Feminimsm - when does it get out of hand?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-05-12 08:14pm

From my point of view, it is rather easy to tell when feminism turns to femnazism. It's at the point where the activists don't want equal rights for women, or even a few extra rights for women, but that they want to take away rights of men.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-12 08:57pm

i say feminazism begins the minute a feminist wants more rights/privilages or fewer responsabilities than men. (such as the draft)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-12 09:45pm

Wow, EvilGrey dropped into this thread with a lot of ranting against feminists, and he just happens to be a fundie. What a shock

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-05-12 09:56pm

Equal pay for equal work should have been done a long time ago.
And i think feminism become Femi-Nazism when they start with the crap about men becoming pregnant.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-12 10:02pm

NapoleonGH wrote:i say feminazism begins the minute a feminist wants more rights/privilages or fewer responsabilities than men. (such as the draft)

Personally, Napoleon, I find that definition just a touch too broad; I've known plenty of women with that attitude (hell, I married one -- don't worry, I survived).

Feminazism starts when women view men as inferior just because they're men, and adopt the cause of eliminating mens' rights. Working for womens' rights appears to actually become a secondary priority in these cases.

I've met at least half a dozen guys in the course of my life whom I could swear are the victims of this mentality -- guys who think that men and women should be equal, and that for women to be equal means that women not only gain equality economically and politically, but that women gain as rights everything they have as privileges now, and gain them at the expense of mens' rights. Whenever I meet one of these guys, I'm scared to death for the future my son will grow up in.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-05-12 10:13pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
NapoleonGH wrote:i say feminazism begins the minute a feminist wants more rights/privilages or fewer responsabilities than men. (such as the draft)
Personally, Napoleon, I find that definition just a touch too broad; I've known plenty of women with that attitude (hell, I married one -- don't worry, I survived).

Feminazism starts when women view men as inferior just because they're men, and adopt the cause of eliminating mens' rights. Working for womens' rights appears to actually become a secondary priority in these cases.

This was exactly my point. As we know, there is a lot of sexism (maybe even feminazism) towards women and against men in the courtrooms.. Women getting preference in a custody battle.. women generally having the word in a courtroom in a rape case.. women getting lighter sentences than men for the same crime.. (although it seems the last is not happening as frequently anymore)

I've met at least half a dozen guys in the course of my life whom I could swear are the victims of this mentality -- guys who think that men and women should be equal, and that for women to be equal means that women not only gain equality economically and politically, but that women gain as rights everything they have as privileges now, and gain them at the expense of mens' rights. Whenever I meet one of these guys, I'm scared to death for the future my son will grow up in.

Male feminazis are the scariest. Period.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-05-12 10:42pm

I think alot of the educational disparity in America comes from misconceptions ten years past. For many years, boys in school got better treatment/more encouragement than girls. However, society was self-correcting the problem, and by the early 90's the genders had reached educational parity.

Unfortunately, at this time studies and experiments done in the 70's and 80's came out, such as "Why Jane Can't do Math" and "The Vanishing Girl". They caused a media stir, and a reactionary swing to give girls in elementary and secondary school every advantage. Think I'm wrong? They redesigned the SATs to be 2/3s verbal and 1/3 math because girls typically do better at verbal. This was to "make it fair."

Now, it is generally assumed that men will go to college, and a lack of educational role models for boys combined with a lack of encouragement means that the ratio of women to men in American universities is 2:1. If this trend continues at its current rate (warning, irrational illustration) then the last man in America to get a degree will graduate in 2067.

I'll make a brief comment about rape laws. I'm reminded of an instance a few months ago where an underage girl and boy were having sex. Not drunk, not on drugs. Halfway through the girl says "maybe we should stop" but doesn't do anything. Later, daddy finds out and the girl is ashamed, so "HE RAPED ME!!! I TOLD HIM TO STOP!!" This may be reasonable, but what if I stack this against the recent crop of female elementry school teachers who sleep with their students.

If a male teacher did that, he'd be a sexual preditor and get 10-15. The schoolmarms get fired and do the talkshow circuit.

One of my friends had sex with a girl, and she was ashamed of it, so she decided he drugged and raped her. Only a complete lack of injuries and the fact that she came up negative on a tox screen saved him from jail time. If she'd been smart enough to take 6 advils, he's be in Jail now.

Maybe later I'll get started on father's rights.

What we have here is a good system, but its far from perfect. Maybe we'll never get real gender equality because gender, by definition, divides us into two different groups.

And yes, I'm something of a Fundie. Flame Away.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-05-12 10:48pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I'll make a brief comment about rape laws. I'm reminded of an instance a few months ago where an underage girl and boy were having sex. Not drunk, not on drugs. Halfway through the girl says "maybe we should stop" but doesn't do anything. Later, daddy finds out and the girl is ashamed, so "HE RAPED ME!!! I TOLD HIM TO STOP!!" This may be reasonable, but what if I stack this against the recent crop of female elementry school teachers who sleep with their students.

If a male teacher did that, he'd be a sexual preditor and get 10-15. The schoolmarms get fired and do the talkshow circuit.

So are you saying that it's okay for females to sleep with their students and males not, or what?

One of my friends had sex with a girl, and she was ashamed of it, so she decided he drugged and raped her. Only a complete lack of injuries and the fact that she came up negative on a tox screen saved him from jail time. If she'd been smart enough to take 6 advils, he's be in Jail now.

And if he has said the same thing?

Maybe later I'll get started on father's rights.

What we have here is a good system, but its far from perfect.

Only if it means that women get away with pretty much everything but murder..

Maybe we'll never get real gender equality because gender, by definition, divides us into two different groups.

That is does, but why should they be treated any differently? We are subgroups of the same group, Homo sapiens sapiens...

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-12 11:47pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote: Unfortunately, at this time studies and experiments done in the 70's and 80's came out, such as "Why Jane Can't do Math" and "The Vanishing Girl". They caused a media stir, and a reactionary swing to give girls in elementary and secondary school every advantage. Think I'm wrong? They redesigned the SATs to be 2/3s verbal and 1/3 math because girls typically do better at verbal. This was to "make it fair."
.

Umm hate to break it to you buddy, but the SATs i took still had 800 points going to the math, 800 to the verbal, and the same amount of test time aloted to each section.

Just to note it was January and March 2002 when i took them, so pretty current

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-05-12 11:58pm

True, but the design of the test was such that you scored 800 out of 800 on a less significant math portion of the test. You have to do more to get a perfect score on the verbal.

There's the same number of points in the math, just less work to get them.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-05-13 12:02am

verilon wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:I'll make a brief comment about rape laws. I'm reminded of an instance a few months ago where an underage girl and boy were having sex. Not drunk, not on drugs. Halfway through the girl says "maybe we should stop" but doesn't do anything. Later, daddy finds out and the girl is ashamed, so "HE RAPED ME!!! I TOLD HIM TO STOP!!" This may be reasonable, but what if I stack this against the recent crop of female elementry school teachers who sleep with their students.

If a male teacher did that, he'd be a sexual preditor and get 10-15. The schoolmarms get fired and do the talkshow circuit.
So are you saying that it's okay for females to sleep with their students and males not, or what?

I'm saying that in our society, it is. Its not even prosecuted. In a recent case the judge even made the statement "I don't think it did this young man any harm to have relations with his teacher."

One of my friends had sex with a girl, and she was ashamed of it, so she decided he drugged and raped her. Only a complete lack of injuries and the fact that she came up negative on a tox screen saved him from jail time. If she'd been smart enough to take 6 advils, he's be in Jail now.
And if he has said the same thing?

I doubt he would have been believed. Its kinda hard rape a man when he can't get aroused.

Maybe later I'll get started on father's rights.

What we have here is a good system, but its far from perfect.
Only if it means that women get away with pretty much everything but murder..

Exactly. What other contract can you be summerily dismissed without appeal or redress and have your income cut in half but marriage?

Maybe we'll never get real gender equality because gender, by definition, divides us into two different groups.
That is does, but why should they be treated any differently? We are subgroups of the same group, Homo sapiens sapiens...

[/quote]

We are treated differently because we CAN'T be treated the same. Men and women are DIFFERENT, physiologically, psychologically, and emotionally.

It ain't right, but its there.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-13 12:11am

umm Chewie, whiile there may be fewer math questions on the test (im not even sure this is true), they tend to be more time consuming in their hardest problems when compared to the verbal. but then again im baised i did 40 points better on verbal.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-13 12:12am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I'm saying that in our society, it is. Its not even prosecuted. In a recent case the judge even made the statement "I don't think it did this young man any harm to have relations with his teacher."

How old was he? If he was not underage, then I don't see why it should be prosecuted, although it's grossly unprofessional and she should definitely be fired. And let's face it; if you're a boy and you sleep with a (presumably decent looking) teacher, you become a school icon

The rules for female teachers are different than they are for men. The rules for teenaged boys sleeping around are also different than they are for teenaged girls.

I doubt he would have been believed. Its kinda hard rape a man when he can't get aroused.

No, but to take your story and put a twist on it, there's a good chance a guy could get another guy send to jail by having somebody punch him in the face a few times and then tell the police that one of his enemies did it. Does that mean that the laws on assault are somehow unfair too?

Exactly. What other contract can you be summerily dismissed without appeal or redress and have your income cut in half but marriage?

If you know about this aspect of the contract on your way in, you have no one to blame but yourself. Cry me a river.

We are treated differently because we CAN'T be treated the same. Men and women are DIFFERENT, physiologically, psychologically, and emotionally.

It ain't right, but its there.

True. They need equal opportunities, not forcibly equal outcomes. And from a purely ruthless pragmatic standpoint, it's not incomprehensible why any corporation would probably prefer male executives over female executives. A male executive is far less likely to abruptly take six months off work because he became a parent, and then demand to come back at the end of this period and get his old job back with no penalties whatsoever.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-05-13 12:20am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I'm saying that in our society, it is. Its not even prosecuted. In a recent case the judge even made the statement "I don't think it did this young man any harm to have relations with his teacher."

Exactly my point.

I doubt he would have been believed. Its kinda hard rape a man when he can't get aroused.

Once again, exactly my point. However, it's not *that* hard to get a man physically aroused. At some point, the body's instinct takes over for the person.. besides, a blow job could easily get a guy erect. Not to mention that you're taking on the "you can't rape the willing" idea..

Exactly. What other contract can you be summerily dismissed without appeal or redress and have your income cut in half but marriage?

Oh, fuck off.

We are treated differently because we CAN'T be treated the same. Men and women are DIFFERENT, physiologically, psychologically, and emotionally.

That is true, but judgment as far as *a crime* can be judged the same. This is not to say that because of certain actions (pregnancy, etc.) women can not have certain privileges. But if women really want to have the same rights as men, then they should dismiss maternity leaves, yes?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-05-13 12:23am

Easy there with the foul language. I happen to support the institution of marriage, but I'm playing devil's advocate here

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-05-13 12:24am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Easy there with the foul language. I happen to support the institution of marriage, but I'm playing devil's advocate here

And I'm being me. The sleep deprived guy that just had Excedrin and won't be going to bed for a while because of it..

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-13 12:25am

Ok im going to have to go into rant mode right now about women and men's rights.

I will specifically speak about abortion

Under the current US law, in every state unless there is an exception that Im not aware of, it is 100% the woman's choice whether or not to abort.

My problem is this. The father of the fetus thinks that an abortion is a good idea, the mother does not, she gives birth and the father is stuck paying child support for 18 years.

However, if the father wants to have his kid, and the woman wants to abort, she can without any legal recourse on the father's end.

I propose the following suggestion to fix this problem in that men and women are given unequal rights when 50% of the genetic code of the fetus comes from each of them.

Simply put, if the father goes on record as in favor of aborting the child and signs away his paternal rights to the fetus, he should not be legally obligated to pay child support. By doing this then we keep the fact that the woman has the right to do with her body however she wants, but we equalize the playing field by making it so that either can choose to escape unwanted parenthood rather than just allowing the woman to make this choice. This makes things considerably more fair.

BTW i happen to consider the fact that men cannot give birth one of the greatest injustices ever pertetrated against men.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-13 12:30am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Its kinda hard rape a man when he can't get aroused.

Actually, Chewie, that's a myth. Women can rape men, and they do get aroused. It's getting late and I'm off for dinner, but before I go, here's a link you may find informative. It's not precisely an exhaustive article, but it may give you a jumping-off point for further inquiry, should you wish to pursue it:

http://www.backlash.com/book/rape2.html

I'm going to drop the title on the next article for Dangerous Fun, and then I'm outie like a belly-button 'til tomorrow. 'Night, guys.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-05-13 03:00am

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Actually, Chewie, that's a myth. Women can rape men, and they do get aroused. It's getting late and I'm off for dinner, but before I go, here's a link you may find informative. It's not precisely an exhaustive article, but it may give you a jumping-off point for further inquiry, should you wish to pursue it:

http://www.backlash.com/book/rape2.html

I'm going to drop the title on the next article for Dangerous Fun, and then I'm outie like a belly-button 'til tomorrow. 'Night, guys.

Unless I'm missing something here, that's the most ridiculous thing I've read all week. Attack on a person's genitals is rape? Therefore, if I kick someone in the balls, I've raped him?

Even more ridiculous is the claim that the courts have ignored the plight of men who have been subjected to unwilling "vaginal envelopment". I have never heard of such a thing, and while it's obviously physically possible, I doubt it's more common than, say... monkeys flying out my ass.

It's very interesting that the name of the site is "backlash.com", since the backlash is a name given to the current movement to erase and undo the progress made by feminism and caricaturize and demonize it. It's been pretty successful, too. Most of us have fallen prey to the stereotype of feminists as unshaven, militant man-haters, yet have you ever actually met someone that fit the bill? I haven't, and I attend a fairly liberal University in Kalifornia.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-05-13 03:02am

Did you read the article? They were talking about how you can force a man to erection and keep him there. The genital attack was semantics.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-13 03:50am

NapoleonGH wrote:Ok im going to have to go into rant mode right now about women and men's rights.

I will specifically speak about abortion

Under the current US law, in every state unless there is an exception that Im not aware of, it is 100% the woman's choice whether or not to abort.

My problem is this. The father of the fetus thinks that an abortion is a good idea, the mother does not, she gives birth and the father is stuck paying child support for 18 years.

Maybe he should have thought of that before having sex with her. I never shirked my responsibility.

However, if the father wants to have his kid, and the woman wants to abort, she can without any legal recourse on the father's end.

She's the one who has to carry the child. She's the one whose body will be altered forever as a result. Did you know the organs get pushed around and deformed during pregnancy, and might never return to their original shape and orientation? People who dismiss the difficulty of bearing a child have never seen how bad it can get. Some women have more trouble than others; there's a bit of randomness. But when it's bad, it's really bad.

I propose the following suggestion to fix this problem in that men and women are given unequal rights when 50% of the genetic code of the fetus comes from each of them.

Handle 50% of the pregnancy, and you might have a point.

Simply put, if the father goes on record as in favor of aborting the child and signs away his paternal rights to the fetus, he should not be legally obligated to pay child support. By doing this then we keep the fact that the woman has the right to do with her body however she wants, but we equalize the playing field by making it so that either can choose to escape unwanted parenthood rather than just allowing the woman to make this choice. This makes things considerably more fair.

I might support that, at least in part. But there would have to be some stipulations; after all, one need only read a heartbreaking story about the way NBA stars treat their voluminous illegitimate progeny to know how much pain absentee biological fathers can cause. Ultimately, the father's refusal to use birth control measures and plan for the possibility of pregnancy is his own responsibility.

If we think of it as a tort, then the mother has been remiss in her "duty to mitigate", but she might not legally be regarded as having a choice if she has serious moral objections to aborting her own offspring. Moreover, 50% responsibility for the incident still lies with the father: more if the father pressured the mother not to make him wear a condom.

BTW i happen to consider the fact that men cannot give birth one of the greatest injustices ever pertetrated against men.

Have you ever seen a birth, "up close and personal"? We got off easy. And I don't buy it when men complain about being forced to take responsibility for their actions. Too bad; the difference between a man and a boy is that a man can do precisely that.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-05-13 04:31am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Did you read the article? They were talking about how you can force a man to erection and keep him there. The genital attack was semantics.

OK, I thought I might have missed something. The whole attack on genitals thing seemed too ridiculous to be true. Anyway, "forcing" someone to erection and keeping him there is not rape, not even close. To try and compare the indignation of having to deal with a woman who can't keep her hands to herself to what real rape victims suffer is just ludicrous.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2003-05-13 07:19am

Darth Wong wrote:
NapoleonGH wrote:Ok im going to have to go into rant mode right now about women and men's rights.

I will specifically speak about abortion

Under the current US law, in every state unless there is an exception that Im not aware of, it is 100% the woman's choice whether or not to abort.

My problem is this. The father of the fetus thinks that an abortion is a good idea, the mother does not, she gives birth and the father is stuck paying child support for 18 years.
Maybe he should have thought of that before having sex with her. I never shirked my responsibility.

So you're saying that, the instant you have sex with a woman, possibly even using contraceptives, you have potentially signed an 18 year obligation... if she feels like it?

Many women feel a powerful biological urge to have children. That urge tends to be stronger than that of the typical male. There have been occasions of women simply lying about being on the pill because they wanted a child. If this happens, you're saying I have a moral obligation because she doesn't want an abortion?

No. Two people were in on it; two people have to decide.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-05-13 09:39am

Eleas, are you really saying that a man has the right to force a woman to have an abortion?

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-05-13 11:19am

innerbrat wrote:Eleas, are you really saying that a man has the right to force a woman to have an abortion?

No, he's saying that it should be the decision of *both* of them.