The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Mattopilos II]

Yeah, I trust RationalWiki as far as I can throw it, and you can't throw a website.
And yes, they can; they only criticize one branch of feminism and leave the others untouched, while attacking all of the MRM as a conglomerate. They're only unbiased when the topic has nothing to do with social issues and is nonpartisan.
Basically, I see them as leftist Conservapedia, but less fun to read.

Sorry if I ranted a little there, RW is a touchy topic for me.

I actually don't mind RW. What I do mind are people who think taking one specific part of it and claiming "This is what they meant!" and using that as an ENTIRE ARGUMENT. Even I know that what RW was saying there was more "There are those that would rather fit under this banner, and can be seen as not actually aiming for neutrality", NOT "All egalitarians are MRAs and anti-feminists!". It is Chess conflating the term "Egalitarian" with the so-called movement that is named the same thing.

[Giovenith]

Yeah, I trust RationalWiki as far as I can throw it, and you can't throw a website.
And yes, they can; they only criticize one branch of feminism and leave the others untouched, while attacking all of the MRM as a conglomerate. They're only unbiased when the topic has nothing to do with social issues and is nonpartisan.
Basically, I see them as leftist Conservapedia, but less fun to read.

Sorry if I ranted a little there, RW is a touchy topic for me.

I actually don't mind RW. What I do mind are people who think taking one specific part of it and claiming "This is what they meant!" and using that as an ENTIRE ARGUMENT. Even I know that what RW was saying there was more "There are those that would rather fit under this banner, and can be seen as not actually aiming for neutrality", NOT "All egalitarians are MRAs and anti-feminists!". It is Chess conflating the term "Egalitarian" with the so-called movement that is named the same thing.

I'm of the opinion that if you need your own personal wiki to host your political and social beliefs, you're not very trustworthy. Even as someone whose opinions generally fall in line with RationalWiki's, I still recognize for what it is: Conservapedia's left-leaning counterpart, just less honest about it. If the people there were really about demonstrable realities, as true rationality is, then they wouldn't need a personal wiki, they'd just use Wikipedia. "Facts" that can't withstand an objectivity and neutrality-screening process and instead need a special, protected environment to be toted aren't "facts" you want to be turning to.

That's not to say that either of the two sites aren't ever right about anything, but a randie's personal blog can be right about a lot of things too, that doesn't mean you get to point to it and praise it as proof of your viewpoints' validity.

So yeah, I really don't give a shit what the circlejerk that is RationalWiki's opinions on feminism or egalitarianism are, no more than I care about someone's blog or Reddit posts. Try again, Chess.

[Tahar Joblis]

1. Attitude of women towards certain jobs deemed more 'flexible' or 'feminine' - covers part of the gap from job choices:

Women don't actually work jobs with more flexibility. Flexibility positively correlates with higher income.

First, I recommend you link directly to a PDF rather than a copy on Scribd.

Second, the relationship is actually more complex than just correlating with higher income; part-time workers have a lot of flexibility in hours and days worked, and that study acknowledges it as a major effect.

Which in turn is a major piece of the direct causal chain related to the career path differences between men and women. Women earn less primarily because women work part-time more often. Part-time workers have a lot more control over which days or hours they work, which is a major form of workplace flexibility.

Third, it really depends on how you measure it. There are multiple factors you could describe as involving workplace flexibility.

In terms of the data that study actually adds to the conversation, the largest difference that study measured in terms of access to workplace flexibility, after controlling for other factors, was that women are more likely to have paid sick leave (+4.1%), which it then dismissed as probably due to women being more likely to be aware of sick leave rather than actually happening.

But that's after controlling for other factors, namely including job choices. The raw figures say women have more access to flexible days and statistically indistinguishable access to flexible hours, with less paid sick time and vacation time - which in both cases mostly has to do with the fact that women work part-time much more often.

Working part-time is the ultimate sacrifice of career advancement for flexible time. Working part-time is the main factor driving women having lower earnings. There's a direct causal chain here. Many women work part-time in order to have schedules that are flexible or, more specifically, that align with the schedules of their other commitments. For example, take a married couple who go from 2 full-time jobs (80 hours) to 1.5 jobs (60 hours) after having kids: If the full-time job they're keeping is a 9-5 weekday job, then kid management could be a lot easier to do if the one working part-time gets a weekend job (because then Mr. / Ms. 9-5 is around when Mr. / Ms. Weekends is off working).

Another blip in the data to consider - those women who don't work part-time are disproportionately likely to work for the government, which is inflexible but grants sick days. Teachers are a good example. Teaching jobs have, on paper, very limited flexibility when it comes to the hours worked and days worked (which leads to a subsector of substitute teachers).

I bet few teachers answered the survey saying they had flexibility in hours worked and days worked. They probably also weren't thinking about grading or prep work, which are significant chunks of time but not usually done on a fixed schedule. I'm sitting here with a stack of grading right now. Even though I don't have to show up to work until Monday morning, and even though my showing up Monday morning is a very inflexible requirement, I'm going to have done 10+ hours of work over the weekend that simply isn't on any schedule. If I had to do all of my grading and prep work on someone else's schedule, though, that would be a lot less flexible.

They also probably answer the survey saying they don't have paid vacation... although they typically have the summer off of work... and the time that teachers aren't at work lines up, not coincidentally, with the time that kids old enough to go to school aren't at school and thus may require occasional parental supervision.

[Ostroeuropa]

Recently, Russia shifted toward community service and fines for domestic violence offenders and removed prison sentences longer than 15 days as an option except in egregious cases or ones that occur more frequently.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 75421.html

(Oh look, a picture of a woman victim and a man yada yada.)

While the western media hit the fucking roof over this, and many people used it as an example of Russia advancing an anti-woman agenda, i'd argue that's clearly nonsense when you look at the facts on the ground surrounding this change.

Reports of domestic violence have more than doubled in Russia’s fourth largest city since the Government reduced the punishment for spousal or child abuse from a criminal to a civil one.

Oh, oh hey, can I do it now? Cool. *clears throat*
No shit.

Yeh, this was entirely forseeable to anyone who actually knows shit about domestic violence situations and isn't just an ideologue imo. I'd wager a big reason people don't come forward is lack of desire to see criminal consequences befall their spouse. Reporting someone you know to the authorities is difficult at the best of times, let alone your lover.

The problem is, in the west, our dialogue surrounding the issue is entirely focused on vilification of men instead of, you know, fixing domestic violence. So the notion of increasing detection rates just led to people flipping out.

The law reduced the punishment for attacks that result in “minor injuries” such as bruises or cuts from two years to 15 days in prison along as they do not happen more than once a year, sparking outrage from human rights groups around the world.

I bet they did.


As a result of this, detection rates have doubled. I think it's clear we need to bring this in here.

[Galloism]

Recently, Russia shifted toward community service and fines for domestic violence offenders and removed prison sentences longer than 15 days as an option except in egregious cases or ones that occur more frequently.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 75421.html

(Oh look, a picture of a woman victim and a man yada yada.)

While the western media hit the fucking roof over this, and many people used it as an example of Russia advancing an anti-woman agenda, i'd argue that's clearly nonsense when you look at the facts on the ground surrounding this change.

Reports of domestic violence have more than doubled in Russia’s fourth largest city since the Government reduced the punishment for spousal or child abuse from a criminal to a civil one.

Oh, oh hey, can I do it now? Cool. *clears throat*
No shit.

Yeh, this was entirely forseeable to anyone who actually knows shit about domestic violence situations and isn't just an ideologue imo. I'd wager a big reason people don't come forward is lack of desire to see criminal consequences befall their spouse. Reporting someone you know to the authorities is difficult at the best of times, let alone your lover.

The problem is, in the west, our dialogue surrounding the issue is entirely focused on vilification of men instead of, you know, fixing domestic violence. So the notion of increasing detection rates just led to people flipping out.

The law reduced the punishment for attacks that result in “minor injuries” such as bruises or cuts from two years to 15 days in prison along as they do not happen more than once a year, sparking outrage from human rights groups around the world.

I bet they did.


As a result of this, detection rates have doubled. I think it's clear we need to bring this in here.

You've got a little bit of interpretive bias there.

It could be that detection rates doubled, or it could be that incident rates doubled or, more likely, something in between.

[Ostroeuropa]

Recently, Russia shifted toward community service and fines for domestic violence offenders and removed prison sentences longer than 15 days as an option except in egregious cases or ones that occur more frequently.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 75421.html

(Oh look, a picture of a woman victim and a man yada yada.)

While the western media hit the fucking roof over this, and many people used it as an example of Russia advancing an anti-woman agenda, i'd argue that's clearly nonsense when you look at the facts on the ground surrounding this change.



Oh, oh hey, can I do it now? Cool. *clears throat*
No shit.

Yeh, this was entirely forseeable to anyone who actually knows shit about domestic violence situations and isn't just an ideologue imo. I'd wager a big reason people don't come forward is lack of desire to see criminal consequences befall their spouse. Reporting someone you know to the authorities is difficult at the best of times, let alone your lover.

The problem is, in the west, our dialogue surrounding the issue is entirely focused on vilification of men instead of, you know, fixing domestic violence. So the notion of increasing detection rates just led to people flipping out.



I bet they did.


As a result of this, detection rates have doubled. I think it's clear we need to bring this in here.

You've got a little bit of interpretive bias there.

It could be that detection rates doubled, or it could be that incident rates doubled or, more likely, something in between.

I find it ridiculous to believe that the only thing keeping people beating their spouses was the law. The real test will be in fatality rates in a few years. I'd wager higher early detection will lead to breaking a cycle of escalation, and more opportunities for rehabilitation.

[Galloism]

I find it ridiculous to believe that the only thing keeping people beating their spouses was the law.

Really? You think the threat of punishment for illegal behavior doesn't deter said behavior?

The real test will be in fatality rates in a few years. I'd wager higher early detection will lead to breaking a cycle of escalation, and more opportunities for rehabilitation.

Yeah. That is true.

[Ostroeuropa]

I find it ridiculous to believe that the only thing keeping people beating their spouses was the law.

Really? You think the threat of punishment for illegal behavior doesn't deter said behavior?

The real test will be in fatality rates in a few years. I'd wager higher early detection will lead to breaking a cycle of escalation, and more opportunities for rehabilitation.

Yeah. That is true.

In terms of deterrence, chance of capture usually factors into criminals decisions more than harsh punishment, or so it's often argued.
Reducing punishments in cases like this actually could raise chance of capture.

I also think that many abusers convince themselves they are morally justified (or at least, slap a thin coat of paint over their conscience and try to ignore it.), and so the threat of punishment doesn't resonate as it should

[Philjia]

Recently, Russia shifted toward community service and fines for domestic violence offenders and removed prison sentences longer than 15 days as an option except in egregious cases or ones that occur more frequently.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 75421.html

(Oh look, a picture of a woman victim and a man yada yada.)

While the western media hit the fucking roof over this, and many people used it as an example of Russia advancing an anti-woman agenda, i'd argue that's clearly nonsense when you look at the facts on the ground surrounding this change.



Oh, oh hey, can I do it now? Cool. *clears throat*
No shit.

Yeh, this was entirely forseeable to anyone who actually knows shit about domestic violence situations and isn't just an ideologue imo. I'd wager a big reason people don't come forward is lack of desire to see criminal consequences befall their spouse. Reporting someone you know to the authorities is difficult at the best of times, let alone your lover.

The problem is, in the west, our dialogue surrounding the issue is entirely focused on vilification of men instead of, you know, fixing domestic violence. So the notion of increasing detection rates just led to people flipping out.



I bet they did.


As a result of this, detection rates have doubled. I think it's clear we need to bring this in here.

You've got a little bit of interpretive bias there.

It could be that detection rates doubled, or it could be that incident rates doubled or, more likely, something in between.

Or with the sudden decrease in complexity and severity of cases allowed Russia's finest to stop looking the other way,

[Mattopilos II]

I find it ridiculous to believe that the only thing keeping people beating their spouses was the law. The real test will be in fatality rates in a few years. I'd wager higher early detection will lead to breaking a cycle of escalation, and more opportunities for rehabilitation.

I do agree with this. Moving from a threat of punishment to more a rehabilitation system seems swell. One, it would allow higher detection of the crime for the reasons stated above (less chance of hiding it out of fear of punishment), and it also means a magnifying glass can be placed over education on domestic violence.

[Jello Biafra]

In terms of the data that study actually adds to the conversation, the largest difference that study measured in terms of access to workplace flexibility, after controlling for other factors, was that women are more likely to have paid sick leave (+4.1%), which it then dismissed as probably due to women being more likely to be aware of sick leave rather than actually happening.

But that's after controlling for other factors, namely including job choices. The raw figures say women have more access to flexible days and statistically indistinguishable access to flexible hours, with less paid sick time and vacation time - which in both cases mostly has to do with the fact that women work part-time much more often.

Working part-time is the ultimate sacrifice of career advancement for flexible time. Working part-time is the main factor driving women having lower earnings. There's a direct causal chain here. Many women work part-time in order to have schedules that are flexible or, more specifically, that align with the schedules of their other commitments. For example, take a married couple who go from 2 full-time jobs (80 hours) to 1.5 jobs (60 hours) after having kids: If the full-time job they're keeping is a 9-5 weekday job, then kid management could be a lot easier to do if the one working part-time gets a weekend job (because then Mr. / Ms. 9-5 is around when Mr. / Ms. Weekends is off working).

Sure, but this means that the fact that more women work part-time explains why more women have access to flexible days; if women did not work part-time more often, the advantage that women have would shrink and perhaps disappear, meaning men would have more flexibility in all five measures used by the study.

Another blip in the data to consider - those women who don't work part-time are disproportionately likely to work for the government, which is inflexible but grants sick days. Teachers are a good example. Teaching jobs have, on paper, very limited flexibility when it comes to the hours worked and days worked (which leads to a subsector of substitute teachers).

I bet few teachers answered the survey saying they had flexibility in hours worked and days worked. They probably also weren't thinking about grading or prep work, which are significant chunks of time but not usually done on a fixed schedule. I'm sitting here with a stack of grading right now. Even though I don't have to show up to work until Monday morning, and even though my showing up Monday morning is a very inflexible requirement, I'm going to have done 10+ hours of work over the weekend that simply isn't on any schedule. If I had to do all of my grading and prep work on someone else's schedule, though, that would be a lot less flexible.

They also probably answer the survey saying they don't have paid vacation... although they typically have the summer off of work... and the time that teachers aren't at work lines up, not coincidentally, with the time that kids old enough to go to school aren't at school and thus may require occasional parental supervision.

There are probably other sectors of the workforce where this is also true; workers having flexibility in tasks to do at times when they aren't scheduled by their boss to be at work. How do you think the study could have accounted for these workers?

[Giovenith]

An Australian Christian lobby has been trying to argue that the elimination of the "gay panic" defense (a defense which says that murder can be justified as self-defense if the killer thought that the victim was a gay person coming onto them) would be discriminatory against women and say that people are allowed to grope them.

It's not a feminist group specifically, and somehow I doubt that this group particularly cares about women's rights when they can't use it as an angle, but it's certainly interesting.

[Mattopilos II]

An Australian Christian lobby has been trying to argue that the elimination of the "gay panic" defense (a defense which says that murder can be justified as self-defense if the killer thought that the victim was a gay person coming onto them) would be discriminatory against women and say that people are allowed to grope them.

It's not a feminist group specifically, and somehow I doubt that this group particularly cares about women's rights when they can't use it as an angle, but it's certainly interesting.

It sounds like the "But think of the children!" except for gender.

[New Edom]

An Australian Christian lobby has been trying to argue that the elimination of the "gay panic" defense (a defense which says that murder can be justified as self-defense if the killer thought that the victim was a gay person coming onto them) would be discriminatory against women and say that people are allowed to grope them.

It's not a feminist group specifically, and somehow I doubt that this group particularly cares about women's rights when they can't use it as an angle, but it's certainly interesting.

She sounds pretty femnist in the article. I've been trying to find out if she is also the woman who is so against sex trafficking in Australia and sees prostitution as well as sex trafficking as women being used as objects by men. Hard to say, there could be more than one Wendy Francis, reasonably.

What concerns me is that the Left is going to push for more radicalism. They don't seem to have learned their lesson. They want to listen less and reason less. They'll have to be broken, I'm afraid. One of the worst things a civilization can do is give in to any extent to ideological fanatics.

[Galloism]

An Australian Christian lobby has been trying to argue that the elimination of the "gay panic" defense (a defense which says that murder can be justified as self-defense if the killer thought that the victim was a gay person coming onto them) would be discriminatory against women and say that people are allowed to grope them.

It's not a feminist group specifically, and somehow I doubt that this group particularly cares about women's rights when they can't use it as an angle, but it's certainly interesting.

She sounds pretty femnist in the article. I've been trying to find out if she is also the woman who is so against sex trafficking in Australia and sees prostitution as well as sex trafficking as women being used as objects by men. Hard to say, there could be more than one Wendy Francis, reasonably.

What concerns me is that the Left is going to push for more radicalism. They don't seem to have learned their lesson. They want to listen less and reason less. They'll have to be broken, I'm afraid. One of the worst things a civilization can do is give in to any extent to ideological fanatics.

Unless they're conservatives who want to turn back the clock, deny all scientific evidence of man's effects on the climate, put Jesus and the Bible back in schools, and discriminating against people based on their religion.

Then it's just good old fashioned politics.

[Proctopeo]

She sounds pretty femnist in the article. I've been trying to find out if she is also the woman who is so against sex trafficking in Australia and sees prostitution as well as sex trafficking as women being used as objects by men. Hard to say, there could be more than one Wendy Francis, reasonably.

What concerns me is that the Left is going to push for more radicalism. They don't seem to have learned their lesson. They want to listen less and reason less. They'll have to be broken, I'm afraid. One of the worst things a civilization can do is give in to any extent to ideological fanatics.

Unless they're conservatives who want to turn back the clock, deny all scientific evidence of man's effects on the climate, put Jesus and the Bible back in schools, and discriminating against people based on their religion.

Then it's just good old fashioned politics.

Either I don't remember Edom right, you're joking, or this is a very high-leveled strawman.

[New Edom]

She sounds pretty femnist in the article. I've been trying to find out if she is also the woman who is so against sex trafficking in Australia and sees prostitution as well as sex trafficking as women being used as objects by men. Hard to say, there could be more than one Wendy Francis, reasonably.

What concerns me is that the Left is going to push for more radicalism. They don't seem to have learned their lesson. They want to listen less and reason less. They'll have to be broken, I'm afraid. One of the worst things a civilization can do is give in to any extent to ideological fanatics.

Unless they're conservatives who want to turn back the clock, deny all scientific evidence of man's effects on the climate, put Jesus and the Bible back in schools, and discriminating against people based on their religion.

Then it's just good old fashioned politics.

You know, here are other choices than just turning the clock back or caving to radical leftism. I'd like to think so. There has been a lot of human progress and it has often taken great and lonely effort to keep the keel turning towards increasing fairness.

Anyway pay attention to the article. The article points out that an effort to actually reduce crimes against LGBT people is being interpreted as crimes against women in a mode that is very typical of the synthesis of mainstream feminism and religious conservativsm. I've seen this before. Concepts like objectification and exploitation of women have been quite freely adopted by such persons, and they are 'intersectional' on a number of issues. The kind of person epitomized by this Wendy Francis is not a stay at home and bear 12 children type of person, for all their anti-abortion stance. Remember that feminism started out as an anti-abortion anti-birth control movement--for middle and upper class white women. For immigrants and non-whites it was perfectly acceptable.

[Galloism]

Unless they're conservatives who want to turn back the clock, deny all scientific evidence of man's effects on the climate, put Jesus and the Bible back in schools, and discriminating against people based on their religion.

Then it's just good old fashioned politics.

Either I don't remember Edom right, you're joking, or this is a very high-leveled strawman.

I was remarking that the "worst thing to do" is to give into ideological fanatics... while I watch my civilization give in to ideological fanatics.

Unless they're conservatives who want to turn back the clock, deny all scientific evidence of man's effects on the climate, put Jesus and the Bible back in schools, and discriminating against people based on their religion.

Then it's just good old fashioned politics.

You know, here are other choices than just turning the clock back or caving to radical leftism. I'd like to think so. There has been a lot of human progress and it has often taken great and lonely effort to keep the keel turning towards increasing fairness.

Anyway pay attention to the article. The article points out that an effort to actually reduce crimes against LGBT people is being interpreted as crimes against women in a mode that is very typical of the synthesis of mainstream feminism and religious conservativsm. I've seen this before. Concepts like objectification and exploitation of women have been quite freely adopted by such persons, and they are 'intersectional' on a number of issues. The kind of person epitomized by this Wendy Francis is not a stay at home and bear 12 children type of person, for all their anti-abortion stance. Remember that feminism started out as an anti-abortion anti-birth control movement--for middle and upper class white women. For immigrants and non-whites it was perfectly acceptable.

Oh there's a very unholy relationship between religious conservatism and radical feminism. Oh that I will agree with you - but i'm not certain we can say that civilization is "punishing" radicals. if anything, it's rewarding them.

[New Edom]

Either I don't remember Edom right, you're joking, or this is a very high-leveled strawman.

I was remarking that the "worst thing to do" is to give into ideological fanatics... while I watch my civilization give in to ideological fanatics.

You know, here are other choices than just turning the clock back or caving to radical leftism. I'd like to think so. There has been a lot of human progress and it has often taken great and lonely effort to keep the keel turning towards increasing fairness.

Anyway pay attention to the article. The article points out that an effort to actually reduce crimes against LGBT people is being interpreted as crimes against women in a mode that is very typical of the synthesis of mainstream feminism and religious conservativsm. I've seen this before. Concepts like objectification and exploitation of women have been quite freely adopted by such persons, and they are 'intersectional' on a number of issues. The kind of person epitomized by this Wendy Francis is not a stay at home and bear 12 children type of person, for all their anti-abortion stance. Remember that feminism started out as an anti-abortion anti-birth control movement--for middle and upper class white women. For immigrants and non-whites it was perfectly acceptable.

Oh there's a very unholy relationship between religious conservatism and radical feminism. Oh that I will agree with you - but i'm not certain we can say that civilization is "punishing" radicals. if anything, it's rewarding them.

I'm not sure I meant punishing.

As for the conservative radicals, I'm not in agreement with you there. I think that in the US and Canada we're mostly dealing with a congregation of various peoples--some of them are simply greedy and ambitious, others are more ideological. Frankly I was glad to see a shock dealt to the liberal-left establishment--now I just wish they'd learn from the shock rather than say "More of what we were doing before! That's what we need!" And I also think ordinary citizens should start to learn that they are the clients and politicians the providers of service. However I doubt the majority will do this, so others will probably have to lead the way in demanding better service from both sides of the political fence.

Speaking as someone who has a number of conservative as well as liberal and leftist friends, I've generally found it easier to hold right wing people to their ideals--some of which are indeed good and can be guided to other good purposes--thank leftists. There is of course a flip side danger with them though--smugness and complacency. So the weary head never rests.

[The Blaatschapen]

Feminists and others in this thread: What's your take on the fact that women are more likely to reproduce (ergo, we have twice as many female ancestors as male ones)?

[Lady Scylla]

Feminists and others in this thread: What's your take on the fact that women are more likely to reproduce (ergo, we have twice as many female ancestors as male ones)?

The Lesbocracy shall come shortly!

[Galloism]

Feminists and others in this thread: What's your take on the fact that women are more likely to reproduce (ergo, we have twice as many female ancestors as male ones)?

Given the high death rate among men historically, that's not really surprising in any way shape or form.

[Chessmistress]

An Australian Christian lobby has been trying to argue that the elimination of the "gay panic" defense (a defense which says that murder can be justified as self-defense if the killer thought that the victim was a gay person coming onto them) would be discriminatory against women and say that people are allowed to grope them.

It's not a feminist group specifically, and somehow I doubt that this group particularly cares about women's rights when they can't use it as an angle, but it's certainly interesting.

I can understand her reasoning, but I don't agree with it, and I'm pretty sure that she's lying in such point:

Mrs Francis said she had spoken to several women's organisations including radical feminists who all opposed the change.

I could even understand christian women opposing a law protecting lesbians on the grounds that it also hurts a lot of women assaulted by men, but true Feminists, at least the ones I know, would more practically suggest to maximize the good outcomes while minimizing the problems, by rewritting the law in gendered terms rather than in gender neutral terms - by this way it could be used to protect homosexual people while still granting to women the right to protect themselves.

[Galloism]

An Australian Christian lobby has been trying to argue that the elimination of the "gay panic" defense (a defense which says that murder can be justified as self-defense if the killer thought that the victim was a gay person coming onto them) would be discriminatory against women and say that people are allowed to grope them.

It's not a feminist group specifically, and somehow I doubt that this group particularly cares about women's rights when they can't use it as an angle, but it's certainly interesting.

I can understand her reasoning, but I don't agree with it, and I'm pretty sure that she's lying in such point:

Mrs Francis said she had spoken to several women's organisations including radical feminists who all opposed the change.

I could even understand christian women opposing a law protecting lesbians on the grounds that it also hurts a lot of women assaulted by men, but true Feminists, at least the ones I know, would more practically suggest to maximize the good outcomes while minimizing the problems, by rewritting the law in gendered terms rather than in gender neutral terms - by this way it could be used to protect homosexual people while still granting to women the right to protect themselves.

Because as we all know, someone murdering someone else because they used a pick up line in public is absolutely acceptable if the dead person has a penis.

Radical feminist logic 101.

[New Edom]

Feminists and others in this thread: What's your take on the fact that women are more likely to reproduce (ergo, we have twice as many female ancestors as male ones)?

The Lesbocracy shall come shortly!

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand your words. Your flag is too hot. I want you to tell me all about this early twentieth century looking honey who is depicted there.