“The supersensitivity of the [Women’s Liberation] movement to the lesbian issue, and the existence of a few militant lesbians within the movement, once prompted [NOW founder Betty] Friedan herself to grouse about ‘the lavender menace’ that was threatening to warp the image of women’s rights.”
— Susan Brownmiller, New York Times, March 15, 1970 (quoted in In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution)
“What is a lesbian? A lesbian is the rage of all women condensed to the point of explosion. …
“It should first be understood that lesbianism … is a category of behavior possible only in a sexist society characterized by rigid sex roles and dominated by male supremacy. … In a society in which men do not oppress women, and sexual expression is allowed to follow feelings, the categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality would disappear.”
— Artemis March, et al., “The Woman Identified Woman,” May 1970
No one can honestly discuss feminism without addressing the enduring question, “Which feminism are you talking about?” From its inception as the Women’s Liberation movement of the 1960s and ’70s, modern feminism has been fractured by schisms that its would-be mainstream leaders have sought to conceal from the larger public.
Many women who today identify themselves as feminists have never examined the history of these conflicts and are unfamiliar with the militant personalities and radical ideologies that have influenced feminism for the past half-century. When confronted with the extremist rhetoric of feminists — vehement denunciation of males, condemnation of heterosexuality, claims that men (collectively) oppress and victimize women (collectively) in ways comparable to the Holocaust — the average woman is understandably startled and, if she thinks of herself as a feminist, she quickly shifts into denial mode. The anti-male passage you’ve just quoted to her is an aberration, an anomaly, an expression of fringe beliefs that does not represent the feminism that she endorses. She is not a Marxist, she is not a lesbian or a man-hater, she is not the kind of pro-abortion fanatic who views motherhood as male-imposed tyranny. The question thus arises: Is she actually a feminist?
Any honest person who undertakes an in-depth study of modern feminism, from its inception inside the 1960s New Left to its institutionalization within Women’s Studies departments at universities, will understand that without the influence of radicals — militant haters of capitalism and Christianity, angry lesbians who view all males as a sort of malignant disease, deranged women who can’t distinguish between political grievances and their own mental illnesses — there probably never would have been a feminist movement at all. Yet no matter how many examples of radical feminism we may cite, or how crucial the connection between ideological extremism and the rhetoric of “mainstream” feminists, many women (and men) will continue to insist that the evidence offered is irrelevant to the kind of feminism they endorse and advocate.
Unthinking acceptance of simple slogans, a superficial discourse built around glittering generalities — “equality,” “choice,” etc. — is not an ideology, nor could this bland kind of feminism ever have been enough to inspire an enduring political movement. Even while they ignore the chasm between radical theory and their own feminism, however, women seem surprised to find that real life contradicts even the least controversial understanding of “sexual equality”:
I have always found it hard and confusing to be both a feminist and happily married. Why? Because in a good marriage, where both parties are equally happy, no one is keeping score. Feminists emphasize equality of roles, but in a real life marriage, this isn’t always realistic.
If women make equality the measure of their happiness, they are hopelessly doomed to misery in real life, if their ambitions include men, marriage and motherhood. Somewhere, there may be a perfect Feminist Man acceptable to the egalitarian ideal, but feminists generally mock that possibility. “Not My Nigel” is feminist shorthand for the claims of women that their man — their boyfriend, their husband, their son — does not engage in the sexist oppression that feminist rhetoric attributes to the male-dominated system of patriarchy. Feminists scorn the idea that any man can be an exception to their general condemnation of men, so that the acronym NAMALT (“Not All Men Are Like That”) is deployed to ridicule any woman who takes offense at feminist claims about the ubiquitous villainy of males.
Even if a woman is certain that she herself is not being victimized by her husband, even if she refuses to accept the claim that all men are violent oppressors complicit in “rape culture,” however, she will find that the routine conflicts and misfortunes of her everyday life are characterized by feminists as proof of women’s universal victimhood. If she heeds the voices of feminism, she will mentally magnify her problems into evidence of a pervasive pattern, and view the men in her life — her husband, her father, her male co-workers — as participants in, and beneficiaries of, the system of “male supremacy” denounced in the 1970 manifesto, “The Woman-Identified Woman”:
Lesbian is a label invented by the Man to throw at any woman who dares to be his equal, who dares to challenge his prerogatives . . . who dares to assert the primacy of her own needs. To have the label applied to people active in women’s liberation is just the most recent instance of a long history. . . For in this sexist society, for a woman to be independent means she can’t be a woman — she must be a dyke. That in itself should tell us where women are at. It says as clearly as can be said: women and person are contradictory terms. For a lesbian is not considered a “real woman.” . . . [W]hen you strip off all the packaging, you must finally realize that the essence of being a “woman” is to get fucked by men.
Is this brief excerpt taken out of context? Read the whole thing and see for yourself if the “context” attenuates the meaning. Nor can this manifesto be dismissed as an obscure fringe document irrelevant to feminist history. It was published less than two months after Susan Brownmiller’s important New York Times article about the nascent Women’s Liberation movement had mentioned the effort of Betty Friedan to prevent “the lesbian issue” from “warp[ing] the image” of feminism. Brownmiller herself dismissed Friedan’s fears, playing on the phrase “red herring” to mock the “Lavender Menace” as a “lavender herring,” only to see that clever jest thrown back in her face by the collective that published its manifesto as “Radicalesbians.”
“Well,” replies the defender of “mainstream” feminism, “those lesbians were just a bunch of extremist kooks nobody ever heard of.”
Except they weren’t, and their kooky extremism did not hinder their influence. The “Radicalesbians” collective included Rita Mae Brown, a former staffer at Friedan’s National Organization for Women. In January 1970, Brown and another lesbian NOW staffer, Michela Griffo, resigned and joined forces with Ellen Shumsky and Artemis March (neé March Hoffman) to form a lesbian faction within the male-dominated Gay Liberation Front. In a series of meetings in Brown’s apartment, they formed a conspiracy to stage a disruptive protest as the Second Congress to Unite Women in May 1970. “The Woman-Identified Woman” was a statement largely written by March on behalf of the collective, and no one can say that either the manifesto or its authors were “fringe” obscurities. Artemis March, Ph.D., taught at Harvard University and was awarded a fellowship at the Radcliffe Institute, without ever repudiating her militant anti-male ideology (here’s an example from 2010). Rita Mae Brown became a best-selling author whose 1973 lesbian novel The Rubyfruit Jungle is often featured in high school reading lists (e.g., Belmont High School in Massachusetts). Ellen Shumsky became a psychotherapist; her 2009 book, Portrait of a Decade 1968-1978, featured an introduction by lesbian historian Flavia Rando. Michela Griffo became an artist and was recently a featured Gay Pride Month speaker in Boston.
The authors of “The Woman-Identified Woman” were not as famous as celebrity feminists like Gloria Steinem, but even if they were completely unknown, their radical manifesto would continue to be influential, because it is routinely included in the curricula of Women’s Studies courses across the United States: Michigan State University, the University of Oregon, the University of Massachusetts, and the University of Minnesota, to name a few. It is not difficult to trace the influence of this early radicalism down to the present day, or to cite similarly influential treatises — e.g., “Lesbians in Revolt” by Charlotte Bunch (1972) and “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” by Adrienne Rich (1980) — commonly included in the syllabi of Women’s Studies programs. Any attempt to separate this kind of explicitly anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology from “mainstream” feminism would require us to argue that the most eminent academics in the field of Women’s Studies (including the lesbian editors of the widely used textbook Feminist Frontiers) are not “mainstream.”
Once we go beyond simplistic sloganeering about “equality” and “choice” to examine feminism as political philosophy — the theoretical understanding to which Ph.D.s devote their academic careers — we discover a worldview in which men and women are assumed to be implacable antagonists, where males are oppressors and women are their victims, and where heterosexuality is specifically condemned as the means by which this male-dominated system operates.
“But the hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right. Intercourse appears to be the expression of that contempt in pure form, in the form of a sexed hierarchy; it requires no passion or heart because it is power without invention articulating the arrogance of those who do the fucking. Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women . . .”
— Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse, 1987
“Fucking is a large part of how females are kept subordinated to males. It is a ritual enactment of that subordination which constantly reaffirms the fact of subordination and habituates both men and women to it, both in body and in imagination.”
— Marilyn Frye, The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (1992)
“Male sexual violence against women and ‘normal’ heterosexual intercourse are essential to patriarchy because they establish the dominance of the penis over the vagina, and thus the power relations between the sexes. . . . Men’s sexual violence against women is the primary vehicle through which the dominance of the penis over the vagina is established.”
— Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)
“Male supremacy is centered on the act of sexual intercourse, justified by heterosexual practice.”
— Sheila Jeffreys, 2005
All these quotes are from authors and academics whose works are widely cited in feminist journals and included in Women’s Studies curricula. To say that these feminists are outside the “mainstream” is to invite the question of who has the authority to define feminism.
If lifelong activists and professors who have devoted their lives to feminism aren’t “mainstream,” who is? To understand this problem, consider the career of Charlotte Bunch.
Then and now: Charlotte Bunch (left) in the 1970s and (right) as Rutgers professor.
In 1968, Bunch was one of the organizers of the first national Women’s Liberation conference and in 1971 — after being seduced by Rita Mae Brown — she divorced her husband and became a radical lesbian separatist, publishing “Lesbians in Revolt” in January 1972:
In our society which defines all people and institutions for the benefit of the rich, white male, the Lesbian is in revolt. In revolt because she defines herself in terms of women and rejects the male definitions of how she should feel, act, look, and live. To be a Lesbian is to love oneself, woman, in a culture that denigrates and despises women. The Lesbian rejects male sexual/political domination; she defies his world, his social organization, his ideology, and his definition of her as inferior. Lesbianism puts women first while the society declares the male supreme. Lesbianism . . . politically conscious and organized . . . is central to destroying our sexist, racist, capitalist, imperialist system. . . .
The only way oppressed people end their oppression is by seizing power: People whose rule depends on the subordination of others do not voluntarily stop oppressing others. Our subordination is the basis of male power. . . .
Lesbianism is a threat to the ideological, political, personal, and economic basis of male supremacy. The Lesbian threatens the ideology of male supremacy by destroying the lie about female inferiority, weakness, passivity, and by denying women’s ‘innate’ need for men. . . .
Our rejection of heterosexual sex challenges male domination in its most individual and common form. We offer all women something better than submission to personal oppression. We offer the beginning of the end of collective and individual male supremacy. . . .
Lesbianism is the key to liberation and only women who cut their ties to male privilege can be trusted to remain serious in the struggle against male dominance.
Is that an extremist statement? Do most feminists disagree with Charlotte Bunch? Did her radical lesbianism cause her to be ostracized, marginalized and excluded from the feminist “mainstream”?
Au contraire! Charlotte Bunch became one of the most influential feminists in the world. She is a professor and founding director of the Center for Women’s Global Leadership at Rutgers University. She is a top advisor to the United Nations on women’s issues; she was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame in October 1996; and in 1999, President Clinton bestowed on her the Eleanor Roosevelt Award for Human Rights. Let us ask an obvious question:
Q. If Bunch’s radical ideas are rejected by “mainstream” feminists, where are the books, articles and essays by leading feminists denouncing her as an irresponsible extremist?
A. There are no such denunciations, because the feminist movement endorses Bunch’s radical anti-male ideology.
How “mainstream” is Charlotte Bunch’s radicalism? In 2010, the Young Feminist Task Force promoted an International Women’s Day symposium where Professor Bunch was not only a featured speaker, but the agenda included a “Tribute to Charlotte Bunch” that included a preview of the film documentary Passionate Politics: The Life & Work of Charlotte Bunch. Her advocacy of “rejection of heterosexual sex” as a necessary means to ending “male supremacy” is therefore not radical feminism or extreme feminism, it is simply feminism.
Nevertheless, every time feminists complain about normal women who refuse to identify themselves as feminists, it is claimed that “the negative view of feminism” as being an anti-male lesbian advocacy movement is a false stereotype rooted in ignorance. The same feminists, meanwhile, insist that one cannot oppose their radical gay agenda “unless you are part of the extremely extreme extremist right wing.” One almost wonders if these feminists have ever read any feminist literature, or even if they are capable of comprehending the logic of their own words.
More than four decades after Artemis March and her radical comrades took up the banner of the “Lavender Menace,” their rhetoric condemning “rigid sex roles and . . . male supremacy” is more influential than ever. University faculty devoted to the study of “Gender Theory” reject the categories of masculinity and femininity. What most people understand as the natural traits and normal roles of the sexes are, according to the proponents of Gender Theory, an elaborate deception into which we have been brainwashed by the anti-female, anti-gay social system called heteronormative patriarchy.
Such intellectual jargon strikes the normal person as ludicrous, yet it is taken so seriously on university campuses that no one who aspires to employment in academia would dare treat it as a joke.
The ferocity of campus feminists, most notoriously demonstrated by their destruction of Lawrence Summer’s tenure as president of Harvard University, imposes a fearful silence within the world of higher education. Unaccustomed to criticism or opposition, academic feminists are emboldened to speak in terms of hateful extremism. Seldom does anyone even notice the poisonous quality of this rhetoric, much less object to it. One of the rare critics, Professor Daphne Patai, spent a decade teaching Women’s Studies at the University of Massachusetts, and exposed the problem in her 1998 book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism:
[M]uch of the zealotry we are seeing in the university (and out of it) on the issue of sexual harassment should be construed as an attack, quite specifically, not only on men but on heterosexuality itself. … [M]en are the main target and … the cessation of heterosexual expression — or even interest — seems to be the chief agenda of many feminists. …
[T]he standard feminist critique … sees private heterosexual life, and heterosexual interaction in school and workplace, as a patriarchal imposition that must be resisted and transformed.
What Professor Patai recognized was that feminism’s rhetoric about sexual harassment was focused entirely on condemning male expressions of heterosexual interest in women. This was a manifestation of the complaint in Artemis March’s lesbian manifesto that “all women are dehumanized as sex objects” by men, and of Charlotte Bunch’s celebration of lesbianism as a rejection of “the ideology of male supremacy . . . by denying women’s ‘innate’ need for men.”
Does heterosexuality “dehumanize” women? Has the woman who thinks of her sexual interest in men as “innate” been brainwashed by “the ideology of male supremacy”? Mocking laughter would be the response of most women to such claims, and if you told them that they had to accept such beliefs in order to escape the oppressive impositions of patriarchy, normal women might think you were insane.
Yet the faculty in Women’s Studies departments are not normal women, and the concept of “sexual harassment” was popularized by a lesbian, Lin Farley, who was the first director of what became the Women’s Studies program at Cornell University.
A man who expresses romantic interest in a female has dehumanized her as a sex object, feminism tells us, and if this male expression of heterosexuality occurs in the workplace, the man is guilty of sexual harassment — he has violated her civil rights.
No such condemnation can be made of women expressing their lesbian interest in other women. In fact, any woman who objected to a lesbian’s sexual advances could be accused of homophobia — possibly violating the civil rights of her lesbian pursuer!
This attitude of hostility toward heterosexuality as male oppression of women, and the celebration of lesbianism as the feminist ideal, has become so mainstream that we scarcely notice its manifestations. Why was it, we may ask, that both the American Civil Liberties Union and Florida’s largest gay-rights organization sided with lesbian sex offender Kaitlyn Hunt when it was claimed that homophobia caused her prosecution for molesting a 14-year-old girl ? The idea of a “lesbian loophole” in sex offender laws is startling, as is the number of recent cases in which minor girls, some as young as 12, were victimized by women teachers and coaches. The tenured radicals on university Women Studies faculties have been notably silent about such criminal cases.
Traditional morality is now routinely denounced by feminists as a “social construct” of the “heteronormative patriarchy.” What has happened in the past four decades is that feminism has waged a war on human nature, and has striven (with remarkable success) to replace our normal understanding of Right and Wrong with a new system of values: Women, good; men, evil.
Thus we return to contemplate the schisms that have divided feminists since the beginning of the Women’s Liberation Movement. Women who claim to endorse only “mainstream” feminism are quick to reject as a “stereotype” the image of feminists as man-hating lesbians. Yet these “mainstream” feminists refuse to criticize or condemn the influential man-hating lesbians who rule the academic world where feminist theories are promulgated. These campus radicals are not content merely to rule their collegiate domain, however. The American Association of University Women (AAUW) is now pushing to introduce “gender studies” to the high school curriculum, “creating innovative spaces for young people to engage in feminism and activism, equity, and social justice in today’s classrooms.” One of the leaders of this AAUW program is Ileana Jiminez, a lesbian English teacher from New York who is, among other things, an alumnus of elite Smith College, a founder of the New York Independent Schools LGBT Educators Group and a board member of the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice.
Perhaps someone should tell Ms. Jiminez that her feminism is not “mainstream.” Good luck with that. Feminism is no longer threatened by the Lavender Menace — now it is the Lavender Menace.
Great column! Only thing I’d change is the first sentence, which I would have drafted as:
“No one can honestly discuss feminism without addressing the enduring question, ‘Which mental disorder are you talking about?’”
The difference between me and someone like you, is I understand what fallen human nature will produce. You hope against both nature and history that I will be wrong.
Of course you are allowed to dissent. However, when your “dissent” on feminism posts seems to always involve you defending or denying criticisms of feminism, then it can cause some people to reasonably question your purportedly minimal political “people are people” philosophy.
No, the labels are usually not themselves responsible for the words and actions, but sometimes labels do have probative value, especially when somebody voluntarily adopts a label and broadcasts it to others. All you say is that John Smith is a motorcycle rider. He could just be that. But his status as a motorcycle rider may lead to additional suspicions. Does he associate with other bikers? Does he belong to something like “Hell’s Angels” or some club that apes “Hell’s Angels”? You said that John Smith had a “terrible history.” Not all people with criminal records continue to commit crimes, but some do. If his label as “convicted felon” causes people to be more suspicious and wary of him, is that reasonable? Or do you consider that the use of another irrelevant label?
Anyway, not all labels share the some probative value. You try to conflate labels like somebody’s given name with labels like their political identification, and then try to say that one’s adopted political labels are just as irrelevant and unrevealing as a person’s name. Alice Walker neglected and abused her daughter, and according to her daughter, Walker did this because her feminist ideological pursuits were more important to her than her role as a mother. Of course, not all women named “Alice” or “Walker” are unfit parents. But it does not follow that Walker’s feminism is as irrelevant to her behavior as her name would be.
When a person (male or female) says “I’m a feminist,” they are broadcasting a label. And McCain and others believe that when someone broadcasts a label of “feminist,” it is a revealing label that may indicate other ideological and political aspects of that person. Aspects which are unfavorable. And I happen to agree. Further questions can prove even more revealing. “Where did you learn about feminism?” “College” “Did you take women’s studies courses?” “Yes!”
Likewise, when a woman says “I’m not a feminist,” it usually enrages feminists and they assume that this person must have negative ideas of about feminism because of this person’s refusal to identify as such. And they are usually right to assume that. Of course, we would not blame a person for being wary of the “feminist” label, because we find the label informative and bad. Feminists are outraged that all women don’t flock to carry their banner, because they see it as an indication that those women do not agree with their ideological objectives. And that indication is usually accurate.
You cited these people you know as evidence of your claim that most people who identify as feminists are just moderate and benign sorts without the kind of ideological convictions that McCain alleges. If you are going to present your personal acquaintance with these people as evidence of your argument, then others are entitled to scrutinize it.
If you are just going to slam the door and claim that it is “personal” when we try to ask some questions about their actual beliefs, then we have no reason to acknowledge them or take your word for it. And you should not cite or present them as evidence in your favor (assuming that these reasonable feminist acquaintances of yours even exist).
Maybe you should try calling your other witness: The Ghost Who Never Lies.
I do the reluctant advocate thing quite a bit. I started by defending people’s right to carry, despite the fact that I do not own a gun and I despise them.
I defend homosexuality even though I am straight myself. I defend some forms of feminism even though I am male. I defend Christians and Muslims even though I am pagan.
Usually when I do these things, it’s in places where there is no one who will.
Yes, some kids do mooch. And unfortunately, at this point in time, a lot more “kids” are mooching than before.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/21/record-levels-young-adults-living-home-ons
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167426/aged-living-parents.aspx
Federal intervention in student loans made the loans more easily available, but hard to escape once the debt was incurred. The problem has not struck evenhandedly. The students who became engineers and investment bankers usually don’t have any trouble dealing with the debt. The ones who expected to make a living as creative writing majors or some other humanity/social science constitute a disproportionate share of the moochers who now write their sob stories on paper and then post it on the internet.
As for federal heath care intervention, unemployed mooching youth are probably more likely to be crying out for federal handouts and intervention.
I’m sure that some kids can and will succeed and find ways to “work about the rules.” But that is probably going to be minority of them. The fact that some will succeed by thinking outside the box does not negate the fact that there will be droves of unemployable and parasitic youth who will be unemployed or working low wage jobs through their forties and fifties while still mooching off of family. That will cause problems and that is a reason to be concerned. That is also human nature.
Actually I was trying to avoid presenting my personal experiences.
If you will double check what I’ve said on this thread, I’ve been encouraging people to find out for themselves by talking and watching what other people do and say.
The difference between you and me is that I don’t believe in original sin.
Everyone has to screw up or succeed on their own. And if people are left alone, over time they usually succeed.
You said “I’ve known women (of legal age) who call themselves feminists, but reject the whole anti-male thing.” That is “presenting” your “personal experiences.” If you were trying to avoid doing that, then try harder.
For many good reasons, most people here do not wish to speak with identified feminists. As for watching what feminists say or do, you can do that in abundance by monitoring their blogs and other public mouthpieces, which have much to spew.
I maintain that higher education is nearly impossible without student loans, and by law the FedGovs are the only ones allowed to do that.
And since Federal loans are so readily available, the cost of college has skyrocketed far beyond inflation and the cost of living.
p.s. Something very similar happened to housing. The FedGovs decided that everyone needed to own a house and made it possible to get a loan without the ability to pay it back. Result, the price of housing went through the roof.
Technically, I think that federal government guarantees the loans, while authorized private lenders are allowed to issue them.
I agree that the cost of college has inflated, but that does not mean payment of loans is insurmountable, especially for students who chose a judicious major and/or profession. Of course, people who majored in “eco-feminism” and who are now unemployed charged at the chance to blame capitalism and patriarchy for their current status.
And considering that many people here would lump all feminists in with the RadFems, I don’t think they’d want to talk to you either.
Not everyone blogs. Or even bothers to answer posts.
You do not need to speak with somebody one on one to learn about their political and ideological leanings (whether they are feminists or politicians), so that really is no loss on our part. I do not need to meet Noam Chomsky or David Duke to know about their beliefs.
Of course not everyone blogs. The ones that do blog end up having more authority in defining and representing whatever movement, even if they are a numerically small part of it.
How “reluctant” of you to repeatedly stump for feminism whenever McCain criticizes.
You defending things like homosexuality and gun ownership and freedom of religion is not necessarily contradictory from your purported generally libertarian outlook, even though you may not personally engage in those things which you defend.
But defending feminism when you claim that “labels” should not be important and that you think politics and ideology are just a way of controlling people does not seem to jive so smoothly. Defending a political movement (a strong portion of which is very much focused on controlling and modifying people’s behavior even in the most intimate quarters) does not seem consistent with someone who claims to be cynical and jaded about ideological identification.
Though in all fairness, Adrienne Rich’s characterization of male homosexual interactions was not entirely inaccurate. But of course, she used that point to idealize lesbian relations as salvation for all women.
Any attempt to keep score will fail for the same reason free markets work – different people value things differently. A chore that may be onerous to one may not be a chore at all for another. If you’re keeping score you first have to determine, “By whose valuation are you doing the scoring?”
And that how divorce lawyers put their kids through college.
Yes, that is what we are now required to believe. And just for good measure, every father is required to post a youtube video saying how ecstatic and overjoyed he is that his son is a homosexual.
OK, so far the score is MIchelle Duggar 19, Charlotte Bunch 0.
Anyone here see where this is heading?
Men-and-women-are-exactly-the-same feminists have to be a Young Earth Creationists. The only way men and women haven’t each developed specifically to enhance their respective chances of reproduction is if the earth is only a few thousand years old.
The same way this sort of idiocy has always headed. History is full of examples of societies that deliberately stopped reproducing.
Charlotte Bunch probably gnashes her teeth in frustration that she can’t force the Duggar daughters into her lesbian coven.
“No one can honestly discuss feminism without addressing the enduring question, ‘Which feminism are you talking about?’”
I had thought Stacy was astute enough to see the utter futility in discussing the various tastes and textures of dog shit?
You know, my first defense of homosexuality on this site was because people were linking all homosexuals to pedophilia.
Recognize a pattern here?
They’re parasitic like the rest of the Left. That’s why they sought to control and now do control the institutions of education where the overwhelming majority of children spend 6-8 hours per day, the media messaging from children’s cartoons on up, and Universities.
You have just established a reason why they should ignore you.
Personally I would prefer if both sides ignored each other. But no, you both demand that the other submit totally. And too often, it becomes “if you are not with us you are against us!”
Charlotte Bunch probably gnashes her teeth in frustration that she can’t force the Duggar daughters into her lesbian coven.
Yes, but if any of the Duggar girls ever decides she’s a lesbian, she’ll instantly have her own reality-TV series (on the Bravo network, maybe), to say nothing of a lucrative book deal and perhaps a cover story in Time magazine.
No, I don’t. But hey, you’re the one who says we should not so concerned about labels. So why should we care so much about the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality? It’s all sexuality, right?
I see. According to you, people live and die according to the label. Once any kind of feminist, always a RadFem no matter what.
It couldn’t possibly anything except your definition.
But those rules aren’t supposed to apply to you…
Feminists are not obliged to listen to read anything here or anywhere. They may read what they wish and cover their eyes and ears as they wish, and we may do the same.
McCain and most people here are perfectly content not to communicate with feminists. Anyway, he is not talking to feminists, he is talking about feminists. Feminists are free to ignore whatever he says. But you seem to take issue when we say anything bad about feminism even within this (non-feminist) place of discussion. So you think both sides should ignore each other, but you think we at least are supposed to not say anything bad about the other side, even though they should be ignoring us?
No, not live and die according to the label. Some feminists have subsequently repudiated and denounced their formerly feminist identity and taken on a new label. Same goes for former Muslims, former Communists, former Black Panthers, former liberals, etc. They once had a label, and then they changed it by declaration and behavior.
Indeed. I’m sure Bravo has been frantically searching for a new lesbian show since Jackie Warner became too much of a bitch even for them.
It’s a recipe for unhappiness – people have a tendency to overestimate the work they put into a joint transactional enterprise and undervalue what they receive in return.
Husband thinks that having a lawn that approximates the turf at Busch stadium is important, and so he puts planning, effort, and discretionary spending into making it so. At the same time, wife thinks that having potpourri and candles in every room gives the house that certain touch and does the same – neither notices the importance and effort of the other. So if you’re scorekeeping, each of these elements of a nice home looks like an indulgence or hobby to the one not interested in it.
You simply refuse to look out the window and judge human nature by the facts. I don’t hold with Augustine’s version of original sin. If the east had known about that teaching they would have declared him a heretic, and frankly it would have been righteous given other aberrant teaching of his.
I would hold with the early church’s definition of original sin even if I were not a Christian. Man certainly has a sinful nature, and we see this worked out in the world on a daily basis.
However, you will believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts.
It’s not the label that is guilty.
And even with the label, it’s not universal.
We established up above that all conservatives are not Republicans, all homosexuals are not pedophiles, and not all John Smiths commit bank robberies.
So why are all feminists RadFems?
Without the “free money” provided by the Feds, the prices would be what people could afford. It’s the “free money” that drives the prices up.
When somebody gets “something for nothing,” that is exactly the worth they put on it.
Of course the label itself is not guilty, but the label itself often does signal some revealing and useful information about the person who adopts and maintains the label.
True, they are not all acknowledged radical feminists, but even the ones that claim not to be radical still pay heed and facilitate the radical ones and some of their precepts, and whatever the number of radical feminists within the total number of self-identified feminists, I believe that they carry and exercise a disproportionate amount of influence in the feminist movement and its goals, whether or not the “moderate” feminists will admit. And nobody here is obligated to suspend their judgment or be agnostic about the significance of the feminist “label” for the sake of these supposed “moderate” feminists you claim to know.
Humanity doesn’t have a sinful nature.
That doesn’t mean we can’t screw up.
It does mean the choice and the responsibility is ours.
Nor do I think a church should judge the worth of a person. You do realize this is terribly ironic considering who you profess to follow, don’t you?
And the response of these disaffected, indebted youths has been to…demand more of something for nothing because they learn they cannot pay back tens of thousands of dollars by being women’s studies majors.
Even with the market deformation caused by federal loan subsidizing, a prudent student should be able to view the amount he is borrowing, the rate of interest and balance that against his/her choice of major and potential career prospects. Lots of students did not, and now their complaint is that they should not have been offered these loans in the first place because we could not help but sign things they did not understand and choose unemployable subjects to major in.
Again, it depends on how the label is used.
The only thing I am asking you to do is pay less attention to the label and more attention to the person.
Because I’ve spent time here and other places with Christians and conservatives, I can authoritatively say that you are not all supporting the establishment of a Christian theocracy in the US. And in some of the groups I talk with, that is a very real fear. I know enough to draw distinctions between the Fred Phelps crowd and the people here. I know that most people here don’t stuff Jack Chick tracks in people’s pockets.
You may be Christian, you may be conservative, but you are not that Christian conservative.
“McCain and most people here are perfectly content not to communicate with feminists.”
That is the problem.
It’s all one world, we all have to live here.
If you don’t want to talk to them, fine. But that should also include not talking about them.
How is lumping all feminists together any different than them lumping all men together as rapists?
Actually, the more government gets involved, the more the market gets “deformed.” And that is when the politicos call for “reform.”
If you want to solve the problem, start by getting government out of the loan game.
One that is designed to take advantage of the people who can’t pay it back.
Even if we all have to live here, that does not mean everyone is required to communicate with each other. And since you are quasi-libertarian, you should be somewhat aware of the value of having different spaces and domains of existence free from the demands and claims of other persons.
And no, just because one does not wish to speak to a group of people does not mean one is therefore prohibited from talking about that group of people. Nobody should have to speak with members of Al Qaeda before talking about them. Nobody should have to speak with death row inmates before talking about them. Feminists do not have to speak with conservatives before they talk about conservatives in their assorted feminist “safe spaces.” Arguing that we should have to speak with feminists before talking about them is essentially arguing that we need their grace and permission before daring to mention them, as if some kind of sanctity attaches to them.
I fully agree with getting the government out of the game, but I do not think it’s involvement in the “game” is some kind of exculpatory pass for complaining unemployables.
Nor do I share your optimism that this graduating generation is going to come up with some wondrous solution en masse or that they are simply heterodox mavericks who are merely defying parental expectations with the current plight.
It’s not enough that all feminists are RadFems, you now have made RadFems equivalent to Al Qaeda and death row inmates.
Without them blowing up anyone.
So, without them committing a crime against you and yours, you’re ready to condemn non-radical feminists just because you don’t like what they say.
Do you want to imprison them now, or at the first of the month?
Are we going to be taking more sagely advice from Humpty Dumpty:
“When I used a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
Yes, Noam Chomsky actually refers to himself as a “conservative” sometimes. Does that mean I must now alter the working definition of conservative to include views like Chomsky’s within its conceivable spectrum?
And you’ve run this line of argument before, that because grant that not every conservative person is like Fred Phelps, then we should be obliged to remove any pejorative connotation of people who identify as “feminists.” Well unfortunately, feminists (or at least the public mouthpieces of feminism) do not recognize your distinction. They say that if one does not agree with abortion on demand and subsidized contraception and transsexual integrated restrooms, then you hate women and there is no valid distinction between you and a Fred Phelps. Conservatives are not obliged to remove their aggregate judgment about those who identify as “feminist” just for the hope that feminist advocacy groups might hypothetically grant that not all conservatives are like Fred Phelps.
And for the record, I am not Christian.
If feminists declare that groups like MRA’s are like the KKK, there should be nothing unfair about likening them to Al Qaeda. Anyway, the point of the comparison is to drive home the point that one is not require to engage or communicate with some group as some precondition of thinking or talking about that group.
If you like, I’ll change the comparison the Communists or John Birch Society Members. I do not have to meet or commune with either of them before talking about either of them. Both Communists and John Birchers publish plenty of statements and written material about their beliefs and goals. If somebody wants to try to communicate, they are free to do so. But doing so is not a precondition before talking about those groups and people who identify with them. Is everyone here obligated to talk one on one with a politician before they form an opinion and talk about that politician?
And no, I do not want to imprison anybody for their ideological beliefs or statements, not even feminists. I believe in freedom in speech. However, some feminists are not so gracious, when they complain that hate speech should be outlawed or that anti-abortion speech should be restricted because they think it motivates clinic bombers or that fraternities should be expelled for their crude sexist emails.
Also, I do not lump all feminists together. I grant that there may be some dissident or heterodox persons who identify as feminists and defy the ideology’s worst aspects. However, their existence does not oblige me or anyone to suspend presumption and judgment about most people who adopt and project the label of “feminist.” And anyway, dissident feminists like Christina Hoff Summers and Daphne Patai seem to be thoroughly disowned and excommunicated by the feminist movement at large (or at least the mouthpieces who claim to speak for feminism). Mainstream feminists who denounce and criticize dissenting feminists say “These women aren’t real feminists and don’t credit their thought as being part of this movement.”
I’m sure there are people who identify as “Christian” but who say that they do not actually believe Jesus was the son of God or that Jesus was divine, or that Jesus even existed and that those questions aren’t really important to them. You’ll find that within some “progressive” variants of alleged Christianity. Does that mean I should stretch the definition of “Christian” to include people who do not even belief there was a Jesus or even any kind of divinity?
And incidentally, feminists will probably continue to lump all men with rapists and that the law and society should treat every male as a presumptive threat to women. They will probably continue to do this whether or not we adopt your plea to not presume things about people with the “feminist” moniker.
It is always worth mentioning that Bill Clinton is a serial rapist. This is well known to anyone with a passing interest in the facts. Hillary has been collusive in the coverup of these crimes from their earliest days. Forward.
I strongly suspect he’s a sub-troll I’ve seen elsewhere by the name Winston Blake. I say sub-troll because he doesn’t even bother pretending to stay on topic, merely slings obscenities and insults.
In terms of conducting a war, including our war with radical Islam and the cultural war with insane feminists, these people are a non-entity. Yes, they exist, but they will not affect the ultimate outcome at all.