The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Germanic Templars]

Those two are comedians?

They're in the entertainment industry, yes. But one of them is a writer/director/producer who is considered by some to have a very feminist influence over the arts. The other is in a similar position and is the sister of a United States senator. They're influential women. Journalists who are pro-feminist have accused their critics of being anti-feminist.

I was being sarcastic with a hint of facetious.

[New Edom]

This is what I think. If you look at articles like this one you see how there is a belief among leading feminists to the effect that there aren't enough women in positions in power because men distrust women in power and don't respect them. There is a passionate belief on the part of formerly young idealistic feminists of this persuasion that they have not achieved enough.

No one really knows what this means, but I suspect that it means the following:

1. No opposition whatsoever to abortion on demand
2. 60% women in positions of authority in all walks of life everywhere.
3. The majority of world leaders being women.
4. Public media focused more on women than on men.

I say this because it's obvious to me that women actually dominate a lot of areas of work and public life and have equality in others. For many people, it's done, it's just a matter of some fine tuning for some, for others like me it's more about examining what it all means, taking a pause to figure that out. Not for people like those representing the EU parliament quoted in that article. They present a serious crisis of 'invisible women' that needs to be dealt with. So they do not believe that violence against women is on the decline; they do not believe that women's lot in life has been vastly improved, and they don't see the slightest goodwill towards women. They believe that Western Civilization HATES WOMEN.

Unfortunately such people are impossible to reason with. All opposition is deemed to be antiquated bullying or trolling, ignorance or madness.

Well, I wouldn't discount the idea that men distrusting women in power is completely wrong, but certainly isn't the only, nor the most significant reason there are less women in power than men.

And I would have to disagree with " that women actually dominate a lot of areas of work and public life and have equality in others"
That isn't quite true. At most, various industries are becoming more friendly to all genders. To suggest women inherently dominate many fields is just disingenuous. The thing is, those areas also happen to be the "feminine" workplaces. That is to say, it isn't breaking the mold of masculine vs feminine jobs that needs to be done to reach equality.

Also, I think you are making false extrapolations from the article you posted.They never mention anything of decline in the treatment of women. To ask of more of society is not inherently wrong.

Alright here's a question: why don't feminists say that Sarah Palin lost McCain the election because she was a woman?

Jessica Valenti said very bluntly that Sarah Palin was not a feminist.

Jezebel pointed out what the writers there evidently see as a huge problem with Sarah Palin claiming the title of feminist.

One article in the Huffington Post claims that Sarah Palin calling herself a conservative feminist is like calling yourself a meat loving vegetarian.

A Washington Post article said that Palin was 'appropriating feminist language".

And another Huffington Post article even had "Sarah Palin is not a feminist" in the title.

So really, I just see the original article I cited as complaints that more socialist or mainstream feminist women do not dominate politics. Feminism, to such people, doesn't mean 'women being able to achieve positions of power', because let's face it: women already do that in unprecedented numbers. Furthermore that original article I cited is typical in downplaying anything good Western civilization does for women. It's a power play, nothing more.

[Mattopilos II]

Well, I wouldn't discount the idea that men distrusting women in power is completely wrong, but certainly isn't the only, nor the most significant reason there are less women in power than men.

And I would have to disagree with " that women actually dominate a lot of areas of work and public life and have equality in others"
That isn't quite true. At most, various industries are becoming more friendly to all genders. To suggest women inherently dominate many fields is just disingenuous. The thing is, those areas also happen to be the "feminine" workplaces. That is to say, it isn't breaking the mold of masculine vs feminine jobs that needs to be done to reach equality.

Also, I think you are making false extrapolations from the article you posted.They never mention anything of decline in the treatment of women. To ask of more of society is not inherently wrong.

Alright here's a question: why don't feminists say that Sarah Palin lost McCain the election because she was a woman?

Jessica Valenti said very bluntly that Sarah Palin was not a feminist.

Jezebel pointed out what the writers there evidently see as a huge problem with Sarah Palin claiming the title of feminist.

One article in the Huffington Post claims that Sarah Palin calling herself a conservative feminist is like calling yourself a meat loving vegetarian.

A Washington Post article said that Palin was 'appropriating feminist language".

And another Huffington Post article even had "Sarah Palin is not a feminist" in the title.

So really, I just see the original article I cited as complaints that more socialist or mainstream feminist women do not dominate politics. Feminism, to such people, doesn't mean 'women being able to achieve positions of power', because let's face it: women already do that in unprecedented numbers. Furthermore that original article I cited is typical in downplaying anything good Western civilization does for women. It's a power play, nothing more.

No, they don't have positions of power in "Unprecedented numbers". That is patently false. More than they used to, and certainly in given fields. To say it as if though this is universal or in ALL workplaces? No. Just no.

And, Again, they didn't downplay "Anything good Western civilization does for women". They are discussing what more needs to be done, not what has been done. To act as if thought having made progress is no point to go further is ridiculous.

Honestly, you just made a long post about something unrelated to what I was actually saying. I mean, good job on making that post, but it really had nothing to do with what I was trying to discuss and what I disagreed with. I spoke nothing of the sects of feminism - you did. I spoke nothing of feminist idols or non-idols - you did. What I spoke about is this innate idea that people being frustrated with women not being in as many positions of power as men, or being limited to positions of power to specific fields, is NOT the same as complaining that women haven't made progress towards equality.

[New Edom]

Alright here's a question: why don't feminists say that Sarah Palin lost McCain the election because she was a woman?

Jessica Valenti said very bluntly that Sarah Palin was not a feminist.

Jezebel pointed out what the writers there evidently see as a huge problem with Sarah Palin claiming the title of feminist.

One article in the Huffington Post claims that Sarah Palin calling herself a conservative feminist is like calling yourself a meat loving vegetarian.

A Washington Post article said that Palin was 'appropriating feminist language".

And another Huffington Post article even had "Sarah Palin is not a feminist" in the title.

So really, I just see the original article I cited as complaints that more socialist or mainstream feminist women do not dominate politics. Feminism, to such people, doesn't mean 'women being able to achieve positions of power', because let's face it: women already do that in unprecedented numbers. Furthermore that original article I cited is typical in downplaying anything good Western civilization does for women. It's a power play, nothing more.

No, they don't have positions of power in "Unprecedented numbers". That is patently false. More than they used to, and certainly in given fields. To say it as if though this is universal or in ALL workplaces? No. Just no.

And, Again, they didn't downplay "Anything good Western civilization does for women". They are discussing what more needs to be done, not what has been done. To act as if thought having made progress is no point to go further is ridiculous.

Honestly, you just made a long post about something unrelated to what I was actually saying. I mean, good job on making that post, but it really had nothing to do with what I was trying to discuss and what I disagreed with. I spoke nothing of the sects of feminism - you did. I spoke nothing of feminist idols or non-idols - you did. What I spoke about is this innate idea that people being frustrated with women not being in as many positions of power as men, or being limited to positions of power to specific fields, is NOT the same as complaining that women haven't made progress towards equality.

You're seeing too much good in this and you're not understanding what I wrote.

What I'm saying is this: why does Beard mention Clinton in particular in her article? Because people who are adherents of clinton have been saying that she was not elected president because of misogyny. And that this relates somehow to women in power in general. Yet they leave out the bile spewed at Sarah Pain by feminists who they are relieved to see what not elected. So this so called concern is really nothing but a desire to see people that these mainstram feminists want in power in power. They are just as partisan as anyone else.

[Mattopilos II]

You're seeing too much good in this and you're not understanding what I wrote.

What I'm saying is this: why does Beard mention Clinton in particular in her article? Because people who are adherents of clinton have been saying that she was not elected president because of misogyny. And that this relates somehow to women in power in general. Yet they leave out the bile spewed at Sarah Pain by feminists who they are relieved to see what not elected. So this so called concern is really nothing but a desire to see people that these mainstram feminists want in power in power. They are just as partisan as anyone else.

That is a problem of one type of feminist versus another. I hardly think all feminists think Clinton was not elected purely due to some misogynistic attitude. There are plenty of reasons she was not voted in, including her rather damaging views relating to foreign policy (basically a warhawk), and that her bastardized, watered-down IdPol is exclusionary and aggressive in the wrong ways and towards the wrong people. With Sarah Palin, that is because she is a conservative in social issues. Full stop. I can hardly blame them for pissing on her, but I don't forgive them for raising up Hillary, whenever that was done under the guise of "It is because they don't like woman leaders". I hardly see how they are saying they aren't partisan.

[New Edom]

You're seeing too much good in this and you're not understanding what I wrote.

What I'm saying is this: why does Beard mention Clinton in particular in her article? Because people who are adherents of clinton have been saying that she was not elected president because of misogyny. And that this relates somehow to women in power in general. Yet they leave out the bile spewed at Sarah Pain by feminists who they are relieved to see what not elected. So this so called concern is really nothing but a desire to see people that these mainstram feminists want in power in power. They are just as partisan as anyone else.

That is a problem of one type of feminist versus another. I hardly think all feminists think Clinton was not elected purely due to some misogynistic attitude. There are plenty of reasons she was not voted in, including her rather damaging views relating to foreign policy (basically a warhawk), and that her bastardized, watered-down IdPol is exclusionary and aggressive in the wrong ways and towards the wrong people. With Sarah Palin, that is because she is a conservative in social issues. Full stop. I can hardly blame them for pissing on her, but I don't forgive them for raising up Hillary, whenever that was done under the guise of "It is because they don't like woman leaders". I hardly see how they are saying they aren't partisan.

They are saying so by saying there is a general problem with WOMEN in political office rather than acknowledging that some people actually had real problems with Clinton. While you may not think that it was misogynist, there are many sources of opinion that are presented as being mainstream feminist that do.

The fact is, mainstream feminism is a reality, whether you like it or not. It is influential upon a lot of ordinary people who believe iti s the ONLY view on feminism possible. There are prominent people who do their best to make sure that stays the case. Do you not see this?

[Mattopilos II]

That is a problem of one type of feminist versus another. I hardly think all feminists think Clinton was not elected purely due to some misogynistic attitude. There are plenty of reasons she was not voted in, including her rather damaging views relating to foreign policy (basically a warhawk), and that her bastardized, watered-down IdPol is exclusionary and aggressive in the wrong ways and towards the wrong people. With Sarah Palin, that is because she is a conservative in social issues. Full stop. I can hardly blame them for pissing on her, but I don't forgive them for raising up Hillary, whenever that was done under the guise of "It is because they don't like woman leaders". I hardly see how they are saying they aren't partisan.

They are saying so by saying there is a general problem with WOMEN in political office rather than acknowledging that some people actually had real problems with Clinton. While you may not think that it was misogynist, there are many sources of opinion that are presented as being mainstream feminist that do.

The fact is, mainstream feminism is a reality, whether you like it or not. It is influential upon a lot of ordinary people who believe iti s the ONLY view on feminism possible. There are prominent people who do their best to make sure that stays the case. Do you not see this?

And I am not mainstream feminist. I thought this was already, you know, established. Mainstream feminism has its harmful quirks, and I literally just mentioned some of them in my last post. I guess ignoring that is easier than actually anything new.

And again, more "Here is a gotcha that actually means nothing and adds nothing". Yeah, no shit it is real. And I am against those people. You are trying damn hard to lump me in at this point, or to claim that I think otherwise. I don't. Stop assuming my views without actually, you know, knowing my views.

[New Edom]

They are saying so by saying there is a general problem with WOMEN in political office rather than acknowledging that some people actually had real problems with Clinton. While you may not think that it was misogynist, there are many sources of opinion that are presented as being mainstream feminist that do.

The fact is, mainstream feminism is a reality, whether you like it or not. It is influential upon a lot of ordinary people who believe iti s the ONLY view on feminism possible. There are prominent people who do their best to make sure that stays the case. Do you not see this?

And I am not mainstream feminist. I thought this was already, you know, established. Mainstream feminism has its harmful quirks, and I literally just mentioned some of them in my last post. I guess ignoring that is easier than actually anything new.

And again, more "Here is a gotcha that actually means nothing and adds nothing". Yeah, no shit it is real. And I am against those people. You are trying damn hard to lump me in at this point, or to claim that I think otherwise. I don't. Stop assuming my views without actually, you know, knowing my views.

Perhaps the problem between us is that you think that what you just wrote is true, and it isn't. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here. I'm talking about the people I wrote about. It concerns me because it paints a false picture many people seem to believe. And you seemed to be defending their views.

[Mattopilos II]

And I am not mainstream feminist. I thought this was already, you know, established. Mainstream feminism has its harmful quirks, and I literally just mentioned some of them in my last post. I guess ignoring that is easier than actually anything new.

And again, more "Here is a gotcha that actually means nothing and adds nothing". Yeah, no shit it is real. And I am against those people. You are trying damn hard to lump me in at this point, or to claim that I think otherwise. I don't. Stop assuming my views without actually, you know, knowing my views.

Perhaps the problem between us is that you think that what you just wrote is true, and it isn't. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here. I'm talking about the people I wrote about. It concerns me because it paints a false picture many people seem to believe. And you seemed to be defending their views.

Perhaps the problem is that you are acting smug and like you are right, yet there is nothing to suggest so. Maybe we stop assuming other people's view before they actively express them, and to ask their views if needed? That would be better, no? Hell, I expected you knew better of my views in relation to feminism, and where I am "Sect-wise" in feminism by now.

[Forsher]

If our concern is about unilateral coefficients (maybe, for instance, managers who are young, like under 24, and are female are earning more than male managers of that age range) then chuck in interactions. They didn't... which might mean they didn't find any (significant ones) or it might mean they lacked degrees of freedom (unlikely) or it might mean that they never bothered.

The sample consists entirely of persons who completed a first bachelor's degree in the 2007-2008 academic year, interviewed in 2009.

I'm aware. That was an example...

What I'm talking about isn't interactions. It's the fact that there are subdivisions within the category that are not distributed evenly by sex - as is illustrated pretty nicely in the "PK-12" category by the fact that many more women without degrees in education are found working in education, and the fact that the gap isn't statistically significant among the education majors going into the occupational area.

Since the "pre-K" part of that bin usually doesn't require an education degree, pays less, and is overwhelmingly female, that likely accounts for a large share of the difference within that bin - after which, the remaining difference probably struggles to be statistically significant.

That's a relatively uniform bin as occupational bins go. Most other bins are more diverse, and a very significant fraction of the "unexplained" gender gap is sitting in two exceptionally diverse bins - "other white-collar jobs" and then just plain "other."

Not seeing how your point isn't "Maybe the behaviour of wage differs if we're looking at people who have no degree and are in education?" Which, you know, is exactly what an interaction is... when the effect(s) of an explanatory value differs depending on the levels of other explanatory values.

Even within fairly specific occupational fields (e.g., doctor) there are sharp differences in subfields (e.g., cardiologist makes a lot more than general practitioner), which see significant divisions in terms of sex in terms of subfield distribution - which in turn produces a situation where you have a large income gap on the granularity of "doctor," but a much smaller gap on the level of "doctor of a given specialty."

This is fundamentally a different issue because what we want to do isn't captured by some existing variable interacted with another variable. Which is to say, your dominant example before did not help because, by the above, it clearly reduces to an interaction problem, thus clouding what you meant.

But it's theoretically resolvable. Using the data... construct a variable "female ratio" which is defined as "number of women in survey in [bin]"/"number of people in survey in [bin]"... which would capture the impact of being in a female dominated position... but there are practical issues (e.g. multicollinearity with female in the first place*). And with the broad bins it could be crowded out (i.e. miss the doctor thing you're talking about here). Moral: bigger survey to have more of the sub-population variability (assuming the survey is well constructed... this seems fundamentally the same reason why surveys often over sample Maori or, I assume, Native Americans).

*At this point, you're pushing against the bounds of what I remember so I'd have to look things up but I really don't want to have to do that... I feel like if I wait any longer, I put this in as a draft initially, I'll never get around to responding.

Similarly, with height, if we imagined height in terms of a factor of 20cm intervals or even just recorded it in centimetres/inches we can interact that with gender to see if there's a multidimensional change. And it may be an issue that it is too associated with gender and creates multicollinearity issues, but I think we could work around that by using mean deviated height (broken out by gender).

It is problematic, especially when everyone under the sun is thinking that there are other variables out there, to look at relationships in two dimensions when these may or may not hold in higher dimensions.

Because men and women tend to be of significantly different heights, there tends to be something done to control for gender when studying height.

In the case of the study I linked to above, it's scaled in terms of population standard deviations from mean (within-gender).

OTOH, perhaps some portion of the gender gap is simply due to women being shorter... but it's pretty much impossible to distinguish that from gender discrimination.

As far as I remember, there are approaches to choosing which variable to keep if we have some which are causing multicollinearity issues. I shouldn't have to look this up to confirm, but I do need to. However, I have been sick this week so I am behind with my actual need to dos and I've already kept you waiting for a while...

But, yeah, I agree, if height turned out to be a confounder or something, it's pretty much no different. Apart-height may have made for a funny episode of the Goodies but it's only funny so long as one is able to say "well, the point is that it's ridiculous". Which is to say, it's just for those of us who are interested to know... it's knowledge that changes nothing as such. Which is what I understand your point to be (but, clearly, I haven't quite been grasping your points previously, hence this odd construction).

[New Edom]

Perhaps the problem between us is that you think that what you just wrote is true, and it isn't. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here. I'm talking about the people I wrote about. It concerns me because it paints a false picture many people seem to believe. And you seemed to be defending their views.

Perhaps the problem is that you are acting smug and like you are right, yet there is nothing to suggest so. Maybe we stop assuming other people's view before they actively express them, and to ask their views if needed? That would be better, no? Hell, I expected you knew better of my views in relation to feminism, and where I am "Sect-wise" in feminism by now.

Since I'm not actually attacking your views, but those of mainstream feminists, which you have repeatedly said you do not represent, you could consider that there is nothing personal in all this. I do find it irritating at times that you seem to see the mainstream views I'm concerned about as being similar to yours. For example, you clearly see women's positions in society as being of concern, but that doesn't mean that the articles I'm citing share your concerns in the same way. In fact I'm pretty sure that they don't.

[New Edom]

Well, here's a step in the right direction. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-white-teen-who-accused-3-black-males-of-kidnap-rape-confesses-to-hoax/

This is something femnists in general need to deal with better. Since mainstream feminists generally refuse to fairly deal with this issue--there is almost always a denial that any statistics on it are worth looking at beyond trying to prove 'this almost never happens so who cares' it really does point out how unjust the perspective of mainstream feminism is. In sum: the general mainstream approach proposes that feminists will treat men unjustly the more power they have.

Here is another example. In this video which can be examined for the proof of what this vlogger offers, we have a breakdown of the aftermath of a false rape accusation. Diana Davison is a researcher in law. She is an egalitarian but a strong critic of feminism.

I speculate that more such cases will start to come forward. Older judges and progressive judges who feel that they need to be activists will be challenged for their lack of judicial objectivity. Hopefully the rape panic will die down and we can get some fair and honest talk on the issues of rape and consent.

[The Serbian Empire]

If our concern is about unilateral coefficients (maybe, for instance, managers who are young, like under 24, and are female are earning more than male managers of that age range) then chuck in interactions. They didn't... which might mean they didn't find any (significant ones) or it might mean they lacked degrees of freedom (unlikely) or it might mean that they never bothered.

The sample consists entirely of persons who completed a first bachelor's degree in the 2007-2008 academic year, interviewed in 2009.

What I'm talking about isn't interactions. It's the fact that there are subdivisions within the category that are not distributed evenly by sex - as is illustrated pretty nicely in the "PK-12" category by the fact that many more women without degrees in education are found working in education, and the fact that the gap isn't statistically significant among the education majors going into the occupational area.

Since the "pre-K" part of that bin usually doesn't require an education degree, pays less, and is overwhelmingly female, that likely accounts for a large share of the difference within that bin - after which, the remaining difference probably struggles to be statistically significant.

That's a relatively uniform bin as occupational bins go. Most other bins are more diverse, and a very significant fraction of the "unexplained" gender gap is sitting in two exceptionally diverse bins - "other white-collar jobs" and then just plain "other."

Even within fairly specific occupational fields (e.g., doctor) there are sharp differences in subfields (e.g., cardiologist makes a lot more than general practitioner), which see significant divisions in terms of sex in terms of subfield distribution - which in turn produces a situation where you have a large income gap on the granularity of "doctor," but a much smaller gap on the level of "doctor of a given specialty."

Similarly, with height, if we imagined height in terms of a factor of 20cm intervals or even just recorded it in centimetres/inches we can interact that with gender to see if there's a multidimensional change. And it may be an issue that it is too associated with gender and creates multicollinearity issues, but I think we could work around that by using mean deviated height (broken out by gender).

It is problematic, especially when everyone under the sun is thinking that there are other variables out there, to look at relationships in two dimensions when these may or may not hold in higher dimensions.

Because men and women tend to be of significantly different heights, there tends to be something done to control for gender when studying height.

In the case of the study I linked to above, it's scaled in terms of population standard deviations from mean (within-gender).

OTOH, perhaps some portion of the gender gap is simply due to women being shorter... [i]but it's pretty much impossible to distinguish that from gender discrimination.

Even amongst women, tall women seem to earn more on average than their shorter counterparts. Although it probably has more to do with CEOs such as 5'9" Marissa Meyer who stand several inches taller than average.

[Galloism]

36 Camera Perspective, if you're interested. I open with this:

I selectively edit posts and respond to portions when I feel I have something to say.

I'm not activist, so I really don't have anything to say on the other front.
I disagree that "feminism" is holding back issues such as men's domestic violence, male victim rape and the like, because feminism wants to eliminate harmful gender roles such as "toxic masculinity" - with that specifically covering, amongst other things "what? Men can't get beat up by women. Grow a pair." and "what do you mean you were raped, you got laid, fuck off fag".

Does a small minority of radical feminists (who aren't well-liked at all in wider feminism), some of which may be motivated by a hatred of men pretty equivalent to that of legit misogynists, actively try and torpedo things like men's violence shelters?
Yes, those people are worthless trash. They are, as vocal hardcore subsets usually are, loud and disruptive and not representative.

Here's the thing, if they are a small minority, why are they so in control of the policy and the narrative?

They've spent almost 40 years torpedoing the truth about the prevalence of domestic violence, with great success, using tactics ranging from career threats to actual bomb threats.

In addition, when men attempt to contact help lines or DV shelters, which are mainly run by feminist groups, they are routinely accused of being the batterer in disguise, given contact info for a batterer's program, and/or openly mocked by the staff.

Feminists have fought against gender neutral rape laws, in both Israel and India.

Those are mainstream positions now.

However, they weren't always. In the United States, it used to be that only radical feminists opposed making statutory rape laws gender neutral, protecting the right of grown women to fuck little boys.

It was probably largely thanks to Mary Koss's efforts that the CDC used the a sexist definition of rape attempting to downplay male victims. She is, after all, on the CDC think tank, and her view is men can't be raped by women.

Look, if it's a "small minority group" leading this crusade, feminsim has let the lunatics run the asylum. This "small minority" has been blocking progress for FORTY YEARS. It's not me playing it up - it's the actual and real victims they've been oppressing and violent perpetrators they've been protecting.

Look, I know you want to think the best of the feminist movement, and I'm not saying it's irredeemable, but the only way it can BE redeemed is if you push back against these sexist radical feminists and get loud and in charge screaming "THESE PEOPLE DON'T REPRESENT US", and get the movement on track to seek equality again.

The evidence is overwhelming. Your belief that it isn't there doesn't line up. Until you recognize the problem, you will never fix it.

Because there is some bizarre pushback over women thinking "in these areas, I think we don't enjoy the same things men do here", I believe there is a significant bias from anti-feminist outlets to play up these groups and project some image that this is all the feminist movement is.

Does it not surprise you that after all these years people still seriously bring up that legitimately one really angry red-haired woman for "look how trash all of feminism is"?

I'm looking at what feminism has done as a movement, not what one loudmouth does.

[The Grene Knyght]

36 Camera Perspective, if you're interested. I open with this:

Here's the thing, if they are a small minority, why are they so in control of the policy and the narrative?

They've spent almost 40 years torpedoing the truth about the prevalence of domestic violence, with great success, using tactics ranging from career threats to actual bomb threats.

In addition, when men attempt to contact help lines or DV shelters, which are mainly run by feminist groups, they are routinely accused of being the batterer in disguise, given contact info for a batterer's program, and/or openly mocked by the staff.

Feminists have fought against gender neutral rape laws, in both Israel and India.

Those are mainstream positions now.

However, they weren't always. In the United States, it used to be that only radical feminists opposed making statutory rape laws gender neutral, protecting the right of grown women to fuck little boys.

It was probably largely thanks to Mary Koss's efforts that the CDC used the a sexist definition of rape attempting to downplay male victims. She is, after all, on the CDC think tank, and her view is men can't be raped by women.

Look, if it's a "small minority group" leading this crusade, feminsim has let the lunatics run the asylum. This "small minority" has been blocking progress for FORTY YEARS. It's not me playing it up - it's the actual and real victims they've been oppressing and violent perpetrators they've been protecting.

Look, I know you want to think the best of the feminist movement, and I'm not saying it's irredeemable, but the only way it can BE redeemed is if you push back against these sexist radical feminists and get loud and in charge screaming "THESE PEOPLE DON'T REPRESENT US", and get the movement on track to seek equality again.

The evidence is overwhelming. Your belief that it isn't there doesn't line up. Until you recognize the problem, you will never fix it.



I'm looking at what feminism has done as a movement, not what one loudmouth does.

I feel like we've discussed this post before...

[Galloism]

I feel like we've discussed this post before...

It was directed at 36 Camera Perspective, whom brought up feminism writ large when he asserted (against all evidence) misandry and feminism were mutually exclusive terms. Rather than hijack another thread on that subject, I invited him over here.

He hasn't showed yet, sadly, but there you go.

[The Grene Knyght]

whom

*whom'st

[Individual Thought Patterns]

whom

*whom'st

old meme

[The Grene Knyght]

*whom'st

old meme

the older the meme, the more ironic it is.

[The Blaatschapen]

old meme

the older the meme, the more ironic it is.

:)

[The Grene Knyght]

the older the meme, the more ironic it is.

Its the feds! they're on to us! Quick, hide the memes. Someone get out some feminist discourse pronto before we get busted. How about this:

---

So who are some feminist figures you guys admire? My partner bought a biography of Countess Markievicz and I've been flicking through it when I get the chance. She's a figure everyone in Ireland learns about as a child but its interesting to learn about her again as an adult.
She was the fist woman to be elected to a parliamentary seat in Europe (possibly the world im not too sure), and the second woman ever to hold a cabinet position. She was a suffragette, a revolutionary, an aristocrat, a socialist, a painter, an actress, and all round badass.
A popular quote of hers is "Dress suitably in short skirts and strong boots, leave your jewels in the bank and buy a revolver" but my favourite, since learning about her in primary school was "I do wish your lot had the decency to shoot me" (on being told she wouldn't be executed along with other rebels on account of her gender).
I'm not sure I'd call her my favourite feminist - there's a lot of feminist figures I adore and many I want to read more about, but she is a figure I admire.

What about you guys? Have you heard of Markievicz? Do you have a favourite feminist?

[Luminesa]

Its the feds! they're on to us! Quick, hide the memes. Someone get out some feminist discourse pronto before we get busted. How about this:

---

So who are some feminist figures you guys admire? My partner bought a biography of Countess Markievicz and I've been flicking through it when I get the chance. She's a figure everyone in Ireland learns about as a child but its interesting to learn about her again as an adult.
She was the fist woman to be elected to a parliamentary seat in Europe (possibly the world im not too sure), and the second woman ever to hold a cabinet position. She was a suffragette, a revolutionary, an aristocrat, a socialist, a painter, an actress, and all round badass.
A popular quote of hers is "Dress suitably in short skirts and strong boots, leave your jewels in the bank and buy a revolver" but my favourite, since learning about her in primary school was "I do wish your lot had the decency to shoot me" (on being told she wouldn't be executed along with other rebels on account of her gender).
I'm not sure I'd call her my favourite feminist - there's a lot of feminist figures I adore and many I want to read more about, but she is a figure I admire.

What about you guys? Have you heard of Markievicz? Do you have a favourite feminist?

Great, you say that and now I think of this.

[Jello Biafra]

So who are some feminist figures you guys admire? My partner bought a biography of Countess Markievicz and I've been flicking through it when I get the chance. She's a figure everyone in Ireland learns about as a child but its interesting to learn about her again as an adult.
She was the fist woman to be elected to a parliamentary seat in Europe (possibly the world im not too sure), and the second woman ever to hold a cabinet position. She was a suffragette, a revolutionary, an aristocrat, a socialist, a painter, an actress, and all round badass.
A popular quote of hers is "Dress suitably in short skirts and strong boots, leave your jewels in the bank and buy a revolver" but my favourite, since learning about her in primary school was "I do wish your lot had the decency to shoot me" (on being told she wouldn't be executed along with other rebels on account of her gender).
I'm not sure I'd call her my favourite feminist - there's a lot of feminist figures I adore and many I want to read more about, but she is a figure I admire.

What about you guys? Have you heard of Markievicz? Do you have a favourite feminist?

I've never heard of Markievicz.
I like Emma Goldman, Kathleen Hanna, and riot grrrl in general. I also like what I've seen from bell hooks. I'm not sure who would be my favorite.

[The Grene Knyght]

So who are some feminist figures you guys admire? My partner bought a biography of Countess Markievicz and I've been flicking through it when I get the chance. She's a figure everyone in Ireland learns about as a child but its interesting to learn about her again as an adult.
She was the fist woman to be elected to a parliamentary seat in Europe (possibly the world im not too sure), and the second woman ever to hold a cabinet position. She was a suffragette, a revolutionary, an aristocrat, a socialist, a painter, an actress, and all round badass.
A popular quote of hers is "Dress suitably in short skirts and strong boots, leave your jewels in the bank and buy a revolver" but my favourite, since learning about her in primary school was "I do wish your lot had the decency to shoot me" (on being told she wouldn't be executed along with other rebels on account of her gender).
I'm not sure I'd call her my favourite feminist - there's a lot of feminist figures I adore and many I want to read more about, but she is a figure I admire.

What about you guys? Have you heard of Markievicz? Do you have a favourite feminist?

I've never heard of Markievicz.
I like Emma Goldman, Kathleen Hanna, and riot grrrl in general. I also like what I've seen from bell hooks. I'm not sure who would be my favorite.

Goldman was someone I was considering mentioning in my post, but I was too lazy to make it any longer. Another figure i've been reading about is Comandanta Ramona... of course, between her, Goldman and Markievicz, its not hard to see the pattern lol

[Checkuslavakia]

I don't like feminism