Do you consider yourself to be a feminist, and why?

[Mizrah]

"Perhaps I would have been a feminist as the term was understood 50+ years ago in the West, and perhaps I still am a feminist by that understanding vis-a-vis many countries in Africa, the middle east, central Asia etc.

It is one thing to advocate rights such as equal freedom, equal suffrage etc."

Seems like we don't know how to read.

Then you really should go learn it. It's nice.

I consider myself to be an 'anti-feminist'.

You might want to look up what anti-feminism is all about.

I know what anti feminism is about. I am anti feminist. Tothemax implies that he supports equal rights and suffrage.

[Meryuma]

Yes, because there's still a long way to come in terms of gender equality.

[The Truth and Light]

Yes, I appreciate any movement for equality when it comes to human rights.

[Gravlen]

Then you really should go learn it. It's nice.


You might want to look up what anti-feminism is all about.

I know what anti feminism is about. I am anti feminist. Tothemax implies that he supports equal rights and suffrage.

Yes, I noticed that Tothemax6 implied that he wasn't an anti-feminist while saying he was.

So, why are you opposed to female equality then? Do you care to explain why women should not be allowed into the public sphere, shouldn't be allowed to vote, and why they shouldn't have control of their bodies? You know, what anti-feminism is all about.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Well it doesn't help at all the feminist cause that some women cry rape after having had drunken sex and then say they need feminism so people would acknowledge this.

Alcohol is not consent.

What if both partners were drunk? Is it 'consentless' sex, and what would happen?

[Vecherd]

I believe in equality between the sexes, which a lot of feminists do. I would not call myself one though.

[Tahar Joblis]

I know what anti feminism is about. I am anti feminist. Tothemax implies that he supports equal rights and suffrage.

Yes, I noticed that Tothemax6 implied that he wasn't an anti-feminist while saying he was.

So, why are you opposed to female equality then? Do you care to explain why women should not be allowed into the public sphere, shouldn't be allowed to vote, and why they shouldn't have control of their bodies? You know, what anti-feminism is all about.

Anti-feminism would be defined, very literally, by opposition to the feminist movement.

Historical context, therefore, is important in describing what positions are anti-feminist. Women's suffrage has not been a hot topic for decades. Modern opposition feminism can and has come from avowed egalitarians who are in favor of universal suffrage, equal rights under the law, and abortion remaining legal. You may not believe their avowals, but there you have it.

There is no question that Paul Elam is anti-feminist. He is vigorously opposed to the feminist movement. He is nevertheless not interested in being anti-abortion, mouthing the same "personally opposed" line that every Catholic Democratic Congresscritter has been mouthing, while his website hosts numerous articles calling for men to have legal relinquishment of parental obligations [or "paper abortions" to use the popular terminology] - extending, rather than restricting, reproductive rights.

His website objects to the fact that women don't participate in the hazardous portions of the public sphere while men do. Often in couching this in terms of a blunt challenge to women to step up to the plate. Objects to laws written to favor women; to legal discrimination between the sexes, in other words, rather than against it.

If we judge Elam by his website, he is actively anti-feminist; but the form of his activism is not anti-abortion activism, not anti-suffrage activism, and not advocating the exit of women from the public sphere. He is indeed loud and angry; but a loud and angry man castigating feminism need not be opposed to suffrage, abortion, or women in the workplace.

You do not understand anti-feminism, because you do not understand what it is that the feminist movement is presently engaged in outside of a defense of the status quo; and refuse to acknowledge a number of the realities present within that status quo.

[Gravlen]

Yes, I noticed that Tothemax6 implied that he wasn't an anti-feminist while saying he was.

So, why are you opposed to female equality then? Do you care to explain why women should not be allowed into the public sphere, shouldn't be allowed to vote, and why they shouldn't have control of their bodies? You know, what anti-feminism is all about.

Anti-feminism would be defined, very literally, by opposition to the feminist movement.

Historical context, therefore, is important in describing what positions are anti-feminist. Women's suffrage has not been a hot topic for decades. Modern opposition feminism can and has come from avowed egalitarians who are in favor of universal suffrage, equal rights under the law, and abortion remaining legal.

There is no question that Paul Elam is anti-feminist. He is vigorously opposed to the feminist movement. He is nevertheless not interested in being anti-abortion, mouthing the same "personally opposed" line that every Catholic Democratic Congresscritter has been mouthing, while his website hosts numerous articles calling for men to have legal relinquishment of parental obligations [or "paper abortions" to use the popular terminology] - extending, rather than restricting, reproductive rights.

His website objects to the fact that women don't participate in the hazardous portions of the public sphere while men do. Often in couching this in terms of a blunt challenge to women to step up to the plate. Objects to laws written to favor women; to legal discrimination between the sexes, in other words, rather than against it.

If we judge Elam by his website, he is actively anti-feminist; but the form of his activism is not anti-abortion activism, not anti-suffrage activism, and not advocating the exit of women from the public sphere. He is indeed loud and angry; but a loud and angry man castigating feminism need not be opposed to suffrage, abortion, or women in the workplace.

You do not understand anti-feminism, because you do not understand what it is that the feminist movement is presently engaged in outside of a defense of the status quo; and refuse to acknowledge a number of the realities present within that status quo.

Sure I do. The feminist movement is presently engaged in "stirring up hatred towards men; no matter what the true situation is", as well as a "relentless criminalisation of male sexuality by feminists". But not to worry, the anti-feminists know that " 'equality' between men and women can never be achieved" and are ready for "the coming civil war between MRAs and manginas over feminist sex law", willing to fight the "feminist state" though deadly activism.

[Tahar Joblis]

Sure I do. The feminist movement is presently engaged in "stirring up hatred towards men; no matter what the true situation is", as well as a "relentless criminalisation of male sexuality by feminists". But not to worry, the anti-feminists know that " 'equality' between men and women can never be achieved" and are ready for "the coming civil war between MRAs and manginas over feminist sex law", willing to fight the "feminist state" though deadly activism.

Notice the complete lack of "abortion," "women's suffrage," and "housewife" in that agenda?

Yeah.

That's not to say that you can't be an anti-feminist who thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote, should stay and be good hooswifs, and that abortion should be illegal. A lot of very conservative women are willing to express that opinion, and presumably, a larger number of very conservative men than are willing to express that opinion hold it; but "anti-feminist" doesn't tell you much about someone.

Paul Elam can be described as anti-feminist; so can Michelle Bachmann.

For that matter, I have been described as anti-feminist [and feminist] at times here on NSG, with an entirely straight face.

It's even worse than jumping to specific policy positions when someone describes themselves as feminist, because a movement will generally be closer to ideological coherence than the sum total of its opponents.

Seriously. I can usually expect that a self-described feminist will be pro-choice, but even then, there's Sarah Palin and her ilk. I can usually expect that a Republican is conservative, and be pretty accurate with few exceptions; but if I generalize to anti-Republicans, that flies out the window. Someone who is anti-Republican might also be conservative; or moderate; they needn't be liberal.

[Gravlen]

Sure I do. The feminist movement is presently engaged in "stirring up hatred towards men; no matter what the true situation is", as well as a "relentless criminalisation of male sexuality by feminists". But not to worry, the anti-feminists know that " 'equality' between men and women can never be achieved" and are ready for "the coming civil war between MRAs and manginas over feminist sex law", willing to fight the "feminist state" though deadly activism.

Notice the complete lack of "abortion," "women's suffrage," and "housewife" in that agenda?

Yeah.

Remember how feminism at its core was about equality, voting rights, and the right to bodily sovereignty?

Yeah.

[Cosmopoles]

There is no question that Paul Elam is anti-feminist. He is vigorously opposed to the feminist movement. He is nevertheless not interested in being anti-abortion, mouthing the same "personally opposed" line that every Catholic Democratic Congresscritter has been mouthing, while his website hosts numerous articles calling for men to have legal relinquishment of parental obligations [or "paper abortions" to use the popular terminology] - extending, rather than restricting, reproductive rights.

I believe you're confusing the extension of reproductive rights with the right to completely absolve yourself of your responsibilities towards a living person that you created, which is a right that doesn't actually exist.

[Faolinn]

There is no bad side to being a feminist.It just means you demand that men and women be treated equally.

[Galloism]

There is no question that Paul Elam is anti-feminist. He is vigorously opposed to the feminist movement. He is nevertheless not interested in being anti-abortion, mouthing the same "personally opposed" line that every Catholic Democratic Congresscritter has been mouthing, while his website hosts numerous articles calling for men to have legal relinquishment of parental obligations [or "paper abortions" to use the popular terminology] - extending, rather than restricting, reproductive rights.

I believe you're confusing the extension of reproductive rights with the right to completely absolve yourself of your responsibilities towards a living person that you created, which is a right that doesn't actually exist.

Except for pretty much all women in the United States except those in prison at the time they give birth, yeah. It's a right that doesn't exist, except for them.

[Cosmopoles]

Except for pretty much all women in the United States except those in prison at the time they give birth, yeah.

Really? I wasn't aware that women had the right to a paper abortion.

[Galloism]

Except for pretty much all women in the United States except those in prison at the time they give birth, yeah.

Really? I wasn't aware that women had the right to a paper abortion.

They have the right to exercise a paper abortion for themselves and the child's father, at the same time, no questions asked.

And, in most states, the father can't appeal it.

[Cosmopoles]

Really? I wasn't aware that women had the right to a paper abortion.

They have the right to exercise a paper abortion for themselves and the child's father, at the same time, no questions asked.

And, in most states, the father can't appeal it.

Source?

[Forsher]

Notice the complete lack of "abortion," "women's suffrage," and "housewife" in that agenda?

Yeah.

Remember how feminism at its core was about equality, voting rights, and the right to bodily sovereignty?

Yeah.

Was, I guess that means that feminism has now got some completely different ideas. If I believe you, then that is indeed the case.

Feminism comes in three distinct waves. One definition provided by Smash was told it excluded all but today's feminism from such and wasn't actually attended to by Smash.

[Galloism]

They have the right to exercise a paper abortion for themselves and the child's father, at the same time, no questions asked.

And, in most states, the father can't appeal it.

Source?

https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm

Approximately 20 States have procedures in place for a parent to reclaim the infant, usually within a specified time period and before any petition to terminate parental rights has been granted.22 Five States also have provisions for a nonrelinquishing father to petition for custody of the child.23 In 16 States and Puerto Rico, the act of surrendering an infant to a safe haven is presumed to be a relinquishment of parental rights to the child, and no further parental consent is required for the child's adoption.

Only five states, out of 50, have procedures where a non-relinquishing father can petition for custody of that child.

[Galborg]

I am a Man; I want Liberty and Justice for All. Therefore, I am a Feminist.

Some Feminists demand more than Equality. Ifn you start with asking for 50%, you end up compromising with 10 %. If you start your haggling by demanding 100%, you have a chance of getting 50% = Equality.

[Forsher]

I am a Man; I want Liberty and Justice for All. Therefore, I am a Feminist.

Some Feminists demand more than Equality. Ifn you start with asking for 50%, you end up compromising with 10 %. If you start your haggling by demanding 100%, you have a chance of getting 50% = Equality.

That's not how equality works.

If you have equal rights with someone you have 100% of the rights they have.

Even if it was the way rights work, you'd be wrong because there aren't even numbers of men and women. Among younger people, I believe it leans males and for older people it does lean female.

The workforce, in NZ, is mostly male despite there being more eligible women (I'll have to check that bit after despite, bear with). Which really demonstrates that.

[Tahar Joblis]

Notice the complete lack of "abortion," "women's suffrage," and "housewife" in that agenda?

Yeah.

Remember how feminism at its core was about equality, voting rights, and the right to bodily sovereignty?

Yeah.

Interesting choice of tense.

Current items on front page of NOW's website:

• Fiscal cliff [editorial slant: preserve funding for programs that benefit women, now!]
• Gay marriage
• VAWA
• Fiscal cliff [editorial slant: this is a plot to remove funding from programs that benefit women!]
• Amicus brief filed on behalf of a woman who failed to prove her ex-husband was abusive, which husband managed to end up with sole custody after a protracted legal fight. [Editorial slant: Because abuse is a thing that men do, not women, and false accusations never happen.]
• DC legal autonomy [editorial slant: protect abortion rights in DC]
• Yay for victories for women and gay marriage in the last election cycle! [editorial slant: yay!]
• Yay for victories for women and gay marriage in the last election cycle! [editorial slant: suck it, repubs!]
• Child marriage &c. abroad.
• ZOMG fathers are winning custody! [editorial slant: more fathers winning custody means more abusers winning custody because fathers are abusive.]
• Anti-abortion terrorism [editorial slant: this is a bad thing and major pressing issue]

Eleven items. The only items related to equal rights in the developed world are the ones related to gay marriage - not actually about equal rights for women, just a strong established movement lending its allied support to a cause it feels is worth supporting; then there's a quick commentary on the plight of women abroad, which focuses on child marriage, education, and health care access above everything else [oddly, failing to mention issues of suffrage]. There's a fair chunk about abortion. There's nothing about defending voting rights. And the clear majority are about divorce, domestic violence, and defending ways in which the government privileges women [programs specifically benefiting women, laws specifically protecting women, taking the side of women in divorce court, et cetera].

The energy of the feminist movement is not focused on attaining equality in law, or in extending or maintaining voting rights. It is focused on trying to remedy everything which is perceived as a problem for women. The few areas in which women do not actually have equal or superior legal rights [serving in combat roles being the only such that I can think of off the top of my head] are not areas in which the feminist movement is particularly energetic.

If all feminism fought for was abortion rights, gay marriage, and equality, you would not see me complain; but sometimes, feminism is seen fighting against equality and on behalf of legally disparate treatment of men and women, and this is problematic.

[Cosmopoles]

Source?

https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm

Approximately 20 States have procedures in place for a parent to reclaim the infant, usually within a specified time period and before any petition to terminate parental rights has been granted.22 Five States also have provisions for a nonrelinquishing father to petition for custody of the child.23 In 16 States and Puerto Rico, the act of surrendering an infant to a safe haven is presumed to be a relinquishment of parental rights to the child, and no further parental consent is required for the child's adoption.

Only five states, out of 50, have procedures where a non-relinquishing father can petition for custody of that child.

According to that article, only four states require the mother to relinquish the child, meaning that in the other 46 states the father has as much right to do this as the mother. And in all four states the father has the right to challenge the adoption according to the same website.

[Galloism]

https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm



Only five states, out of 50, have procedures where a non-relinquishing father can petition for custody of that child.

According to that article, only four states require the mother to relinquish the child, meaning that in the other 46 states the father has as much right to do this as the mother. And in all four states the father has the right to challenge the adoption according to the same website.

But, in the case of unmarried couples, mothers receive default custody after birth. There's also no requirement for the mother to identify or acknowledge the father. Paternity may, in the cases of uncooperative mothers, require a protracted legal battle to establish.

Thus, even though, de jure, either parent may relinquish, de facto, in most cases, only the mother has the access and ability to, unless the mother gives the father access to first.

[New Edom]

Where are these egalitarian feminists? I only seem to hear about them when someone complains about radical feminism--which appears to be the dominant voice of feminism. I have yet to find or see a discussion of gender issues that wasn't completely hijacked either by the MRM or radical feminists completely. I am not asking this out of mere cynicism; I'm genuinely curious because when I say to the egalitarian feminist: where are the discussions? I tend to get no answer, and I've looked. I have yet to see the entirely of bell hooks work Feminism is for Everybody actually discussed anywhere online for example. I have never seen a discussion of sexual consent where it didn't amount to the equivalent of the sheep bleating in Animal Farm, and have never seen any discussion honestly done by any feminists other than say Wendy McElroy or bell hooks (who seem to go unanswered by feminists at large) on the subject of women as abusers.

If there are links to discussion groups, forums or anything else I'd be interested in seeing it. Otherwise I remain skeptical.

[Cosmopoles]

According to that article, only four states require the mother to relinquish the child, meaning that in the other 46 states the father has as much right to do this as the mother. And in all four states the father has the right to challenge the adoption according to the same website.

But, in the case of unmarried couples, mothers receive default custody after birth. There's also no requirement for the mother to identify or acknowledge the father. Paternity may, in the cases of uncooperative mothers, require a protracted legal battle to establish.

Thus, even though, de jure, either parent may relinquish, de facto, in most cases, only the mother has the access and ability to, unless the mother gives the father access to first.

And what is wrong with that, exactly? Shouldn't a man be established as the child's father before he has the right to abandon it at a shelter?