Ron Paul, the Republican Party, and the Feminist Movement

[EnragedMaldivians]

I love feminism?

Well, yes. Of course I do. Because of feminism I can do crazy things like vote, go to university, get a job....

What I meant was The Feminist Movement Today insofar as it exists.

Which is still advocating that women and men are equal, and is still pointing out instances of where gender inequality exists. Their approach is to unequivocally insist that my sister should have the exact same rights and opportunities that I do, and they are completely right to do so.

[Nadkor]

I love feminism?

Well, yes. Of course I do. Because of feminism I can do crazy things like vote, go to university, get a job....

What I meant was The Feminist Movement Today insofar as it exists.

A movement that has at it's core the basic idea that I should have the same rights, responsibilities, and opportunities as my brother?

Yes, of course I love feminism.

[Nadkor]

I should point out after that coincidence that EnragedMaldivians is not my brother.

[Tsaraine]

What I meant was The Feminist Movement Today insofar as it exists.

Which is still advocating that women and men are equal, and is still pointing out instances of where gender inequality exists. Their approach is to unequivocally insist that my sister should have the exact same rights and opportunities that I do, and they are completely right to do so.

I think this is where you and TJ disagree; from what I've read of his threads previously, he'd claim that the feminist movement claims to support gender equality, but ignores or refuses to engage* with issues of gender inequality which negatively affect men; and that furthermore the feminist movement is happy to be silent where issues negatively affect men positively affect women; and that they're thus not a movement for gender equality but a movement to advance the interests of women.***

(Feel free to correct me if I got that wrong, TJ).

* This point I feel has some validity, since (in my own purely anecdotal experience) some feminists will rage at you if you try to bring up issues of gender equality negatively affecting men. They even have a term for it - "BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ?!" - as if it were a logical fallacy. Certainly it's probably something they encounter a lot, and certainly it could easily serve to derail discussion of gender issues negatively affecting women, if such a discussion is underway - but to use it to entirely shut down discussion of gender issues negatively affecting men does reinforce the impression that the feminist in question** is more interested in the promotion of women's interests than true egalitarianism.

** Unlike TJ, I hesitate to use the term "the feminist movement" because it seems as monolithic and non-existent a thing as "The Patriarchy". There's no unified feminist bloc insidiously plotting to manipulate society.

*** Personally I'd think that this is fine; I don't disagree with the existence of movements or organizations which exist to advance the causes of dairy farmers, or teachers, or Christians (even though I may disagree with them on specific issues). But the feminist-"movement"-as-a-thing-which-is-only-interested-in-women - insofar as it may exist - is not something which I am hugely interested in; not only could such a movement never address issues pertaining to me, but it falls short of the egalitarianism I attempt to express.

[Forsher]

What I meant was The Feminist Movement Today insofar as it exists.

Which is still advocating that women and men are equal, and is still pointing out instances of where gender inequality exists. Their approach is to unequivocally insist that my sister should have the exact same rights and opportunities that I do, and they are completely right to do so.

When I say its approach I refer to how it goes about looking at extant inequalities. That's the only issue I have with feminism... as I have already said. (Okay, to be honest, I also don't like the trouble defining it.)

What I meant was The Feminist Movement Today insofar as it exists.

A movement that has at it's core the basic idea that I should have the same rights, responsibilities, and opportunities as my brother?

Yes, of course I love feminism.

Yes, that.

And to demonstrate that I have not changed what I've been saying, merely clarifying, the thread I mentioned.

I should point out after that coincidence that EnragedMaldivians is not my brother.

How would you know for sure? Previous history? Maybe I don't know very much at all about my brother but if he were to start posting here I'd have no idea at all. (Although, if I encountered his nation frequently enough I might get suspicious.)

[Forsher]

** Unlike TJ, I hesitate to use the term "the feminist movement" because it seems as monolithic and non-existent a thing as "The Patriarchy". There's no unified feminist bloc insidiously plotting to manipulate society.

I must respectfully disagree.

I have uncovered their dastardly plot to employ a moon based castration ray.

And this thread already tells us that Bottle is a big thing in feminist circles so it must be true.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Which is still advocating that women and men are equal, and is still pointing out instances of where gender inequality exists. Their approach is to unequivocally insist that my sister should have the exact same rights and opportunities that I do, and they are completely right to do so.

When I say its approach I refer to how it goes about looking at extant inequalities. That's the only issue I have with feminism... as I have already said. (Okay, to be honest, I also don't like the trouble defining it.)

A movement that has at it's core the basic idea that I should have the same rights, responsibilities, and opportunities as my brother?

Yes, of course I love feminism.

Yes, that.

And to demonstrate that I have not changed what I've been saying, merely clarifying, the thread I mentioned.

I should point out after that coincidence that EnragedMaldivians is not my brother.

How would you know for sure? Previous history? Maybe I don't know very much at all about my brother but if he were to start posting here I'd have no idea at all. (Although, if I encountered his nation frequently enough I might get suspicious.)

She's from Ireland. I am from the Maldive islands. We're not related.

And I have no idea what your response to me meant.

[Forsher]

When I say its approach I refer to how it goes about looking at extant inequalities. That's the only issue I have with feminism... as I have already said. (Okay, to be honest, I also don't like the trouble defining it.)



Yes, that.

And to demonstrate that I have not changed what I've been saying, merely clarifying, the thread I mentioned.



How would you know for sure? Previous history? Maybe I don't know very much at all about my brother but if he were to start posting here I'd have no idea at all. (Although, if I encountered his nation frequently enough I might get suspicious.)

She's from Ireland. I am from the Maldive islands. We're not related.

And I have no idea what your response to me meant.

Basically, as far as I am concerned, feminism does see as many inequalities as it coulod because it looks at equality from a female perspective. (The existence of "feminist theory" strengthens this belief.)

Note, it's Northern Ireland. Which is my point, you would have to have a familiarity with the stated poster's history. (Also, apologies to EnragedMaldivians for earlier inserting a space into the name.)

[EnragedMaldivians]

Basically, as far as I am concerned, feminism does see as many inequalities as it coulod because it looks at equality from a female perspective. (The existence of "feminist theory" strengthens this belief.)

Women bear the brunt of sexist discourse and institutions, and therefore women merit primacy in the struggle for gender equality. Hence feminism works fine as a gender equality movement.

Note, it's Northern Ireland. Which is my point, you would have to have a familiarity with the stated poster's history. (Also, apologies to EnragedMaldivians for earlier inserting a space into the name.)

You can leave a space or not, it doesn't really matter.

Has anyone told you your posts are incredibly random and weird at times?

[Tsaraine]

Basically, as far as I am concerned, feminism does see as many inequalities as it coulod because it looks at equality from a female perspective. (The existence of "feminist theory" strengthens this belief.)

Women bear the brunt of sexist discourse and institutions, and therefore women merit primacy in the struggle for gender equality. Hence feminism works fine as a gender equality movement.

Note, it's Northern Ireland. Which is my point, you would have to have a familiarity with the stated poster's history. (Also, apologies to EnragedMaldivians for earlier inserting a space into the name.)

You can leave a space or not, it doesn't really matter.

Has anyone told you your posts are incredibly random and weird at times?

"Issues negatively affecting men don't matter, because issues negatively affecting women are worse" is not a sentiment I can get behind. Can't we just work to ameliorate or resolve issues negatively affecting people of whatever gender? "First we solve women's problems, then we move on to men's problems" seems ... erroneous as a strategy.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Women bear the brunt of sexist discourse and institutions, and therefore women merit primacy in the struggle for gender equality. Hence feminism works fine as a gender equality movement.



You can leave a space or not, it doesn't really matter.

Has anyone told you your posts are incredibly random and weird at times?

"Issues negatively affecting men don't matter, because issues negatively affecting women are worse" is not a sentiment I can get behind. Can't we just work to ameliorate or resolve issues negatively affecting people of whatever gender? "First we solve women's problems, then we move on to men's problems" seems ... erroneous as a strategy.

I don't necessarily think that is the sentiment being expressed. I think the sentiment being expressed is that "equalism, gender equity for all!" is unhelpful when one gender is significantly more negatively impacted (in primarily social aspects, there are few outright discriminatory practices enshrined in American law that I'm aware of, outside the whole abortion/healthcare thing) than the other. In effect, you can't focus all your resources on everyone because in order to truly combat inequality, you have to focus your time and resources on where they are most needed. The problems that men and women face are not equal in size, and so shouldn't be treated equally. That doesn't make the problems men face not significant problems that have to be overcome, but it does mean that you do need to make sure you're spending the proper amount of time and money on each issue.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Women bear the brunt of sexist discourse and institutions, and therefore women merit primacy in the struggle for gender equality. Hence feminism works fine as a gender equality movement.



You can leave a space or not, it doesn't really matter.

Has anyone told you your posts are incredibly random and weird at times?

"Issues negatively affecting men don't matter, because issues negatively affecting women are worse" is not a sentiment I can get behind. Can't we just work to ameliorate or resolve issues negatively affecting people of whatever gender? "First we solve women's problems, then we move on to men's problems" seems ... erroneous as a strategy.

Saying that women currently disproportionately suffer from sexism compared to men and that it is understandable that a gender equality movement would give primacy to women, and hence that feminism works as a gender equality movement and term - is nowhere near the same thing as saying that it doesn't matter when men are negatively effected by social notions of mandatory gender roles.

[Mistelemr]

I typically consider myself a feminist (Though I am a man) and tend to support their causes. Of course there will be radical elements, as there are with all organizations, but it isn't fair to characterize an entire movement by the radical fringe it contains.

Now, personally I am a communist, and thus have no place in "defending" the Republicans, but I would argue that the Republicans aren't the ones with the largest influx of white nationalists. If you look and compare statistics and demographics it becomes fairly easy to see that the Tea Party is actually the one with the most racist tendencies, and the highest percentage of White people by race, as compared to anything short of a white nationalist group.

Back to the Feminism. I agree with the OP that Misandrists are not something to be tolerated, and any feminist that does tolerate them is just as bad as a communist that tolerates Stalin or Mao, or worse yet Kim Jong Ill. The fault however, is not to be placed on the organization however, but on that misguided individual. Of course men have been afflicted in some ways which women haven't, or still don't have to suffer (Such as if you need financial aid to go to college in the states, as a girl it's a gimme, as a guy, you get to sign-up for the draft. You can't tell me that isn't hurting men when that means we will be twice as likely to be drafted than if the case was otherwise) but that doesn't mean that equality for them has been achieved. Sure we are closer now than we have probably ever been, but there is still a gap to close, and until women earn a dollar in the workplace for every dollar a man earns, until women can do as they please to the extent that a man would also be allowed, we need the feminists around to throw out misogynistic old men.

[Nailed to the Perch]

Women bear the brunt of sexist discourse and institutions, and therefore women merit primacy in the struggle for gender equality. Hence feminism works fine as a gender equality movement.



You can leave a space or not, it doesn't really matter.

Has anyone told you your posts are incredibly random and weird at times?

"Issues negatively affecting men don't matter, because issues negatively affecting women are worse" is not a sentiment I can get behind. Can't we just work to ameliorate or resolve issues negatively affecting people of whatever gender? "First we solve women's problems, then we move on to men's problems" seems ... erroneous as a strategy.

It's called triage. You focus more energy and resources on bigger problems. The alternative in which we pretend that it's EXACTLY as urgent to treat the guy with the broken arm as the guy with the fifteen gunshot wounds seems far sillier to me.

(Also, I have literally never heard a feminist argue that issues affecting men "don't matter," and I spend a whole lot of time in feminist spaces. I absolutely acknowledge that - to stick with the ER metaphor - society often breaks men's arms, and that broken arms freaking suck and should be dealt with. It's just, you know, there's the other half of humanity over here with these gunshot wounds, and I'm probably going to focus more of my energy on them, especially since where the metaphor breaks down is that helping treat the gunshot wounds will, in and of itself, also help with the broken arms of the world. Most of the problems that disproportionately affect men are direct results of misogynist attitudes, and taking down those root causes helps everybody.)

[Frisivisia]

Wah wah, all the feminists are oppressing me and men's rights, boo hoo, men are teh repressed-est evar.

[Nadkor]

Women bear the brunt of sexist discourse and institutions, and therefore women merit primacy in the struggle for gender equality. Hence feminism works fine as a gender equality movement.



You can leave a space or not, it doesn't really matter.

Has anyone told you your posts are incredibly random and weird at times?

"Issues negatively affecting men don't matter, because issues negatively affecting women are worse" is not a sentiment I can get behind. Can't we just work to ameliorate or resolve issues negatively affecting people of whatever gender? "First we solve women's problems, then we move on to men's problems" seems ... erroneous as a strategy.

"I get that you have problems and I'll support you whenever I can, but right now my house is burning down and I don't really feel like abandoning that to help you extinguish your bonfire"

Or, to put it another way, everyone has shit and it's nice to try and help people fight that shit when you can, but we're kind of too busy dealing with our own shit to come and sort yours out for you.

[Forsher]

Basically, as far as I am concerned, feminism does see as many inequalities as it coulod because it looks at equality from a female perspective. (The existence of "feminist theory" strengthens this belief.)

Women bear the brunt of sexist discourse and institutions, and therefore women merit primacy in the struggle for gender equality. Hence feminism works fine as a gender equality movement.

The result that we'd expect here is that the vast majority of what a gender equality movement does is to address problems of women. However, this is also what you see if a movement were to focus solely on women, and ignore men altogether (which, I feel is unintentional here and simply a consequence of how feminism came to be where it is today).

Note, it's Northern Ireland. Which is my point, you would have to have a familiarity with the stated poster's history. (Also, apologies to EnragedMaldivians for earlier inserting a space into the name.)

You can leave a space or not, it doesn't really matter.

Has anyone told you your posts are incredibly random and weird at times?

You, no-one else that I remember.

[Forsher]

"Issues negatively affecting men don't matter, because issues negatively affecting women are worse" is not a sentiment I can get behind. Can't we just work to ameliorate or resolve issues negatively affecting people of whatever gender? "First we solve women's problems, then we move on to men's problems" seems ... erroneous as a strategy.

"I get that you have problems and I'll support you whenever I can, but right now my house is burning down and I don't really feel like abandoning that to help you extinguish your bonfire"

Or, to put it another way, everyone has shit and it's nice to try and help people fight that shit when you can, but we're kind of too busy dealing with our own shit to come and sort yours out for you.

And there's the flaw.

It's not men and women (sounds a bit like Voldemort's speech at the end of the first film to me, possibly something to work on), it's people and why some people have not got the same rights as others.

[The Steel Magnolia]

"I get that you have problems and I'll support you whenever I can, but right now my house is burning down and I don't really feel like abandoning that to help you extinguish your bonfire"

Or, to put it another way, everyone has shit and it's nice to try and help people fight that shit when you can, but we're kind of too busy dealing with our own shit to come and sort yours out for you.

And there's the flaw.

It's not men and women (sounds a bit like Voldemort's speech at the end of the first film to me, possibly something to work on), it's people and why some people have not got the same rights as others.

Except... it is men and women, since it's discrimination and prejudice on those grounds. So.

You can't combat discrimination targeted towards social groups without acknowledging those very social groups.

[Nadkor]

And there's the flaw.

It's not men and women (sounds a bit like Voldemort's speech at the end of the first film to me, possibly something to work on), it's people and why some people have not got the same rights as others.

Except... it is men and women, since it's discrimination and prejudice on those grounds. So.

You can't combat discrimination targeted towards social groups without acknowledging those very social groups.

This is pretty much exactly what I'd typed when I hit "preview" and saw that this has been posted.

So I'll just go with that reply.

[Forsher]

And there's the flaw.

It's not men and women (sounds a bit like Voldemort's speech at the end of the first film to me, possibly something to work on), it's people and why some people have not got the same rights as others.

Except... it is men and women, since it's discrimination and prejudice on those grounds. So.

You can't combat discrimination targeted towards social groups without acknowledging those very social groups.

No.

There are big issues like suffrage and then there are small ones like "Bathrooms: to neutral or not?" That's how you decide where attention goes, not based on the fact that (and these are imaginary examples) men don't have suffrage but that's their only problem whereas oppressive bathrooms are one of many female issues and therefore that's the one we'll look at (or, at least, before the lack of male suffrage).

For those that are confused, men can vote and as far as I am concerned segregated bathrooms are a non-issue.

[Freelanderness]

I don't hate men, and I see people as equal.

Now fucking crucify me, please, because I choose the title of feminist.

and while we're at it, warren whatshisface was a complete [insult]. If you're going to be holding him up as the victim of the terrible feminist movement, it's probably for other reasons.

EDIT: I almost apologise for the tone, but this is like the umpteenth time we've gone over this issue, and you've yet to present a new perspective on it.

[Freelanderness]

Wah wah, all the feminists are oppressing me and men's rights, boo hoo, men are teh repressed-est evar.

Check your slave privilege. so much satire it isn't measurable

[I Want to Smash Them All]

The Republican Party has a major problem on this hands. It begins with "Ron" and ends with "-ormfront.org."

In what started as a slow trickle with Strom Thurmond, Nixon's Southern Strategy, Jesse Helms, and Ronald Reagan's Southern Strategy, the Republican Party courted conservative Southern Democrats. It was politically expedient. Some would argue it was necessary for the continued survival of the Republican party; some would argue it was an inevitability following the Roosevelt-Roosevelt chain - Teddy pulled much of the Progressive wing out of the Republican party, and Franklin Deleno firmly planted a Progressive stamp on the Democratic party, and that left the Republicans with too narrow of a base of support to continue without reaching out to social conservatives.

But it happened. The Republicans positioned themselves in a political position where they became attractive to white nationalists; and ever since then, the national Republican party has had to police itself aggressively in order to prevent infiltration of the party machinery by white nationalists.

Five years ago, they faced another challenge: Ron Paul was running for president. Which he has continued to do pretty much to the present day, with a short vacation - three months at a time - during the gaps between the party convention and the general election. And Ron Paul's campaigns, with his background, his dog whistles, and his youth appeal at a time when Republicans desperately need to connect to the next generation, have provided a conduit for white nationalists into the party machinery. I would argue that the Republicans are by and large failing to police themselves; and are in great danger of being in service to white nationalists the way they have been in service to evangelicals.

A passionate minority coming to a larger group that struggles with having as many volunteers as they'd like, and struggles at reaching the larger population as well as they'd like to can come to exercise a disproportionate amount of power.

I've come to realize that the organized feminist movement - feminist lobbying groups, internet feminists, "professional feminists" who make their money producing feminist media for consumption, et cetera - has been having much the same problem. To be feminist does not and never has required that you hate men, or view women as superior to men.

But if you're misandrist, feminism is attractive, for the same reasons that the Republican party is attractive to white nationalists: They may not be fond of your real agenda, but they can advance policies in your interests. They have ideas you like.

Really? Is there no issue, no subject you cannot twist into yet another thread about your "revelations" about the evil of feminism?

Regardless, every significant movement attracts a fringe. It is often actually quiet healthy to a movement in numerous ways. Radical ideas sometimes reveal themselves overtime to be more sound than originally thought. Strategically, a Malcolm X make change suggested by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., more palatable, etc. The key is to what degree unhealthy and nasty ideas permeate or infiltrate a movement or an organization. We agree this has been and is a problem in the Republican Party. We obviously disagree about whether this is the case with feminism and feminist groups.

On the organizational level, feminist groups work for women's perceived interests - and only for women's perceived interests.

Bull-fucking-shit. That neither has been true or is true. Most of the issues you usually bitch and moan about "on behalf of men" were pioneered by feminist groups and feminist groups by any reasonable standard are still fighting on those fronts. Unlike men's rights/father's rights groups that have had little or no success in there crusades and almost exclusively seek "progress" at the expense of women's equality, feminists have had great success and have furthered the cause of gender equality for all.

I will not document this at length in this post. But, for example, you have often pointed to the FBI/CDC's new definition of "rape" (used for information gather and studies that, in turn, influence perceptions and policy) as sexist and blamed feminists for it. Of course, the prior definition was more sexist by far. And feminist groups and victims advocacy groups lobbied long and hard for a revision of the definition to something more gender-neutral that was adopted. They can be justly criticized for settling for and praising the new definition, but only if they are given credit both for the definition improving and for having fought for a gender-neutral definition while MRAs sat on their hands.

The FBI definition until recently was “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” It was unchanged from 1929. On several occasions, but most visibly in 2001 and again in 2010, feminist groups demanded a change to a broader definition that defined rape as "vaginal, oral, or anal intercourse or vaginal or anal penetration by a perpetrator using an object or body part without freely and affirmatively given consent." The Women's Law Project spearheaded this campaign that was supported by 91 feminist organizations, sexual assault organizations, and victims advocacy groups -- including the National Organization for Women, Ms. Magazine, the Feminist Majority Foundation, and the National Women's Political Caucus. The organized grassroots campaigns, prompted and testified at Congressional Hearings, convinced law enforcement groups to support the campaign, etc. Among the many reasons repeatedly given for the need to change the definition were that the old one did not recognize the rape of men and the definition should be gender-neutral. See, e.g., WLP Letter to FBI (2001) Concerning UCR Rape Definition (9p pdf).

One last thing on the subject of feminists only fighting for women's interests. I have seen you discuss this before and you often provide a very clever and twisted analysis to any example. If advocacy by a feminist group or groups on behalf of a man or men's rights conceivably could benefit women or children, you say it was not really a fight for the interests of men. Of course, this not only treats gender equality as a zero-sum game, but also excludes any action that does not 100% harm the interests of women from meeting your test. (This is similar, but worse, than the philosophical discussions about how altruism does not exist because, if altruistic behavior makes you feel good or you consider it the right thing to do, it is really selfish.)

Feminists do criticize each other; but they have not effectively policed themselves. Possibly cannot; and even with the most extreme figures, such as Valerie Solanas, it's very difficult to effectively push forward the idea that they are not real feminists. Large numbers of feminists rallied to Solanas's defense, even as other feminists denounced her.

It is truly sad that Valerie Solanas is still the go-to villain for attacks on feminism. Nevermind that her 15 minutes was in 1968 -- more than 40 years ago. Nevermind that Solanas rejected feminism, her works were satire, and her shooting of Warhol had nothing to do with feminism. Nevermind this all occurred in a different context of open gender inequality. The Supreme Court expressly denied that the Equal Protection Clause applied to sex or gender classifications until 1971 and, although sexism was technical illegal under the Civil Rights Act, it was never enforced against sexism until the 1970s and was not actively enforced until the 1980s. Etc., etc.

Anyhow: "Large numbers"? Prove it. Beyond Wikipedia.

"Rallied to Solanas's defense" Not really. Some feminists thought Solanas was being mistreated or (however inappropriately) considered her a victim who had finally struck out against male oppression. If you wish to prove otherwise, do so. Again, beyond Wikipedia.

And those that denounced her? How about the National Organization for Women? Can you name a major feminist organization of the time that either did not denounce Solanas or stayed silent?

And, by the way, did your hero, Warren Farrell, denounce or support Solanas? (Also, remember that Farrell, after he saw the "light" and became a MRA, actually supported Mike Tyson as having been unfairly treated when he was accused and convicted of rape.)

The only time feminists make a real effort to effectively police themselves is against dilution. The sort of policing feminism has done is against people like Warren Farrell - for trying to extend critical examination to the male gender role, and to address directly the harm done to men as men -

Totally untrue. As Forsher conveniently points out when someone wishes to defend feminism and I conveniently point out when feminism is attacked, different feminists, "types of" feminists, and feminist organizations have often disagreed bitterly over goals, tactics, etc. They do not exist as a group mind that "polices" who and who is not a feminist.

Warren Farrell is rather quite obviously an anti-feminist, however. That is not to say he is or has been completely wrong on all issues or in bringing attention to some actual problems unique to men. His "origin story" changes slightly all the time, as he is a publicity-seeking chameleon, and is often contradictory. He was undeniably associated with feminism and a part of NOW in the early 1970s. But in his various "backstories" he often claims to having realized feminism was anti-male and not really about gender equality during this same time period. Regardless, he has been openly spitting vitriol at feminism for decades. Further, he not only has attacked feminists on almost every major issue related to gender equity, but has taken positions on many issues that clearly harm men. For example, he likes to point to male victims of rape (although usually in the prison context) and intimate partner violence, but he almost never does so in support of policies that would protect such victims. To the contrary, he has opposed broadening definitions of rape, opposed laws against spousal rape or date rape, opposed laws cracking down on intimate partner violence, and opposed laws against sexual harassment. So, yeah, most feminists do not take well to his attacks and often repellent viewpoints.

and people like Sarah Palin, who disagree with key positions widely considered central to feminism by feminists [in particular, abortion rights].

Of the two, of course, it's harder to argue feminists have effectively excluded Palin from being called feminist; her right to identify herself as a feminist gets publicly defended, even as it stirs up controversy with the moment, and the defense is non-trivial even here on NSG.

However, I would assert that she exercises very little control over the feminist movement.

It is difficult to identify many issues on which Sarah Palin agrees with feminists and she vehemently disagrees with feminists on a wide range of issues. Regardless, we agree "she exercises very little control over the feminist movement." The idea it is even possible to assert otherwise is bizarre.

The same is not true of the radicals. Robin Morgan led protests in favor of Valerie Solanas; and remained influential before and afterwards, most particular being editor-in-chief of Ms. Magazine [1989-1994]. There is no degree to which someone can be misandrist - not that I have observed - without remaining in the good graces of enough prominent feminists to make you considered "not feminist." The fact that reactionaries characterize any feminist as radical has not helped; it means that the criticism appropriately applied to extremists is one which rank-and-file feminists are used to hearing applied to moderates.

Again, this is bullshit. Ever read Robin Morgan's works describing why she found Solanas's Scum Manifesto great satire or how she acknowledge Solanas's shooting of Warhol was wrong but (a) felt a guilty pleasure at a woman striking out against men and (b) demonstrated for Solanas to get fair treatment?

Similarly, given your jaundiced perspective, it is difficult to see how anyone that you wish to associate negatively with feminism is "not a feminist." Again, you seem to play a clever game. Feminism as it includes you and Warren Farrell and is a good thing means one thing. Feminism as a bad thing that includes the misandrists and extremist is another. I am not sure either "feminism" is defined or that these definitions can be reconciled. Also, neither seems to include the major feminist organizations and "rank-and-file" feminists. Very convenient.

Today, the Republican party is in grave danger of being taken over entirely by radical elements. It perhaps already has been taken over entirely by radical elements; though, arguably, in the last two election cycles, the Republicans fielded the most nearly moderate presidential candidate out of the last four left in the running. [Paul, Huckabee, Romney, and McCain; Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul].

And today, the feminist movement has a problem that few self-identified feminists seem willing to acknowledge. It is not a novel problem; not a strange problem; not a unique problem. But it is a problem nonetheless.

I will not deny there is some "problem" in that extremists and those both of us would disagree with garner attention as "feminists." This is not the same as the problem faced by the Republicans (who have become a bit radical when their platform is opposed by their Presidential nominees and their Presidential nominees take multiple positions well to the right of President Reagan and even further from Senator Goldwater). Moreover, except to the extent extremists are highlighted by those opposed to gender-equality as a weapon of fear and hatred, the "problem" of extreme feminists is trivial compared to the progress being made and still to make towards gender equity.

Which brings us to a point: demonizing feminists on a regular basis is not furthering gender equity. Opposing the Violence Against Women Act because of the title and gender-bias in some language therein (as opposed to advocating changes to gender-neutral language) is not fighting for gender equity. Vilifying the fight against sexual violence and interpersonal violence is not fighting for gender equity. Filing lawsuits that seek to stop state or federal funding of domestic violence shelters because it is allegedly biased against male victims (particularly when one is not a victim of intimate partner violence and one does not advocate for funding for gender-neutral or male shelters) is not fighting for gender equity. Need I go on or have I made my point?

[Neo Art]

Wait. Back up. Did I just see someone who said with straight face that he's not interested in feminism because its not relevant to him, and complain when feminist movements dismiss people who try to co-opt it into "shaming" it for not focusing on male issues? Bitching that feminism ISNT ABOUT THE MANZ while complaining that feminists don't take seriously those who bitch that feminism ISNT ALL ABOUT THE MANZ?

And the irony escapes?

Oh nsg. Never fucking change.

Because with these kinds of folks in charge, you never ever will.