| Sex War |
Often those who criticize feminism make comparisons with Nazis or communists or racists, in an attempt to explain the anti-male stance that represents most of feminism today; especially common is the term "feminazi". In my opinion this term is too easily dismissed as simply an insult. Although its catchy it is no substitute for carefully examining the genuine parallels that exist between feminism and the Nazis for example.
This site will examine evidence that feminism is today the biggest obstacle to sexual equality in the West, and that it has become a sexual hate movement against men in the same way that the white supremacists are a racist hate movement. This is not intended as an insult to feminists or as an analogy made in bad taste. I am not saying feminism is like a hate movement, my hypothesis is that it is a hate movement.
Right away I have to cast out disclaimers. No, I don't hate women. No, I wasn't abused by my mother, or some ex-girlfriend! Yes, I am in favor of genuine equality for both sexes in terms of legal rights and also the more nebulous but just as powerful expectations placed on people. And, no, I'm not conservative politically, I am not religious and I don't believe in limiting people to traditional sex roles. In fact I'm in many ways just the sort of person feminists claim to be.
But I understand that these disclaimers are necessary today, because of the huge success of feminism in presenting itself as not just a movement for sexual equality, but as the only movement. Hence anyone opposing feminism must oppose equality and hate women.
Hang on... "hate women"?
If feminism is for both sexes why couldn't it mean I hate men?
Perhaps there's a clue there.... in any case if you've read this far I hope you will look at some of the short essays on feminism and sexual equality here. Eventually I'll be pulling them together to argue the hypothesis of feminism as a hate movement more linearly. I realize that to many the idea that feminism is about hate sounds like a dismissive put-down rather than a well attested theory. I accept it is my responsibility to provide argument and evidence. Site under construction and I hope you will be patient because I'll get to the former sooner than the latter! For those already familiar with the truth about feminism I hope there is something new for you here, or a twist on an old observation or two.
There are currently two approaches on the site; an essay list which is pretty all over the place and attempt to structure the arguments and evidence for the hypothesis which stems from my definition of a hate movement and the six criteria I list there.
Advocates lesser rights in law for the target group
| What is a Hate Movement? |
A logical place to start a discussion about whether feminism is now a hate movement, is with a definition of "hate movement". But before that, it turns out there's even more of a need to say what a hate movement isn't. It isn't simply a bunch of people who hate another group of people. In particular just because you are in a hate movement doesn't mean you consciously hate all members of the targeted group.
In fact IMO the word "hate" in the phrase "hate movement" is misleading. Usually hate means a very personal and emotional antipathy. It's been said that you can't really hate someone unless you've loved them first. But this sort of emotional intensity isn't always present in members of a hate movement. The word "hate" is simply used different when applied to an individual than when applied to a group. Political hate, or hatred for a group might be quite passive. Its hard to be so wound up about people you've never even met. IMO a more accurate word for what's going on would be contempt.
Some definitions on-line
A hate site is defined as, "an organization or individual that advocates violence against or unreasonable hostility toward those persons or organizations identified by their race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability. Also including organizations or individuals that disseminate historically inaccurate information with regards to these persons or organizations for the purpose of vilification."
One Man's Mind
"You can promote and struggled for the rights of your race, group or religion to help sustain your way of life and provide a better future. The key is to honor every human beings right to the same thing. A hate group wants the same thing but they are willing to deny or suppress the rights of others to obtain that goal. This usually comes in the form of deceitful discrediting, vandalism or violence against the target group."
But most sites that talk about hate movements, tend to avoid defining the concept. I think this is dangerous because of how much power there is behind the accusation. The groups routinely counted as hateful are quick to point out the similarities between them and more acceptable groups. They generally take steps to deny the worst aspects of the label placed on them, for example by explicitly condemning violence or law breaking. Its hard to come up with a definition which is neither too broad, nor too narrow. Well here's my attempt. A hate group,
Advocates lesser rights in law for the target group
Propagates discrimination against the target group
Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral
Teaches that the target group is a threat
Uses lies including historical revisionism to spread these views
Tolerates violence towards the target group
Now certainly it is easy to show that feminism does all this to men as a group, but there is another aspect to a movement being hateful, and not just a specific group. These attitudes and actions must be pervasive and generally represent the leaders the organizations and the ordinary members of the movement. At the same time a movement which does advocate this kind of hate is likely to see itself as justified and try to present its ideas in an acceptable way.
I should say that some people add that political hate like this can only be directed towards a birth group, not for example, a political group. I didn't add this because so many people like to try and accuse me and others of "hating feminists". As you can see from the above I do not. For example I do not say feminists or other hate mongers deserve lesser rights, although many feminists do argue for "hate crimes" ironically. At any rate I omitted this part of the definition to avoid a charge that I couldn't take my own criticisms! Its probably wise to include that seventh criterion in a definition of hate to limit frivolous use of the term. Taken individually the criteria might be legitimately used against certain groups at certain times. For example I argue feminists are immoral (although not inferior) which is the 3rd criterion. The point of limiting the definition of political hate to attacking birth groups is that by birth alone no one deserves to be targeted like this.
Propagates discrimination against the target group
| Discrimination set in law |
Where bias against men is made explicit in law... and how feminism encourages this.
VAWA - Some More Equal Than Others
Adoption and Child Support
Rape shield laws
The Mann Act
Equality law puts women first
Title IX - discrimination against men in Sports
See no evil
It's common for feminists to say women have less rights than men. But have you ever heard one actually come up with an example? My impression of the traditional legal situation in the west is that women were less visible to the law. The law does not exist to grant rights, but to limit behavior and on the whole the behavior it limited was male behavior. In turn the male head would be expected to dispense justice to those within his household. As a result there was less need to limit women's criminal behavior in law. The trend has been to develop from this model of a family group as the unit the law deals with (through its usually male head) towards individual rights and responsibilities, although young children are still seen as dependents in this way.
If this view is correct women did not need rights because their behavior was not limited to begin with. Only by looking at both rights and responsibilities / restrictions do we get a balanced view. A popular example from recent times often used by feminists is the old fashioned definition of rape which many states used to use as recently as a few decades ago. This was along the lines of "when a man has sex with a woman, not his wife, without consent". Feminists zero in on the "wife" part and attempt to say this shows that men had the right to rape their wives. In fact all it meant was that the assault would not be called rape. But interesting to note, is that the same law, by the same logic, gave any woman the "right" to rape any man or woman, and that anyone of either sex could have a right to rape if the victim was male, whether married to him or not. Since men are raped more often than women in the US, this was a considerable bias.
Women were not explicitly given "permission" to rape their husbands, not because women have less rights in law, but because they have more. A husband forcing his wife to have sex was an assault but it was not presumed to carry the special indignity of rape -- forced sexual intimacy with a stranger. The husband's "right" was just an exemption from a larger prohibition -- a prohibition which did not apply to women in the first place!
Properly understood then, the rape example shows how women were more protected than men (only women could be raped) and how men were more restricted than women (only a man could be a rapist). This makes sense if your legal system assumes men are the legal representative of a quasi-legal local/family grouping that dispenses its own justice. Only the legal representative is punished for crimes of the family group. In return that legal representative is motivated to keep order within the family. Simple and effective, but open to abuse. As a result special protections for the dependents were needed to make sure the head did not abuse their position.
That's fine for the Romans but today the same laws that sensibly protected only women and punished only men, are still around. Since men no longer dispense justice to the quasi-legal family group this bias is extremely sexist. In gathering examples of feminist hate I need to show not just discrimination against men in law, which was normal even before feminism, but that these laws were encouraged by feminists.
A look at how supreme court decisions involving sex discrimination as a violation of the 14th amendment equal rights clause or the 5th amendments due process clause has led to a double standard whereby discrimination favoring women is justified and while discrimination favoring men is (rightly) struck down. The court has come to apply a standard of judgment that assumes women need protection in all but the most ridiculous cases, while men do not. In fact it is pushing the same sexual stereotypes it pretends to be attacking.
REED v. REED, 404 U.S. 71 (1971)
A mandatory provision of the Idaho probate code that gives preference to men over women when persons of the same entitlement class apply for appointment as administrator of a decedent's estate is based solely on a discrimination prohibited by and therefore violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
A very reasonable decision striking down an obviously sexist law. I take this as my starting point and searched for all supreme court (sex related) decisions citing this case and developing sex discrimination as a violation of the 14th or the 5th.
STANLEY v. ILLINOIS, 405 U.S. 645 (1972)
Petitioner, an unwed father whose children, on the mother's death, were declared state wards and placed in guardianship, attacked the Illinois statutory scheme as violative of equal protection. Under that scheme the children of unmarried fathers, upon the death of the mother, are declared dependents without any hearing on parental fitness and without proof of neglect, though such hearing and proof are required before the State assumes custody of children of married or divorced parents and unmarried mothers
Yup Illinois really had a law saying the state should, without any hearing, steal the children from an unwed father if the "real parent" of the family died. The sex equality angle is only one of the constitutional rights this piece of shit law breaks. Of course if there's one thing you learn looking over this page its that there are a great many stupid sexist laws out there but this is surely the worst on this page. That the state of Illinois in 1972 was insisting on physically breaking up a family at a time of mourning, and then demanding the father had no more chance of adopting his own children than any other single male (IE none at all): "Illinois law affords him no priority in adoption proceedings. It would be his burden to establish not only that he would be a suitable parent but also that he would be the most suitable of all who might want custody of the children. ...Stanley, unmarried and impecunious as he is, could not now expect to profit from adoption proceedings" And Illinois went to court to try to keep this law!!!
FRONTIERO v. RICHARDSON, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)
A married woman Air Force officer sought increased benefits for her husband as a "dependent" under 37 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 10 U.S.C. 1072, 1076. Those statutes provide, solely for administrative convenience, that spouses of male members of the uniformed services are dependents for purposes of obtaining increased quarters allowances and medical and dental benefits, but that spouses of female members are not dependents unless they are in fact dependent for over one-half of their support.
Administrative convenience no excuse for sex discrimination. Men were statistically far more likely to have a spouse as a dependent but that is no reason for discrimination.
GEDULDIG v. AIELLO, 417 U.S. 484 (1974)
California has a disability insurance system for private employees temporarily disabled from working by an injury or illness not covered by workmen's compensation, under which an employee contributes to an Unemployment Compensation Disability Fund one percent of his salary up to an annual maximum of $85. A disability lasting less than eight days is not compensable, except when the employee is hospitalized. Benefits are not payable for a single disability exceeding 26 weeks. ...Appellees, four women otherwise qualified under the program who have suffered employment disability because of pregnancies....challenged the pregnancy exclusion
This one went against the feminists perhaps because the service provided was already identical for men and women. In effect the court said it wouldn't mandate the novel creation of special treatment for women (in pregnancy), even if it turned a blind eye to already existing inequalities favoring women. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. GILBERT, 429 U.S. 125 (1976)is another very similar decision.
KAHN v. SHEVIN, 416 U.S. 351 (1974)
A Florida statute grants widows an annual $500 property tax exemption. Appellant, a widower, was denied an exemption because the statute offers no analogous benefit for widowers. He then sought a declaratory judgment in country Circuit Court, which held the statute violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, finding the classification "widow" valid because it has a "fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation" of reducing "the disparity between the economic capabilities of a man and a woman."
Sexism against men is fine if you claim your intent is to help women overcome perceived disadvantages (not necessarily discrimination) of their sex. Gender wage gap hoax quoted as "evidence". No one suggests that it is merely an administrative convenience to assume ALL women are in need and no men are.
SCHLESINGER v. BALLARD, 419 U.S. 498 (1975)
Appellee, a naval officer with more than nine years of active service, who failed for a second time to be selected for promotion and thus under 10 U.S.C. 6382 (a) was subject to mandatory discharge, brought this action claiming that application of that statute to him when compared to 10 U.S.C. 6401 (under which had he been a woman officer he would have been entitled to 13 years of commissioned service before a mandatory discharge for want of promotion) was an unconstitutional discrimination based on sex in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause
The court decided that since only a man's rights were at stake "it is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise." and that the sexism was justified by on these grounds.
STANTON v. STANTON, 421 U.S. 7 (1975)
When appellant wife and appellee husband were divorced in Utah in 1960, the decree, incorporating the parties' stipulation, ordered appellee to make monthly payments to appellant for the support of the parties' children, a daughter, then age seven, and a son, then age five. Subsequently, when the daughter became 18, appellee discontinued payments for her support, and the divorce court, pursuant to a Utah statute which provides that the period of minority for males extends to age 21 and for females to age 18, denied appellant's motion for support of the daughter for the period after she attained 18
The intent of this law, a rare thing, was to protect men more than women, or rather (and perhaps that explains its existence) boys more than girls, and there were perceived disadvantages to boys that it was addressing. The court dismissed this intention saying, "Notwithstanding the "old notions" cited by the state court that it is the man's primary responsibility to provide a home, that it is salutary for him to have education and training before he assumes that responsibility, and that females tend to mature and marry earlier than males, there is nothing rational in the statutory distinction between males and females". The court seems inclined to dismiss out of hand such "role-typing" ideas even when they are the same ideas (e.g.. the wage gap) used to justify discrimination favoring women. Seems like a just result, but one that contradicts the way a woman's case would be handled.
CRAIG v. BOREN, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)
Appellant Craig, a male then between 18 and 21 years old, and appellant Whitener, a licensed vendor of 3.2% beer, brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that an Oklahoma statutory scheme prohibiting the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18 constituted a gender-based discrimination that denied to males 18-20 years of age the equal protection of the laws
The court went with its "administrative convenience" argument again and dismissed the presentation of evidence that men were more likely to be drunk drivers than women on the grounds that men were still very unlikely to be drunk drivers. It seems that the court is happy to give men equality where it does not do any harm to women.
CALIFANO v. GOLDFARB, 430 U.S. 199 (1977)
Under the Social Security Act survivors' benefits based on the earnings of a deceased husband covered by the Act are payable to his widow regardless of dependency, but under 42 U.S.C. 402 (f) (1) (D) such benefits on the basis of the earnings of a deceased wife covered by the Act are payable to her widower only if he was receiving at least half of his support from her. In a suit challenging these provisions, a three-judge District Court held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by 402 (f) (1) (D) constituted invidious discrimination against female wage earners by affording them less protection for their surviving spouses than is provided to male employees.
By dressing up this issues as an issue of female rights (for the wage earner) not male rights (for the widower) a positive result was achieved. Note how throughout the decision it is treated as discrimination against women. It's easy to see how the blame game would have justified the opposite result at the drop of a hat. Not that the court would be interested in deciding what was fair at this point. Remember the point is whether the law was made with the intent of overcoming female discrimination. In fact arguments that it was were ignored claiming they were "supported by no more substantial justification than "archaic and overbroad" generalizations". WENGLER v. DRUGGISTS MUTUAL INS. CO., 446 U.S. 142 (1980) is a very similar case. Here the distinction between whether the law is perceived as benefiting women (acceptable) or men (unacceptable) is key to the defense: "the Missouri Supreme Court stated that "the purpose of the [law] was to favor widows, not to disfavor them". The supreme court basically replies, no you are wrong, its discrimination against women wage earners so its unconstitutional. Dang. WEINBERGER v. WIESENFELD, 420 U.S. 636 (1975) is an earlier case so I should rewrite this block and move it up. Huh.
CALIFANO v. WEBSTER, 430 U.S. 313 (1977)
Webster asked that his social security payments be increased to the amount he would have received if he had been a woman arguing that the discrimination violated the equal protection clause of the 5th amendment.
Thus, the legislative history is clear that the differing treatment of men and women in former 215 (b) (3) was not "the accidental byproduct of a traditional way of thinking about females," Califano v. Goldfarb, ante, at 223 (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment), but rather was deliberately enacted to compensate for particular economic disabilities suffered by women
ORR v. ORR, 440 U.S. 268 (1979)
...an Alabama court, acting pursuant to state alimony statutes under which husbands but not wives may be required to pay alimony upon divorce, ordered appellant to make monthly alimony payments...
A pretty open and shut case but interesting because the court here makes it thinking clearer than usual IMO.  The law establishes a classification of people, based on sex  to be legal it must serve important governmental objectives and it must be shown that these classification/s substantially relate to achievement of those objectives.  These objectives must be the intent of the law but judging the intent seems to be something which is given more leeway than previously where it had to have been seen to be the intent at the time of making the law. Now it seems any sensible justification anyone can come up with that isn't actually an ad-hoc pretext, will do. classifications are gauged to see if they are an accurate proxy for the objective. That is that the classification correlates well the behavior the objective is interested in, and that nothing better is easily available  Finally the objectives must not be able to be met without the discriminatory classifications, and the "need" to save administrative expenses is not acceptable as excuse.
PARHAM v. HUGHES, 441 U.S. 347 (1979)
A Georgia statute, while permitting the mother of an illegitimate child, or the father if he has legitimated the child and there is no mother, to sue for the wrongful death of the child, precludes a father who has not legitimated a child from so suing. Appellant, the father of an illegitimate child, whom he had not legitimated and who was killed, along with the mother, in an automobile accident, sued for the child's wrongful death
The court said that fathers and mothers of illegitimate children were "not similarly situated" because men could and on this result would have to go to court to try and have the child made legitimate. The court seems very happy to continue to make decisions based on old fashioned prejudices about men's roles and responsibilities, while constantly mentioning the need to make no assumptions about women.
CABAN v. MOHAMMED, 441 U.S. 380 (1979)
Appellant and appellee Maria Mohammed lived together out of wedlock for several years in New York City, during which time two children were born. Appellant, who was identified as the father on the birth certificates, contributed to the children's support. After the couple separated, Maria took the children and married her present husband (also an appellee). During the next two years appellant frequently saw or otherwise maintained contact with the children. Appellees subsequently petitioned for adoption of the children, and appellant filed a cross-petition. The Surrogate granted appellees' petition under 111 of the New York Domestic Relations Law, which permits an unwed mother, but not an unwed father, to block the adoption of their child simply by withholding her consent
The law denies rights to men which the court is usually happy to rectify, but in this case the subject is parenthood. Fortunately the model father in this case is hard to stereotype as a deadbeat and wins albeit with the narrowest of majorities -- four justices dissenting. Its worth reading their "reasoning" to get a handle on how biased their views on sex are. If this comment was taken seriously it would reverse almost every precedent: "if we make the further undisputed assumption that the discrimination is justified in those cases in which the rule has its most frequent application - cases involving newborn infants and very young children in the custody of their natural mothers, see nn. 7 and 12, supra - we should presume that the law is entirely valid and require the challenger to demonstrate that its unjust applications are sufficiently numerous and serious to render it invalid." This is a breathtaking statement and, despite the result, is good evidence of how the court has different standards for men and women.
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATOR OF MASS. v. FEENEY, 442 U.S. 256 (1979)
During her 12-year tenure as a state employee, appellee, who is not a veteran, had passed a number of open competitive civil service examinations for better jobs, but because of Massachusetts' veterans' preference statute, she was ranked in each instance below male veterans who had achieved lower test scores than appellee. Under the statute, all veterans who qualify for state civil service positions must be considered for appointment ahead of any qualifying nonveterans. The statutory preference, which is available to "any person, male or female, including a nurse,"
Following the lead of race-based decisions concerning "disproportionably adverse" laws which are worded neutrally, the court affirmed that discrimination must be the desired intent, and not just an obvious consequence of the law.
KIRCHBERG v. FEENSTRA, 450 U.S. 455 (1981)
In 1974, the husband of appellee Feenstra, without her knowledge, executed a mortgage on their jointly owned home as security on the husband's promissory note to appellant (Kirchberg). The husband executed the mortgage pursuant to a now superseded Louisiana statute (Art. 2404) that gave a husband the unilateral right to dispose of jointly owned community property without his spouse's consent
The interesting point here is not the law, which was certainly sexist rubbish (and had been promptly changed by Louisiana even before the case got to the supreme court -- note that Louisiana is not the appallee), but the fact that "under Art. 2334 of the Louisiana Civil Code, in effect at the time Mr. Feenstra executed the mortgage, Mrs. Feenstra could have made a "declaration by authentic act" prohibiting her husband from executing a mortgage on her home without her consent. By failing to take advantage of this procedure, Mrs. Feenstra, in appellant's view, became the "architect of her own predicament". This argument seems to be the same as the court itself used in PARHAM v. HUGHES but this time they rightly reject it saying, "As we have previously noted, the "absence of an insurmountable barrier" will not redeem an otherwise unconstitutionally discriminatory law" In other words if there was some way for the injured party to avoid the discrimination it is still discrimination.
MICHAEL M. v. SONOMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 450 U.S. 464 (1981)
Petitioner, then a 17 1/2-year-old male, was charged with violating California's "statutory rape" law, which defines unlawful sexual intercourse as "an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female is under the age of 18 years." Prior to trial, petitioner sought to set aside the information on both state and federal constitutional grounds, asserting that the statute unlawfully discriminated on the basis of gender since men alone were criminally liable thereunder.
Its worth reading through this decision to see how craven the supreme court can be when it comes to protecting the little woman. Fortunately there were 3 voices of dissent and the dissenting view lists some of the screw-ups. Court notes that California's stated intent was to prevent (criminalize) teenage pregnancy. This doesn't prevent the court going on irrelevantly in a suspiciously patriarchal way about how much young girls suffer with pregnancy and how young boys never do and are always trying to get some. The court notes that only women get pregnant and then with twisted logic says that since pregnancy is the target of the law it makes sense that only the sex that doesn't get pregnant should be punished. Sorry, isn't that a bit backwards? Most people know it takes both sexes to have a baby, but if you are going to chose just one its hard to see how men are more proximally involved than women. The court then says you couldn't expect a law that punished women for having sex to be enforceable -- oh gee well that is a good reason for sex discrimination of the most blatant kind.
ROSTKER v. GOLDBERG, 453 U.S. 57 (1981)
The Military Selective Service Act (Act) authorizes the President to require the registration for possible military service of males but not females, the purpose of registration being to facilitate any eventual conscription under the Act. Registration for the draft was discontinued by Presidential Proclamation in 1975 (the Act was amended in 1973 to preclude conscription), but as the result of a crisis in Southwestern Asia, President Carter decided in 1980 that it was necessary to reactivate the registration process, and sought Congress' allocation of funds for that purpose. He also recommended that Congress amend the Act to permit the registration and conscription of women as well as men. Although agreeing that it was necessary to reactivate the registration process, Congress allocated only those funds necessary to register males and declined to amend the Act to permit the registration of women
The court pretty much shuffles its feet and mumbles something about giving congress wide deference especially in military matters. Pass the buck time. In the end of course making the selective service register women wouldn't decrease the number of men sent to their deaths, or increase women's share of danger one bit. When it comes to killing only men in war no one is very keen on equality suddenly.
MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN v. HOGAN, 458 U.S. 718 (1982)
The policy of petitioner Mississippi University for Women (MUW), a state-supported university which has from its inception limited its enrollment to women, of denying otherwise qualified males (such as respondent) the right to enroll for credit in its School of Nursing violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In ruling that a man could enter an all female nursing school the court seems to almost surprise itself, "That this statutory policy discriminates against males rather than against females does not exempt it from scrutiny or reduce the standard of review" and the dissenting view (two of nine justices) is telling, "In my view, the Court errs seriously by assuming - without argument or discussion - that the equal protection standard generally applicable to sex discrimination is appropriate here. That standard was designed to free women from "archaic and overbroad generalizations" In no previous case have we applied it to invalidate state efforts to expand women's choices." It seems the reason for the ruling is that Hogan wanted to join MUW in such a stereotypically female course. The court could not stomach the idea, seriously used as a defense, that more women were needed as nurses because of discrimination against women.
LEHR v. ROBERTSON, 463 U.S. 248 (1983)
The significance of the biological connection is that it offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring. If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development. If he fails to do so, the Federal Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie
The court makes it clear that fathers have no rights to their children unless they earn them. Uniquely of all these cases no comparison is made between how the law is applied to a woman in similar circumstances. Hardly surprising since the court totally throws out all their rules and basically just says that a bad father has no parental rights whatsoever. Men must earn their way to equality by conforming to the courts ideas on stereotypical male behavior. "Parental rights do not spring full-blown from the biological connection between parent and child. They require relationships more enduring" is the opinion, but this is only applied to male parents, and at that unwed male parents. This is a clear prejudice.
UNITED STATES v. VIRGINIA et al., ___ U.S. ___ (1996)
(The Citadel / VMI case)
VAWA - Some More Equal Than Others
What is the nature of feminism? Feminists claim it is an equality movement. I claim it is a political hate movement. Surely these two hypotheses are far enough apart that we can test to see which is the more accurate by an examination of the facts?
So here is a fact. VAWA - the Violence Against Women Act is a law which discriminates against male victims of violence by denying them equal protection. Feminists claim this discrimination is exactly the sort of thing they stand opposed to. However feminists on the whole strongly support VAWA. For example NOW does, the Ms Foundation does, the Feminist Majority does. VAWA is often described as the most siginificant step forward for feminism in the 1990's (for example by Naomi Wolf). The law was framed with the help of Catherine MacKinnon the leading feminist jurist. Andrea Dworkin said of VAWA that if the congressmen had understood what they were enacting they would never have done it.... in short feminists are not only endorsing VAWA but they are proud of it. Boastful in fact.
Yet VAWA is sexist. Not only is VAWA sexist but it is obvious and intentionally sexist. You cannot really miss the fact that VAWA treats the sexes differently (and men worse). That's the whole point. Yes the hint is in the name. You can't miss that. But its in the text of the law, the intent of the law and in the execution of the law too.
VAWA is the smoking gun which proves that feminism is no equality movement. Small wonder that feminists don't wish to discuss this. Its like O.J. saying he is bored with talking about dead bodies and knives. How do feminists deflect criticism of them as hypocrites who are pretending to want equality only as a cover for female advantage?
By trying to dismiss, laugh off, ignore or deride.
By admiting that VAWA is sexist and claiming its ok for women to be sexist against men and its good for the government to discriminate against men.
By trying to say VAWA is not sexist.
And all these at once (despite the fact that #2 and #3 are mutually contradictory!)
(link to text here)
Note to self: find out more about the "German" VAWA:
This link might not work.
In Germany another, stricter VAWA law is getting passed in parliament. As you can read, public and media tend to explicitly mention "violent fathers and husbands", violent "beating men". Thus female violence is excluded and implicitly denied. As a result men can be excluded from their own home even more easily soon.
«Strictly against thugs [male form of the word]
With a social plan the socialdemocratic-green government wants to take legal proceedings against violent dads and husbands... In addition the government wants to present a law this year simplifying to give the home of the couple to the woman in case of maltreatment and containing legal regulations for forbidding to contact, molest and approach, according to a report.» (weekly Focus 48/1999, p. 62, 64)
This is a rough translation from the original:
«Strikt gegen Schläger
Mit einem Aktionsplan will die rot-grüne Regierung gegen prügelnde Väter und Ehemänner vorgehen... Außerdem will die Bundesregierung noch in diesem Jahr ein Gesetz vorlegen, das in Mißhandlungsfällen „neben der Vereinfachten Zuweisung der Ehewohnung an die Frau auch ausdrücklich gesetzliche Regelungen für ein Kontakt-, Belästigungs- und Näherungsverbot enthält", so der Bericht.» (Focus 48/1999, S. 62, 64)
Adoption and Child Support
Some comments by Laura M Hagan
Laura is a regular poster at the usenet board soc.men, and a Californian lawyer, here commenting about California -- the supreme court has ruled states do NOT have to inform a father if a mother puts his child up for adoption, although in most cases they try to inform him at least (depending on how worth a father they judge him to be).
In practical terms, tho, it doesn't work out that way.
If Mom wants to carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption, the state does indeed look for Dad in order to give him the option to _take the child himself_. However, Dad _cannot_ simply refuse his consent to adoption and insist that _Mom_ keep the child. Dad has two choices: (1) take the baby, or (2) agree to adoption. In practical terms, when Dad takes the baby, there is rarely, rarely, rarely a CS order granted against Mom. However, if Mom wants to carry the baby to term and does NOT want to give it up for adoption, Dad has no choice and will likely be subject to a CS order. Do you see the inequity here?
Another inequity in CS orders is the difference in the way "child support" is enforced. Court orders are never entered directing a custodial parent to earn (pay) a certain amount of money, on pain of incarceration. Never. A custodial parent is free to quit her job and go on welfare, without interference from the state. An NCP with a CS order just can't do that. A CP with a high-paying career can always quit and go back to school, quit and take up nature photography, or what-the-heck-ever. That's her choice, and she is permitted to make that choice. Even if it results in her having insufficient funds to feed her child(ren), there is no judge in the world who will put her in jail _just for quitting her job._ For that matter, even if her income falls to the point where the kid is eating sporadically and wearing old and ill-fitting clothes, she won't go to jail absent a finding of _willful_ neglect. The NCP, on the other hand, must remain in the job he had when the order was entered, or take a _better_ job -- he cannot quit his high-paying and high-stress job _even for medical reasons_ such as chest pains. If he does, he will go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
This is flatly unfair.
Rape shield laws
Just some links for now.
Melanie Phillips' article from the cover of The Spectator. 10JUN00 UK edition
British government plans to make men accused of rape prove their innocence
Marc Etienne's comment:
I wanted to point out also that California Evidence Code section 1103 expressly excludes prison rape victims from rape shield protection, despite the risk of being turned up. I somehow doubt that the courts uphold that rule when it's a woman who's raped in prison. If and when I ever have time I plan to look into that. Unless someone beats me to it.
Equality law puts women first
From the Telegraph:
Just a link so far
More inequality laws proposed
Mama mia . . . law to make children take after their mothers
Women to get top EC jobs under new bias rules
Austrian husbands must do washing up - by law
Title IX - discrimination against men in Sports
How an "equality" law is used to discriminate against men
Title IX (of the 1972 Education Amendments Act) seems pretty equitable at first glance. A model of "gender-neutral" language. What could go wrong with a law worded this simply?
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance
The short answer is "plenty".
The longer answer is that this wording is far to vague to be of any use to anyone so what happens is that the government has a special group for handling the interpretation of the law. In this case its the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (or OCR). These groups are professional bureaucrats and are often heavily feminist in their thinking. They effectively dictate what the law means.
Here's what the OCR says on the matter.
The 1979 Policy Interpretation provides that as part of this determination OCR will apply the following three-part test to assess whether an institution is providing nondiscriminatory participation opportunities for individuals of both sexes:
1. Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments.
2. Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the members of that sex.
3. Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a history and continuing practice of program expansion, as described above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program
full text from OCR site
The above three part test basically says that an institution has to spend as much on women's sports as men's sports irrespective of how many male athletes or female athlete want to participate. Since usually female participation is around half that of male participation, each individual female athlete must receive about double the funding of her male counterpart. This is OCR's idea of equality, although to be fair they hotly deny it works out that way. Why? Because the original law's wording strictly prohibits exactly this sort of quota system.
Option 1, for an institution is to spend as much on women as men. When it says "enrollments" it doesn't mean enrollment in sporting programs, but enrollment in the university as a whole. All students count irrespective of complete lack of interest in sports. These days women's enrollment in universities exceeds men's despite there being more men than women in that age range. Its the proportion of women in the college that counts. Clearly this is a quota which would mandate spending double on women (if women were only half as interested in sports), and OCR admit it, but they offer two alternatives.
Option 2. doesn't add much. Colleges which aren't at the quota level yet can get out of a lawsuit if they can demonstrate they have been trying to reach the quota. Did I mention this has been law for nearly 30 years? Clearly option 2 doesn't give much but a short term excuse.
Option 3. is where the equality part is supposed to come in. Or ought to. It ought to say "Hey as long as all the athletes are treated the same you're OK!". No need for a quota if women are treated the same as men, right? OCR says no. To qualify under option 3 women must have NOT as much choice and resources as men, but as much choice and resources as they could possibly ever want! Which certainly would exceed what their male counterparts are limited to, unless the college has unlimited funding.
So now we go the the courts
Brown University vs Cohen(lengthy document from which the following quotes are taken)
This suit was initiated in response to the demotion in May 1991 of Brown's women's gymnastics and volleyball teams from university-funded varsity status to donor-funded varsity status. Contemporaneously, Brown demoted two men's teams, water polo and golf, from university-funded to donor-funded varsity status. As a consequence of these demotions, all four teams lost, not only their university funding, but most of the support and privileges that accompany university-funded varsity status at Brown.
Brown University seemed to have a pretty good case. The cuts were not biased in favor of one sex or the other. Men and women had equal opportunities in what had been considered a model of equality in sports. But equality wasn't good enough for some people. Actually its interesting to see what groups backed the suit against Brown University:
Deborah L. Brake , with whom Marcia D. Greenberger , Judith C. Appelbaum and National Women's Law Center were on brief for National Women's Law Center, American Association of University Women/AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund, American Civil Liberties Union Women's Rights Project, California Women's Law Center, Center For Women Policy Studies, Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund, Equal Rights Advocates, Feminist Majority Foundation, Girls Incorporated, National Association for Girls and Women in Sport, National Association for Women in Education, National Coalition for Sex Equity in Education, National Commission on Working Women, National Council of Administrative Women in Education, National Education Association, National Organization for Women Foundation, Now Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Softball Coaches Association, Northwest Women's Law Center, Parents for Title IX, Rhode Island Affiliate American Civil Liberties Union, Women Employed, Women's Basketball Coaches Association, Women's Law Project, Women's Legal Defense Fund, Women's Sports Foundation, and YWCA of the USA, amici curiae.
Brown University argue that the law should be interpreted to mean individual men and women should be treated equally (as opposed to the quota system demand that each sex overall should get the same resources): As the appeals court summarized in ruling against them:
Brown contends that an athletics program equally accommodates both genders and complies with Title IX if it accommodates the relative interests and abilities of its male and female students. This "relative interests" approach posits that an institution satisfies prong three of the three-part test by meeting the interests and abilities of the underrepresented gender only to the extent that it meets the interests and abilities of the overrepresented gender.
Brown maintains that the district court's decision imposes upon universities the obligation to engage in preferential treatment for women by requiring quotas in excess of women's relative interests and abilities. With respect to prong three, Brown asserts that the district court's interpretation of the word "fully" "requires universities to favor women's teams and treat them better than men's [teams]. . . . forces them to eliminate or cap men's teams. . . . [and] forces universities to impose athletic quotas in excess of relative interests and abilities."
Seems pretty reasonable to me. Actually I object to the term "statistically under-represented gender" when the point at issue is how to measure what constitutes equality. So why did the appeals court back the district court, in backing the OCR and saying equality wasn't good enough for women? That women needed more than equality as they say here:
prong three "demands not merely some accommodation, but full and effective accommodation. If there is sufficient interest and ability among members of the statistically underrepresented gender, not slaked by existing programs, an institution necessarily fails this prong of the test."
Well, for one thing there is that idea that if the executive branch of government have issued their rules of interpretation then they effectively become a precedent for interpretation of the original law, but clearly there needs to be more than that or the OCR would be free to do whatever they wanted. In particular Brown University pointed out that the original law explicitly prohibited the sort of quota system that the 3 part criteria effectively mandates. No surprise that what it came down to is the usual "patriarchal" prejudices in favor of protecting women.
It is women and not men who have historically and who continue to be underrepresented in sports, not only at Brown, but at universities nationwide. See Williams v. School Dist. of Bethlehem, Pa. , 998 F.2d 168, 175 (1993) (observing that, although Title IX and its regulations apply equally to boys and girls, "it would require blinders to ignore that the motivation for promulgation of the regulation on athletics was the historic emphasis on boys' athletic programs to the exclusion of girls' athletic programs in high schools as well as colleges")
So at base the reason the court knows that women are being unfairly treated when they only get equal treatment with men is that "everyone knows". Funny. I thought the law was meant to be blind. Instead of assuming they knew which way sexism runs before hand maybe the court should have put some blinders ON? Again the court relied on "knowing" that women were discriminated against (instead of simply not as interested in sports as men) in explaining:
According to Brown's relative interests interpretation of the equal accommodation principle, the gender-based disparity in athletics participation opportunities at Brown is due to a lack of interest on the part of its female students, rather than to discrimination, and any attempt to remedy the disparity is, by definition, an unlawful quota. This approach is entirely contrary to "Congress's unmistakably clear mandate that educational institutions not use federal monies to perpetuate gender-based discrimination," id. at 907, and makes it virtually impossible to effectuate Congress's intent to eliminate sex discrimination in intercollegiate athletics.
In effect the court ruled that legally any difference between numbers of men and numbers of women participating in sports MUST be due to discrimination and could not be due to differences in interest levels. As a result the effective quota system is endorsed and women must receive about twice the funding of men.
In the course of the trial on the merits, the district court found that, in 1993-94, there were 897 students participating in intercollegiate varsity athletics, of which 61.87% (555) were men and 38.13% (342) were women. Cohen III , 879 F. Supp. at 192. During the same period, Brown's undergraduate enrollment comprised 5,722 students, of which 48.86% (2,796) were men and 51.14% (2,926) were women
That's 20% of the men and 12% of the women participating.
See no evil
Defining male rape out of existence
The bogus statistics and outright lies that feminists produce help them to get prejudicial legislation and prejudicial court rulings. You'll often see congressmen or supreme court justices parroting feminist myths. This in turn leads to sexist enforcement of sexist laws, and discriminatory funding for advocacy "research" which is intended to give only one result -- more for women again.
When lies are accepted and repeated by the government it makes a real difference. It can easily turn an otherwise "gender neutral" law into effective discrimination for example. Here are some examples of how the government twists the figures to make sure that women are seen as victims, and male victims are ignored. There are two main sources for crime statistics which the US government publishes. Both use sex discriminatory definitions.
This is how the FBI define rape for purposes of their uniform crime reporting:
FORCIBLE RAPE DEFINITION Forcible rape, as defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Assaults or attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.
FBI web site
"According to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s definition, the victims of rape are always female" (scroll down one page from the definition to see where they admit this).
Here's how the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey defines male rape out of existence despite claiming the new wording was designed to measure rape more accurately.
The redesign of the National Crime Victimization Survey
After an extensive 10-year redesign project, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) has been revised. A redesigned questionnaire was in wide use by January 1992. One goal of the redesign was to produce more accurate reporting of incidents of rape
and sexual assault and of any kind of crimes committed by intimates or family members.
US Department of Justice
Definitions of violent crimes
Rape: Carnal knowledge through the use of force or threat of force, including attempts; attempted rape may consist of verbal threats of rape. It includes male as well as female victims.
The definition from the NCVS interviewer's manual is as follows: "Rape
is forced sexual intercourse and includes both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle."
From page 6 of the same report
So when mommy brushes little Tommy's teeth that's rape technically, but if a woman holds a gun to a man's head or threatens his children and forces him to have sex with her, or forces him to perform cunnilingus, it does NOT count as rape unless he has a vagina or she has a penis or a "bottle" to put inside his anus or mouth. Another excellent example of a so-called "gender neutral" definition.
If the same definition of rape was defined as forced "envelopment" instead of "penetration", emphasizing the female part of the sex act instead of the male, almost no rapes of women by men would be counted. The definition assumes the rapist is male and is defined accordingly. Rape should be defined as forced sex regardless of the sex of the attacker.
Amazingly, even when the rape of men by women is the target of the research this sort of bogus definition is applied. Here for example the recent (July 2000) National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey co-sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) directly claim that the survey measures the rate of male rape by their female partners.
The survey consists of telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 8,000 U.S. women and 8,000 U.S. men about their experiences as victims of various forms of violence, including
intimate partner violence. ...
link to adobe version
Most of the respondents were, of course heterosexual, meaning that references to rape of men meant rape of men by the female partners, but on page 29 the report attempts to explicitly filter out same sex relationships and reports that whereas 4.4% of women are raped by their male partners, only 0.2% of men are raped by their female partners. Despite the sex biased title, the survey clearly presents itself as a gender neutral examination of rape and other sexual crimes. Here's the definition used for rape.
For purposes of the survey, “rape” is defined as an event that occurs without the victim’s consent and involves the use of threat or force to penetrate the victim’s vagina or anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or object or the victim’s mouth by penis. The definition includes both attempted
and completed rape.
Page 5 of the report
Once again a woman forcing a man to have normal sexual relations simply doesn't count as rape. She has no penis and he has no vagina. Hardly surprising then, that the survey feels able to conclude, "Women experience more intimate partner violence than do men."
State laws that refuse to recognize male rape by women
I was hoping the above bias would not be reflected in actual rape statutes but that may turn out to be false. It looks like some state rape statutes are based on the old rape=women ideas still, and even where the more modern "sexual assault" style definitions are used female rape is sometimes defined to a lower status, but this will need some checking.
Alabama Not rape (or sodomy). Classed as a misdemeanor (sexual misconduct) although it would count as sexual abuse too, if they were not married.
AlaskaNotsexual assault in the first degree. Classed as sexual assault in the second degree.
Arizona Hard to say but this one looks like it might be fair.
Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral
| Prejudice against men |
How feminism encourages bias against men.
Child custody law
Teaches that the target group is a threat
| The Second Sex |
How feminism declares that men are inferior as human beings.
All Men Are Rapists
A new creation myth
All Men Are Rapists
Who said that?
Its a well know feminist quote, but I often see it being mis-credited. Usually by someone criticizing feminism these days. Was it Andrea Dworkin? She denies it. Catharine MacKinnon? Not quite. It comes from "The Women's Room" by Marilyn French and is spoken by a fictional character in the book,
Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relations with men, in their relations with women, all men are rapists and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, their codes.
Now admittedly that quote is representative of the book, and the book was a thinly veiled piece of feminist doctrine, and the phrase was picked up by real women of the time, and the book was the most popular selling feminist book of its time, and continues to sell well today... however a quick internet search for the phrase reveals that it is currently mostly used by critics of feminism and by feminist pages with a "not" in front. As in "not all men are rapists". Interesting that some feel this needs to be said... quite reminiscent of the way the KKK explicitly say they oppose violence...
Correction: It seems Marilyn French also used the phrase in her own voice in an interview, but I'm trying track this source down.
At any rate their seems to be some distancing from this phrase by feminists !
Nevertheless I want to use this phrase as an example of the endemic anti-male sexism within the feminist movement. Not so much the use of that precise word-for-word phrase, which seems to be graduating from a rallying cry of feminists, to be come more a rallying cry of their critics, but the presumption of the general concept of male = rapist, or "all men are potential rapists", for which it has become a symbol.
Let's begin by stating the obvious. Anyone who believes this is a bigot. 'All men are rapists' is taking one of the worst crimes recognized and saying it represents the universal nature of men. It is saying men are evil. It is also saying women are universal victims who should fear men. Both clear signs of hate. But is this hate really representative of most of feminist thought?
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan, in 1974
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference."
-- Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime"
"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)
"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated. You might think that's too broad. I'm not talking about sending all of you men to jail for that." -- Catherine MacKinnon "A Rally Against Rape" Feminism Unmodified
A new creation myth
Interpreting the bible to prove man's inhumanity to woman.
How feminism teaches men are malformed women
Uses lies including historical revisionism to spread these views
| Living with the enemy |
Spreading hatred, creating fear.
Take back the night
Profile of an abusive man
Tolerates violence towards the target group
| The lies of feminism |
Manufacturing victims and oppressors.
As feminism loudly complained about the problems facing women (while ignoring or adding to similar problems facing men) society was quick to react and step in to protect women. Society has traditionally protected women more than men -- often in a very patronizing way. Feminism built on this pro-female bias and highlighted increasingly minor issues facing women. Today feminism has no big issues left so what must it do to maintain the illusion of the oppressed woman? Manufacture myths and lies. Not to say everything is perfect for women, but whenever I challenge a feminist to name an issue facing women, invariably the reply is a fake issue based on lies and deceit.
Gender wage gap hoax
The Rule of Thumb
Gender wage gap hoax
Feminists want equal pay for women
Unfortunately they don't want equal pay for women who do equal work, they want women to be paid the same as men quite irrespective of how much longer or harder or in what profession the men work. If you think this sounds like a ridiculous way of describing "equal" pay then you'd be right, but this is what feminists have been using to claim women are paid "less" than men for decades.
National Committee on Equal Pay -- Equal Pay Day
The NCEP is the semi-official voice of feminism on the wage gap and they think its fair that if a woman works less than a man, she should still be paid the same as he is. Although if you search hard, they do admit their 72% wage gap isn't due to discrimination, its still the figure they hold up to women as "unfair"
"Hold an event at a local grocery store and illustrate what 72 cents on the dollar will buy today."
In 2001 Equal Pay Day will be on a Tuesday because,
"Tuesday is symbolic of the point into the new week that a woman must work in order to earn the wages paid to a man in the previous week. In other words, because women on average earn less, they must work longer for the same pay."
Perhaps men need to celebrate an Equal Work Day and take of Thursday and Friday to represent how little work women do compared to men --- and still demand to be paid the same?
Women lead the way in protesting the fraud
Both of these testimonies were put forward by female economists.
Testimony put before the US senate recently.
"In fact, as early as 1971, never-married women in their 30s who had worked continuously earned slightly higher incomes than their male counterparts."
Testimony before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission\
"The average wage gap is not proof of widespread discrimination, but of women making choices about their educational and professional careers in a society where the law has granted them equality of opportunity to do so"
The Equal Pay Day Sham
by Katherine Post, Director of the Center for Enterprise and Opportunity
"When one begins to account for those choices, as I reported in our 1995 study ...the wage differences disappear"
US Department of Labour Women's Bureausays,
"June O’Neill has cited a study using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth which found that among women and men 27 to 33 years old who have never had a child, women’s earnings were close to 98 percent of men’s earnings."
June O’Neill, The Shrinking Pay Gap, Wall Street Journal, October 7, 1994
Government complicity in spreading feminist deception is the norm
British EOC polls women on attitudes to the so-called wage gap -- and deceives them by suggesting their figures are comparing like with like -- equal pay for unequal work?
The White House says,
Even after controlling for differences in skills and job characteristics, women still earn less than men. While there are a variety of interpretations of this remaining "unexplained" differential, one plausible interpretation is that gender wage discrimination continues to be present in the labor market
One other plausible interpretation is that men are paid more because they work longer hours -- something the White House economists "forgot" to take into account. Oops!
The Rule of Thumb
Let's deal with the facts briefly first. Here is a new popular form of this common myth spread by feminists:
Myth 1: Woman abuse is a new social problem.
Fact: Woman abuse is not new. It has been condoned throughout history. For example, the widely used term "rule of thumb" comes from a 1767 English common law that permitted a husband to "chastise his wife with a whip or rattan no wider than his thumb." 1
1. Deborah Sinclair, Understanding Wife Assault: A Training Manual for Counsellors and Advocates (Toronto, ON: Ministry of Community and Social Services, 1985), 172
Here's what the folks at Urban Legends have to say about it all. Note that the Oxford English Dictionary claims to have found references to the phrase "rule of thumb" as early as 1692, which makes this particular feminist version of it being derived from a law 75 years latter, even less likely.
But the question I am more interested in, is not the etymology of a phrase, or even the nature of laws in pre-17th century England, but how this myth became so popular among feminists and why they chose to fabricate lies. It's difficult to see how it could be anything other than a deliberate lie when you are quoting from a nonexistent law. Again the choice of date seems arbitrary and simply set at random in the past. Obviously this fairy tale was not set long enough back. Pages like Urban Legends debunking, are not hard to find on-line with a search engine, and most famously the myth was criticized in Christina Hoff Sommers' Who Stole Feminism, so why do feminists repeat this myth so often? What has the etymology of a phrase got to do with domestic violence? What has the state of English common law a few centuries ago got to do with policy today? Why is this myth so well liked with those who hate men?
Spread the Hate
The key elements of the myth are that it was violent men attacking innocent women, and that it was the law. Violence by men, against the women they supposedly loved most, so casual as to become a by word -- a popular saying.
The Rule of Thumb myth is feminists way of expressing and propagating their view of men as the most vile and sadistic demons imaginable. They repeat this myth about men because they want to believe it is true. And they want to make others believe it too. Setting the scenario in far off ye olde England lends enough enchantment to make the claim seem credible --- after all were they not violent times for everyone? But there is no reminder of that context --- quite the opposite point is made "throughout history" men have done this goes the myth. In other words this is what men are like. The myth is told to us as if it is saying something profound about the basic relationship between men and women. Men are evil and women are victims.
even the Just a quick link/article for now.
NIH Retracts Claims of the Exclusion of Women
A man's history of feminism
Contesting the myths surrounding feminism's early years.
Herstory - Silicone Heroines
Abigail vs John Adams
The issue of the vote has become burned into the feminist psyche. Even when asked to name issues facing women in the West today many feminists name the vote and have to be reminded that women born in the 20th century always had the vote. Why is the vote still such a popular issue for feminists? And how do feminists use myths about the vote to spread their hatred of men?
Feminists present the issue of the vote as a symbol that women were oppressed by men throughout history. They say the absence of the vote was substantial discrimination and they point to "winning" the vote as a symbol of heroic women victorious against evil men. All three of these statements help to spread the feminist propaganda view of the sexes.
In fact the history of the development of voting rights shows that even early feminists themselves had little interest in the vote for women and "patriarchal" legislators often raised the issue before women's groups did. The gap between men and women gaining the vote was often a few decades and in many cases men and women gained the vote at the same time. Further back in history women often had the vote on the same basis as men --- wealth and power. But as with most of the comments on this site this essay will consider only the history of the vote in the west in relatively recent history (since 1750).
Views on the vote at the birth of feminism.
Writing in 1897 Jessie Cassidy of the the National-American woman suffrage association commented:
The first organized demand by women for political recognition was made in the United States in 1848, at the memorable Seneca Falls Convention. That suffrage should be included had not beforehand entered the minds of those who issued the call for the convention, but it was suggested during the preparation of the Declaration of Independence and incorporated in the list of grievances submitted by the committee. It came like a bombshell upon the unprepared convention, and after long discussion was passed by only a bare majority. Lucretia Mott was one of those who at that time could not see her way to support it.
read the full source at the Library of Congress on-line
Lucretia Mott, of course was the senior co-host of this convention, recognized as the "birth" of feminism (in the US at least!) If the vote was really seen as such an important issue why had these feminists not even thought about it? And when they had thought about it many were not interested in supporting it. As a report in the Seneca County Courier said,
THE FIRST CONVENTION EVER CALLED TO DISCUSS THE Civil and Political Rights of Women,
Seneca Falls, N.Y., July 19, 20, 1848
Resolved, That it is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise.
The only resolution which met opposition was the 9th, demanding the right of suffrage which, however, after a prolonged discussion was adopted. All of the meetings throughout the two days were largely attended, but this, like every step in progress, was ridiculed from Maine to Louisiana.
read the full source at the Library of Congress on-line
These men and women at the forefront of women's rights and all unanimously in favor of every other much ridiculed resolution at the convention did NOT all feel that women's vote was worth pursuing. Lack of a vote was not seen as necessarily meaning inequality for women. Women's suffrage was the least of the issues. It is not surprising that the rest of the population, both men and women, were largely against women's suffrage.
Jessie Cassidy continues to comment on the state of women's suffrage in mid-19th century Britain:
It was not still 1869 that public agitation for suffrage was begun in England. In that year John Stuart Mill presented the subject in Parliament. Considerable local franchise has been secured, and the cause of the admission of women to full parliamentary suffrage steadily gains.
read the full source at the Library of Congress on-line
In fact between 1866 and 1884 eight proposals for some sort of women's vote were put before the British parliament. This was at a time when most men could not vote in England and years before Emmiline Pankhurst, the British suffragette leader formed the Women's Franchise League in1889.
The same pattern repeats in Canada. The first attempt to give women the vote came in 1885. Was this a result of years of heroic struggle by women? The first women's group to support women's vote in Canada was the Toronto's Women's Literary League --- 1886.
Feminism becomes fixated on the vote
Interest in women's suffrage amongst feminists grew and by the1870's or so was replacing the more practical rights and privileges which had been the priority of earlier feminists. One reason for this was that legislators were very quick to listen to women's groups on these genuine issues, and they were quickly addressed. Another was that the vote was seen as a way of gaining further advances and privileges for women. Feminists mistakenly assumed women would vote en masse for their increasingly sexist ideas. This was despite the reality that women often were the biggest opponents of women's suffrage.
Victoria Woodhull became the first woman to address a congressional committee in 1871, and her subject was women's suffrage, but she had opposition:
A group of women numbering one thousand, including Catherine Beecher, General Wiliam Sherman's wife, and the wives of senators congressmen, and prominent businessmen, had signed a petition against female suffrage. They claimed to represent the majority of the women in the country in the belief that the "Holy Scripture inculcates for women a sphere higher than and apart from that of public life; because as women they find a full measure of duties, cares and responsibilities and are unwilling to bear additional burdens unsuited to their physical organization."
Notorious Victoria (p83)
By 1893 a feminist speaker would declare that,
It is often said that the chief obstacle to equal suffrage is the indifference and opposition of women, and that whenever the majority ask for the ballot they will get it.
What Women Want: The Ideas of the Movement
How long was the gap between the majority of women wanting the vote, and men handing it to them? When precisely did women "ask"? Apparently in the US, not quite by 1903, although men were almost of a majority opinion for women's suffrage.
"I am surprised beyond all things to find how many men are favorable," Harriet Taylor Upton informed a friend while campaigning for suffrage in Ohio. "Now if only stupid women would get awake and yell we might make it." But feminine silence remained smothering. As a fair belle told one ... organizer in Mississippi, "You know we women do not desire to be other than we are." From a train chugging across the "dead level prarie" of South Dakota, Anna Howard Shaw angrily wrote home to Susan Anthony that, "The women don't want the ballot...that is true here and no mistake."
The Myth of the Monstrous Male (p211)
How big was that gender "vote gap" anyway?
Ask someone if they know when women "won" the vote and there's a fair chance they will know that the 19th amendment was passed in 1920. It's easy to look this information up for many countries. But in researching this essay I've discovered how hard it is to find the same information for men. It's almost as if someone wants you to think men have always had the vote --- men have always been "the patriarchy" --- in power.
In fact for the countries where I've been able to find a source for the date at which time the majority of male citizens of a country could vote and compared it to the same date for women the date is often the same (often the country simply didn't exist until recently). For example in Britain a majority of men first had the vote after the Representation of the People Act 1918. The same act enabled the majority of women to vote too! This is hardly the tale of woe and oppressive discrimination that feminists have been using to berate men with for decades. The reality is that women's voting rights came as the result of a natural progression of democratization in Western countries. Typically the majority of women would gain the right to vote in a country a few decades after the majority of men, but as I say it is very hard to tell when men "won" the vote.
In Australia women "won" the vote in 1902. But Australia has only existed as a country since 1901. The individual states either had no voting prior to federation (in which case women "won" the right to vote a year after men) or conformed to the pattern of women gaining the vote a few decades after men.
In 1867 the British North America Act created the state of Canada and at that time most men could not vote. With the Wartime Elections Act of 1917 most women could vote for the first time (this is an estimate it might be a year or two years latter).
New Zealand proudly boasts of being the first country to give women the vote in 1893. A slightly harder date to track down is when New Zealand became a country - 1840 with the Treaty of Waitangi, but for our purposes a better date might be the first popularly elected prime minister after self-government was achieved, 1856. Did the majority of men have the vote from the countries inception?
Women in Sweden gain the vote in 1921. Look carefully. The same site says that men gained the vote in 1907. Women in Norway gain the vote in 1918. Norway had only had a parliamentary system since 1884, and was part of Sweden until 1905.
Finland counters New Zealands claims by saying in 1906 Finnish women could not only vote but also stand for election -- the first in the world. But what about the men? A recognizable country since 1809 and an independent state since 1917, Finland had its first real parliament in 1863. But when did the majority of men have a vote?
As for the USA it seems to have one of the worst gaps of all (hard to tell but I suspect France might be the worst 1848-1944). Even though many states had given women the vote by 1920 most were the smaller, newer Western states --- states where the ratio of men to women was often high because of immigration. Women had high status in the West. Trying to guess when the majority of men first had the vote is a lot harder. Black men, native American men, men between 18 and 21, and men living in territories not states could not vote before 1870. This census data for 1870 excludes most territories from consideration unfortunately. I'd have to guess a slight majority of male Americans could vote in federal elections by 1869 -- just prior to the 15th amendment. Most states in America eliminated other restrictions such as wealth or religion by around 1820-1840 which would make the USA gap a huge 80-100 years. Ironic for a country known for its record on women's liberties in the 19th century.
Right to vote expanded as a gradual process
Of course the reason for the large gap in the US was an early democratic tradition there. In other words it wasn't that women were given the vote late, but that men were given it early. 100 years must be gauged against a process which started, in the English tradition, as far back as Magna Carta 1215, or even earlier.
In addition whereas giving the poor or the Catholic or the ex-slave a vote was seen as vital to political representation of an entire cultural group, votes for women, (and later votes for 18-20 year olds) were more an expansion of the tendency of government to deal with individuals directly instead of through family groups. Individualism rather than justice. !8-20 year olds received the vote around 1960-70 (depending on country) but obviously this late date is not an indication of how oppressed that group of people were.
These differences were considerations for would-be reformers.
The strongest advocate of women's rights was the libertarian William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879), editor of the Liberator, who insisted that antislavery was a battle for human rights, not male rights. Many of the abolitionists who opposed Garrison on this agreed that women were self-owners but resisted mixing woman's rights with antislavery for fear it would hurt the latter cause; Theodore Weld exemplified this position. Through his encouragement, Angelina Grimke, Sarah Grimke, and Abbie Kelley became the first women in America to do lecture tours before audiences that included men. Nevertheless, he admonished them to stop introducing woman's rights into their speeches.
"Is it not forgetting the great and dreadful wrongs of the slave," he asked Angelina, "in a selfish crusade against some paltry grievances of our own?"
Read the entire essay by feminist Wendy McElroy on-line
But feminist hyperbole and rhetoric insisted that their condition was indeed fully as a horrific as actually slavery. And if it came down to basic human rights for blacks or an essentially symbolic (though deserved) right for women, feminist leaders Stanton and Anthony soon became racists.
The Fifteenth Amendment assured that the right to vote could not be abridged because of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was objectionable to feminists because it made no reference to sex.
Male abolitionists almost universally rejected women's claim to suffrage, insisting that this was not the time to stress women's rights. "As Abraham Lincoln said, 'one war at a time," counseled Wendell Phillips, "so I say one question at a time. This hour belongs to the negro."
Feeling betrayed, Stanton and Anthony repudiated the Republican Party, thus breaking with many of their abolitionist friends. They began to court the traditionally pro-slavery Democrats and to associate with the prominent racist George Francis Train, who lectured with them and financed the initial issue of their periodical Revolution; its motto was "Men, their rights, nothing more; Women, their rights, nothing less."
Stanton and Anthony's activities split mainstream feminism in two. To the sharp criticism of their racist connections, Anthony replied, "Why should we not accept all in favor of woman suffrage to our platform and association even though they be rabid pro-slavery Democrats."
Read the entire essay by feminist Wendy McElroy on-line
Gender based voting patterns today
Today of course women vote more often than men, both in absolute numbers and by proportion (this is true overall but especially so the younger the age group - in older age groups men vote more often). Part of this may be to do with the remaining restrictions that apply to voting such as residency --- many US citizens are denied a vote because they have move into a new state recently --- but the difference by age seems to suggest that increasingly men are feeling that the political process just doesn't represent them any more.
The difference in gender registration and turn out shows a trend over the last 20-30 years with men steadily voting less and less. Incidentally even though the percent differences are small (around 2%) the result is highly significant --- these figures are not a poll of so many thousand people (with a margin of error) but an actual head count of every US citizen who voted. 2% represents one million male voters.
Herstory - Silicone Heroines
Ada Lovelace - first computer programmer?
Ask any feminist about history and you get the standard reply. Its all about men and talented women were unfairly ignored by male patriarchal historians and blah blah blah.... This always amuses me because in trying to research any details about history I invariably find that its easy to find a page about women, but there's almost never an equivalent page about men.
For example try a quick search on AltaVista for "women's history". You are given a choice of six different subsections to look under, and the search term returns so many hits it is truncated as "about 100000". There's the national Women's History Project, Women's History Month and a huge number of excellent sites to choose from. Now try searching for "Men's history". No subsections to choose from. About 300 hits and they all seem to be sporting events.
Ah say the feminists, that's because all history is about men. Well famous men anyway. Ordinary men, like ordinary women, don't get featured, and ordinary men don't have a month where their history is examined. History, especially pop-history, is not about men, but about exceptional people who made big waves, and most of them were male of course. Why of course?
The feminist claim behind "herstory" is that many women were just as talented as the men, but patriarchal sexism wrote them out of the history books unfairly, and feminists have put them back in! One good example is Ada Lovelace who is credited with being the world's first programmer for her notes on Babbage's Analytical Engine.
Are the claims true? Or has Ada been "artificially enhanced", a silicone heroine?
It is often suggested that Ada was the world's first programmer. This is nonsense: Babbage was, if programmer is the right term. After Babbage came a mathematical assistant of his, Babbage's eldest son, Herschel, and possibly Babbage's two younger sons. Ada was probably the fourth, fifth or six person to write the programmes. Moreover all she did was rework some calculations Babbage had carried out years earlier. Ada's calculations were student exercises. Ada Lovelace figures in the history of the Calculating Engines as Babbage's interpretress, his `fairy lady'. As such her achievement was remarkable.
Dr Anthony Hyman,Exeter University,The Babbage Pages
Here's a more sympathetic version of events from her biographer
When this book went to press, I decided to check out the rumors that are responsible for creating a new myth-- that Ada was an incompetent mathematician and did not write the Notes. Some scholars said there were previous programs to the table of instructions for the Bernoulli numbers, now considered the first program. At the Science Museum in London I found previous unpublished programs, but comparing them to Ada's table of instructions for Bernoulli numbers is like comparing arithmetic to calculus.
Betty Alexandra Toole, Ada: The Enchantress of Numbers
But these opposing views are closer than they seem; both agree that if the description by Ada of the way the engine could be used (if it had ever been built) to calculate Bernoulli numbers, constitutes a computer program, then others had been there before her, most obviously Babbage himself of course.
But computers also need software. Whilst a schoolboy at Totnes, Babbage had begun to think about a universal language of signs. By 1826 he had derived the Mechanical Notation. This provided the initial basis upon which the Engine could be instructed to perform a wide variety of different analyses. A number of colleagues assisted Babbage in further developing some of the ideas and methods that would have given a proper computer language. The best known of these is Lady Ada Lovelace, after whom the computer language ADA is named. How much pioneering work Ada actually did is debatable. Probably Babbage deserves the title of the world's first computer programmer - an epithet usually applied to Ada
Ada made a lot of contributions, especially for her clarity of vision, and is (IMO) a far more interesting figure than Babbage, but her work, like many in history, can't easily be described in a sound bite. Not the first programmer, but something else. Do we really want to communicate to women, that even someone like Ada needs a feminist affirmative action program to be considered famous?
Women in history
A lot of people are brilliant, insightful but don't quite make it to the number one slot. Both men and women. The truth is if you are in the number two slot you need something to make you more memorable, or history will pass you over. Being a woman, often the only woman, makes you more not less likely to be remembered.
Abigail vs John Adams
Feminism and Patriarchy face off, or rewriting history?
Abigail Adams is now famous on a thousand feminist sites (and many not so feminist sites) as the earliest US feminist, for her tongue lashing at patriarchal chauvinist-pig and husband John Adams (founding father and 2nd US president). In fact the phrase "remember the ladies" is popularly used among the hundreds of feminist pseudo-history sites. For example at feminist.com their women's history coloumn takes its name from this quote by Abigail, and their presentation is pretty standard.
In 1776, Abigail Adams penned a letter to her husband, congressman John Adams, asking him to please “remember the ladies” in the “new code of laws.” She wrote, “I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands.Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could.” John Adams’ answer was that he could not help but laugh at her “saucy” letter.. What he did not realize was that his wife had become the first in a long line of American women to assert her desire for women’s rights. The words of Abigail Adams would echo through American history, a rallying cry for other activists who believed in the equality of the sexes.
Pop-history becomes sex war propaganda. Was Abigail really asking for equal rights for women? Were Abigail and John really poles apart politically? Was she really a feminist heroine facing down her chauvinist husband? The feminist reinterpretation makes the couple's exchange into a miniature morality play. Big bad uncaring and evil man vs the bravely independant and freedom loving woman. Just the sort of propaganda a feminist movement wishing to stereotype and vilify men would seek to create.
In fact, there are no indications in the Adams papers that Abigail disapproved of the existing hierarchy within marriage. Thus Abigail did not request the equality of women in the "Remember the Ladies" letter, but asked only for a husband's discretion regarding his power
Jennifer Shingleton, The Concord Review
Abigail and John's political views were considered so close that in some cases her views on, for example Shay's rebellion, are taken as a good indication of his views.
Abigail Adams' letters are important because they demonstrate, as Jefferson said, "the weight which her [A.Adams] opinions had with him [J.Adams]." As Abigail Adams influenced John Adams, we can deduce that her correspondence generally represented Adams' opinions. Her letters of the pre-revolutionary period of the 1790s to Mercy Warren and John Adams, revealed a lively discussion of contemporary political issues. The Adams's, over time, formed a dark impression of the civil disorders in western Massachusetts Indeed, John Adams' later writings regularly used the Shayites as an example of seditious and low behavior
John Adams: the Pragmatic Idealist, Alexius Wierbinski
If anything it seems to be John who brings up the idea that women might be treated as equals, perhaps because it was just this sort of question that he was considering at the time. He goes on to use women's suffrage as an example in a letter to James Sullivan the next month as he talks about the principles of representation and who ought to be able to vote:
It is certain in Theory, that the only moral Foundation of Government is the Consent of the People, But to what an Extent Shall We carry this Principle? Shall We Say, that every Individual of the Community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly to every Act of Legislation? No, you will Say. This is impossible. How then does the Right arise in the Majority to govern the Minority, against their Will? Whence arises the Right of the Men to govern Women, without their Consent? Whence the Right of the old to bind the Young, without theirs.
Letter to James Sullivan,John Adams, 26 May 1776
John Adams was against the vote for men with no property because he believed that such men would be too easily swayed by their landlord to vote however he instructed them to (in fact this is the way it usually did work out when the vote became more universal). This was especially likely because ballots were not secret and poor men even into the 20th century were often pressurised to vote a certain way.
The Same Reasoning, which will induce you to admit all Men, who have no Property, to vote, with those who have, for those Laws, which affect the Person will prove that you ought to admit Women and Children: for generally Speaking, Women and Children, have as good Judgment, and as independent Minds as those Men who are wholly destitute of Property these last being to all Intents and Purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, cloath, and employ them, as Women are upon their Husbands, or Children on their Parents
Same source as above
Within this context John's reply to Abigail a month earlier, that women are already the one's in control should not be seen as entirely serious.
Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Altho they are in full Force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would compleatly subject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight. . .
| Feminism and violence |
How feminism endorses violence against men.
Is 10% too much?
Valarie Solanas was a disturbed and mentally ill woman who wrote a lively piece about hating and killing all the men in the world and called upon other women to join her in the "Society for Cutting Up Men" or SCUM. The piece itself is a snapshot of the breezy sexual hatred that typified the radical feminist groups of the time. If Solanas had not gone a step further and actually shot Andy Warhol in 1967 it would have remained unknown.
But Valarie certainly had her 15 minutes of fame for putting into practice what might have sounded like hyperbole. What was the reaction within the feminist movement to her shooting? What is the attitude in the movement today towards this advocate of gender genocide?
It's hard to think of a comparable case with a man seriously endorsing the death of women. So hypothetically let's say OJ Simpson were to write an angst-filled tract labeled "How to Keep your Woman" in which he claimed that women were animals useful for nothing but sex, who ought to be beaten into submission, or murdered if they got out of hand. What do you think the reaction would be?
Well here is what happened to Valarie. She had two recognized leaders within the women's movement supporting her at her trial. Florynce Kennedy represented her and called her "one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement." Ti-Grace Atkinson (the New York chapter president of NOW) said she was "the first outstanding champion of women's rights." The manifesto was included in a published anthology of important feminist works and continues to be recognized as a serious contribution towards feminist thought.
The SCUM manifesto is easy to find on line and is one of the common links on feminist web sites. Here is a copy held on-line at Sweet Briar College in a collection called "Gifts of Speech - Women's thoughts from around the world". The manifesto can be found on many sites and is freely available. Despite this, and the fact that it is over 30 years old, it is one of the highest ranked sales at Amazon among feminism / women's issues and gets many positive reviews. It is frequently suggested reading in colleges and universities for women's studies courses.
This is equality!?
SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Men's Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves, men who, regardless of their motives, do good, men who are playing pall with SCUM.
.... to aid men in this endeavor SCUM will conduct Turd Sessions, at which every male present will give a speech beginning with the sentence: `I am a turd, a lowly abject turd', then proceed to list all the ways in which he is. His reward for doing so will be the opportunity to fraternize after the session for a whole, solid hour with the SCUM who will be present.
What does it say about feminism that the reaction to a deranged loony and an attempted murderer's juvenile scatological rambling is to hold it up as serious political commentary? Put it another way -- how bigoted and violent would a view have to be for it to be rejected by feminism, if one which explicitly calls for the murder of all men, and is written by an attempted murderer is not rejected?
I am not trying to claim feminists literally agree with the SCUM manifesto. I am merely trying to show that feminism is entirely accepting of the SCUM manifesto as a contribution towards feminism. I hope most feminists would treat the call for genocide as an expression of contempt for men, rather than as a serious suggestion. But its amazing how many feminist comments seem to take it at face value:
I recently read Valarie Solanas' SCUM manifesto, and although her main claim to fame would be the attempt on Warhols life, I was turned on by her ideas . They were way out there and even though they seem to contradict each other at times they pack a punch. I love it but maybe i'm just into her style of writing. Can't say I'm much of a politcal type, i'm in my own groove and people could screw what they want, but i was interested in knowing if her Society for Cutting Up Men ever materialized. And any opinions on Solanas' ideas or similar ones by others. I don't mean just ANY woman who had an anti capitolist idea. I mean women(or fags) who wanna stick to the MAN in a really no holds barred way etc... thats what i'm into what can i say. guys are idiots includding myself(valerie has put a spell on me).
Is 10% too much?
Sally Miller Gearhart's comments that men ought to be reduced to 10% of the human population. Here Mary Daly applauds the idea.
WIE: Which brings us to another question I wanted to ask you. Sally Miller Gearhart, in her article "The Future—If There Is One—Is Female" writes: "At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we were to create and preserve a less violent world. 1) Every culture must begin to affirm the female future. 2) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. 3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race." What do you think about this statement?
MD: I think it’s not a bad idea at all. If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore.
| Andrea Dworkin |
A lot of original work by Andrea Dworkin is available on-line at the Andrea Dworkin Online Library, run by Nikki Craft.
Dworkin argues that sex and rape are the same thing in her short essay, The Lie
Men believe the pornography, in which the women always want it. Men believe the pornography, in which women resist and say no only so that men will force them and use more and more force and more and more brutality. To this day, men believe the pornography and men do not believe the women who say no.
In The Night and Danger sherepeats the usual line that men use rape to collectively oppress and hold down women.
For a woman to walk on the street at night is not only to risk abuse, but also--according to the values of male domination--to ask for it. ..... A woman out in the night, not on a leash, is thought to be a slut or an uppity bitch who does not know her place. The policemen of the night--rapists and other prowling men--have the right to enforce the laws of the night: to stalk the female and to punish her.
She makes the a direct comparison between romance by men and rape & violence by men,
This is the essence of so-called romance, which is rape embellished with meaningful looks.
Night is the time of romance. Men, like their adored vampires, go a-courting. Men, like vampires, hunt. Night licenses so-called romance and romance boils down to rape: forced entry into the domicile which is sometimes the home, always the body and what some call the soul.
She does explicitly say all men are rapists in an indirect way while co-opting therace issue to attack men,
The black male, in the South hunted at night to be castrated and/or lynched, becomes in the racist United States the carrier of danger, the carrier of rape. The use of a racially despised type of male as a scapegoat, a symbolic figure embodying the sexuality of all men, is a common male-supremacist strategy. .... And so, among the women, night is the time of sex and also of race: racial exploitation and sexual exploitation are fused, indivisible. Night and black: sex and race: the black men are blamed for what all men do;
Quote:The good news
Not only men abusive: 'breakthrough' ruling
Poll: Feminism out of favor -- and the more so with women
The first male "Chick-flick"?