php

Dear Ms. Painton,

                I and my colleagues in the ART, FILM & LITERATURE GUILD have a couple questions regarding the direction you are taking Simon and Schuster in.  Why are you guys/gals hating on art, literature, culture and America?  It was recently brought to our attention that you are intent on publishing Tucker Max's ASSHOLES FINISH FIRST, and that your company actually gave him a $300,000 advance for his fart art.  As the editor in chief of Simon and Schuster, owned the CBS corporation, do you truly believe Assholes Finish First?    It is oft said that girls like "bad boys."  Does Tucker's fart art douchebag wit titillate and excite you?  Is that why you are publishing and profiting from it?  Did you laugh during Tucker's recent film flop when what's-his-name stated that overweight women aren't real people?  Do you smile smugly when your billion-dollar corporation profits from douchebaggery?

I'm a college student and I'm currently taking a class that basically consists of learning about other cultures and discussing ideas we hold about these cultures.

My teacher asked several people the following questions last class:

1) Who are better drivers, men or women?

2) Who is bitchier, black women or white women?

3) Who is smarter, men or women?

Every single man asked said men were better drivers. Of the women asked, about half laughed and also said men were better drivers. The only woman who was unapologetically vocal about being a good female driver was a lesbian. One man claimed women just don't have the attention span to drive and that they're always doing their make-up or texting. When even the teacher claimed men were better drivers, I asked her why it is then that young men have the priciest insurance? She said it was because they're very aggressive on the road (that doesn't sound like good driving to me).

When asked who was bitchier of black and white women, I was the only person who argued against black women being bitchier (even the teacher said black women were bitchier). One white woman said "Black women ARE bitchier! I know, I wait on them all day." Later someone said, "I think it's just women in general."

When asked who was more intelligent, every single man said men were, all but one woman said women were.

I just don't get it. Why does one sex have to be smarter? Why does one race have to be meaner? Why do people cling so tightly to stereotypes?

I apologize if this gets a little bit rant-y, one of them just popped up in another discussion elsewhere and it got me thinking.

I'm not sure where this stuff comes from, exactly. It's not like there's a Feminist Textbook that's teaching young aspiring feminists these bad things, but it seems like I see feminists continue to fall into these traps when we discuss matters online. And they bug the hell out of me. It's tempting to say that I only hear this stuff from people who are new to the feminist movement, but alas, it is not necessarily the case.

I'll keep it to two, because otherwise I could rant all day.

In a discussion about accessibility/likability of feminists:

"I don't understand people who think that all feminists are a bunch of man-hating killjoys. That's like saying all civil rights activists are Black Panthers."

This one bothers me on a number of levels. First of all, second-class citizens are rarely given their rights by a benevolent ruling class out of the goodness of the brc's heart. Rights are often a result of the people of the second class getting up, getting angry, and demanding their rights in a way that makes the ruling class uncomfortable.

In our hurry to distance ourselves from the Scary Radical Feminists (for... I dunno, I guess so the boys will like us), we trample the very real reality of our situation as well as the very real situation of people of color.

Take, for example, Melissa Batten. She was a developer for Microsoft who had taken out a restraining order against her estranged husband when he began harassing her. He even broke into her office. Yet he was allowed to walk free, and he eventually shot and killed her before shooting himself.

Now, she did exactly what she was supposed to do. She went to the police. She filed a report. Hell, he even made it easy when he committed felony B&E. But the police failed at their duty to protect her and she was a sitting duck. If she had decided to arm herself, and if she was able to shoot him before he shot her, would we call her a ball-busting man-hater for defending herself?

Because the Blank Panthers were more or less the same thing, to be historically honest. When you look at the history of the police brutality in black neighborhoods, there comes a point where people have to stand up to that sort of treatment and that's what the Black Panthers was about. It wasn't about "killing whitey," or going into white neighborhoods to start shit. Hell, the Black Panthers even had white members. It was about self-defense in the face of a broken system that wasn't keeping the community safe (or was actively persecuting the community). Hell, the Black Panthers even had white members.

More often than not, when you talk to a radical feminist, she's not advocating killing all the men, she's advocating women's safety and security in a society that does not value women's safety and security. So I guess that makes radfems a little like the Black Panthers.

But it's not like that's a bad thing.

In a discussion about paroled rapists who are repeat offenders:

"These guys make me so sick! We should just cut their balls off!"

I hear this one far too often. I suspect it's more of a conventional wisdom spout-off than one that actually has roots in feminist culture, but we do take our cultures with us when we traipse off to Vaginastan to get our feminist branding, I'm afraid.

Castration rhetoric, apart from being inflammatory, is completely wrong-headed. The problem with rapists lies not between their legs, but between their ears. Rapists derive pleasure from the sensation of domination and abuse, not from the actual sexual stimulation of intercourse. As such, removing testicles (apart from the fact that men can still sustain erections without their nuts) will not prevent men from raping women.

But more than that, there are plenty of cases where convicted rapists have ;asked the parole board to castrate them as a condition of parole. So what's wrong with that, you may ask? Well, it's a great way to sidestep any culpability or responsibility for your actions. If you can just blame your genitals, and how your sex drive makes you a monster, and if you can just remove your gonads everything will be fine, you're just sidestepping your own accountability in the matter as a human being. If there is to be any hope for rehabilitating rapists, the solution lies in intense counseling and therapies, as well as reviewing post-parole institutions.

I'm all for tougher sentences for violent sex offenders: As far as I'm concerned, a lot of them should not have the option of parole (which won't happen as long as we focus our mandatory minimum sentences on drug offenders, but that's a rant for another time). But this notion that cutting off the testicles of a rapist will somehow make things better doesn't have a place in feminist discussion. Rapists won't stop raping if they have to use a tool to rape instead of their own genitals, and furthermore, the state should not have the ability to exercise power over another person's bodily autonomy.

So what about you? What "feminist" conventional wisdom do you wish would just go away?

Do you like your hate topped with hate, with hate on the side, some hate chopsticks with which to shovel it in, and a big hating mug of hate to wash it all down?

Steve Anderson is your man.

He's been around the blogosphere some over the last couple of days, so you may have heard of this elsewhere; the Crooks and Liars link has more than the others I've seen, so I used that.  Mainly it's good because it has a transcript, which may allow some to get through it without wanting to choke a smurf, especially in cases where actually listening to the guy would induce shrieking fits of uninhibited rage.

Nothing I say can add to any of this.  Enjoy... so to speak.

We're all entitled to things. I'm entitled to this cup of tea I made. I'm entitled to receive my textbooks I bought online within the next 4-6 business days. I'm entitled to not getting the car I paid for smashed into. I'm entitled to have my place in the classes I signed up and paid for.

But most importantly, I'm entitled to my body. And is it really so hard for men, the government, and my health care provider to let me keep this entitlement?

If you didn't know, a little over a week ago George Sodini shot 12 women, killing 3, a little over a week ago. Why? Because he was frustrated since no woman was willing to go out with him. (Jessica posted about it , but I thought I'd recap anyway.)

Men's Rights Activists are defending him by saying he was A Nice Guy.

A decent looking man who earns a good living and does not abuse women DESERVES to get laid. Period.

(There are more comments about Sodini at the link)

Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was Prince Charming, had oodles and oodles of money, and was just the nicest guy that there ever could be, does that really take my bodily entitlement away? The problem with Sodini and the problem with those MRAs who made those comments is that they don't see women as individuals who can decide what they chose to do with their lives and bodies -- they see women as objects that they "deserve."

Sodini's sentiments are not unique. They are the very heart of MRA ideology and conservative politics. True, most MRAs and social conservatives don't go around shooting random women, but how far is the leap from saying "Women are not entitled to reject me if I'm a good guy" to "Women are not entitled choose who they have sex with if they're wearing a skirt or walking down a dark street alone" to "Women are not entitled to decide if they want to use birth control or get an abortion."

If there are people in this world willing to defend George Sodini, then how far away has my bodily entitlement slipped?

Was browsing Craigslist today and came across this little gem: Law Firm Seeks Attractive Female Receptionist.

I particularly enjoy this bit: "We are a young, energetic, yet professional law firm. We seek someone that will fit in with our attitude and culture." ...And by "attitude and culture," we of course mean that of the 1950's. Puh-lease. How can they put the word "professional" in their ad and yet specify that they're only looking for an attractive female? That doesn't sound particularly professional to me.

I was looking at another feminist website to keep updated on feminist issues and ran across an article that looked really similar to the one I saw on here the other day about Carl's Junior's terrible ad campaign, but this time it was burger king. They now have an ad campaign that makes it look like the blow up doll esque woman is about to give the sandwich which looks like a penis a blow job, which is exemplified by the wording on the message which claims that it will "blow your mind". I want to know when it became okay to use women's bodies to sell fast food. I will NEVER eat at either one of these establishments ever again. I don't care if they rescind the ads. Please join me in permanently boycotting these establishments

I am new to this feminism business, and I am thrilled to say that it has changed me for the better.  I have always known that I did not agree with the rules placed upon me by society, but it took me a while to fully understand what these feelings meant.  Feminism has improved my life immensely.  I no longer allow my physical insecurities cripple me. I no longer allow men's view of me to define who I am and who I will become.  I no longer judge other women based on rumor and peer pressure.  I feel more comfortable being alone.  I feel much, much stronger.  Feminism looks good on me.

Recently, I was faced with an issue where I felt compelled to defend my feelings, against my will, from a personal attack.  I have a female co-worker whom I have always admired and respected as my definition of a feminist mover-and-shaker.  She is intelligent, ambitious, and does whatever she wants whenever she wants.  I considered her an ally.  I sat down with her for what I had intended to be a one-on-one conversation to share my newfound identity and empowerment.  Given her knowledge of my debilitating self-hate and insecurities, I thought she would be excited for me.  I told her that I have discovered feminism, and she immediately raised an eyebrow in slight confusion.

I am incredibly lucky to associate with many different people, with many different viewpoints. While most of my friends would identify as liberal or center-left, I do have a few right-wing acquaintances. However, in an ironic twist of fate, a best friend of mine is a self-identified "Reagan Conservative", heterosexual, white male. He shows clear signs of being heterosexist and transphobic, and does harbor some feelings of homophobia, sexism, racism, and classism. While one must take my word for it, to put it bluntly: he is a good person, just VERY misled. (At work, his father didn't even accept black clients until the late 1990's.) One shared interest between the two of us is that we both enjoy passionately debating moral, political, and religious issues.

Of course, feminism has come up more than once. A while back, I posted the article "Boy Babies Only Wear Blue " by Jennabun  on Facebook. (Nice article, by the way!)

My conservative friend responded with, "Good, that's the way things should be. All these goofy feminists just need to accept that boys and girls are very, very different and stop trying to make them the same. Studies have shown boys and girls to be different at birth -  they have distinct genes and inherently different behavioral patterns, even before they are exposed to our 'sexist' society."

I responded by explaining that feminism is not about changing people rather it is about tearing down their society-imposed differences; that our society is indeed sexist; and that women and men both suffer from our sexist culture. However, the last part of his comment really got me thinking: what about the scientific aspect of feminism?

What have legitimate scientific studies shown about the differences between the genders? If at all, are these "behavioral patterns" really has extreme as he implies? Furthermore, can anyone suggest a good response to the last part of his message? (I know it will come up again.)

While any feedback is welcome and encouraged, legitimate sources would be enjoyed as well. Thanks!

I'm really tired of the older generation of men and women bashing young feminists. As one I can assert that I have not lost any of the passion my foremothers and fathers had but now a days it is all about the never ending compromise.

I feel like being a feminist in theory is amazing and beautiful and everything I have ever wanted to be, but in real life I am expected to go with the flow. When the guy in class cracks a typical sexist joke I am supposed to shut up and smile; if not I am suddenly the class bitch and outcasted to the side. When I am passed up for the "heavy lifting" volunteer job, it is understood I couldn't possibly lift as much.

When is it okay for me to just say no and assert myself and when is it just plain outrageous? This question bothers me everyday. When I do assert myself I am laughed at, explained off, or written up for subordination even if I was respectful. But if I don't speak up then I feel like I am failinfgall the men and women that fought so hard for my basic rights. How can I draw the line?

 

It is striking how far the Swedish govt. has gone to silence us. In Pye's video, she speaks about how important a trend listening to people about whom they were making legislation became, espcially when it came ot the children. The legislators insisted that the children's voices be heard at every step while making legislation that affected children. However, as Pye pointed out, sex workers were completely shut out of any dialogue about legislation that afected them. Their voices were considered even less important than children's voices. Not one was allowed to speak, to voice her (or his) concern about how the legislation might affect them.

To me, that is unacceptable, very unprogressive, and bordering on criminal.

This law is decidedly UN feminist. One can’t watch this video and think the Swedish law is progressive. It is so regressive! Imagine substituting “sex work” for “acting”. Or any other job. How dehumanizing and infantilizing. Is the answer really to shut women up? Honestly. Does anyone still believe that?

“We want to save you! And if you dont appreciate it you will be punished!”

 

I accidently joined a hard core republican site called freerepublic.com.  I thought I was an open place for intelligent conversation and intelligent debates.  Quite wrong.  I got banned because someone 'reported abuse' reason being: troll.  But check out the article I posted. 

It's called "Should Liberals Leave the Catholic Church"

Almost every reply was a personal attack.  Talk about abuse.  But I thought I'd share because this only proves how detrimental hard core conservatives degrade and oppose women.

So enjoy...and if you want join and stir up their chauvinistic ways!!!  I love causing disturbances in idiots.  You'll probably end up banned.

My whole idea with this article was to point out that one can still be (in my case) Catholic (insert your personal religion here) and liberal.  Even if I disagree.  My point was that it's not up to the government to decide.  It's not up to them to condemn me.  And all replies were basically personal attacks on me.  It enraged me at first then I stopped caring about insignificant ignorant people.  There were a few replies that were intelligent, most were personal attacks.  God forbid me being a feminist.  Anyway thought I'd share.  I wish I could do something about it!

I am so sick of people telling me that wearing makeup is anti-feminist.  Usually this accusation comes from acquaintances who are not feminists anyway.  I am not the type of person who wears tons of foundation and bronzer to get that oh so coveted blonde, tanned, flawless look.  And I certainly don’t wear makeup everyday.  I am not afraid to leave the house without it.  I am a painter.    I costume myself with colors to match my mood… for fun.  For example, I sometimes put on Egyptian style eyeliner with bright green eyeshadow and beige lips.  Not exactly your typical fashion magazine look.

But still, people insist that me covering myself in any way implies that I am not ok with who I am and am seeking to succumb to conventional stereotypes of beauty.  This is ridiculous considering we all wear clothes in public everyday.  Putting on a shirt and pants does not automatically mean I have a low body-image, so why does makeup imply that I am not ok with my face? 

People have also mentions that my motive may be to look sexy or impress the opposite sex.  This is also false.  My boyfriend actually prefers me without makeup... when he can clearly see my face.  But I don’t let that stop me from ‘costuming’ when I feel like it.  I also just don’t feel a need to base the way I look on my partner’s opinions… sorry, but my relationship isn’t that shallow.

I’m wondering if perhaps this could be people’s way of trying to debunk or find flaws with my feminist views… as if finding inconsistencies in me will demonize feminism as a whole.

Has anyone else experienced anything like this?  How have you dealt with it?

"Of course, rational people realize that changing one's name, cross-dressing, ingesting hormones naturally produced by the opposite sex, and electively amputating healthy parts of one's sexual anatomy don't really change one's biological sex. The emperor was really wearing no clothes, and Chastity, who has assumed the moniker "Chaz," will always really be a woman.

It's utterly confounding that society en masse believes or pretends to believe that "transgenderism" reflects a real phenomenon of people actually trapped in the wrong body rather than a profound disruption in the development of a secure and proper sexual identity."

Maybe the author is the one who isn't a rational person? Just saying, it's a really good possibility.

I 'm a fan of an old 1970's TV show called Space 1999. and I belong to a yahoo e mail group about it called online alpha. Periodically the subject of how things have changed comes up including how women are depicted in the media. As we compared how up to date different SF shows were for their time. One person bought up the debacle of the original Star Trek series. One person posted that originally the Enterprise had a female first officer and that made the show ahead of it's time. I posted that that was true however complaint letters poured in from bigoted viewers and the female first officer was dropped.
No sooner did I post this than another member of the forum wrote in with the comment "So people with different beliefs are bigoted?" Another person posted "No, just terribly old fashioned"

At this point I'm thinking excuse me? Old fashioned? Saying a woman is not fit for a job because she is a woman is old fashioned? Talk about a euphemism. In the past it was popular to segregate blacks because of the their race. I don't know any one who would say that people that have that view are "old fashioned" There are other words for it that are much more descriptive and less polite. So how come bigotry against women is some how "old fashioned"? The fact that I like Sci Fi shows in the 70's style makes me a little old fashioned in my tastes in that particular regard. It does not make my views hurtful and degenerate, there is a difference.

This is my first post here so bear with me. Perhaps someone else has posted about this before, but I was just wondering when you would say that you first started describing yourselves as feminists and what kind of reaction you had from those around you?

I have always been pro gender equality, but it is only through my recent university studies that I have recently begun to describe myself as a feminist. So far I have only told two people and I have had no negative reaction, but haveing read alot on the internet and generally I am aware that many are still scared of the term 'feminist'. The connotations for too many are negative and in my opinion homophobic ( we are all hairy man hating lesbians- offensive on sooo many levels, but I digress...)

Your comment is appreciated.

fifi

While eating my mid-morning breakfast and enjoying the promise of a lazy sunday I came across this thoroughly dispiriting article in the Sunday Times: How 40 years of women have left women less happy.

This scathing piece of insightful journalism gave some helpful reasons as to why women might be feeling a little glum these days. You see, after the war women's happiness levels (whatever actual empirical evidence they use to judge this, I have no idea) have decreased dramatically. The culprit, of course, must be feminism.

Granted, this article comes up with several reasons as to why their anti-feminist theory might be completely bogus such as, the stress of the 'second shift' (women taking on more duties at work and the same amount at home), modern society destroying communities and isolating individuals (both men and women) and finally, that women might actually feel more comfortable now expressing their unhappiness whereas they might not have done so 40 years ago.

These all seem like relatively plausible explainations to me, yet this writer decides that 'international scale of trend' (?) 'militates' against it.

This article insults me as someone who dedicates her life to women's rights. Ultimately, this article argues that equality makes women unhappy, that respect makes women unhappy, and that power over her mind and body makes a woman unhappy.

When a newspaper like The Times feels happy printing trash like this I'm just reminded of how far we have come- and how far we have left to go.

I encourage you to look at the comments section online if you can stomach some of the blatent misogynist and ignorant crap there.

In my freshman year of college I took an introduction to sociology class. About halfway through the semester we came to the topic of feminism. On the day of the first lecture to cover the topic my professor strolled into the classroom with a projector. He addressed the class after a few minutes of setting up asking us how many people considered themselves feminists. Two people out of about fifty raised their hands. He then turned on the projector and on it placed a sheet that had these words on it.

Feminism: the belief that woman and men are politically, socially, and economically equal

He then addressed the class again, asking us how many of us considered ourselves feminists now. All but one person raised their hand this time. The concept of feminism is on its face, not that controversial. Anyone who could say that Mother Theresa was inherently less valuable than say, a male pedophile because she was a woman probably has bigger problems than being a sexist.

Much of the backlash against feminism deals with the idea that feminists seek to be equal to men by being like men. But that mode of thinking only reinforces the idea that being a man is better than being a woman. The fact that women left the domestic domain and entered universities and the work field has nothing to do with them wanting to be like men, it has to do with the fact that women are thinking and feeling individuals with interests that go beyond building a home. Feminism isn’t about taking over what use to be only a man’s domain; it’s about giving women the right to pursue their personhood to the same extent that men are allowed to. I am not a feminist because I want to be equal to men, I am a feminist because I am equal to men and I believe that society should not restrict my access to opportunities just because I am female.

It's fairly disturbing how much of this backlash centers on the issue of female sexuality and the ‘right’ ways to conduct that sexuality. It seems as if most people on the extreme end of the debate that opposes what feminism has done to female sexuality believe that women who embrace their sexuality are sex-crazed sluts, as if their vaginas were insatiable mouths and could not get enough. But that’s just it; I think some of the backlash against feminism is just vagina phobia. The phallus is getting a little competition and it doesn’t like it. I can’t even count how many men I’ve known who were fairly obsessed with their cocks, whether or not they actually knew how to use it to anyone’s pleasure but their own. But women enjoying and knowing how to achieve pleasure through their vaginas is so controversial that it’s caused a whole movement against the supposed hyper-sexuality of young women, when the women they’re actually referring to have little in common with the average American woman.

And women enjoying sex is exactly the problem, when women really start enjoying their sexuality they stop asking other people how they should conduct it.

And here’s another area where anti-feminist rhetoric attempts to frame the argument by saying that women are trying to be like men sexually, by being promiscuous or fully enjoying their sexuality. As if sexuality can only be enjoyed by men and its use by women can only have to do with their desire to be more like men. So another clarification, I’m not a feminist because I want to have the same sexual freedom as men do. I’m a feminist because I do have the same sexual freedom, and I’d like to be able to engage in that sexuality without my sex determining the slant of how society would like to try and interpret that sexuality for me. NEWS FLASH: feminism didn’t invent the clitoris, it just helped women locate it and start paying it some attention.

As an avid reader of Cracked.com, I can proudly say that I am a fan of lists. So imagine my delight when I found Listverse.com, which is exactly what it sounds like -- a buttload of lists.

I was pleasantly surprised at the topics of some of the lists. Many of them paid homage to famous or underrated women in history. The author of a list I read just yesterday had nothing but admiration for 10 famous and not-so-famous voice actresses who gave tremendous personality to the characters they voiced.

Just now, browsing through the lists, I found one called "Top 10 Lost Rules of Etiquette." I thought it would be an interesting look at behaviors which people of the past considered polite but, today, seem bizarre. I was disappointed to see that it was essentially the author complaining about how people aren't as polite today as they were in The Good Old Days. And I was doubly disappointed at what she or he had to say about item number 9, "Opening the Door":

"In days gone by, a gentleman would always open doors for ladies. Whether it be the lady they were driving, or a stranger entering a building, it was always the done thing. This has now almost entirely vanished - and it is not entirely the fault of the men. I have seen women sneer at men for opening a door for them. They seem to be confusing manners with chauvinism. My advice in this case is to smile at the sneering lady and open the door anyway."

Um, wow. Smile and open the door anyway? So if a woman feels disrespected or patronized by something a man does, the polite thing to do is to act even more patronizing and continue with the behavior anyway? I don't know about you, but my idea of etiquette in response to a woman reacting negatively to a man opening the door for her is showing some respect and maybe saying, "I'm very sorry, I didn't mean to offend you" and let her open her own damn doors and pull out her own damn chairs. It may be "tradition" to assume that women are incapable of doing even the simplest tasks for themselves, but it sure as hell isn't "etiquette."

Upon reading Rachel in WY's article entitled "Double Puke," I visited the Double X site to explore a little. I found another article that was not only deeply upsetting, but wildly untrue. By Susannah Breslin, it is titled, "Yes, Virginia, Feminism Really Is Dead." Huh. Ever heard of Feministing.com?

Apparently Double X has been under fire since it was launched, which was...well...today. And I quote, "Apparently, if you launch a website for women in 2009, the most important question is whether or not it's feminist."

Really? I was under the impression that the most important question is whether or not it damages females as a whole. Huh. Not to mention the obviously overwhelming negative feedback they have been receiving proves that feminism is NOT dead.

Breslin also dubs feminism a "decades-old movement, the relevance of which has been dubious for years now," "cultural roadkill," and as a movement made up of "antiquated political concepts." Oh? I guess it isn't relevant to fight violence against women, since 1 in 6 women will be raped in their lifetime, and it's pretty old-school to think that women should have the right to choose an abortion, or have equal pay for equal work. Open your eyes, Breslin...we're fighting these battles RIGHT NOW.

Anyone who believes feminism is dead, or that there is no need for it anymore, should probably re-read The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan. Yes, we've made progress. Yes, we still have so far to go.

Yesterday evening, I stuck around after school was over to go to the annual school carnival. My school is really small (175 students total) and we're all friends, so everyone had a great time hanging out, dancing, etc. Afterwards, my female friend and I, as well as two of our male friends stayed to help clean up. We were all four sitting on a bench watching the cleanup process, waiting for an opportunity to offer our assistance or for someone to approach us asking for help. It wasn't long before a 20-something man came up to us and looked to one of my male friends.

"What kind of gentleman are you?" he said. "Come on, help out."

Here is an email I wrote in response to an article in a small conservative ucla newspaper (if you can call it that). They regularly write anti-feminist articles (by women I might add) and this time the writer (an undergraduate wome's studies student) wrote about how feminism is irrelevant in the US and all these whiny women's studies people should instead try to work on getting rights for middle eastern women (and save them from what islam is doing to them). Here is my response:

-----------------------------

I read your article and I had to respond. My original instinct was to write something  sarcastic. Maybe because I feel insulted as an Iranian women's rights activist, or maybe it's because I could be doing something else instead of spending time responding to your article; like spending time with my husband, or grading my students' midterms, or do research; or I could spend my time doing something positive for feminism in the US or in Iran. But I decided not to be angry at you and try not to be sarcastic. I know you are writing from your heart and I want to simply talk to you. I know more about this topic than you do and I think you should listen to what I have to say and think about it.

Let me not speak for all women of middle east, or of Islamic countries, but only of Iranian women for now. I am an Iranian feminist and women's rights activist. You probably don't know that Iran has a vibrant and active women's rights movement which includes women of three generations and Iranians of all creeds and ideologies. It also includes young Iranian men. They need solidarity and support form their counterparts in other countries and are ready to in turn offer solidarity and support to them. But what they (or I should say we) do not need, is support from people who know less about equality, understand less about women's rights, and who are additionally self- righteous. Let me give you an example. It would be great to talk about domestic violence with an American feminist who understands that this is a SHARED issue among us, but we wouldn't want support from someone who is unaware about the issues of her own society. How can you expect an intelligent Iranian feminist to sit down in front of someone who understands little about the issues women face in her own society (the US)? How would you expect someone like that to understand the delicate and usually different circumstances of women from other cultures?

We, Iranian feminists, are ready to teach you about how to tackle the issues in your society, and we would love to learn from intelligent and well-informed American feminists (who have an inspiring history of activism). But there is not much we can learn from someone like yourself when it comes to women's rights, or women's rights activism. And we definitely do not need your help or support, because when you are not well informed, you can in fact hurt people when you are trying to help them with the best of intentions.

To re-iterate, we only exchange with our counterparts, people who are women's rights activists in their own countries. If you are interested in speaking with someone who is YOUR counterpart, you will find many conservative middle eastern men and women who think just like you do: that women have no problems in THEIR countries.

 

ORLANDO'S CATERING WON'T SERVE PRO-CHOICE PEOPLE!

Well folks, its official...the rumors are true... Orlando 's Banquet and Catering has caved to the pressure of radical anti-choicers and banished Faith Aloud and other pro-choice groups. A few weeks ago Faith Aloud held its annual awards banquet for the second year in a row at Orlando Gardens Webster Groves location. After being very pleased with the staff and service Faith Aloud was dismayed to learn that this year would be their last at Orlando Gardens .   Michael Orlando, owner of Orlando's Banquet and Catering, has decided to donate all the profits from the Faith Aloud Awards to radical anti-choice causes to "make amends" for serving Faith Aloud.

Furthermore Michael Orlando has made the poor choice of REFUSING to serve people associated with Faith Aloud or Planned Parenthood ever again. Basically Michael Orlando has chosen to ban pro-choice people from ALL of his venues. In his email to Faith Aloud Michael Orlando said, "After much discussion and deliberation with our family who takes a pro-life stance in our community, we feel we must decline the opportunity to host your event in the future. I hope you understand our position." We wonder how he can ask that we understand his position when he not only doesn't understand ours on a personal level but has chosen to ostracize anyone who associates with our position from his business.

When emcee extraordinaire and marriage equality activist Ed Reggi talked to Michael Orlando about the decision to ban Faith Aloud, Michael Orlando told Ed " this is a right as a Catholic business to refuse anyone that goes against their families beliefs." How does this make you feel as a feminist? Where does this type of refusal end? Will Orlando's now require a background check of all those who wish to use the venue? Is it really moral to take Faith Aloud's moeny for two years knowing full well what we do and what our belifs are only to decide after the fact  that what we do is too atrocious to warrant service in the future? We here at Faith Aloud belive that the strongest and best way to react to situations like this is through direct action.

What can you do? Here at Faith Aloud we encourage you to BOYCOTT Orlando's Banquet and Catering. Don't have your event there, don't attend events there, tell your friends not to go there. If you want to do more call or email Michael Orlando directly and express your disappointment with his choice to refuse those who support choice. His direct phone number is: 314-842-3316 and his email is morlando@orlandogardens.com.

Finally, in situations like this i find it best to remember the wise words of Margaret Mead, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Bluff Magazine, a leading poker publication, has had only 3 covers featuring female poker players since their first issue in 2004, and Jennifer Harmon and Jennifer Tilly were the first two. Both are respectable choices for sure, but they are also women who are fairly attractive, Tilly being known for making wearing revealing shirts at the table. However, both have won titles and Harmon is certainly one of the better female players in poker. However, last November, Bluff contributed to what I feel is becoming a disturbing trend in the poker world, catapulting young, attractive, female poker players into the forefront of the media simply because of their appearance, regardless of their skills at the table.

Websites such as pokerbabes.com and babesinpoker.com are becoming increasingly popular, and recently an article at pokerlistings.com titled "Poker Babes Good For The Game" touted the advantages of having attractive women at the poker table, claiming that this would inspire other women to play. Then, about halfway through the article this sentence appeared: "These women have the game, too, as well as the looks at the table." As if their poker skill were somehow secondary to their looks. "She's pretty, and she can actually play! Wow- what a surprise!" (Note the sarcasm) I agree with Vanessa Russo when she says that it's refreshing to see actual female players in poker ads rather than models, but I don't think that this means they have to be as attractive as Russo. I think normal looking female players are just as inspiring to regular women, if not more so.

Back to Bluff. Here is their November 2008 cover.

The women on this cover, titled "The Rise of Two Poker Princesses," are none other than Lacey Jones and Christina Lindley! Never heard of them? That's because collectively they have won a whopping 0 titles. Now, I have no problem with Bluff doing a feature article on 2 "up and coming female poker players" but I do wonder why they chose these 2 players.... Hmmmm... Could it be because they look good in their underwear?

Last night, for various reasons, I found it difficult to get to sleep. And, in the way that can happen from time to time, I remembered a conversation I had at home one evening with my brothers. I had said to them that I was keeping my name upon my getting marrried next year. Why would I do that, they asked? Because I was a Feminist, I explained. Well, slap me silly if they didn’t wonder why.

A feminist! Why on earth do I consider myself a feminist? Surely we wimmin all enjoy a life of equality and delight, now that legislative rights have been accorded to us. What on earth would I have to campaign about? What was there to complain about, now that us lucky ladies were permitted to speak, etc?

Fairly recently I subscribed to Life Magazine's mailing list because I'm a photographer and was interested in seeing the type of work they have on the site. I only got a few emails from them which were all nothing really exciting.

Today, however, I got one with something that caught my eye. At the bottom of each email, Life lists the "popular photos" which they define as "The photos that made our readers click like crazy". In this category were the following headlines: "Civil Rights: Rare Photos", "38 Cute cheerleaders", "The Real Women of 'Grey Gardens'", and "Crazy Miliary Parades"... all in that order.

That's right, "38 Cute Cheerleaders" came right after "Civil Rights"...

Anyway, after looking at the photos which are pretty soft porn-y - especially the line of cheerleaders bending down... not even kidding - I wrote a complaint to the list and unsubscribed.

The photos are here.

I thought, as a photographer, that Life Magazine was supposed to be about something more real and sunstantial... how do you go from showing the conditions that people were in during the Great Depression to this sexist bullshit??

If you are so inclined, please write to them and let them know that it offends you.

In my Gender and the Visual Arts class today we started talking about post-feminism. There were two main things that bothered me and I wanted to hear other opinions to try and clarify my own. 

The first issue was that I was the only self proclaimed feminist in the room. Everyone else either 'didnt want to be labeled' or thought that being associated with feminism meant that people 1. Wouldn't listen to you because they'd already think you were militant, and 2. Argued that feminism is an outdated concept that no longer has a place in the world and does more harm than good.

The second issue was when we discussed what this current generation is fighting for. If we are evolving from the last, where are we evolving to, and what are we becoming? Some suggested that we are the 'Whatever' generation, a generation that no longer wants to deal with these issues and doesnt want the effort of always fighting. That we do what we want to do and are no longer constrained by those around us. (obviously there are some very clear problems with this argument but perhaps theres some truth to the whatever concept)

But I want to know what you think? Why do most women not want to be feminist anymore and where is feminism going? I know these are questions that everyone answers but I do wonder, why do you connect yourself with feminism? Why not choose your values and create your own sense of identity rather than using a pre-prescribed set?

PS I still identify as feminist and have my own reasons but Im interested to see other peoples ideas....

Jillian Barberie (aka Reynolds) is a quasi-sportscaster on Fox Sports. Really, she's the weather girl (not surprising that Fox wouldn't make her an actual sports reporter), but she claims to love sports and often calls herself a sportscaster. Thus, she is in a unique position to represent other female sports fans on a national stage. Too often women who enjoy sports are deemed "sexy" for their love of football, baseball, etc. but not taken seriously on an intellectual level.

Male sports fanatics will often discuss together certain rules, strategies, and players; however, they typically ignore the opinions or ideas of their female counterparts and are shocked when an insightful observation comes from one of them. Many men seem to believe that women could only possibly enjoy sports on a superficial level, and that most of us only watch them to impress/attract men. Countless times, while I have been in a bar watching (often rather loudly) football, men have approached my date and told him how lucky he is to have a girlfriend who will watch sports, wink wink. The assumption here, I presume, is that my love of sports is somehow done for his pleasure rather than, or at least in addition to, my own. A woman's fanaticism is not admirable, like a fellow man's would be; it is "sexy".

As an academic and a woman, I am often faced with judgment about my love of sports. Academics often feel that sports are somehow beneath them and men, as I have mentioned above, see my fanaticism as 'sexy' but not as a serious love of the game(s). So, I am constantly working against these stereotypes and become disappointed and disheartened when I see a fellow female sports fan reinforcing these stereotypes. Which is exactly what Jillian does in her Nutri-system commercial.

Jillian's commercial only reinforces the view of female sports fans as superficial sex objects. Her claim that she's "not your average gal" because she "loves sports" while wearing a lingerie-type top that barely contains her giant breasts only furthers the notion that women who like sports do so to attract men. Even more insulting is her obnoxious quip "How many girls can do that?" after catching a football that looks like it was thrown underhanded from about 10 feet away. Um, let's see Jillian.... ALL THE GIRLS I KNOW can do that! Her demeaning insinuation here is that women are not only trying to be sexy by watching sports but that we are also all incapable of participating in any kind of sporting activity.

This commercial is absurd and insulting and shame on Jillian for promoting this type of image.

Today is the Day of Silence, of course. Thousands of young LGBT people and their allies are keeping their mouths shut in an attempt to echo the silence our LGBT brothers and sisters face in the name of oppression. I am one to believe that winter is a time for gathering information and developing theory on issues, and spring, summer, and fall are times to manifest it into action (though these are not necessarily mutually exclusive). In this light, I'm considering this year's Day of Silence to be my kick-off for summer grassroots action.

I also believe that queer activism is an essential part of feminist activism (as well as racial justice activism and classism awareness and action). This simply boils down to this: there are upper-class Black bisexual women, there are middle-class Native American straight women, there are working-class Asian queer women, there are impoverished Caucasian transwomen. Women can be any combination of anything. Hence, if you are in the business of women's right activism, you must also be in the business of activism towards the other oppressions women face.

Asher Roth, ever heard of him? Neither had I until about a month ago when my school, St Michael's College in Vermont, announced that he would be the opener of a Lupe Fiasco concert this spring.  Shortly after the announcement was made, Roth's song "I Love College" became a hit and the new anthem of bro-culture in America.  Discussions started all over campus about the questionable nature of the song, which lauds honorable college activities like drinking, getting drunk girls naked, and partying all night, every night.  

This is the perfect theme song for SMC, a college notorious in the community for the love of partying abundant in it's mostly white, upper-middle class student population.  The problem?  St. Mike's faculty and staff have spent a lot of time and resources these past few years on alcohol awareness programs, responsible behavior initiatives, and recently validated a Gender Studies Major.  And the people, working so hard to make the lip-service paid to things like respect and dignity realities, actually listened to Roth's lyrics.

His accomplishments include songs like "Rub on Your Tits," a siren call to all the ladies in the audience to rub their breasts.  Not classy enough?  How about the song that enumerates all the sexual things he'd like to do to Disney characters?  Finally, after discussions about consistency with the Student Association, articles in the school's newspapers about the unacceptable nature of Roth's integral message, and a student letter sent to administration, faculty, staff and students pointing out the contradiction between Roth's presence on campus and the school's sexual harassment policy, the performance was cancelled.  

<

Time after time I have seen anti feminist blogers, radio show hosts, magazine article authors etc. lament the days when they followed feminism and thought they could "have it all" By have it all they mean a job and children. WTF? Men have been "having it all " for millennia. All the men I work with have children and jobs. If a woman wants children AND a job, so what? What on earth could possibly be the difference? Unless, (And here we get to the real root of the problem) she is working a job AND doing all the cooking, laundry, cleaning, diaper changing, bathing, feeding, getting up in the night, and on and on while her spouse simply goes to work and comes home to sit on the mother fucking couch! Who are these people? They tell women that they are trying to have it all and just assume that those women are exhausting them selves fulfilling all the traditional bull shit gender roles contained in THEIR world view. Are they trying to be sneaky politicians and hope we don't notice this? Or could it be, they are so ignorant (stupid?) that they them selves actually didn't think of it?

I was in a hardware store with my sister the other day and we were talking about feminism. I articulated that women were adults and I did not think of my self as their protector or provider and that women should be respected as adults. Well apparently a woman who worked there was standing behind me and overheard the exchange. All through the store I could see her pointing in my direction, and hear her talking to other workers about me being a "sissy" or "not a man" or vague references to me being a homosexual or cross-dressing etc. Basically she was expressing a lot of hatred in a way that showed shear desperation to get every one she knew against me. This is the most extreme example but I have seen other women have similar responses to my feminism. Usually they display sheer terror at the thought. I have tried to figure out exactly what is going through these women's minds that could make them so afraid but I haven't quite come up with a satisfactory answer.

I would like to hear if other feminist men have had similar experiences (or women for that matter). Also opinions on what makes these apparently traditional women so afraid of a liberated feminist man.

Hi all,

I'm a young teacher at a large and respected university, and recently I've had a situation come up in my class where a male student has made a couple of sexist-like comments in the space of our classroom and after calling him out on it have experienced some backlash from him and a few other very vocal [male] students in the class, who think I was being "extreme" or "overly sensitive" because what he was saying was "just a joke" or "just paying a compliment" (he's claimed that his comments were both of those two things, although as you can probably see, that is sort of contradictory right there)... The vocal others in the class agreed that his comments were not inappropriate, or that they were just funny and not meant to intimidate or be sexually harassing.

Anyway, I've been stressing about it and just going over and over in my head about what I could have done differently. I believe that it would have been ethically wrong *not* to address these comments and just let them stand, but our consequent discussion seems to have them thinking that I'm this silly, over-reacting woman. I told them I am a feminist, explaining what that means to me--that I believe that feminism is about standing up for women's rights and challenging the unfair system of hierarchies that plague our society--but it appears that claiming to be a feminist only further justified their perception of me as an extremist. 

I just found this.

Here's a nice excerpt: "So despite all of their delusions and lip service, in their heart of hearts, women by their very nature are very, very lazy with no drive and really just want to lounge around and do nothing..."

I really don't know what to say about it. I read about half of it thinking the guy was just joking, but by the time I got to his blogspot profile and realized he has thirteen of these hate-filled, blindingly stupid blogs.

So uh... don't read this if you're easily angered (like me), because you'll end up sitting in front of your laptop seething in anger for an hour (like me).

Someone please tell me this isn't real... or that this is just one wildly bitter, insane man sitting alone in his parents' basement somewhere, or... something. I'm having trouble processing this, honestly, but I thought it deserved to be shared as a blunt reminder of what exactly we're fighting.

So I'm not entirely sure which category to file this post under. All I know is that the person who wrote this blog post seems to be contradicting himself: he claims to be all for gender equality, yet he writes about wanting "femininity back". By this, he means that women should stop dressing up like men (jeans and t-shirt) and learn how to cook and clean.

He says he's all about equal rights in his first paragraph, yet the rest of the post has him rallying to try and bring back the stereotypical housewife. He also seems to be stuck in the "traditional" gender roles of a man and woman.

This just gives me a reality check that although there has been progress, there are still people out there who still cling to the traditional gender roles society (specifically, men) has constructed long ago.

The full blog post is here.

So. I've just had yet another retarded altercation with my mom. And now that I've had some time to cool down, I think I can write this post with considerably fewer four-letter words thrown about. So what was the altercation about? Feminism, of course! Because nothing says "get out your shotgun" like feminism.

I guess I should explain. I come from a traditional Albanian family. Well, my mom's side at least. My dad's side is secular Bosnian. But my beef is with the mams.

So we had one of my mom's parties last night, where she invites a plethora of her unenlightened, Koran-thumping-village people-relatives over for dinner. This of course means my mom has to spend the rest of the night being really tense and snappy with me while she tries to play Perfect Hostess as if her reputation in all of Albania hinges on her performance.

So of course, I watch as the men lounge around, doing most of the talking, taking up most of the space, while the women hurry about as usual preparing dinner and mostly in a very stressed-out fashion. As for me, freedom-loving-pro-gay-rights-anarchist-feminist that I am, I stand around awkwardly, not wanting to partake in the medieval ceremony of it all but very well aware that that is exactly what these 15+ people are expecting me to do.

I was watching VH1 this morning and saw a promo for the show VH1 Tough Love.  It's very difficult to see a show which women have to change who they are to find a man - very "Rules-esque"!

Women have such a problem loving themselves for who they are at this very moment.  Instead of just being exactly who we are, society, through shows like this, are telling us to conform to a standard.

Be who we are, and when the right one comes along, they will like us for being that authentic person.

VH1 Tough Love

I am not one to get offended easily.  But lately, I've become more irritated and slightly angered at the sexism going on in my life.  Maybe I've just become more aware of it.  Who knows. 

Here are some highlights from a conversation that set me off last week:

"I know I might sound sexist, but could you imagine if women ran the UN?"

"Yeah, every 28 days there would be a war."

"They would scream that they were PMSing."

Those statements made me leave the room--irritated, angered, offended.   I am not proud of my reaction.  I was asked if everything was okay; I came up with the excuse that I wasn't feeling well, which was only partly true.

On another note, I recieved a birithday card a few months ago.  I'm not sure how to take it; I know that I am slightly offended. 

On the front of the card a close up picture of a woman with mouth wide open, appearing shocked, and the words in bright red: 

"The only word women fear more than Birthday:"

Inside, in bright red again, the word:

"Stirrups"

I have to say, I don't believe my friend understood me when he gave me the card.  He thought it was funny.  At the time, I didn't find it funny or offensive, I just plain did not understand it.  In fact, I thought the card was reffering to stirruped leggings or a horse saddle.  After giving it some thought, I began to realize that it referred to something completely different; that is when it hit me, I am a feminist.

Dear Woman Who Sits in the Back of the Classroom,

We have been in this community college class together for a couple of months now, but I can’t say that I have ever taken notice of anything you have said - until last night’s class when we were talking about gender.  I find our sociology class about problems in society to be fairly basic.  I have a degree in Gender and Women’s Studies and Political Science, so I know I can get pretty high and mighty about gender issues at times.  But I have to say, you really pushed my buttons a little bit yesterday when you expressed that individuals with no discernable gender caused you “repulsion”, and that feminists are “whiners”.  I suppose I might be enforcing your stereotype of feminists here (which even I think is a little bit funny), but your comment about gender ambiguity was pretty offensive. 

So today I check my facebook to find that someone I don't even know just sent me this stupid offensive video:

It's entitled "Show Me Your Genitals". I assume this is supposed to be a joke. Well this may just be me but I don't find it fucking funny! It's also that the person who messaged me was named "Pudding Huxley" and I have no idea who they are, probably just some random person who wanted more views on their youtube video. It's possible that it was someone I know just trying to piss me off because they know I'm a feminist, thought I think It's unlikely. This is just the kind of BS that makes me mad.

Hey, I'm usually just a reader, but now I guess I'm a first time poster. Just to let you know I really enjoy feministing and is one of the few places where sense is actually talked.

I am quite a vocal person in terms of my feminist views, and mostly by my friends and class mates and sometimes they agree or have a debate which I always enjoy however I mostly get mocked by them which I am used to and I just put up with because the more I attempt to argue my point, the more they just laugh and roll their eyes because it's 'me' and it's 'what i do'.

Recently however, two of my close friends joined this group on facebook, quite orginally titled Anti-Feminism

Some comments from the group include

"I completely agree that women rights activists fucked it up for us and we didnt know how good we had it. I cooking cleaning and fucking are 3 of my favorite things and I am amazing with children, but now I have to go and get a job as apposed to making a man happy. Women rights activists suck."

Kansas is proposing adding an Equal Rights Amendment to their state constitution. Pretty great, right? Not if you hate women as much as the anti-choice lobby.

“If we allow it to pass, Kansans will wake up one day wondering how a right to unrestricted and taxpayer-funded abortion was smuggled into our constitution,” said Beatrice Swoopes, a lobbyist with the Kansas Catholic Conference.

What the fuck? Seriously, what the fuck? I mean, feminists have been saying it for the longest that anti-choicers really, really don't believe women should have equal rights. But to read it on my computer screen . . . damn.

WARNING: I am annoyed and ranty.

I just got around to reading February's National Geographic. Some of the letters to the editor are responding to an article from October about why the Neanderthals went extinct. At first I was cool with them, one woman wrote thanking them for having their Neanderthal reconstruction a female because she always sees them as males and several people wrote to say that the Neanderthal woman looks like plenty of modern humans, which I took to be an interesting jab at modern beauty standards. Then I came accross this lovely gem:

The Neanderthal researchers are smart people, so I'm sure they thought of this. Political correctness being what it is, I guess they could not mention it. But it's clear what probably happened. The Neanderthal women started going out hunting with the guys, researchers say, to put better cuts on the table. Maybe they liked hunting better than being stuck back at the cave with the kids. Lacking high-quality, subsidized child care back at camp, they decided to cut back on having babies. Fecundity dropped below the replacement level, which had to be pretty high in those days, and bingo - extinctionville. Women's lib did them in.

Um, wtf? His stupid little tongue-in-cheek-but-I-secretly-mean-this tone makes me want to throw something. As for his arguments, I don't even know how to respond. Is he trying to imply that feminism is going to do the same to us now that were down to only 6 billion people or something? Or is he just a bored loser trying to find any subject he can to relate back to how laughably silly it is for women to want lives beyond having kids?

I know it's not the most alarming sign of sexism we (or even I) face daily, but it really annoyed me coming from Nat Geo because I read it to relax after a hard day of battling the patriarchy (and the occasional pink robot). It's one thing to come accross these ass-hats on the street. It's another to be insulted while relaxing at home.

I am so mad right now I am shaking. I have a friend on Facebook who wrote the following in response to a comment I had about how wrong it is to blame the victim:

It depends on who you call the victim. Maybe the analogy to a bully is better. People, who are attacked by bullies and do nothing about it, usually keep getting attacked. Bullies usually stop when they are confronted. Or what about women who marry men and stay with them even though they are abusive? At some point, the victim needs to make a stand in order to change that which they want changed. It won't change itself. My comment about mothers raising children simply means that they have the power to control the future of their children's ideas, so they should. Women can control some of it, if they confronted more. That is not blaming someone, that is informing them of what they can do to help themselves. The same thing with rape victims that dress scantily. They can control what they wear, so they should at least dress in less revealing clothes in certain circumstances. Of course, it will not always prevent rape but, if it gives some men less ideas, then it is a good thing.

I just don't know what to say. It seems so overwhelming to even begin to respond. The scary part is that this is a well-educated family friend whose girlfriend is doing her Ph.D. in women's studies! I don't know why I'm posting this--I'm not really looking for advice, I just had to vent.

So says Jill Stanek.   Jill is not happy that the Feminist Majority Foundation is encouraging college feminists to protest their local pregnancy care center on April 13th, even though in Jill's own words, " pro-lifers around the country now gather twice annually at abortion mills (annoying pro-life buzzword for clinics) for 40 days, often around the clock (aside from thousands of other times annually)"

The reason the Feminist Majority Foundation is protesting pregnancy care centers is because they often mislead women , specifically on the link between abortion and breast cancer (which is none, according the American Cancer Society and The National Cancer Institute, the effect of abortion on future fertility, and the mental health affects of abortion. The post abortion stress syndrome that pregnancy care centers often warn about is not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association nor the American Psychological Association. (but the President is biased... or something.)

But that's not really what this post is about.  I'm more interested in Jill's characterization of feminists.

FMF can only rally its femitroops 1 day, April 13, strangely a Monday. I guess college women who advertise they're pro-birth control and pro-abortion are much in demand on weekends.

Femitroops... cute.  Obviously stems from "Feminazi" which of course was made popular by Rush Limbaugh.  But more importantly, anyone who is pro-birth control or pro-choice (I won't won't use the term "pro-abortion" because I agree with President Obama that no one is "pro-abortion") is "in demand", loose, a slut, gets around, open for business, you get the idea.  Personally, I find that kinda offensive. 

But I guess it's not really the 98% of American women who use some form of birth control or the 1 in 3 women who will have had an abortion by age 45 that Jill finds slutty.... just the ones that speak up and fight for those rights (you know, the "femitroops")

Jill concluded with some words of wisdom to the FMF (and the rest of us sluts)...

Hey FMF, good luck with the protests. Just don't plan any in winter... or when it's raining... or when it's really hot.... or that last longer than 30 minutes.... Feminist girls don't like being put out, just putting out. That's what this is all about, right? Their freedom to do that.

I'm really trying to "follow the dots backwards" as Jill advised one of her commenters to do (who shockingly found Jill's snide comments about alleged sexual activity really unnecessary) but reducing reproductive rights (and feminism) to "the freedom to put out" is more than unnecessary.  It's hurtful to women. Despite what Jill thinks though, feminist activism is alive and well, and that scares people like her. 

Speaking of activism, Jill has perhaps inadvertently advertised for something that does deserve recognition  - and that is that April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month.  I've recently started volunteering at the Montgomery County Women's Center, and even though I've only been volunteering a short time, I know that there are way too many women being sexually or physically abused.  It breaks my heart, and I'm actually glad I saw that blurb on Jill's page because it reminded me to get the word out and look into what else I can be doing to stop violence against women (when I'm not putting out, of course).

There are no words, just anger.

A quick search of feministing.com showed no posts about Mary Kassian, and I thought it would be helpful to show that there is yet another "feminist" movement out there to confuse otherwise intelligent, free-thinking individuals. If you need more proof, visit their website. I am, however, interested in what you all have to say about it.

This is a regular article in the opinion section in my school's magazine, Miami Quarterly. It is always offensive, but this edition's article is just more offensive than ever before. The feminist group on campus, of which I am vice president, will be sending letters to both Ryan Bakita and the Editor-in-Chief of this publication. We're going to compose and send one well thought out letter to the editor, but we plan to completely flood the inbox of Ryan Bakita, the author. If any of you have any comments you'd like to pass on to him, you can do so here.

Disclaimer: We realize that the "Girls" section is no better than the "Boys" section, but it is at least less infuriating.

Apparently Fox News thinks this Cheerios commercial makes men look weak. I think it emphasizes the idea that women are weight obsessed. Personally, I think it's dumb that Fox News spent air time discussing an "anti-guy ceral." Really now? UGH! And the commentary is just... No words.

I love how they try to fix it with the (Respect Women) at the end.

So, calling people out on their prejudices (and other stupid shit they say) can be pretty awkward.  Uncomfortable to the point that, a lot of the time, I bite my tongue and conduct an angry debate in the confines of my own mind – so as not to be the nagging, “PC-obsessed” feminazi of the group (/my family).  I’ve been noticing a pattern, though, in the reactions I get when I do venture to call peeps out on the anti-feminist or just plain sexist shit spewing from their faces.

You see, the level of hostile defensiveness in said peeps’ reactions is directly proportional to the amount of pride they take in “being über liberal” (commonly measured in units of just how much they like Obama, or, similarly, just how many black friends they have).  Somehow, in their bluer-than-Massachusetts minds, the comment she just made about Hillary Clinton being “too ambitious,” or the fact that he just called some girl a “dirty skank, ” CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be misconstrued as “sexist” (air quotes!) because s/he…doesn’t…vote…Republican..?

It’s like, k, congratulations on discerning the fact that John Palin would have gotten us all killed (read: driven half the country to mass suicide).  But, I don’t see how you self-identifying as a “liberal” factors into, or altogether excuses, your 1950s-esque outlook on women politicians or girls who...have sex / enjoy sex / are fat / don’t subscribe to patriarchal norms / aren’t sexually interested in you / don’t want children / fuck other girls / used to be “boys” / dedicate themselves to their jobs / don’t get married / et fucking cetera.

Yeah, not seeing the connection…YOU AN ANTI-FEMINIST FOOL!

This shocking revelation came from the January 26th issue of Time Magazine, where Hugh Hefner was interviewed in their 10 Questions feature:

Your industry is often accused of being damaging to women, yet you assert that you are an active feminist. Could you clarify this position? Thayne Stoddard NEW HAVEN, CONN.

My industry is magazine publishing. Pornography? That isn't my industry. If you call sexual images pornography, then they are negative. If you call those same images erotic, they are positive. I'm not an active feminist. I'm an active humanist. I separated ways from feminism when it became antisexual. I believe embracing sexuality is part of what it means to be free.

In other words, he separated from feminism when feminists called him out for reinforcing stereotypes and sexist gender roles. I honestly don't think that Playboy is about embracing one's sexuality or, at least, doing it in an egalitarian and informed way. I've learned more about having a happy, healthy sexuality from sex-positive feminists than anywhere else. All people should see themselves as sexual beings rather than sexual objects. An empowered sexuality is about mutual pleasure and embracing one's sexual identity not being arm candy!

"Pornography" vs. "erotica" has always seemed silly to me. I think erotica is just porn that the person describing it happens to like. Or perhaps it's just classier porn.

Hefner's comments about feminism (and what political correctness means) were deeply misinformed but in his defense he did make some very intelligent comments about same-sex marriage and how much sex has changed in America. Check it out.

So, I'm a feminist. I have been for a long time, but it took me awhile to come to this conclusion. Maybe it began the first time I was publicly harassed, when a boy rubbed against me in the hallway at school. Or, when I was at the library, and a man commented on my body out loud, in front of my 11-year-old sister. Maybe it was when I was walking to get my younger brother from school, and a man yelled at me from his window, and I was paralyzed with fear before I walked away as fast as I could, too scared that if I ran, he would follow me.

Maybe it was the realization that all of these things happened to me when I was 15 years old. Maybe it was before that, when my mother said that women can do almost all the same things men can (apparently she didn't get the memo about the childbirth thing). Maybe it was when I first started taking birth control pills to regulate my heavy periods and PMDD, and my father told me not to refer to them as birth control pills but as hormone pills, because birth control is slutty. Maybe it was my father claiming that women get breast cancer because they don't nurse their babies. Maybe it was when he said that the cervical cancer vaccine was wrong because women get cervical cancer from having sex. Maybe it was his constant referral to Sex and the City as Sluts and the City. Maybe it was him and my mother referring to fashion magazines as slutty. Maybe it was him always referring to women as girls, or cute, or calling them honey or sweetie. Maybe it was before this, being raised in a Presbyterian church, where we were told to prepare ourselves for marriage by learning how to do housework, take care of babies, be sweet, and submit to our husbands, and not to go to college because Jesus wanted us to be mommies. Maybe it was my mother, who was, and is, desperately unhappy, yet has no education and nowhere to go, because she is dependent on my father.

Probably, it's all of this. I do believe, though, that it started young, and that it was a natural evolution for me; perhaps my feminist roots took shape before I was even born. It is more spiritual than anything else for me, the belief that the world is a better place with feminism.

This article over at Alternet describes a recent conference of over 6,000 women getting together to support and define "biblical womanhood" or "the patriarchy movement."  They believe that "gender equality" is the reason society is falling apart.  The group is seeking 100,000 signatures to endorse the "True Woman Manifesto" which is aimed at "sparking a counterrevolution to the feminist movement of the 1960's." 

WTF? So now submission, wifely duties, and turning BACK the clock a hundred years is counterrevolutionary !? Historically, though, this has always happened: Backlash.  Over the past 2 years as people have become fed up with Bush-conservatism the tide has been slowly shifting and here is just one of many examples we are sure to see of extreme right-wing action.  I think we better brace ourselves for impact.

Really well written piece, but some comments are pretty horrible; only read if you really want to get mad.  This one, though, I couldn't agree with more:

I find it interesting that some well educated, successful business women advocate against that which allowed then their success in the first place....Don't complain about something that you are a direct beneficiary of...

My family and I just got the February 2009 issue of National Geographic today, which followed a featured article about Neanderthals. It got a lot of stupid letters about how certain people look like the Neanderthal reconstruction (which, as one grateful reader pointed out, was of a female and not the traditional male) but one of the letters was just utterly absurd. Letters are published in the magazine but not online so you would have to actually buy the issue to see it. I've transcribed it:

"The Neanderthal researchers are smart people, so I'm sure they thought of this. Political correctness being what it is, I guess they could not mention it. But it's clear what probably happened. The Neanderthal women started going out hunting with the guys, researchers say, to put better cuts on the table. Maybe they liked hunting better than being stuck back at the cave with the kids. Lacking high-quality, subsidized child care back at camp, they decided to cut back on having babies. Fecundity dropped below the replacement level, which had to be pretty high in those days, and bingo--extinctionville. Women's lib did them in."

Mikk Hinnov
Bridgewater, New Jersey

So basically: Feminism will make us go extinct!

Can this possibly be for real? Are we being baited? Looking at what actual conservatives say and Men's Rights Activist websites, it seems entirely possible that this is serious.

It looks like one of those familiar "evolutionary psychologist" articles that set out to justify sexism and don't really bother to back up their claims. It's also got that casual, "edgy" tone that I see so often in arrogant conservative articles.

Frankly, I'd rather have us go extinct than have to live in an unjust world where people are defined by what's between their legs rather than what's in their hearts and minds.

The Walk for Life - West Coast event is coming up next weekend (Jan. 24, 2009) in San Francisco and I'm a little concerned that I haven't seen anything yet on feministing.com. There are several counter-demonstrations and other actions planned for the day. In past years, the march has been met with decreasing numbers of counter-demonstrators.

Counter-demonstrations are extremely important, especially at events like this, where huge numbers of youths are present from areas where anti-choice, homophobic, religious fundamentalist rhetoric is the norm, rarely or never publicly challenged. A lot of kids and teenagers in those communities feel out of place, but worry that they will never be accepted if express a contrary point of view. Counter-demonstrators have the opportunity to show the real face of the feminist, queer, pro-choice, anti-religious-oppression movement, to show that we don't all have horns or worship Satan (though some of us certainly do), to show that there is an alternative community that will welcome them when their own families, friends, and churches do not.

Of course, not everyone in the "pro-life" crowd is wavering. Counter-demonstrators also let the marchers know that they will not be unchallenged, that their voices are not the loudest, that we are also prepared to act out against their attempts to curtail our rights. I know a lot of people in this community are high on Obama right now, but this is NOT the time to decide that we've won. We can't rely on one politician, president or not, to speak for us.

Please, if you're in San Francisco, the Bay Area, or able to travel here, come out next Saturday and let the "pro-life" movement know that we are also able to mobilize. The Walk for Life - West Coast brings bus-loads of people from all over and outside California; we should too!

Information is available here.

Many an anti-feminist blog or news piece or comments section has sent our blood pressure sky-high.

You know what I'm talking about.

These are often the blogs that make light of domestic violence, that construct elaborate apologias for rapists and trot out the vicious rape-victims-are-liars tropes. These are the sites blindly wedded to sociologically-inept arguments for gender essentialism. These are the sites that are so smugly confident in their bloggers'(non-existent) powers of logic, and so doggedly oblivious to the authors' own privilege that our collective humanist/egalitarian stomach turns.

But sometimes, anti-feminism can be so wide-eyed, so wholesome, so EARNEST, that it brings warmth and cheer to the wintry hearts of even the unfunniest, French-theory-quoting, man-hating "lesbo"/whore feminazis:

Turn up the speakers on your computer; trust me, you want to hear this.

The title of this one alone will make you crack a smile.

Or, how about this page, from which springeth the Best. Anti-feminist line. Ever.

The liberal swine of female rebellion paraded down the middle of the streets of D.C., cursing, swearing, taking God's name in vain, stripping their clothes off, and routinely smelling up the nation's capital with their filthiness, whoredom and rebellion.

I encourage the Community to share the most outrageously entertaining anti-feminist links and quotes you've come across.

Okay, I had to share this idiotic comment I got on a video blog I did about women being unfairly blamed for unplanned pregnancy and rape.

niteowlsam:

Ok,1 minute after listening to this garbage I realized u're a typical stupid dumb bitch.U must be kidding.U dont c how the woman is 2 blame!!when a guy fucks u,u know there's 99%chance u'll get pregnant if u're not taking BC.U make it sound as if u're helpless about it.U bitches choose to be pregnant or not.U have months to decide if u want 2 keep it or not.Its 100% ur choice,cunts.U make it sound as girls were clueless how they get pregnant.U cunts always say its your bodies and ur choice !!!!

You use netspeak and statistics pulled out of your butt and call me dumb?! I honestly couldn't get mad at this guy. I just had to laugh it off.

Horrible. He gave her a kidney several years ago, now he wants it back because he's fallen out with this woman, even if it kills her, or an unaffordable 'cash equivalent'. I sincerely hope he doesn't win this case. It's her kidney now, he gave it to her without any kind of contract which said he could have it back some time. Just the same as he had to give his consent to have a kidney removed when it was living inside him, she should have to give her consent to have it removed, too, now it's living in her.

Of course, the MRAs are all over this, saying that he has a right to 'his' kidney, and that it doesn't matter whose body it resides in, as long as it was in his first. Some interesting parallels can be drawn from this to reproductive choice. A lot of MRAs seem to feel that men should have equal say on whether a woman has an abortion because it was his sperm that fertilized the egg. They seem to feel the same way about this. Of course I'm pro-choice and in line with that, I believe he had to choose what happened to his body when it was a part of him, and since it's a part of her body now, it's her choice, not his. And I would feel the same if the sexes of the people involved were reversed.

Hi, Everyone! I have been reading Feministing for a while as sort of a passive user, until I saw an article by some chode that almost made me break down in tears. I just had to type this to get everyone's opinion on this. The fact that people still think like this gives me plenty of *unneeded* anxiety.

The article was horribly titled Feminism Is The Bane of My Existence . I found it through Technorati, when I was looking for web design (and feminist) blog posts.The funny thing about the site, is that it looks horrible and amateur. At least, I can take solace in that!

The poster, uses such gems as,

The women that are in my life are there because I have judged there character

Regardless of what any human being says, that 500lbs woman sitting on a park bench shoveling Ding Dongs into her mouth is not attractive to me. In fact it's flat out sickening.

This crap can be seen in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

I couldn't even build myself up to post a vilifying comment, for fear of being attacked by this idiot. I hope I least I can fall back on the posters of Feministing.com.

As astonishing as the title of this post is, the blog it came from, The False Rape Society is even worse. I was seriously hoping it was some kind of parody when I stumbled across it, but sadly it appears to be for real. Two depressing highlights: the reader comments in the right-hand column, and the claim that somewhere between 9 and 50% of all reported rapes are false claims. I used to tutor statistics, and I don't remember that as being an appropriate range for any statistic. And the author refers to his "objectively verifiable data" but never links to a source or names a resource that we could actually verify. How verifiable is that?

For as long as I've been reading FEMINISTING, I've been consistently amazed, bewildered, and -- in rare cases -- darkly humored by "vintage sexism" ads. 

I don't mind, necessarily, the vintage ads that cater to this sort of anti-feminist nonsense. After all, one cannot change the history of this country -- we can only improve upon it for future generations. What I take exception to, however, is the blatant sexism in today's modern advertising -- this after all our so-called "progress" made over the past 40 or so years.

Now, with the new media that's out there -- Internet, wiFi, iPhones, etc. -- it seems that there are new ways to play on the old anti-feminist theme. Consider, then, the case of this Swiss company (thanks to Neatorama.com for this):

I love how the store (Migros) plays upon the insecurities of the single women who agreed to model for this embarrassing campaign -- that their inability to find their Wun Twoo Wuv can be solved by prancing around in their underwear -- and I love even more that over 700 women across Switzerland signed up for this mess.

This, to me, illustrates the final point: at this point, feminism is at the "hearts and minds" stage. As strong, independent, empowered women, it is up to us to educate the next generation so that they don't fall for this obvious trap. It's incredibly crude, sexist, and just plain wrong for companies like Migros to play up to archaic sexism, but the fact that so many of our sisters have played into their hand is equally disturbing, if not moreso. 

Not that I expect anything different from Pope Benedict, but c'mon dude. It would be nice if around the Christmas holidays you could show a little more compassion and demonstrate that you're not completely out of touch with real-world problems. But no.

Gay groups and activists have reacted angrily after Pope Benedict XVI said that mankind* needed to be saved from a destructive blurring of gender. Speaking on Monday, Pope Benedict said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was as important as protecting the environment.

And a note to the TimesOnline: why oh why have you decided that now is the time to re-hash this tired old story about inter-generational feminist conflict?

"One of the most unappealing things about the feminist movement right from its inception was its tendency to judge other women," says Roiphe. And, given the polarising of opinion between old-school feminists and modern young women engaged with popular culture -- which, like it or lump it, is obsessed with celebrity, consumption and youth -- there is much room for judgment. (See The Guide Association's new manifesto on the sexualisation of young girls and Germaine Greer's recent berating of Cheryl Cole as "too thin to be a feminist" as yet more proof.)

"I do feel it's time for those feminists to step aside," says Frangoul. "It's like, we're grateful for what you did, but it's time for you to hand over. We've got a different world-view, and we might have something different to say."

It drives me crazy that news stories like this don't recognize the irony in painting young feminist women as paragons of openness and multiplicity when they turn around and cherry-pick quotes from young women willing to dismiss their elders as has-beens. This does not have to be an either/or proposition. The existence of young feminist activists does not mean that it's time for women older than, say 25, to give up, be silenced, or silence themselves. As Deborah Siegel argues in Sisterhood Interrupted, this persistent narrative of feminist in-fighting does more harm than good, obscuring the many valuable contributions women of all ages have -- and will continue to make -- in the realm of feminist activism.

At least they linked to the F-word, which is one of my favorite places to get UK-based feminist analysis. In fact, speaking of: here's the F-word on Pope Benedict's speech.

Cross-posted at Future Feminist Librarian-Activist

*I guess we womenkind get to enjoy the blurring of gender as much as we like. Ecological disaster be damned!

So, I have this friend who is, though left leaning, not always exactly feminist friendly. It's not that he completely objects to the idea of equality among the sexes, but (despite lots and lots and lots of evidence given by me and some of our other friends) he has a hard time believing things are as bad as we insist that they are. He also tends to think that a lot of us take our selves too seriously - mostly because we refuse to laugh at anti-feminist/misogynistic jokes. So, you can imagine I a little less than delighted to receive "Feminists Say the Darnest Things" by Mike Adams. From the backcover endorsement from Concerned Women for America to the fact that he insists on calling himself "Politically Incorrect" the book reeks of misogyny, and in fact that's what it is - a repulsively whiny slew of insult after insult and complaint after complaint about how vulgar and mean and ugly and stupid feminists are (oh, and how much they hate - but secretly wanna be nailed by - the mythological White Christian Conservative Male, which is of course exactly who the author is).

I guess my discontent at receiving this book as a gift was pretty apparent because my friend took a minute to laugh before he explained to me just why he bought it in the first place. He had indeed at first bought is a joke and an attempt to convince my feminists take ourselves to seriously and are really just silly women. Funny thing happened when he started reading it though - instead of laughing with the author, he started laughing *at* him. And sure enough, inside the book was this note:

"After reading this book (sorry for using your Xmas present before I gave it to you) I've come to the conclusion that you're right about a lot more stuff than I give you credit for. If being a feminist means opposing this guy [the author] in every way, count me the fuck in. Consider this a peace offering."

Huh. Mike Adams converted some one to feminism. I guess anti-feminists can do some (okay, one single act) of good. Pity my friend gave him money by buying his book. Maybe we should call him to let him know....

I have some conservative blogger/activist friends on myspace that I keep on my friends list for the sole purpose of seeing what the conservative movement is up to.

Lately, a lot of them have been posting bulletins with this video in them.

the video is titled:

"Undercover Camera Catches 2nd Indiana Planned Parenthood Breaking Sexual Abuse Reporting Laws"

Basically, the "undercover" 13 year old girl goes to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Indiana and asks to have an abortion. She mentions that the "boyfriend" that got her pregnant was a "lot older". She then tells another employee that her boyfriend is 31. The person then tells her to go to surrounding states.

Ok,I personally think that this video was staged in someone's basement.But if it was "real", I see absolutely nothing wrong with anything Planned Parenthood did. If they did "break the law", I mean come on. If that girl's situation had been a real one and her parents were not willing to sign the consent form she would have been forced to have a 31 year old's child! Even if the 31 year old was arrested, she would still have to raise the kid by herself and since he would be in prison he would not be able to help her! I find the Indiana anti-choice law for 13 year old girls outrageous!

So here are my questions/final thoughts:

1. Was this video staged in someone's basement?
2. Why does Indiana have such horrible laws that could potentially force a 13 year old girl to have a 31 year old man's child because her parents are pro-life?
3.What is the potential impact of "undercover" videos made by anti-choice organzitions?
4. Planned Parenthood volunteers and employees, what are your thoughts on this "undercover video"?

One of the previous community posters has been flooded with trolls, our mods are working on blocking them but after the initial ire I felt at the attack died down... I started to giggle.

I'd seen troll floods before, mainly on some feminist game blogs. At least that I can kind of get. I get worked up about video games, I know they're not the most pressing feminist issue but anime and video games are things I love so I love to talk about them and their flaws. So I can kind of get the petty desire to flood comments with 'you just don't get it' 'it's not really that sexist/racist' etc. I don't agree but I can get it, it's a fandom.

But just down the page a flood of trolls descending on one person.... talking about people in her life expressing sexist, homophobic and generally bigoted views.

Seriously? That's what's getting random troll's ire these days? Jees at least the Gaming trolls are passionate about an interest, not just spewing bile because they saw an opinionated video on youtube (*gasp*) and decided to hound the creator for a while.

Then I thought about them all being on one site feeding on each other's nastyness over something that didn't even affect them. I started giggling, and I giggle even more at the thought of these trolls searching youtube for 'feminist' just to leave a SAMICH comment.

Good ol bile spewing trolls, reminding us that there are a lot of sexist ass holes out there and making asses of themselves at the same time XD

Now excuse me while I put a paper bag over my obviously ugly face and go stand in the kitchen for a while/snark

I have an acquaintance from high school/college. He's racist, and sexist, and I've denied it for a long time, or I justified it by saying he was a good person, just with serious mommy issues and internalized small town racism. He uses the n-word regularly because "if they can so can he." He makes more sexist statements than I could possibly list, and he ups the proverbial ante around me because I won't shut my fat lying mouth, to coin a favorite phrase of his. 

Why am I friends with this person? I held on because of the fact that we'd spent years as friends, not always close but sometimes. I've seen him through some really horrible shit, family member incarcerations, addictions, debt, illness. He's, believe it not, helped me through a lot too. There's also a deep seated fear of rejection that I constantly deal with, but that's something I've been working on through years of therapy. So I thought it was complicated.

Today he sent me over the edge though. The abriged version: we were talking online, andI flipped my shit when he told me he lied about having been tested for STDs to multiple girls in order to have unprotected sex with them. I told him he was irresponsible, his behavior was inexcusable and unethical, he told me it was "their fault for spreading their legs for a free dinner." I told him that was the most tired double standard in the book. He used the word slut and I saw red.

I HATE the word slut (more on that another day). I should've bowed out at this point, but instead I apologized for yelling (all the while an internal monologue going "why the fuck are you apologizing, this guy is a horrible person, what the fuck is wrong with you). He apologized and explained that he "hasn't really dated the most respectable women" and I saw what I thought was an in.

I just read the NYT 2008 "Year in Ideas" article, and was horrified by the very last, definitely worst, idea presented in the list - the final entry under "W" is that "Women in Power are Set Up to Fail."

Seriously? 

The blurb goes on to cite a study in which business people are asked to choose new directors for two companies, one of which is successful, and one of which is on the verge of failing.  According to the study, the test subjects usually picked men to lead the successful companies and women to lead the companies that are about to collapse.

The academics performing the study attribute the result to a phenomenon they call the "glass cliff," where women are set up to fail so that they can be more easily scapegoated than their male peers.

I guess what strikes me, beyond the vague and highly anecdotal evidence given for these results, is that the automatic assumption made about placing a woman in power is negative.  Why is it not assumed that when a woman is hired to come in and lead in a dire situation, that it's a recognition that perhaps that woman actually has the strength and skills to restore stability?

Instead of trying to imagine alternative reasons or thought processes to explain the phenomenon, the writer chooses to enforce negative assumptions about women leaders.  For instance, the fact that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have come into power through the election is actually a reflection of our complete faith in their ability to reset the course of a failing country.

Perhaps there is some truth to the studies, but I think the interpretation of the data in this "idea" is totally off the wall.

What do others think?

I just wanted to make a point of noting that this day in 1989 was the day of the Montreal Massacre.

If you haven't heard of this before, go to the CBC Archives .

A lone gun man, Marc Lepine shot down 14 women, to get revenge on them because he was unable to get into engineering school. He blamed the women because he felt that they were taking up spaces he could have taken in school. He felt that women going into the workplace were taking all his opportunities away. Lepine deliberately separated men and women, and targeted only women.

This happened in a liberal country, at the end of the 1980s, at a time when people were already saying that feminism had run its course, and was "no longer necessary".

The Victims were:

Geneviève Bergeron
Hélène Colgan
Nathalie Croteau
Barbara Daigneault
Anne-Marie Edward
Maud Haviernick
Barbara Maria Klucznik
Maryse Leclair
Annie St.-Arneault
Michèle Richard
Maryse Laganière
Anne-Marie Lemay
Sonia Pelletier
Annie Turcotte

An art professor of mine took me aside today to talk to me about one of my papers. This particular paper was on Eva Hesse and the presence of women in the art world. "There were actually many women involved in the art world throughout history. Did you know that the portraiture artist for Luis XIV was a woman?" she said, "You know,  you really should concentrate on the strong, accomplished women throughout history rather than rubbing people's noses in it [inequality]." I thought about this for a second and then asked her "So, Louis XIV's portraiture artist, what was her name?" The professor stood there, a little taken aback. She couldn't come up with an answer. But she regained her composure and said "I just think that there are more constructive ways to go about it than just being angry. You should be more positive, and not just spend your time pointing out things that are wrong..." she kept on talking in that same vane for a while, but I wasn't really paying attention. I was getting angry.

Feminism is not about making people feel comfortable. Feminism is not about being positive. Feminism is not about talking about how cool Susan B. Anthony was. Feminism is about calling the world on it's bullshit and calling for something better. Yes, there were many many women in the art world all throughout history. But their work has been dismissed, ignored, and copied by men. And this is not something that is unique to the art world but pervades most of western society. We can dress it up all we want by touting the exceptions to the rule (Mary Cassat, Georgia O'Keefe to name a privlaged few), but ignoring this background of oppression, we would not be paying homage to the greatness of what they accomplished. Sexism, classism, heterosexism, and raceism are not nice things. Why should we dress them up that way?

I am not whining. I am not beating a dead horse. I am not going to clean up your history so you feel better about it. And I am not a nice feminist.

Those Darn Feminists!

I've been keeping up with this blog for quite some time. Since well before Obama was elected and the hoopla about Palin came out.

I was astonished that women were flocking to the Palin The Nincompoop. How can intelligent women seriously consider Palin as a viable candidate that has women's interests at heart?

Anyway, I'm sure the whole "Palin" issue has been mulled over and beaten to death already.

This blog, however, got to me when she got on her soap box and ranted about the evil feminists that are ruining the lives of women everywhere.

Huh?

Ok, so I frequent a political board and I frequently come up against this serious douchebag that feels HIS rights as a smoker and a gun owner are in danger. Where as women's rights have steadily been progressing and getting better.

He challenged me with this:

Me: Wrong! under the Bush admin, it was constantly under attack. THANK GOD we have a Progressive in the Oval Office again that actually CARES about women's rights, eh?

Him: Under attack how? Name a bill in either house of Congress, passed or not. Name an EO from Bush, or even any program put forward by anybody in the Bush administration that was an attack on women's rights.

My jaw dropped to the floor. He's of the victim personality that feminists and progressives have been hammering away at his precious rights to smoke and have guns.... Yet he seems to think women are at an all time high "Thanks be to Bush-God".

I want to blow his sexist rear end out of the water with the MANY laws, rules, legislations, that Bush has attempted and succeeded in putting on women's bodys and our rights.

I can think of a few right off hand, but if I supply a huge list, it'll hopefully shut his pie hole up.

I was on my way to work today, as I was scanning through the radio stations. The word "feminism" caught my ear, and I excitedly paused on the station. However, it wasn't a pro-feminist interview like I had hoped. You should definitely check this out, as this interview follows a former feminist, who is now a Christian and has written a book called "Radical Womanhood." It is appalling!

Start listening at "13.00," because the first several minutes are just small talk... and very annoying. There is one small break, when it goes to the commercials, fast forward until "31.00."

Quotes from the Interview:

"I can't even remember why I took the first Women Studies class, it was probably because I didn't want to take math or science [Chuckles]."

"[Regarding Billie's triumphant tennis match win] What I hadn't realized was that the underlying attention to that, it wasn't just a normal sports competition, but it was the times that women can not only be equal to men, but better than them, and getting in guys' faces and saying 'we can be better than you are,' has led to this tension that we currently live in right now that there's distrust, people don't understand how to get along, they don't understand relationships. And of course I'm speaking broadly."

"The gender theory combinations that they're dealing with there are really promoting pan-sexuality, promoting a paganistic worldview; it would be very anti-Christian in a lot of ways, and so that is what is a result of the third wave of feminism."

"I think what we have to acknowledge is that the seeds of feminism lie in all womens' hearts. Feminism is essentially saying, 'I want what I want when I want it,' and I want to define it, I want to rename my God, and I want to set up the terms for what kind of deity I'm going to worship."

"He called twelve men to be the leaders and founders of his church. And I think it's because the Lord knows his people. And he knows that men will generally default to either passivity or dominance. And women will either fault to manipulation or passivity."

Wow... thoughts?

Show of hands: How many of you ladies have mothers who encouraged patriarchal ideals? Forced anti-feminist view on you? Do you think these experiences made you more likely to become a feminist? Are you wary of motherhood, in case you pass on the same ideals?

There's a million ways I can think of that mothers are doing this, sometimes its subconscious, just from being a part of this society, and other times I think the mothers are doing it on purpose.

Did your mother ever put you on a diet? Mine did. I was 10. I wasn't fat. I wasn't allowed to eat watermelon, because it was pure sugar! She did this so I would be one of the popular girls, she hinted at a few years later. Popular girls have perfect, tight, toned bodies, and everyone knows that watermelon goes right to your thighs!

Did your mother force you into traditionally female pasttimes? I always wanted to play soccer. But no, only boys play soccer. Soccer is violent, there's running, and there's kicking. There's sweat. Sweat is manly. Nice girls don't sweat. So I was signed up for ballet classes. (On my first day the teacher told me I was fat and should work on sucking in my stomach, I was 7. But that's a whole other post, isn't it).

Did your mother pressure you to be popular (and promiscious) while at the same time pressuring you to be sweet, innocent, and feminine? I think this one is mostly subconscious, because of the virgin/whore complex that's often talked about on here. I don't think mothers would try and confuse their daughters like this on purpose. I've been (VERY) happily single for about a year now, and my mother has asked me more times than I can count some variation of these questions:

(1) What's wrong with you?

(2) Maybe you're just a bitch. Have you tried being nice? 

(3) Are you a lesbian?

The funny thing is, despite this pressure to be popular, promiscious, and constantly boyfriended, I suspect most of our mothers also encouraged us from a young age that "boys were trouble" and/or "nobody will buy the cow if you give away all the milk". I personally didn't enjoy being compared to a milk-less dried out old cow, but thankfully, there was also "nobody will buy a loaf of bread if you've given away all the nice middle slices and there's only the crusty ends left". Once I dared to sit with my knees a (horrifically slutty) 2-3 inches apart, and was quickly reprimanded, before anyone could see what an STD-infested slut I was. (...)

Please share any and all thoughts! (esp. the questions at the top, pwetty pwease).

This is a direct address to all people who use the term "feminazi" or "feminist nazi" to describe someone you don't agree with. Because, you see, I get sick enough of all the eye-rolling at pro-woman sentiment, but this phrase makes me want to beat the shit out of the person who uses it.

By using that phrase, not only do you show your own pathetic cowardice, you also try to belittle the work, the blood sweat and tears of every woman who fought tooth and nail to acquire respect for herself as a human being. You belittle the work of the foremothers who worked so you, and/or your daughters, sisters, and mothers could vote, hold a job, be respected, acquire higher education, run for elected office and have reproductive rights.

You also take a huge shit on the pain and suffering of six million people who were killed, tortured and starved for being different. You think the Holocaust is funny? You think calling someone a "Nazi" makes you sound intelligent? Or was it tolerant?

You think it makes sense to call someone a "Nazi" because they believe in equal rights? Because they argue with you? Because they see something sexist that you, in your possible blindness, could not?

So you use the term "Nazi." Because someone who thinks that a boyfriend locking their girlfriend in his house to control her, who thinks that rape should be punished, who thinks women should have access to reproductive health is in the same league as those who believe in ethnic "purity" and ethnic "cleansing" at any cost. You think a feminist is in the same league as the group of people who slaughtered six million people.

I understand, it's because they disagree with you. And a Nazi is someone who takes a stand on an issue you're uncomfortable with. That's the proper way that word should be applied.

Anne Frank did not die so you could smear a movement that worked for social equality, she did not die for your effort to belittle a person who opposes you.

This is what Feminism looks like:

And this is what Naziism looks like:

You can't tell the difference?

It's very frustrating to me as a college student just starting to dip into the world of internships and careers that being defined as a "feminist" can have a negative effect on my job application.  Apparently in the business community being a feminist means a crazed activist more bent on all-encompassing social change than on doing well in her job.  I found this out from my mother, of all people, someone who I would absolutely consider a feminist.

I am currently a cultural anthropology major/Spanish minor at a small liberal arts college, and because my focus tends to be on feminist thought and how it affects my areas of study, I thought about adding a Fem Studies minor.  Because I love and respect my mom, I called to ask her if she thought I could do it (although intelligent, I'm not exactly known for my study skills).  And yes, she did warn me about loading myself with too many classes considering my schedule already.  But the other part of her warning had to do with the actual fem studies minor.  She said that's not something I would be able to put on my resume because most employers will see "Feminist Studies" and shy away from that candidate.  So add the minor if you really want to, she said, but be careful about where and when you advertise it.

I'm new here and it's not like me to post rants but this one I feel like this is something I just want to bring up with this community to see if I was in the wrong or not.

I'm a 16 year old girl and I was simply riding the bus to school today and my shirt today showed some cleavage but not a lot to catch a lot of attention. I was minding my own business until a woman older than me asked me if I had any other shirts so I refused to answer her because it was none of her business.

That's when she demanded me to cover my cleavage up and when I asked if they were a problem she said my breasts were obsene and offensive. So that's when I ignored her again and she started telling me how I was being disrespectful but I refused to answer her.

That's when she went extremely low and said, "and girls your age wonder why they get raped." I was too shocked to say anything in response but I was tempted to reach for my razor.

I'm just questioning if I did anything wrong or if this is just another case of anti-feminism?

I'll admit, I did too at first.  But thanks to this site, I've been able to see both sides of the issue and come to terms that patriarchy hurts everyone, even men. Gender equality is something I'm truly passionate for as a feminist because it's good for both men and women.  Yes, being a feminist means I take a special interest in how things affect women, but I'm very interested in how sexism hurts men as well.  This mainstream dogma of what it is to be "manly" fascinates me to no end.

We've seen the men's rights movement come up before with that guy who's sueing Columbia for Women's Studies (I'm bad with names) and today with the Men's Rights and the Domestic Violence ads.  I'll be honest, my main beef with Men's Rights is how they target women in divorce courts and sebsequently blame feminism for the unfairness to men with child support and how "men can't get out of fatherhood".  This really hits a personal chord since my mom was divorced twice and barely scraped a good deal out of both of them.  Also my cousin lost her little girl to a crack-addict and the court knew he was one.

Divorce is messy.  Unless it's an annullment or other circumstances, usually no one gets what they want.  That's what makes it a compromise, n'est-ce pas?  I'm not saying that there aren't cases where things were heavily in the woman's favor, and there aren't cases where things are heavily in the man's.  This I bear no grudge.  The system is just heavily flawed due to emotion and bias.  But to go and blame feminism?  Divorce has been around *way* long before the feminist movement.  And yes I'll admit has had some impact on it since the first and second waves.  But it doesn't have it's iron grip upon it. Hell, what does feminism have a firm grip on?  All I can think is sufferage (don't forget to vote!) and even then not really. 

The point is that I base my opinions upon fact and research.  I don't agree with masculinism because it's about men.  I disagree with it because it's flawed and ultimately reinforces gender stereotypes. And the whole reason I'm writing this is because my male feminist friend accused me about being sexist for that reason!  I don't need to ask you as a community if he's right.  I know he isn't.  But to be called a sexist blatantly.  I am upset.  I don't think I'm sexist for disagreeing with masculinism.  I'm entitled to my researched opinion.

I'm not totally off the mark, am I?

Can I get some feedback on how my argument is going? Here's what the anti-choicer said:

"In conclusion, as far as the whole abortion thing goes: you can be against it, but you cannot deny another person their own reproductive rights."

What happened to the baby's right to live? I mean come on, what if your mom decided to abort you? where would your friends be right now? reproductive rights, eh? zip up. Don't have sex unless you are open to raising a kid... that's what it is for anyway you know.

and as for Rape/Incest abortions - they total at 1% (1300) a year in the US. So 1,300,000 bambinos are slaughtered every year only because the mother didn't feel like raising a child... even though about double that number of families and individuals are out there who cannot have children and would do almost anything to love and raise an adopted child.

I just did a google search to find the "what about our daughters " blog and "Marry Our Daughter " came up in the list. I clicked to find a website I hope is a joke but doesn't look like it is one... does anyone know?!

Parents are selling off their American daughters to American men. There's a short paragraph for each girl, a foggy photo, and a price. Men can click propose if they want to propose.

Here is an example: "Kyra likes the outdoors, more the open air of the beach or the desert than the woods.  She would love to live somewhere away from it all.  She is bright and funny and full of life and while she has little direct experience with the opposite sex we have made sure she is aware of everything she needs to know to be a good wife and mother." She's 14.5 years old and is the cheapest bride-to-be on the first page, $27,995.

These have got a be a joke, right? Oh gosh, the testimonials are so bad. Please be a joke! It's too horrifying not to be...

Cross-posted from Fundamentally Flawed , where the worst, stupidest garbage published about marriage equality gets the public shaming it deserves!

From blogger and columnist Wayne Lusvardi comes this gem of an article: No on Prop 8 is Anti-Feminist . Wayne, as you'll immediately see, is both a champion of feminism and a brilliant scholar:

The word "marriage" comes from the Latin word "mater" for mother.

Great point! Except....it doesn't. It comes from Old French (marier, "to marry"). He's thinking of "matrimony."

And "mater" is what matters in marriage. Marriage is unavoidably built around female sexuality and procreation. Marriage can only concern a relationship to a woman for procreation. It is the opposite of concubinage, which is an involuntary relationship with a man of higher status in a traditional society.

All, first, can we get T-shirts that say "MATER IS WHAT MATTERS"?

Second, let's take a moment to marvel at the egregious, oblivious sexism in this paragraph. "Marriage is unavoidably built around female sexuality"? Wayne, that's not true, but if it were, you could try not to sound quite so bummed about it. Check out that third sentence, too, which quietly assumes that marriage is the exclusive domain of---guess who!---heterosexual men (who, in their enlightened feminist benevolence, generally opt nowadays to possess us one at a time rather than keeping entire harems).

A social order that doesn't protect a woman from rape or incest or concubinage can't give women the freedom to control who the father(s) of their children are, or their own bodies, or even their own health. Marriage is the structure of this freedom of choice for women in modern society. Women's freedom to control access to their body for procreation is what modern marriage is all about. Without that, there is no societal or religious basis for laws to protect marriage, particularly gay marriage.

Aren't you glad that Wayne is such an ardent supporter of women's rights to control their own health and their own bodies? I think we can safely assume that he's on the front lines of the fight to keep abortion and contraception legal and available, to offer comprehensive sex education in all our public schools, to protect rape victims and toughen laws against rapists, and to provide universal health care to all Americans......oh. He thinks a husband is all we need? Well, he should know, being a man and all.

Defining marriage down to a contract between companions or non-procreative sex partners will only end up harming all women for if everyone can marry, no one needs to and it becomes meaningless.

Yeah, yeah, the magical hedge of protection . We already know. Move on.

Women will ultimately suffer most. Gay marriage robs something that belongs exclusively to women.

Fallopian tubes? Kotex? Supermarket Sweep? I give up.

Traditional man-woman marriage is not anti-gay, it's pro-feminine. Same sex marriage is anti-feminist.

Let's review:

THINGS THAT ARE FEMINIST: All straight marriages, including those that involve spousal abuse and domestic violence; the use of "feminine" as a synonym for "feminist"; men who tell women what's feminist and what's not.

THINGS THAT ARE NOT FEMINIST: Lesbians.

Any questions?

    I got off the bus today at 9:45 to go to class and work.  I attend NC State University and I work at our main campus library.  At NC State, if you plan to be on campus any given day, you will probably be in the Brickyard.  It’s a large open area where hundreds of students congregate between classes.  Something happens in the Brickyard every day- activism, bake sales, crazy “preachers” yelling at girls wearing skirts, you name it- but today was different.

The latest cover of Newsweek magazine, which features a photograph of Sarah Palin, is causing controversy: on an October 8th episode of Fox's American Newsroom, Andrea Tantorus, a Republican media consultant, argued to host, Megyn Kelly, that the photograph "is a clear slap in the face to Sarah Palin." And why is it a veritable slap in the face? Precisely because the photograph does absolutely nothing to the Republican vice presidential candidate's visage.

We feminists are accused of crying sexism every time a woman is depicted as sexy in an advertisement, but at the same time we're responsible for turning young girls into sluts? The thing that makes me bemoan the state of feminism in today's society is that we've become a catch-all scapegoat for all social problem. Economic troubles? It's that durned feminism, with them there women getting jobs and taking up the job market. American youth underachieving in school? Feminism makes those women think they don't need to be moms! They're all neglecting their children! Too much sex in the media? It's feminism's fault, they want all girls to have sex CONSTANTLY. They are all manly lesbians who resent femininity!

So, today in my English class, when we were watching the Frankenstein movie with Kenneth Branaugh and Helena Bonham Carter, there is a part (that is, mind you, not in the book) in the movie when Helena's character, Elizabeth, says to Victor, "Will you marry me?".

Oh no. Mr. Misogynist Student don't like when woman proposes to man.

So he says:

"Only men should propose to women. That's just the way it should be."

Yes. It should also be that women get paid nothing for their work, while men are just thrown money at them.

What century do we live in again?

OK, a friend of mine recently brought this article to my attention, and I swear I nearly gagged.

There is plenty wrong with this piece, but here are a few things that I would like to point out are either highly offensive, incredibly dangerous or just flat-out fucking WRONG.

I'm sure some of you are familiar with the Gender & Women's Studies (GWS) section of Yahoo! Answers. For those who are, but haven't been there today, here's the newest whinge from our old fave La Rose:

"Why are feminists not satisfied with being a woman?"

You might as well ask me why I can't just shut up about everything else and appreciate the fact that I have feet.

I saw this video on MTV and thought the song was a bit sexist. Hell, the part in the middle with the different "flavors" struck me as being down-right racist. The song is Cookie Jar by Gym Class Heroes. I know there was talk of Katy Perry's song being offensive though I didn't think it was that bad; I think her boyfriend in Gym Class Heroes has something much worse

Am I overreacting here or do you guys see what I'm talking about?

I hate commercials. I'm sure I'm not saying anything revolutionary here. Recently, as has been hi-lighted here, the UK has voted to discourage sexism in advertising, which is encouraging but needs to be adopted more globally. I'd like to travel deep into the catacombs of advertising and uncover some of the most rotten ads I can find for your viewing displeasure. (Warning: some may not be particularly work-safe)

This semester I decided to take online courses, which was quite a change. My professor required that we each introduce who we are to the class via the course discussion board. I mentioned that I was a feminist in mine, because I feel that is a big part of who I am. My professor replied letting me know he was an anti-feminist, and felt that feminism is highly correlated with the rise of divorces, ADHD and other relationships. He also made it clear that this didn't mean he didn't believe in equal rights for women...

I responded to his posts, which then sparked a class discussion. Every week the professor posts an extra credit assignment which I take full advantage of. I woke this morning to find that this week's extra credit assignment was a 500 word response to the following questions:

I was reading a local paper a few days ago, when I came across the following letter:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/community/postbag/letter/20080912_0.html

I objected to this strongly on a number of levels, but especially to the writer's longing for "gender stereotypes." What stereotypes does she have in mind exactly? "50's housewife" maybe, the myth that Friedan debunked so famously? "Endlessly devoted and selfless mother"? "Women are women and men are men"? And I find it especially disturbing that she believes that women can only discover their identity within the home.

A kid from my conservative christian college in Kentucky posted this Facebook note earlier today. I think it wondrously sums up the "forward-thinking" ideas of many men in christian circles.

**Note: this is not a representation of ALL christians, or all christian men. I have plenty of guy friends (including my boyfriend) who want to kick this kid's ass.

 

"The Nature of Male and Female interaction: the problems therein

I recently came across this quote on a friends wall...and was greatly disturbed.

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness and kindness, can be trained to do most things."

This should not be the definition of Masculinity. If this is what we have become, may we all commit Hari-Kari for death is a far more honorable fate than this.

Not a day goes by without another speech from some cigar-smoking prick or other about how he longs for a 'return to femininity', waxing lyrical over women as mothers, caregivers, and 'helpers of men' whilst condemning any and every other choice. They have a ready-made defence to criticism, thus: 'How could you have got it wrong - this is out of RESPECT for women, in fact, I REVERE women, in all their purity and goodness that is being eroded by feminism.'

These are the men who, more than anyone, push the idea of women as the soft side, the gentle, fragile and innocent sex. They argue that there is a goodness intrinsic to the female in a way it isn't for the male, that needs to be preserved via motherhood and service to men because it is women's 'true nature'. They tend to use descriptions which you hear mostly in discussions about children or animals, with the same attitude of 'it's for your own good' that we impose on the same. Apparently it's 'for the good of society' (read: men), and women will be happy when they are 'helping' men and 'being protected by them' - a lot like children are happiest when helping dad wash the car or ma bake a cake.

So I was bored since I'm in my dorm and not at home on this fine Labor Day weekend, and decided to check out the links from various Feministing blogs. And then came across this lovely gem after taking a link to the lovely Loose...erm I mean Luce Ladies.

On the whole man-hating thing, I guess they missed the one where the woman comes to love her vagina after the man tells her it's beautiful.  I guess eating out put their brains into overload. No honor in mouth-to-genetalia pleasures.

Ultimate irony: I found this while wearing my V-Day shirt.

Anyone else get frustrated when your feminist-identified male friends have extremely anti-feminist moments? IE:

a)    they make a rape joke (“it’s funny when it’s bro-rape!!”)

b)   they reduce other women to anatomy (“OMG boobies and tits”)

c)    they assert “expert” opinions on issues like street harassment, abortion, and sexism in the workplace (“women should wear modest clothing so they won’t be harassed!”)

d)   they make a “woman joke” around you just to piss you off (“you’re so cute when you are angry!”)

e)    they pretend to be manly around you just to piss you off (“oh, I’m a MAN, ha ha ha, what are you going to do, WOMAN?? Ha ha ha”)

Etc etc.  Don’t get me wrong—I love when guys say that they are feminists and mean it.  I’ve had great discussions with men who support my ideas and/or expand my ideas with their own unique takes on gender issues.  But some guys don’t get that feminism isn’t just a “sometimes” belief—it’s a way of life. 

(note: do women do this too? I have never had a female friend like that, but maybe they are out there.)

I knew it was bound to happen.  I mean, she was Catholic.  I shouldn't have pushed it.  But she wanted to be a feminist, and I wanted to prepare her.  So I brought it up.  I brought up abortion.  The conversation went as badly as I figured it would.  I argued with everything I could muster, but she wouldn't listen.  "Life starts at conception."  I hate that argument.  She started telling me about biology, and I threw back that I knew about the biological process and a blastocyst is no more of a human than an acorn is a oak tree.  Things followed quickly downhill.

I could've curbed my temper, but when she made it very clear that a woman didn't have rights the moment she became pregnant, I couldn't hold it any longer.  How dare she even think about being a feminist when she would so quickly disregard a woman's rights for a clump of cells.  I called her ignorant and closed the discussion. 

I hate pro-life arguments.  I really do.  And I know I should blame the ideology, but I have lost a lot of respect for her.  She can't see how Roe v. Wade has kept women from being found dead with hangers up their wombs.  She can't see that most women don't want abortions.  She can't see that women have rights to their body.  All she sees is that clump of cells. 

What's worse, is she's not the only friend I have that's like this.  I have lot's of friends that are Catholics, and I find it hard to talk to them even about contraception.  I've only met one that wasn't totally pro-life, and he was merely neutral.  His statement was "I'm a man, and I have no say in what women do with their bodies."  I gave him like 200 kudos right then.

I know I should apologize for calling her ignorant.  But right now I think the term is fairly on the mark.

In this article from what another commenter here termed the “Daily Hate Mail”, Anna Pasternak continues the long-standing tradition of shaming women who don’t conform to the traditional model of Western womanhood. I know that similar articles have been covered here before, but the definition of femininity that Pasternak promotes here is so constraining and, for most of us, erroneous, that I couldn’t resist the opportunity to pick it apart.

She opens her article by recounting a couple of her dating experiences with men who are clearly insecure when faced with a woman who is successful in her career. A doctor tells her that she is “not in touch with her femininity” because she doesn’t “flirt or wear much make-up”, and a “successful, high-profile entrepreneur” tells her that she is “so in control [that it’s] scary”. Instead of pointing out the rather obvious fact that these men are trying to hide their own insecurity with their moralizing, Pasternak takes their comments to heart and embarks on a quest to embrace her “core femininity” (which translates here as retrograde ideas about what it means to be feminine).

This is cross posted at my personal blog (silence-is-betrayal.blogspot.com ), but I thought it would interesting to see if my words resonate with anyone here (and sorry if it is a little ranty...I am normlly better about that).

I checked the Barometer tonight to see if my column printed this week, and to see if one of my conservative columnists, Dan Fitzpatrick, had a column in this week. To no surprise, Fitzpatrick's column was written in response to my latest , which was in response to his previous column , all pertaining to Planned Parenthood and the issue of abortion rights.

Originally posted at http://jmwinck.wordpress.com

In "I'm Not a Feminist, But..." Penny Weiss examines familiar stereotypes of feminism and feminists. She points out that "[f]eminism is unaccepted by too many with too much power," and that powerful meaning-makers who are antifeminist often determine what feminism is. Consequently, "much less visible to too many with both too much and too little power are the costs of antifeminism." While Weiss offers a few, "rape, domestic violence, self-hatred, poverty, and lost potential," many costs deserve greater consideration, as women have long suffered because of antifeminism's stubbornness.

Hi there,

I was looking through a magazine that comes with one of the biggest selling English Sunday newspapers, when I found this article about Dov Charney, the founder of American Apparel. I have yet to pick my jaw up off the floor. The stomach-churning misogyny of this man is quite breathtaking. Follow this weblink to see the article - I know that I will be boycotting anything from this odious creep's stores!

Becky

The other day I had this conversation via good ol' Myspace with my cousin. He's about my age and though it doesn't seem from this conversation, also very liberal.

Him- Feminism is a lie.
It's not equality, it's fascism!

Me- What kind of feminists are you talking to?!?

Apparently us poor naive women have fallen prey to a conspiracy of social manipulation to strip us of our femininity by forcing us out of our flowery aprons and into denim. Go read Henry Maktow's sexist, homophobic thesis here and wonder how the hell he got a PhD.

Mr Maktow has contact details at his website if anyone's interested in telling him where to stick his thesis.

Feministe has a hillarious deconstruction of this article, go read.

Feminists Say the Darndest Things

While perusing Barnes & Noble.com's website, looking for a new book to read, I happened upon this charmer (see above link).

My DC adventure continues.  Yesterday I went to the Supreme Court, and since I'm a law student I was really excited, kind of like a kid at Christmas.  I sat down to rest a minute when I got there and ended up right next to a girl with a huge ball of tape with the word "life" written all over it.  I knew the situation as soon as I saw it, but I decided to inquire.  So, I asked her what she was doing.  Her organization, Bound4Life, goes to the Supreme Court 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and puts red tape over their mouths with the word "life" written on it and silently prays for god to end abortion.

Wow.

A number of respected (and beautiful) feminist bloggers have responded to this diatribe today, and I'd like to add my name to the list. For those of you who don't really want to read the "article" (I don't blame you, it's long and awful), Feminist Anonymous has taken it upon her(?)self to declare that all physically attractive feminists are not actually feminists. She cites specifically The Apostate (for daring to wear a bikini top!), Jill at Feministe ("the original Fake Pretty Feminist"), Natalia Antanova (who is "pretty for a feminist"), and Renegade Evolution (a sex-worker and feminist whom everyone hates because "she pisses people off when she waves her tits in their face"). All of these women are well-spoken, thoughtful feminists who also happen to be blessed with convetional beauty. However, FemAnon failed to mention the other bajillion feminists who are also pretty and therefore not feminists.

    First, the background information. I go to a small liberal arts college in Aurora, New York. It Is called Wells College and is just now moving into its fourth year of co-education. It was originally a women's college, established in the second half of the 1800's as a finishing school or seminary for Cornell wives. This did change very quickly, however, as the founder, Henry Wells, thought it more suitable to have a rigorous academic agenda for women. Being a women's college for a hundred plus years, feminism was truly at the heart of this college and all that that entails. I had planned on attending this college since I was freshman in high school, but sadly, administration made the decision to go co-ed my junior year and started admitting men my senior year of high school. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, they were struggling financially and it was supposedly a last attempt to stay open. I decided to still attend Wells because I felt like it would take more than a few years to wipe out the women-centered atmosphere that had existed for over a hundred, and in addition, the men and women who would want to attend Wells at this point were certainly not an enemy to feminism, with a woman to man ratio of 3 - 1.   

<

Question: what the hell makes privileged, middle-class white males wake up one day and decide they are oppressed? If you're looking for a punch line, there isn't one because, well, it's not funny - but such people do exist. Members of these so-called MRAs - so-called Men's Rights Activists are popping up everywhere and one wonders why and how they've come to their ways of thinking. Further, what is the profile of a normal MRA member?

MRAs claim that feminism has gone too far and that, indeed, they are the ones whose rights are being taken away; that they are the ones being oppressed. By going "too far," they mean that women are still earning $.76 to the dollar, or that while we feminists have been victorious in some of our reproductive justice battles, women's rights to their own bodies are still being threatened. By "going too far," they mean that while anti-rape activists hold Take Back the Night rallies every year, but upward of 65,000 are still raped each year, then they're also right; by "going too far," they mean that while women enjoy the autonomy of being able to go to work and compete with men, they are still seen as lesser than men, and thus less valuable, as well as more expendable.

"You know what? I am actually not that much into voting. I think it’s kinda crazy that a woman is running, because I think that women deal with a lot of emotions and menopause and PMS and stuff. Like, I’m so moody all the time, I know I couldn’t be able to run a country, ‘cause I’d be crying one day and yelling at people the next day, ya know?"

—Brooke Hogan, when asked who she's voting for by a potential roommate on her series Brooke Knows Best.

I was just talking to my cousin who is getting married soon - my aunt and uncle are pressuring her to go the full "trad" route - white dress and veil etc etc

My question is - have these sorts of stuff happened to you - what "traditions" have parents or other family/friends tried to pressure bully or force you to do?

KLo has gone and discovered that misogyny is a problem because of feminism .

This will be painful. This column is not recommended for pregnant women, not-pregnant women, not-pregnant men, pregnant men, sentient humans, chordates, carbon-based lifeforms, inanimate objects, or indeed anything, anywhere.

KLo begins in the 1960s, when, of course, everything that was good became bad.

I t’s the summer of talking about the summer of ‘68. And back during that infamous summer, there was sex — an encyclical on sex, that is: Humanae Vitae , from Pope Paul VI, issued on July 25. Its message is being heard and misheard as much now as then. It would be for the benefit of all — Catholics and non-Catholics alike — to give it a 40th-anniversary look.

Of course! Because there’s been no more forward-thinking organization committed to gender equality than the Catholic Church. I hear that by the year 3655, they may actually take up the discussion of whether women can be priests, but it may be another 10,000 years or so before they decide in the affirmative.

I am the happy mother of two wonderful daughters.  My oldest girl loves horses and owns one that lives at her grandparents' farm.  She also visits an online forum that allows her to breed horses at a virtual horse farm.

But just like many online communities, it has a fair number of anti-feminists.  After visiting this site for a few months, she discovered that at one time it was possible to give your horse an abortion.  If you bred her at the wrong time and you didn't plan it right and you wanted to undo your mistake, you could give your mare an abortion.  Of course this angered many of the Christians on the site that demanded that howrse.com disable this feature.  And just like in the real world, the Christians go their way.

You have to understand that these kids take this site very seriously and get very attached to their virtual horses.  So they have a favorite mare and they want to have a foal.  They have the mare covered.  But then they discover that they need money to cover the vet bills for their mare and all the other costs that a pregnancy entails.  The forums are full of kids that are freaking out because they don't have the money to pay for the costs of the pregnancy and no way to undo the mistake.  Want to guess what happens to a pregnant mare on howrse that doesn't get the medical care that it requires?

Just like in the real world, they get sick and die. 

This has led to a number of interesting conversations with my child about the implications of the pro-life world view.  We agree that it is terrible that so many women die because religious fundamentalists are offended by women excercising control over their own body parts.

This world view is so powerful to many people, that they get offended by a pixelated horse character on an internet forum getting an abortion.  We agree that this is insane. 

This recent post titled Anti-Feminist Women got me thinking about another strange beast I often find myself perplexed by-the Anti-Women Feminist (AFW).

I've come across this interesting character many times.  This is the kickass, independent woman who proudly proclaims that she is a feminist.  She is the confident lady who does things just to prove she can do them.  But when quizzed about her relationships with other females, she sniffs and says something along the lines of, "I have trouble getting along with other women.  Girls can be so catty and backstabby. Guys are so much more trustworty as friends."  Or some variation on this theme.

What's up with that?

I work in a place where I am literally the only woman. I hear my share of lewd and crude comments but I don't really mind because it takes a lot to offend me. However, some of the employees have started making fun of me for being a feminist and now try to offend me because they think it's funny. If only they knew that the more they make "fake" sexist jokes the more they are reinforcing why I am a feminist.

Now a days it seems that men think that since all women are supposedly already "liberated" they can make stupid jokes and overtly be demeaning towards women. I wish women my age would realize that behind these "jokes" lies the the culture of denigration of women in which we live and rise up against it.

I recently posted about an e-mail I recieved from a former co-worker in which he tried to "debunk the myth that is feminism."

I promised that I would post his reply, so here goes:

"I am every day more convinced that we women, if we are to be good women, feminine and amiable and domestic, are not fitted to reign; at least it is they that drive themselves to the work which it entails."

-Queen Victoria

Last week I saw that quote (ironically) used as a signature on a forum I sometimes go to. It got me thinking about why so many women hate having rights.

It seems like most anti-feminist women are women who already have all the opportunities they want. Queen Victoria, for example, lived in a castle where she bossed people around all day. I doubt, once she became Queen at least, she had to deal with sexism on an every day basis the way Elizabeth I had to either. She had nine children, who she didn't particularly like, referring to pregnancy as the "occupational hazard of being a wife". Her granddaughter-in-law Queen Mary took it a step further and called having children the "punishment for being a woman". Perhaps if Victorian feminism has included reproductive rights Queen Victoria might not have hated it so much.

Modern anti-feminists tend to come in two shapes. The college-educated conservative women like Ann Coulter who would probably hate being cooped up in a kitchen all day yet hypocritically try to force it on other women. The wife in The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood is an interesting example of how these women might react to being put in a world of their own design. The second type of female anti-feminist is the happy housewife who likes cooking, cleaning, and pushing babies out of her crotch and can't understand why anyone wouldn't want that life.

The first type would probably become feminists if they were forced to live in a world where women have no options. The second type are at heart well intentioned women who just can't see the world through another's eyes. I would like to be a stay-at-home mom someday, at least while my children are young. My mother stayed at home with me before I started school. Feminism is not trying to take away that kind of life, only to give women options should that not be what they want.

Being pro-choice shouldn't just be about reproductive rights. I don't want to force women to go out and get jobs when their husbands can provide for them, but I don't want to force them to stay home when they really want to work. I also think men should be able to stay at home and take care of their children.

As awful as anti-feminist men are, they're simply trying to oppress others, something humans have done for thousands of years. Anti-feminist women are a bit more of an enigma because I don't think they intend to oppress themselves, I just think they don't realize what it is to be oppressed. If Queen Victoria had been barred from ruling because she was a woman, she might've seen things differently. If Ann Coulter was banned from public speaking, writing, and even voting (which she has supported), I think even she might see things differently.

Meet Kyle Payne

...a man who is staunchly against pornography, a man who is dedicated to men rethinking their views on sexuality, privilege, rape culture, and masculinity, a man who spent time as a Rape Crisis Advocate. A man who assaulted and photographed a unconscious young woman under his authority as a university resident advisor, for his own sexual gratification and without her consent. A man who had child pornography on his hard drive , a man who's blog, The Road Less Traveled, is filled with angst and turmoil and emotion, condemnation for the exact sort of behavior he himself has engaged in.

h/t to and read more at Renegade Evolution

A former coworker of mine recently sent me an e-mail in which he tried to "explain" to me why feminism is a bad thing. He said that he had found a sound, logical argument that "debunks the myth that is feminism beyond a reasonable doubt."

The e-mail was really quite long, so rather than share the whole thing, I thought I'd share a few snippets and give my reaction:

*"Feminism has undermined traditional family values..." Hmm... All feminism did was say that there should be equality - women shouldn't be forced to get married and have children, and if they choose to do those things, the soul responsibility of caretaker and housekeeer shouldn't be placed on the woman's shoulders - there should be an equitable division of the responsibiliities.

*"From infancy, all of us are pounded by corporate propaganda- on TV, the radio, newspapers, and even (gasp!) the internet. At the same time, thanks to the  haughty drumbeat of feminist  ideologues screeching at us like fishwives  from every possible electronic soapbox, we have been deprived of masculine values, family values, and religious values which could have balanced the seesaw of modern culture."   Yes, we are bombarded with corporate propaganda. But that is the only thing in that statement that is correct. Why are stereotypically masculine values seen as more worthwhile than stereotypically feminine values? Why is is that men can't be sensitive, caring, empathetic, and nurturing without being less of a man? Why is it that a woman can't be strong, intelligent, independant and assertive without being "too masculine?" Don't tell me that "masculine values" have been stifled - they are put up on a pedestal and hailed as the epitome of efficiancy.

*"Feminists sold our heads to the corporations. They got jobs - so what? The trade-off was that our lives are now being bought and sold by impersonal, non-accountable, corporate behemoths. We have lost all sense of what a man is, what a family is, and what faith is. In other words, we have lost all sense of the meaning of life."   Holy hell. How can one little paragraph be so riddled with atrocities? So, you can't be a "real man" if you believe in equality for women? If you are a feminist, you automatically lack "family values?" Whose family values? Yours? You can't have faith if you are a feminist? I am a Christian and a feminist...I must be an abomination. A fluke, right? I get really offended when people tell me that I am not a good Christian because of the things I believe. Because all this mudslinging about how feminism has caused the downfall of Western Civilization and all that bullshit doesn't seem very Christian to me.

*"Equality is meaningless. Not that feminism was ever really about equality. It was about women wanting more stuff."  No, trust me, it was, and still is, about equality. We live in a society were being a woman is (still) less than desirable, displaying stereotypically feminine characteristics is (still) a sign of weakness, and if, god forbid, a woman dares not to be feminine enough, she is (still) some sort of freak.

*"Women are not oppressed. The notion that they are his laughable. Think about it: In this country, women have the right to vote, but are not required to register for Selective Service. That is to say, women have a say in government, but are not required to put their lives on the line to defend that government. It's power without responsibility, pure and simple. Democracy was 'reborn' in the modern age my men who were willing to fight yand die to wrestle ower away from kings and their corporations. But women gained power by what? Fighting a 'corageous' ideological struggle."  Women had to FIGHT for the right to vote. We had to FIGHT for a say in government. We, for the longest time, weren't ALLOWED in the military. Women ARE fighting for equal rights within the military. Women COULDN'T fight against kings the way men could, because women weren't seen as people - they were the property of their husband or father, and in many places, women are STILL  seen as property. Take Saudi Arabia, for example. Women aren't even allowed to be in a room alone with a man who isn't their father, husband or brother. They aren't allowed to DRIVE. The list goes on and on. But, you're right. Women aren't oppressed. Sure. How could I possibly have been fooled by the feminists?

*"An Aristocracy of Women has been created - it is a club for a select few, who, by virtue of being born female, do not have to fight in war or perform heavy manual labor. The Aristocracy has gone on to browbeat politicians into instituting government fast-tracks that allow them to rise to the highest levels of power and authority in society."   Gasp! Women in power!? What is the world coming to? Grab your torch and pitch forks, everybody! It's a good thing Hillary lost the nomination! A woman can't possibly run the country! If she had won, she would have fed the feminist beast and all that is masculine would die! (Runs face first into a wall while screaming histerically)


It's people like this man that tell me, unequivocally, undeniably, irrefutably that we still need feminism. No, sexism is NOT gone. Women are NOT equal. Feminism is NOT done.

For any of you who haven't read Jessica's book (if you haven't, get a move on!), she opens with this little experiment:

Think of the worst things you can call a man.
    -bitch
    -fag
    -pussy
    -girl

Now think of the worst things you can call a woman.
    -bitch
    -whore
    -cunt
    -slut

See anything in common? The worst thing you can call a man is a woman, and the worst thing you can call a woman is a woman.

I e-mailed him back with the sentiments I have expressed in this post (and much, much more). I'm waiting for his reply. I don't expect to have shown him the error of his ways (Trust me, there is no reasoning with this guy - Rush Limbaugh and Bill Dobson have him wrapped around their little fingers), but at least I've shown him that his "sound, logical argument" has a few (warning: understatement of the year) holes in it.