A Dudely Introduction to Feminism
Update: Hello everyone, and thank you for stopping by! Much thanks also to BelleDame, Amber Rhea, Ampersand, Ginmar, and everyone else who’s stopped by to say hello, or just read.
The concept behind this series was inspired by a general irritation with Machiavelli’s The Prince and the methods of Rovian politics, which prompted me to write “What I Want.” Although that is a good introduction, It begins with “Baseball, Kenjutsu, and Telling the Truth” and is continued with “Our Tribe” and “A Dudely Introduction to Feminism.” “Lies, Damned Lies, and Sophistry” will probably be done today.
Methuselah lived nine hundred years,
Say, but what’s good o’ livin’
When no gal’ll give in
To no man what’s nine hundred years?
It ain’t nessa, ’tain’t nessa,
’tain’t nessa, ’tain’t nessa,
‘Tain’t necessarily so.
Time to take on that demon of the right, the feminazi, and show her what’s what. Or in point of fact to show you that she is a construct used to bash a large and wonderful group of people. I don’t plan to spend much time on Limbaugh’s straw woman, because somewhere in here I hope to throw in just enough truth about what feminism is to make you curious and find out for yourself what’s really going on. Of the two goals, I’d much rather spend time devoted to people reading what I write as opposed to Limbaugh’s sound-bites. Knowing me and knowing Limbaugh, however, it will take longer to do the former than the latter. Without further ado, I present an excerpt from Limbaugh’s book, The Way Things Ought To Be:
FEMINISM’S SLIDE
This obsession with abortion and lesbian rights became entrenched in the woman’s movement in about 1978. That’s approximately the time when feminism became separated from its original concerns and veered into strange new territory.
You mean about the time the extension for ratification for the ERA was passed?
I date it from the 1978 conference in Houston that was chaired by Congresswoman Bella Abzug of New York.
You mean 1977. The positions were presented to Congress in 78, the conference was in 77.
Jimmy Carter had caved in and caused the federal government to pay for this women’s conference and it was taken over by the radical left.
This being the conference formed by the bill that was signed into law by Gerald Ford to be part of the Bicentennial celebration?
Gone were concerns about equal pay, assertiveness, and expressing one’s individuality.
The conference adopted a platform consisting of 26 “planks,” named as follows: “Arts and Humanities,” “Battered Women,” “Business,” “Child Abuse,” “Child Care,” “Credit,” “Disabled Women,” “Education,” “Elective and Appointive Office,” “Employment,” “Equal Rights Amendment,” “Health,” “Homemakers,” “Insurance,” “International Affairs,” “Media,” “Minority Women,” “Offenders,” “Older Women,” “Rape,” “Reproductive Freedom,” “Rural Women,” “Sexual Preference,” “Statistics,” “Women, and Welfare and Poverty,” and “Committee of the Conference.”
Only the position on equal access to credit was passed unanimously. This was a diverse, active, thoughtful, and passionate set of debates on a huge number of issues, and the one about sexual orientation was the most divisive and hard-fought one on both sides. I think it’s amazingly to the conference’s credit that this plank was passed.
In their place were women ensconced in bitterness, hatred and resentment. The NOW gang became a fringe movement, and lost a lot of women who no longer wanted to call themselves feminists. The women’s movement was taken over by radical leftists and became an adjunct of the Democratic party.
No support is ever given for this contention, because it didn’t happen. Rush, and the common Right-wing wisdom, is to take the most divisive issues at the conference that were decided with the narrowest margins, and characterize them as the most fervently embraced issues at the event. I believe that he portrays the entire group as if it spoke with one voice on everything. He mischaracterized what was said and why, and later in the text started slapping labels on the tiniest minority in that group while alluding to the idea that this minority not only represents the feminist movement as a whole, but the Democratic party. Note again that the bill which created the conference was signed during the Ford administration, and further consider that Congress appropriated the money for the conference, not Carter.
As far as NOW as it stands today? Abortion rights/reproductive issues and lesbian rights are two of the top six of NOW’s current “Top Priority Issues,” but the other four are violence against women, constitutional equality, promoting diversity/ending racism, and economic justice. Below that under “Other Important Issues,” we have Affirmative Action, disability rights, family, fighting the Right, global feminism, health, judicial nominations, legislation, marriage equality, media activism, working for peace, Social Security, Title IX, welfare, women-friendly workplace, women in the military, and young feminism. This is not a single-issue group – that would be NARAL, and even they branch out. [note: the author was irritated at NOW for including Senators who voted for cloture on the Alito nomination debate in its list of Senators to thank for opposing Alito, but will get over himself for the purposes of this discussion, since the current action alert is not forgiving]
I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. Tom Hazlett, a good friend who is an esteemed and highly regarded professor of economics at the University of California at Davis, coined the term to describe any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion. There are 1.5 million abortions a year, and some feminists almost seem to celebrate that figure. There are not many of them, but they deserve to be called feminazis.
At least he recognizes that the group he derides is vanishingly small, though this is lost in his broad generalizations both before and after that admission. The word “militant” has gotten thrown around a lot, and I’m wondering how it stuck on feminism, when what it usually means is somebody’s got a gun and believes that shooting people is the fastest way to further their cause. Now it may just be me, but I don’t recall hearing about gangs of feminists shooting up their rivals, or feminists heading into businesses run by subcultures they don’t like and violently expressing their displeasure. If it did happen, I suspect Fox News would be on it like white on rice, but that’s just me. As for the “modern-day holocaust,” if you believe that a human being is a human being at conception, then there’s very little point of agreement to work with, but I have trouble with drawing a moral equivalence between a fetus and a human being who has knowledge, opinions, memories and dreams, as it undercuts everything about us that makes us different and worthwhile as individuals. I also have serious problems with the idea that society can place a lien on a woman’s body for the duration of a pregnancy.
A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed.
I have never seen anyone advocate anything even close to this. The closest I have seen is the contention that the presence of the option has done society great benefit by allowing people greater freedom to begin a family (or not) at a time of their choosing. I have never seen an abortion drive, an abortion fair, or an abortion jamboree, and I doubt I ever will – because the number of people living on the planet who would hold such an event is vanishingly small, assuming there are any in the first place. I have never heard of a woman saying “She’s pregnant! That means we can take her to get an abortion! SCORE!” While there are stories running around of people expressing such glee, it just doesn’t happen. I’ve never managed to find someone who talks about these stories actually be able to point to a specific person who expressed joy over an abortion. Apart from that, here’s my general stance.
Their unspoken reasoning is quite simple.
The nice thing about challenging someone’s “unspoken reasoning” is that you never have to prove that it’s actually their reasoning in the first place. This makes it an excellent way to jump from one irrational statement to another without a safety net.
Abortion is the single greatest avenue for militant women
These would be the imaginary militant feminists packing AK-47s and hand grenades which we discussed earlier.
to exercise their quest for power
“Quest for power” is a big phrase, large enough that it can accommodate some truth no matter what meanings you apply to it. Is registering to vote a quest for power? Signing a petition? Getting a medical check-up? Running for office? How about raising your kids the way you want to, within the boundaries of compassion, sanity, safety, and health?
and advance their belief
Unsupported and uncited.
that men aren’t necessary. They don’t need men in order to be happy.
Again pointing to a small group, and pointing at an extreme position – but to be perfectly fair, how often do you hear guys saying “women – can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em?”
They certainly don’t want males to be able to exercise any control over them,
As opposed to men, who want men to exercise control over them?
Abortion is the ultimate symbol of women’s emancipation from the power and influence of men.
This is really hard to disagree with, but contraception is up there too. Score one for Rush.
With men being precluded from the ultimate decision making process regarding future life in the womb, they are reduced to their proper inferior role.
And here we begin leaping giant exaggerated conclusions with single bounds. Before it was a “modern-day holocaust,” now it’s about “future life.” I really wish he’d be consistent. The inferior role thing kinda bugs me, though. I didn’t hear anyone call for the sterilization of “Welfare Kings….”
Nothing matters but me, say the feminazi. My concerns prevail over all else. The fetus doesn’t matter, it’s an unviable tissue mass.
One wonders how such an irate, sociopathic, and mentally unstable type of person would manage to form groups with other such people without the whole bunch of them killing each other off the first time a desire were thwarted when a line formed for anything.
Feminazis have adopted abortion as a kind of sacrament for their religion/politics of alienation and bitterness.
In the spirit of presenting this fatuous conclusion with the derision it deserves, I point back to the conference planks cited above.
And that’s enough time spent with Rush. So now that we’ve pointed out what feminism isn’t, just what is it?
I’ll take you on a mercifully brief whirlwind tour of my exposure to it in just four steps, that will leave you with enough information to do some real research.
The first step, a general definition and description. Like any movement or philosophy there are differing ways of expressing and acting on the ideas embraced by Feminist Theory, but the core idea is that women and men are of equal worth as human beings, and should be treated as such. Very simple, direct, and straightforward. The vast, vast majority of feminists consider this to apply to all human beings, which is why the women’s movement still has yet to do unto others the way it has been thrown under the bus by the abolitionists, the peace movement, the labor movement, some environmentalists, and many more. The GLBT movement has struggled for acceptance within feminist circles, but to be honest the fight has been easier there than with any other – because of the egalitarian core ideals of feminism. To me, that kind of integrity is worth more in an ally than gold, and should never, ever be betrayed. If you ever want to know what progressive movements are walking the talk, watch who a variety of feminist organizations support. These are dedicated people who have been dissed again and again and keep coming back, not for the abuse, but because they know a very important truth: that all of these seemingly disparate causes are actually integral to each other.
Next, how I got to where I am with Feminist Theory. Going to take quick looks at the first three books that got me thinking about the subject. Just teasers, you’ll need to read them yourself (and talk with someone else who has read them cover-to-cover) in order to get anything meatier out of them. This is not meant to be a substitute for real knowledge of these works, just an invitation to go learn more.
The first real exposure I had to the study of feminism was Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents, which was written in 1930 just as the aftermath of World War I was turning into the furor that would become World War II. Yup, that Freud. In it he, in a back-handed, almost shamefaced way and at the very end of the essay, contends that the hyper-masculine nationalism sweeping the Western world is not only a scourge, that it is partially due to the rejection of the feminine civilizing influence, and that this rejection is at our peril. Heavy stuff, and laden with the notions of the woman as the teacher of moral authority, but certainly a contention that sounds very familiar today.
The second book would be Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex. Now since I cut my philosophical teeth on Existentialism, I flew (meaning rapidly, not casually) through this one three or four times back to back, re-reading it to catch minor points I missed and just plain enjoy how well she wrote it, and the translator presented it. Even translated from the French, the text is accessible, yet filled with enough good stuff to be a serious read for those who dig deeper. Her presentation of Existentialism also is much clearer than Sartre’s, if you’re interested in that sort of thing. Her argument boils down to this: We are only free to act within the boundaries placed by our environment – whether these boundaries are physical, or the common wisdom we learn at mama or daddy’s knee. She takes this into feminism (to horribly and unforgivably oversimplify her words) by presenting the idea that even with some hard examination, we really can’t absolutely distinguish between what our society presents as the difference between men and women, and what differences beyond the naughty bits may or may not actually exist. Take the core theory above, and you end up with this: since we can’t tell the difference between what’s real and what’s imagined in how we view men and women, you can’t justify unfair treatment at all.
Third would be Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. While the first two books focused on esoteric and metaphysical aspects of humanity and culture, Friedan nailed the practical, by looking specifically at the cultural expectations and attitudes towards women in post WWII America. She focused on the hyperfeminization of women (like a bouffant hairdo is a natural expression of womanhood? Puh-leeze.) and the iconification of the “nuclear family,” and how this turned out to be immensely profitable for the business sector. It turns out from her research that the nuclear family was a product sold to America the way it would sell appliances, justified by the reasoning that you can sell many more clothes washers if people are living in single-family homes, thus increasing economic prosperity not only for the appliance manufacturers, but also for the repairman (upkeep is always more profitable than the initial sale).
Next, the question “what is a feminist issue?” Truthfully, it’s anything that has to do with the living beings that we are, because Feminist Theory studies the human race, asking the question how do our assumptions and physical realities regarding gender and sex (and the two are very different) impact our lives, thoughts, and decisions. To give you one example that is not directed specifically at women, wouldn’t it be nice if maternity leave was given to both of the expected child’s parents? It would make those early months a million times better for the entire family, both individually and collectively, but especially for the infant. You could even expand this to make both legal guardians eligible for leave, which would make it even more egalitarian and inclusive (providing both people pull their weight in the matter, of course). So really, it’s anything having to do with the process of living.
Lastly, where do you go from here to learn more about it, since the media seems to be clueless on the subject? I have some good news and some bad news. First, the bad news. Just like the best way to get your teeth fixed is to go to a dentist, the best way to learn about stars is to talk to an astrophysicist, and the best way to get your toilet to stop backing up is to call a plumber (quick!), the best way to learn about feminism is talking with feminists (yes, plural, because there are many, many different kinds, and it covers many, many fields). You can also do reading on your own. The fact is, the more you know about human beings and what we do, the more you learn about, and can learn about Feminist Theory, because it examines everything we are and do as human beings. The good news? You can start yourself, very simply: every now and then, just ask yourself “why did I do that?” Once you start digging into what you’ve been taught and what assumptions you make (and perhaps even why you make them), you’re on your way.
February 13th, 2006 at 18:48
A couple of things…
First, nice job. You’ve been hitting ‘em out of the park lately.
Second, as Amanda and Lauren and Twisty and and and have noted, it’s not just strawwoman it’s strawfeminist. She’s so much easier to knock down.
Third, you make an important point that can’t be reinforced enough: being strongly in favor of the right to choose abortion is not equivalent to grabbing pregnant women off the street at the point of an AK-47 and dragging them off to the abortion clinic. I think it’s crucial to talk about, as I did when writing my post about experiences with Planned Parenthood.
Fourth, I’m always hopeful when I see men writing about this. It’s not that women can’t or don’t. We do. But the very “straw” arguments you attack lead to an information gap, that is sometimes able to be bridged by men to other men. Scott Lemieux over at Lawyers, Guns and Money has many excellent posts on abortion rights. As with domestic violence and rape, it’s important that those on the inside of the social group (ie men) stand up and call others (e.g. Rush) on their bullshit. Feminists regardless of gender are important to this message.
Fifth, it’s nice in the midst of a blog-lull of my own to read what others have to say.
I can’t offer you chinchillas, but how about an italian greyhound?
February 14th, 2006 at 1:36
1. Thankee! I figure as long as the employment contracts are slim, I owe (and all due props must be given in this “ownership” society) George W. Bush and the GOP (delenda est) my ability to spend lots of time (oh, so much time) on political and social critique (and the 21st century American tradition of carefully eyeing my slowly-shrinking bank account) as well as writing about the Bush Economic Miracle (smoke and mirrors) and the long term effects of the Republican Revolution (bad, for Republicans, Democrats, the country, and the world in general!). Oh, and…
Of course, for the children.
Second, I’m sort of ambivalent about strawfeminist, because when they start using it, what they’re really talking about is what most women have a right to, and what a lot of women who don’t identify themselves as feminists are working towards. Sort of a way to keep everyone in line, I suspect.
Third: O.O! Isn’t it, though?!? The entire concept of using militant as a label for these liberal, peaceful movements is one of the clearest cases of projection I’ve ever seen. *mutters*
Fourth: That’s why I opened up with the attack on Rush’s “arguments,” because you can believe one or the other, but not both. Unless you LIKE the feeling your head is about to explode, but that’s not my particular kink. It’s kind of odd to be the gun-owning white straight guy in the room talking about women’s rights, but it does make for the most interesting conversational moments. The number of times I’ve been accused of mouthing the feminist line to “pick up chicks” is alarming – I thought feminists were supposed to be not getting laid? Just for the record, guys: If you try to sound pro-feminism and don’t walk it, you will be sneered at by non-feminist women for talking the line, and shunned by feminists for being an asshole. Shorter: you will get what you deserve.
Fifth: Awww… .*sends you linkage and purrs and stuffs* *scritches the greyhound*
February 17th, 2006 at 13:34
Feminism is female supremacy — no different from white supremacy or any other bigoted hate group in the essentials.
[Feminism is feminism. Female supremacy is female supremacy. There's a considerable difference not only in practice but in theory.]
You seem to genuinely believe that feminism really supports gender equality for both sexes — a naivety which is rare among feminists. Most will frankly agree that the movement is for women and couldn’t give a shit about men’s rights. Duh. “Fem”-inism ok? What’s eqiuality got to do with men? Ha ha ha. Most are proud of the movement’s specifically sexist stances.
[An assertion made without proof.]
Or perhaps instead of being naive you’re just a better con-artist than most? Better at pretending. The proof is simple enough: feminists uniformly eliminate any legitimate criticism of their movement from the viewpoint of genuine sex equality. Experience dictates the likelihood you will do the same.
[I'm puzzled. You're saying that a movement that argues from its beliefs is fundamentally dishonest? Now if you want to say that some people are using the rhetoric of feminism to advance a personal agenda, yes, that's true. And they're liars and need to be taken out behind the woodshed.]
In the end it’s evolution. Those feminists who don’t censor critics don’t remain feminists.
[Are you an advocate of Social Darwinism? I'm trying to understand your argument.]
I was banned from MLW [Sounds like a personal problem. I'll address the text of your argument, but banning usually happens because you've seriously angered many people on repeated occasions. MLW is private property, just like any of these blogs, and the decisions made in administration of private property are not my concern unless it infringes on my own and my self (yes, two words).]
for daring to point out that feminists supported sex discriminatory laws — specifically the billion dollar Violence Against Women Act which funds victims of domestic violence but is worded to prevent any money going towards the many male victims of this crime.
[There is a genre of fiction that appeals specifically to raping and overpowering women, and it's a popular one. The fact that the popularity of the images of men being treated in the same fashion is not nearly so culturally prevalent seems to indicate that the existing laws regarding these crimes are at least a good start. VAWA is constructed because of this imbalance in how violence is both popularized and enacted. Were there no such imbalance, then your argument would have merit, but it doesn't.]
Most feminists support this sexism. Do you? In fact I am aware of no feminist group that opposed VAWA. and it’s generally recognised as one of the biggest achievements of the feminist movement in the 90’s.
["This sexism" is ambiguous. I support anyone who says "you have no right to hit me." If that person then turns around and starts hitting someone, then they're part of the problem too. Personally? I'm of two minds about VAWA - I feel a better law would have been to raise the penalties for failing to uphold existing laws - not to hem in the honest peace officers. Either way, it's a tough call because punitive solutions do not work as well as corrective ones, and a corrective solution for violence is remarkably hard to enact and enforce.]
I dare say if the KKK could get racist laws passed (with bipartisan support btw) they’s be chuffed about it too.
[Your statement conflates two very different things: "You hitting me is wrong, and you getting off on hitting me is sick" with people who feel a need to terrorize people who are different in order to retain a feeling of supremacy. It also conflates VAWA with Jim Crow laws. VAWA adds a layer of protection against violence for those who are most subjected to it, because the enforcement of the existing laws, when the victim is a woman, does not seem to be happening as faithfully as when the victim is a man.]
But even from this brief article you’ve written I can see that your alledged sex equality allows you to present men as war-like violent killers and women as fair minded peaceful and morally superior. That’s the “equality” that feminism is famous for.
[I'm wondering where this mind-bogglingly ad-hominem attack came from, but it's wrong as well. One of the problems I have with Civilization and its Discontents (as implied in the text of the post above) is the identification of the feminine and the female as the seat of moral authority, which is pretty silly. Freud's disagreement with the fervor sweeping Europe in the 30s was not a critique of the masculine, it was lamenting the imbalance between the passive and the aggressive in his culture. As human beings, every day we are required to be both active and receptive just in order to avoid either fighting or jumping off a bridge from despair, I don't see how arguing that this balance is something we should work to find is unfair in any way.]
February 17th, 2006 at 15:18
Please see my notes in your comment above.
February 17th, 2006 at 17:49
Is this butchering of other people’s words a habit with you? Or is this something you reserve for critics of your unreasonably held beliefs? I haven’t seen you edit other comments on this blog. This habit of yours seems to lead to a style that is unnecessarily picky and of course, one sided favouring yourself (since I cannot contest the comments you inserted into my text with similar insertions).
Thank you for at least making it clear that you oppose sexual equality under the law. I am for sexual equality under the law (in line with the 14th amendment to the constitution) and oppose any law that treats people differently according to simply how they were born.
But a female supremacist, or feminist opposes men’s rights and therefore insists that when congress passes a law to defend the victims of a crime that effects both sexes, a gender test has to be taken. People born one way are favoured and people born another are discriminated against. No reason for it except how they were born. Thank you for admiting to this.
To me this is the heart of prejudice, the very definition of discrimination and of course precisely what you claim to be opposed to but I am actually opposed to.
I am quite surprised you didn’t try to justify this unconstitutional treatment. But on the contrary your only excuse offered just goes to underline your prejudices: namely that you say it’s ok to treat male victims of crime differently because they don’t count in the first place — you don’t care about them so it doesn’t matter.
But your reply was pretty confusing so maybe you’d like to try again to justify your prejudice. You have two victims before you. One is a man, the other a woman. You say to the woman that she is a worthy victim and to the man you say, fuck off you’re the wrong sex. Both people suffered the exact same crime. Please explain this apparent bigotry to me.
And how would you re-write the 14th amendment to make your prejudicial views constitutional?
February 18th, 2006 at 0:38
SB: (Copied, it was posted to the wrong thread. Oops, my bad.)
Is this butchering of other people’s words a habit with you? Or is this something you reserve for critics of your unreasonably held beliefs? I haven’t seen you edit other comments on this blog. This habit of yours seems to lead to a style that is unnecessarily picky and of course, one sided favouring yourself (since I cannot contest the comments you inserted into my text with similar insertions).
[No, I save these insertions for long comments based on unsupportable premises where I have to literally parse a reply word by word and sentence by sentence because of how much I disagree factually and logically with what is being said. I also have done this before, but it's rare. Responding to an argument is not just responding to the conclusion, it's to the premises and the internal steps as well. If the pieces of your argument don't fit together well, how is it unecessarily picky to point that out? As for butchering, I didn't delete a single word, and didn't break a sentence where there wasn't a serious problem that prevented me from addressing your conclusion without addressing it as well. By the way, you can do this as well, haven't you heard of "cut and paste?" Why don't I do it more often? Because it's faster, but the idea of leaving the original text as is appeals to me, so I'll do it as well in the future unless someone is trolling.]
Thank you for at least making it clear that you oppose sexual equality under the law. I am for sexual equality under the law (in line with the 14th amendment to the constitution) and oppose any law that treats people differently according to simply how they were born.
[Incorrect. I don't support inequality under the law, I feel that there exists an inequality under current law, and that all of the legislative ways to handle it pretty much suck. Something must still be done because that inequality has tremendous human consequences. How we decide to address it is called democracy.]
But a female supremacist, or feminist opposes men’s rights and therefore insists that when congress passes a law to defend the victims of a crime that effects both sexes, a gender test has to be taken. People born one way are favoured and people born another are discriminated against. No reason for it except how they were born. Thank you for admiting to this.
[I didn't admit to it, and you begin your statement with a claim I've already refuted. How would you choose to address the discrimination that already exists?]
To me this is the heart of prejudice, the very definition of discrimination and of course precisely what you claim to be opposed to but I am actually opposed to.
[Then what do you propose to do about the discrimination that already exists?]
I am quite surprised you didn’t try to justify this unconstitutional treatment. But on the contrary your only excuse offered just goes to underline your prejudices: namely that you say it’s ok to treat male victims of crime differently because they don’t count in the first place — you don’t care about them so it doesn’t matter.
[You're setting up straw man arguments not based on what I said. I didn't try to justify it because I think the whole situation is messed up. Getting people to stop beating other people, when a majority of people being beaten belong to a particular group, comes with a whole set of ethical and moral questions that really suck to deal with. VAWA is one way of addressing them, and while I don't like it completely, the fact remains that there is already an inequality in how our society treats violence against women (something you have yet to refute, I note). I can see no way to increase the effectiveness of existing laws that would address the issue of inequality already present.]
But your reply was pretty confusing so maybe you’d like to try again to justify your prejudice. You have two victims before you. One is a man, the other a woman. You say to the woman that she is a worthy victim and to the man you say, fuck off you’re the wrong sex. Both people suffered the exact same crime. Please explain this apparent bigotry to me.
[I'm in no way obligated to affirm your characterization of my beliefs, especially since you're wrong. You have two people accused of violence before you: One beat a man, the other beat a woman. If it goes according to what usually happens, the two are not treated equally. How would you address this?]
And how would you re-write the 14th amendment to make your prejudicial views constitutional?
[This question does not follow, because your statements about my positions are not factual. I would not re-write the 14th Amendment, I would try to determine why equal protection under the law does not currently exist.]
I need to head out, it will be interesting to see what reply is here when I get back.
February 18th, 2006 at 0:42
DavidByron posted this on another thread because I replied there instead of here, my bad:
You seem to be in quite a tizzy now. How to pretend to be for equality while admiting to support a discriminatory law.
Well you accused me of misrepresenting you. Alright then. Please clarify:
(1) are you opposed to sex discrimination in law (per 14th amendment)?
(2) are you opposed to the VAWA’s sex discriminatory wording?
Surely this is a simple matter for you to address and a vital one that goes to the heart of your supposed beleifs. So please don’t give me the runaround. It’s very clear that this law — VAWA — is on it’s face a good proof that feminism does not stand for sex equality. If you want sex equality then you don’t support laws that are sexist do you?
February 18th, 2006 at 0:45
o.0
Tizzy? Naw, annoyed you weren’t answering my questions, but life is like that.
But you asked two serious questions, I’ll give you one serious answer for them both. Then I’ll reply to your snark at the end.
First off, neither of your questions makes sense as asked. I am against prejudicial discrimination, however the 14th Amendment says more than you seem to think it does. Read below for an explanation.
When looking at a Constitutional question, it’s necessary to look at the whole document, not just one clause, and you include the Preamble. I am in no way saying that the Preamble is law; what it is is a description of what the Constitution’s aim is. These aren’t just throw-away words, this little block of text describes the entire goal that the rest of the document was crafted to accomplish. When you have a conflict constitutionally, it can be resolved by looking at the preamble in order to determine which of the competing legal claims must take precedence.
An example would be “fighting words” not being covered by the First Amendment protections – the words regarding “domestic tranquility” indicate that the government has a vested interest in not affording Freedom of Speech protection to words that are specifically designed to start fights. Freedom of Speech is about sustaining communication, not starting combat.
Moving down a little, The fact that habeus corpus can be suspended means that in a time of crisis, the government can, with an act of Congress, move decisively to contain any threat to the well-being of the nation (as defined in the preamble)for the duration of that threat. Again, legislative moves on this drastic scale require an act of Congress, and should be of limited duration.
When up against a Constitutional conflict, the less that is done, the better. It is arguable that, such as with the Steel Seizure case, that nationlizing the steel industry would have produced a great benefit in the nation’s fighting ability – but it would have neither “established justice” nor “secured the blessings of liberty.”
Now to what you cite, and why I wrote the previous three paragraps: The Fourteenth Amendment is not just “equal protection.” The full clause reads: “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This clause means both the text and the enforcement of the laws. Go look it up if you don’t believe me, but keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was pretty much written with the full knowledge that blacks in the South were in serious trouble if all they had to go by was the letter of the law, since it is enforced by human beings. We’d just come out of the Civil War – we knew exactly how much words alone are worth.
So now, there is a Constitutional problem with the enforcement of the statutes against violent crimes, women do not have equal protection as it stands. How to fix this?
First, do something to make alleviate the current problem – making the penalties for domestic violence harsher is one way to approach it, this is the punitive side of VAWA.
Second, make sure you’re not cutting out other victims. The prevalence of domestic violence against men is lower, but there are still male victims. VAWA 2005 does this with the following language in (please forgive me if I get the terminology wrong) Sec. 40002, Subsection (b), paragraph (8) (line 1 on page 22 of this PDF which is the post-reconciliation text voted upon by the Senate) :
Third, either establish a time limit for the statute, or specify provisions under which the law would expire (since what we’re working for is an end to this imbalance of protection). VAWA does the former.
Fourth, provide for studies which will determine the progress towards the goal of reducing violence against women. VAWA 2005 has even stricter reporting requirements than the original, which is great.
In other words, the statute aims to make itself unconstitutional by reducing domestic violence against women, and it provides assistance to adults and children of either gender in order to prevent parity being achieved by domestic violence against men increasing.
I love it!
Um, what were you saying about discriminatory language?
February 18th, 2006 at 1:18
Knowing you as well as I do, I got a good giggle out of the personal attacks this droog launched at you.
Once I figured out I was looking at a conversation, I had no trouble discerning the original post.
My commentary on it:
Ahh..your post warmed my heart, made me nostalgic for the days when the Bob Tilton Crusade declared all feminists to be man-hating lesbian witches. *sniff!* I’m all choked up! I thought all the rabid moon-barking, touting-your-personal-problems-as-TRUTH-loons had been sent off for long rest cures!*fan, fan* There I go again..*wipes a tear* Well done, citizen! Well done! You’ve guaranteed I will NEVER take a word you write seriously!
Female supremecists indeed! Go home and hide, little boy before I eat you! *cackles*
February 18th, 2006 at 1:45
Knowing you as well as I do, I got a good giggle out of the personal attacks this droog launched at you.
Yeah, well. ^.^
February 18th, 2006 at 2:17
Ok, now that I’ve got that out of my system, I’ll be serious.
Byron, dude:
1) Feminism, like -any- large group, has a small, very vocal contingent of extremists, yes. To assume all feminists feel the same way is highly erroneous. Consider studying your subject before you spew venom.
2) Really. Don’t debate things you have no concept of. None of the points you made held much merit–they all contained errors and partial truths. Where are you getting your information from?
3) No, seriously. Do yourself a favor and learn how to write. You substitute large words for substance, emotional attacks for reason. Your entire line of questioning makes little sense when looked at objectively. Instead of coming across like an intellectual wordsmith who’s ideas should be respected (which I suspect was your goal) you seem clumsy and immature. I’d be willing to overlook this, were your presentation less vitreolic, but as it stands, there was very little worth the trouble it took to read. So sorry, I can’t actually comment on any of it.
February 18th, 2006 at 2:24
You seem incapable of a straight and honest answer to a question which is fundamental to your supposed beliefs. This gives the impression that you are lying. I will ask once more.
Do you have a problem with this question? Do you think it is unfair somehow? Do you think it is unreasonable to ask you to explain your support and the wider support of your movement for a law which is explicitly sexist — when you pretend to be against sexism?
What’s the problem?
Why the slouching and ducking?
There’s no “catch” here apart from the dishonesty you yourself bring to the question.
If it is true that six weeks ago the reauthorisation of VAWA for 2005 included text to challenge the previous explicit discrimination (as abiove) then that’s a great victory for people like me who oppose discrimination and a great defeat for people like you who wrote the discriminatory language into that law for the last ten years. We shall see if that text survives. It certainly won’t have had time to achieve anything as yet. It seems too good to be true and I’ll write to the VAWO office again and ask them to clarify their view of this, which may be developing….
But above you said you supported the old sexist text from 1995, 1998 and 2000. Your movement championed that sexism. And now you want to pretend you opposed it all along?
Dishonesty.
You appear to have no explanation for why you and the feminism movement as a whole supported discrimination in law. Let me put forward my view which unlike yours is consistent with the facts. You are prejudiced against men, as is the movement as a whole. Instead of wanting sex equality you hate sex equality and want prejudice. That is why you support discrimination in the VAWA law from 1995 through to 2006.
What’s your version?
How do you square it with the facts?
You know all hate groups pretend to want equality. The white supremacists say they just want equality too. They would say for example that it’s only fair that blacks should go back to Africa because that’s their country and white people should stay in America because that’s theirs. Equality — bigot style. But frankly that “argument” …. well you don’t even have an argument that “good” in your defence. You have literally nothing as a justification for this law.
Your best “defence” is to pretend you never supported discrimination because other people came along after ten years and removed the discrimination your movement worked it’s ass off to put in place in 1995.
Own your own handiwork.
For forty five years the domestic violence shelter movement has been led by feminists who have always and consistently lied and covered up to pretend male victims don’t exist, to refuse them treatment, to make them a laughing stock, to deny services not only to adult men and their children but even to deny services to teenage boys who are the children of female victims. Why? Because of the stench of maleness on them. Forty five years of bigotry and discrimination at the hands of the feminist movement and part of that, the crown of it if you will, at least in America is the VAWA act that channels billions of dollars to be spent only for women and enshrined in law the concept that men are evil and only women are worthy victims. That hatred is fed into police training and that in turn breeds more prejudice and more sexist treatment of male victims who are often themselves arrested instead of their abuser simply because feminist propaganda by statute teaches everyone in the legal system that only women are ever real victims.
Forty five years of despicable hate by people like you.
And I would like you to address this fact please. The fact of your movements history because it goes to the fundamental question of who you are and what you really believe about men and women. I want you to face this truth and give an honest answer — or as honest as you are capable.
February 18th, 2006 at 2:35
Stardust if you think your comment applies to feminism in it’s attitude towards the VAWA then you’re simply ignorant. I picked this example specifically because nobody who knows anything about the movement over the last decade or so could deny the importance of VAWA to feminism. There are a million other examples. This example is simply the most clear cut.
Basically you know zilch about movement feminism and just posted standard feminist apologetic excuse #2. It just doesn’t work. You obviously won’t beleive me because you’re an ignorant zealot but if you take just a few minutes to Google VAWA you’ll quickly see how central it has been and how universally supported.
Don’t bother giving me any more canned answers.
“Feminism, like -any- large group, has a small, very vocal contingent of extremists, yes. To assume all feminists feel the same way is highly erroneous. Consider studying your subject before you spew venom.”
February 18th, 2006 at 2:58
I guess it checks out. I’ve been out of the men’s rights groups for many years but it seems they managed to get the gender neutralizing language added. I’m impressed you knew about it.
The guy who wrote the text (a men’s rights activist) had this to say:
“Through the hard work and support of many dedicated supporters of equality we have succeeded in having language inserted in the VAWA that makes it clear to the DOJ [Department Of Justice] VAWO [Violence Against Women Office] that it can no longer circumvent the original intent of Congress that this legislation provide shelter and services to all victims of domestic violence regardless of their gender.
It is a first step in excising the radical feminist model of domestic violence which asserts that only women can be victims and only men perpetrators and replacing it with the real world model that recognizes that domestic violence is committed by individuals who lack the ability to navigate relationships in a healthy mutually beneficial way and as a consequence resort to emotional and physical abuse through the use of emotional manipulation and intimidation and/or physical abuse. These characteristics derive from psychological shortcomings and are not unique to any one gender.”
February 18th, 2006 at 3:05
Again, again, again!
(You’re not listening, Byron)
1) Personal attacks do not constitute debate! They are the basest form of argument and have no place in debate.
2) Speechmaking does not equate to truth! Simply grandstanding and telling your opponent what he believes doesn’t make it true–that’s simply your perception, which (currently) is very clearly obscured by a HUGE plank.
And while we’re on the subject of truth, and facing it…Why don’t you try walking your talk? You’re bitching about the Evil Ones whose hate-mongering and machavellian machinations are keeping poor men down, and yet, YOU are the one being hateful here, and despicably so. Do you really think this is going to further your cause?
3) You ask for the facts to be addressed. What facts would these be? The ones that have already been quite adequately addressed in previous replies, or your frothing assertions that, as far as I can see, have little to do with fact and everything to do with being “right”. Sorry, dude, you’re convinced, not correct.
4) You speak like a victim. Now I don’t know you, but having read through this thread, I’m guessing you either experienced the wrong end of the system yourself, or someone you care about did. If that’s the case, I’m very sorry that’s happened. Now, do what many, many women do every day, and deal with it. You’re not dealing, you’re not making your case, and you’re certainly not helping those men who’s cause you’re attempting to champion. You’re just screaming. Stop it. It makes you ineffectual.
February 18th, 2006 at 3:20
You seem incapable of a straight and honest answer to a question which is fundamental to your supposed beliefs. This gives the impression that you are lying. I will ask once more.
I’ve answered three times.
I haven’t given you the answer you wanted, so you keep coming back for more.
What are you, a masochist???
I’ve described my position in careful detail, working hard to explain the constitutional and legal basis for my opinion, and instead of a return of this courtesy, you spout ad-hominem attacks, deciding that if I’m not fitting what you believe I am, then I’m a liar.
First, You claim I supported pre-2005 VAWA when I said no such thing. I was uncomfortable with precisely the fact that aid to male victims was not in the law, and now it is, and I’m much happier with it. I still believe that a punitive solution is less effective than education and support, but that’s just me.
Just a note since you think you’re good at nitpicking (word of advice: don’t quit your day job): the elation I expressed in my answer was partly because I’d just read the VAWA re-authorization act of 2005 to make sure it said what I thought it said (it did, and supported the decision on constitutionality even better than I thought it did, and for the record, the reporting from the Attorney General actually began in 2000), but my answers stand.
Second, you’re making yourself look like an idiot. Really, I mean it. Go take your talking points somewhere else, because I refuse to be what you claim I am.
To pull the example that annoys me the most, you say:
And here’s what I actually said:
and
Not only is my support of pre-2005 VAWA best described as “lukewarm,” I never said what you claim I did, nor do I actually believe it.
Third, I have to ask this… why the hell did you start an argument in which you took absolute positions, speaking with defiant certainty about a matter of public record, and throwing personal insults around like it was going out of style, WHEN YOU DIDN’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE LEGISLATION SAYS???
You brought it up, held it up as some kind of sign that I and all feminists were evil, kept hammering at it, and you could never even be bothered to look at this federal law that bothered you so much??? Again, you insisted on making it a topic of discussion, not me.
To top it off, I went back and examined the legislation because I thought you were asking an honest question in good faith (finally). I get home and I’m really looking forward to continuing the debate in the comments because someone who might know what they’re talking about and is willing to defend their beliefs is arguing with me, which I think is Really Cool.
Now you’re telling me you don’t even know what the damn thing says? How much do you really know about this law, because all this throwing around accusations of dishonesty when there has been none makes me think you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to VAWA OR feminists, and are spewing bile because you’ve been caught with your rhetorical pants down. In fact, I’ll bet you’ve never even spoken with a feminist (”at” doesn’t count) any more than you’ve examined VAWA.
Just sayin’.
Oh, and what your activist friend said?
Sounds good to me.
February 18th, 2006 at 3:36
“Stardust if you think your comment applies to feminism in it’s attitude towards the VAWA then you’re simply ignorant.”
I wasn’t addressing the VAWA attitude–there are much better debators than I who can do that. I was addressing YOUR attitude, pumpkin. I don’t think you can begin to speak for all feminists, or their attitudes. Neither can I. The difference is, I don’t try to.
“Basically you know zilch about movement feminism”
Wrong, sorry.
“and just posted standard feminist apologetic excuse #2.”
Indeed? How interesting!
“It just doesn’t work. You obviously won’t beleive me because you’re an ignorant zealot but if you take just a few minutes to Google VAWA you’ll quickly see how central it has been and how universally supported.”
1) again, you telling me what am, what I think (or am going to think) doesn’t make it so. As such, it voids any merit the statement might have.
2) Ignorant Zealot? I suggest you look in the mirror. You don’t seem to have much knowledge on the subject of “movement feminism” yourself. Easily 99% of your assertions could be considered “canned responses”. You’ve gained no ground at all, in this debate, you’ve convinced no one that you’re right yet, you’ve simply amped up the noise without adding any substance. Give me some substance, I might start to consider what you have to say.
3)I am not, and have not been addressing the VAWA at all. I’m addressing your attitude, your writing, and your debating style–all of which need VAST improvement if you’re to make any headway. I’ve been trying to help you, dude.
February 18th, 2006 at 12:45
Your excuses for supporting VAWA sound like a Nazi excusing himself for supporting the Holocaust by saying, “Well there are no Jews being gassed TODAY are there? So what’s your problem?”
True the VAWA’s text appears to have finally been changed to remove the vile sex discrimination that feminists fought to have placed in it. For ten years that law was explicitly sexist and fully endorsed by the movement. And now at last a men’s rights advocate has managed to get it neutered — and you use that fact to justify the history of hate?
“First, You claim I supported pre-2005 VAWA when I said no such thing.”
You did say this:
“the existing laws [ie VAWA] regarding these crimes are at least a good start. VAWA is constructed because of this imbalance in how violence is both popularized and enacted. Were there no such imbalance, then your argument would have merit, but it doesn’t”
Sure as hell sounded like you were specifically endorsing VAWA’s “imbalance” as you put it yourself. Curiously you didn’t deny that you supported the sexist version. You just complained that was what I “assumed” from your reply. Fine then. Baby steps. For what seems to be the third or fourth time I’ll ask you a simple yes or no style question.
Did you or did you not, ever support VAWA before the sex discriminatory language was removed in the 2005/2006 version?
If you can say that you opposed the pre-2005 language then I apologise. At that point we can discuss why the rest of the feminist movement *did* support it.
February 18th, 2006 at 12:52
And just to cut off another avenue for your obfuscation here I am not asking you if you liked the wording, I am asking you if you supported the actual law; the pre-2005 VAWA with the wording it had.
Is it possible for you to honestly answer a simple question so fundamental to your supposed beleifs? Did you or did you not support a sex discriminatory law — VAWA pre-2005? or did you disagree with the rest of the feminist movement on this question and oppose VAWA?
That’s an honest reasonable and fundamental question and your constant refusal to answer it plainly speaks ill of you.
February 18th, 2006 at 15:03
One, your quote from me doesn’t change a thing – there was no specific endorsement there, it was a recognition of the problem of violence and that VAWA was one way of doing it, even though it was in a direction I do not approve of.
Has it occured to you that I’m trying to make you think and respond to what’s being said, rather than your own talking points?
Has it occured to you that I’m not making it easy for you because you’re doing me no service by being a rude, self-serving ingrate who can dish it out but not take it?
Has it occured to you that you that I have no desire to be put in one of your little categories, because they not only don’t fit me, they don’t fit any but some of the most obnoxious and myopic human beings I’ve ever met in my life?
Has it occured to you that I’m now quite deliberately leading you around the primrose path because you’re too rude and obnoxious to answer questions, rather than participate in a discussion?
February 18th, 2006 at 15:13
So finaly we arrive at it.
You refuse to say whether or not you endorse sex discriminatory language.
February 18th, 2006 at 15:16
No.
I refuse to answer YOU.
It’s not political, it’s personal. :D
February 18th, 2006 at 15:18
No.
I refuse to answer YOU.
It’s not political, it’s personal (oops, misspelt that). Make baseless accusations about people’s integrity, and that happens. :D
February 18th, 2006 at 15:32
Baseless?
LOL. Funny. I don’t remember me asking you if you suported VAWA and you saying, “Hell no! That sexist law? Of course not.” Like someone who supports sexual equality would have done.
You’re actually the first feminist I’ve asked who was such a coward they wouldn’t even dare to answer the question. But let’s face it your refusal speaks volumes all by itself.
Pretty ironic excuse you’ve picked. Are you going to add that to your essay on dirty rhetorical tactics or shall we see it come up in your yet-to-be-published treatise on how to discuss things with people you disagree with?
“When did you quit beating your wife?”
“Do you support a sexist law?”
Apparently two equally unfair questions — for a feminist.
You’ve had ever opportunity to explain your position and in the end you simply cannot do it. The truth is you hate equality but hate admiting it even more.
February 18th, 2006 at 15:42
Naw, actually I covered this one in Our Tribe: “Feel free to call them on exactly what they’re doing, though – your tribe values truth.”
The fact that you’re trying to use me to get your adrenaline fix on my own blog changes the rules a little, though. I didn’t have this sort of thing in mind, I was thinking of face to face discussion.
Admittedly, you have given me food for thought about dealing with the unreasonable, and I’ve tried guiding things back to a path of discussion rather than conflict long after I saw how many other places you’d been banned at, and why (call it the liberal in me wanting to see if I could make a difference).
You want yes or no answers to questions I’ve already answered in great detail, expending great effort and patience to try and not just hand a sound bite over, but to give you an understanding of the position I’m arguing from – but all you want is a yes or no.
I firmly believe that you don’t want to talk, you simply want to know what sort of sounding board you have to bounce your bullshit off of.
I am not a sounding board. I have a life, and things to do. If you can’t be bothered to understand the answers I’ve laid out, and can’t understand the concept of ambivalence (or are just unwilling to accept it), then I can’t be bothered to deal with you.
Congratulations, you’re my first ban.
February 20th, 2006 at 19:08
For the record:
The question of “do I support the discriminatory language yadda yadda” is exactly like “have you stopped beating your wife yet.” I do not see it as discriminatory to assist a group that is being discriminated against, as long as the goal is to end the discrimination.
I, with reservations about the methods used, support WAVA and do not feel it to be discriminatory. I feel that the problem is not only an enforcement and a social problem, it’s a judicial one (but always, always primarily social), and I’m not convinced that’s dealt with well in this Act. Not throwing stones, because I’m still trying to figure out how I would do it better.
To use a crude analogy, it’s not discriminating against the transmission fluid if you have an oil leak, and instead of letting it run dry, you refill it with oil more often than you top off the transmission fluid.
February 20th, 2006 at 22:18
The rage displayed over VAWA by MRAs is astounding. The pushback follows the similar argument of accusing “vile and discriminatory” feminists of excluding men, and also of dismissing men’s concern because they occupy a small percentage of the statistics. Some people who have done excellent jobs covering the issue: Hugo, more Hugo, Amp, Amp again, actually Amp and his community in general, Trish Wilson, Amanda, making the antifeminists really froth.
February 20th, 2006 at 22:49
I’m puzzled that this moderated you… But since I was sitting right here, I approved it as soon as it was posted. :D
*will clicky-click on the links as soon as he’s done earning money*
February 20th, 2006 at 23:42
Probably because I was linktastic. :)
February 22nd, 2006 at 14:05
Hello, I was linked to you by Ginmar over on LJ. Well done all around! Not only your main post, which has given me new reading material (I have read Friedan, but not de Beauvoir) and new food for thought, but also your description of your reasoning behind your support for VAWA, which I agree with wholeheartedly, AND your thorough trouncing of an MRA idiot.
Excellent read, thoughtful and humorous. Good fisking of Limbaugh, too; I had not the stomach to read his book, and now I don’t have to.
Flewellyn
February 22nd, 2006 at 20:49
Flewellyn, don’t bother reading de Beauvoir in English. Any French version is much, much better. The English often time says exactly the opposite of what the French does.
February 22nd, 2006 at 22:10
Heh. I actually struggled through part of the original, but my French-Fu is weak. -_- You can usually tell where the translator felt the text was too radical, though. :D
*wonders where his copy is*
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:19
Alas, I do not read French well, or really, at all. I can only do the most basic of small talk conversations in it.
I certainly couldn’t read a scholarly work written in it.
Hmm…Ginmar translates de Beauvoir? That might be something you could publish.
February 23rd, 2006 at 16:23
He publishing company won’t let it happen. There was a story circulating in the blogosphere about this not all that long ago. The english translation seriously messes up what she was saying, but it’s been impossible to get the rights to publish a new one.
February 27th, 2007 at 0:51
I wandered on over here from a post at belledame’s and, though it’s tempting to either bust a gut laughing or tear out my hair in frustration at your poor troll’s lack of reading comprehension skills, I thought it would be more important to tell you that I thought this was a wonderful post. I have a male friend who’s having … issues … with my “conversion” to feminism (which isn’t so much a conversion as having finally found a word to express these ideas), specifically because he apparently thinks I’ve morphed into the kind of strawfeminist our dear Byron seems to be hatin’ on, and it’s just really refreshing to read something like this from a male perspective. Thank you :)
March 1st, 2007 at 7:47
Thank you for coming by! ^.^
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:25
Isn’t it precious that even on the rare occasions when Rush is correct about something it seems to be largely by mistake? Damn right legal abortion is one of the clearest signs of female emancipation. And this is a bad thing because…?
Thanks for writing this. As others have already pointed out, some messages need to come from someone within the in-group (in this case a man) in order for some other members of the group to take them seriously. I get why many feminist friendly men are reluctant to out themselves as such (look at all the venom directed at Hugo Schwyzer), so it’s always refreshing when one does.
Fflewelyn and Ginmar – The original French version of Second Sex is indeed superior, and the original translation sucked, but a better translation came out recently. I can’t remember the name of the translator, sorry, but I skimmed it and thought “wow, this one actually says what she intended to say – cool!”. I would imagine it would be easy to find in any store just by checking the translation/copyright dates.
Also agreed with SB – de Beavoir did a much better job of explaining Existentialism than Sartre did.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:28
Shorter David Byron – blah blah same old bullshit. Try it on someone a little less bright next time, it might work better.
Note – we are not mocking/bashing you because you’re a man, we’re mocking you because you’re an idiot.
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:36
Heh. I got lucky reading the translation in a Feminist Theory course taught by Dr. Debra Berghoffen. Her course was the beginning of the eye opening moment for me.
Not that it ever stops. :P
I really, really am grateful to y’all for these comments on the subject at hand. For a long time I felt like this post should have been named the “David Byron gets his ass handed to him thread,” but that would be inappropriate in so many ways. Thank you for rehabilitating it.
Edited: Better phrased. Not the beginning of the “eye-opening moment,” but the first time I understood why I had this deep feeling of “hey… something is really fucked up, and I can’t put my finger on what it is, because it’s everywhere.“
March 7th, 2007 at 1:28
[...] StealthBadger.net: Fisking Rush Limbaugh’s Attack On Feminism, Plus An Intro To Feminism Curtsy: Being Amber Rhea [...]
March 9th, 2007 at 10:28
[...] StealthBadger: Heh. I got lucky reading the translation in a Feminist… [...]
May 19th, 2007 at 0:12
[...] there’s a cold part of me that is very convinced that no-one else is equal to me. Such as I am a feminist, all the more so because I have faced down, and continue to carefully watch, a part of me that is [...]
May 20th, 2007 at 9:35
[...] (Stealth Badger): A dudely introduction to feminism (utterly debunks the arguments made to support the “feminazi” invention by slime-shill [...]
July 12th, 2007 at 13:57
[...] shows us that the conservative search for feminazis (that first link is to my dissection of the term) still hasn’t has any luck. When I say no [...]
August 17th, 2007 at 21:27
[...] Rush Limbaugh apparently said feminists are waging a holocaust against the unborn. Um, no. It is true that most feminists are pro-choice, but regardless of where you stand on abortion, it’s simply inaccurate to say that pro-choice = pro-abortion. In the Holocaust, Jews and others were deliberately sought out and systematically exterminated. In pro-choice law, women get to decide whether to abort or not, and many decide not to, and feminists do not hunt them down and force them to abort fetuses. Nazis hated Jews; feminists do not hate fetuses. Plenty of feminists have kids. To say pro-choice = pro-abortion is like saying pro-separation of church and state = atheist or anti-Prohibition = pro-drunkenness. [...]
November 24th, 2007 at 8:27
[...] celebrity boobies (and other, more graphic topics about women-as-sex-objects) spam goes to “A Dudely Introduction to Feminism?” No, I won’t post any of it, because the rapidly-mark-as-spam-mouseclick is now a [...]