I think that men's rights have a place in the feminist movement

[Nikia]

I apologize for not being able to post to the appropriate threads in the feminist group, but even if I did donate, it might be better to post here anyway.
It is my belief as a lifelong female feminist who was somewhat androgynous as a child, a rape victim, and someone who has frequently encountered sexual harassment and gender discrimination that men and men's rights do have a place in the feminist movement. The rights that I am speaking about are the rights of men to behave in ways different from the traditional roles of masculinity. While women face discrimination for just being women and in ways that men never will, men who do not act masculine in ways also face discrimination.
The most obviously example of men who face discrimination for not following gender roles are homosexual men. Despite the religious rhetoric about homosexuality being a sin, I beleieve that the primary motivation of this rhetoric is not religion but gender roles. A male having sex with another male is taking the gender role of a woman. A man being partnered (or married) to a male is taking the gender role of a woman. Even on the play ground growing up, a big insult to boys is "gay", "fag", or other names. In most cases, these boys are not religious zealots or even basing it on a boy's loves or affections, they are simply suggesting that these boys are not fully male. As teens and adults, who actually do accept themselves as gay, homosexual men often face more same gender scorn than do lesbian women (I do acknowledge that lesbians do face some female homophobia though).
As I said, most boys who are called "gay" in elementary school aren't called "gay" because they've said that they have a crush on another boy. They are "gay", meaning less than male, by not liking sports, refusing to fight physically, preferring female or gender neutral toys, preferring females as playmates, or engaging in other less traditionally masculine activites.
As adults, men are often ridiculed if they go into traditionally female occupations like nursing, elementary school teaching, hair dressing, or other "female jobs". They still face pressure to like sports and other male activities. In certain situations, they may be encouraged to fight physically. They might be ridiculed for crying or showing emotions other than anger.
In marriage, they might be ridiculed for making less money than their wives. They might be ridiculed for doing "female chores". They might be especially ridiculed if after their wife has a baby, that they stay home with the child and take care of the house while their wife works.
Most of these issues must be remedied on an individual basis . Men need to stand up for other men, even if they themselves are not engaging in "feminine" behavior. Women need to stand up for the men in their lives too. The behavior of parents is probably the most crucial, being supportive of boys in being who they are and discouraging boys from picking on other boys for being who they are. Of course media images are also an issue, we need to fight both negative issues of men and women.
How does this relate to the feminist movement?
Men being held to strict gender roles, reinforces patriarchy as much as holding women to strict gender roles. Being who we are as opposed to following gender roles is in direct opposition to patriarchy. As long as patriarchy remains, masculine will be equated with "good" or "more powerful" or "more important" than feminine. By saying that a man who does clerical work is no less important than other men, we are also saying that a woman who does clerical work is not any less important by virtue of her occupation. This could be applied to all "masculine" and "feminine" occupations and perhaps equal pay would become more likely since no occupation would be thought of as female or male and no more deserving of more or less pay than anothers.
As long as it is only alright for females to take on certain masculine traits to become powerful and important, patriarchy remains strong. Patriarchy is alright with a few women becoming honorary males. In many societies throughout history, patriarchy has been alright with this as long as there are few enough "masculine" women and that it is understood that feminine is inferior.
We must support the right of men to be feminine if the power of patriarchy is lessened. That is why feminists should support men's rights too in this aspect.

[brigidshine]

1. how

how very interesting and thoughtful.

thank you.

[Bluerthanblue]

2. no surprise...

i heartily agree.

There are ALWAYS at least 2 sides to every issue-

While women and men are 'naturally' different- and have different strengths and capabilities- different doesn't mean superiour- it means ..... different- not less, or more.


All humans have their own unique contribution and role in this world- regardless of their sex, age, color, etc. and should be treated as such.

i'd love to see the proclaimation that ALL people are created equal, and are endowed by their creator and ALL are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[whatever4]

3. That was good. I agree. Men should embrace their feminine side, imho nt

[existentialist]

4. While I agree

I believe there is also another aspect, namely that the feminist movement itself will be stronger if men are are supporting it.

[alarcojon]

54. Absolutely right

but we men tend to try to make feminism "about ourselves" in our clumsy but well-meaning sort of way. If we could learn to support it as true allies, yes, the movement would grow.

[Tux]

5. I never could understand

Why I was called gay since I prefered to be around girls, avoid sports (sweaty guys), write poetry once n a great while, and would be invited to a mostly girl's night. If that is gay, so be it. At least I'm around girls. :loveya: :evilgrin: :loveya:

[MindPilot]

7. I never got that either

If you're not much of a sports fan, or don't particularly enjoy getting drunk and fighting...well, you must be a fag.

Funny thing, the ladies didn't think that. :evilgrin:

[Eloriel]

79. No, a lot of women are smart enough

to dig a very strong dose of androgyny in men.

[MindPilot]

6. Very well-put!! Women's rights and men's rights are often the same thing

Unfortunately feminism has morphed into an us vs them meme that says men are stupid and violent while women are smart and nurturing. Whether that was a deliberate act on the part of the media (old-school patriarchy) or some other source, I don't know, but I think using terms like "gender-rights", "sexual freedom", and "reproductive rights" is a good start to turning it around.

Thanks for that--excellent piece of writing.

[Kipepeo]

9. Um, no

"Unfortunately feminism has morphed into an us vs them meme that says men are stupid and violent while women are smart and nurturing."

Feminism has not morphed into this. Unfortunately we know that the right-wing media has done a good job of discrediting and bashing the feminist movment when even liberals are posting that denigrating meme. The blame lies not with feminism, but with the effort to destroy it and its acomplishments. How many time has Feminism been pronounced dead on magazine covers? How many times have feminists been denegrated as man-hating ball-busting ugly cunts dykes bitches feminazis and pretty much every other sexist term in the limbaugh playbook?

As for the OP - yes, men have a place within the feminist movement. Any movement for the rights and equality of a minority is strengthened when members of the majority give their support, but do so from a place of respect.

[omega minimo]

12. JINX!

:hug:

[Kipepeo]

13. I forget what happens after jinx is called!

I think I'm not allowed to say anything for the rest of the day. Wasn't quick enough on the double jinx uptake. LOL.

:hi:

[omega minimo]

17. "Potentially revolutionary solidarity"?

:bounce::bounce:

[Eloriel]

82. And how many times have men, feeling "wounded" by being called

on their stuff, or surprised and feeling threatened by women's ANGEr at their sexism, taken that VERY anti-woman, anti-feminist position?

Ptooey.

[Kipepeo]

104. Yes - If you're a woman and you get angry or assertive when talking about

Feminism to some guy who has just spouted it's "man-bashing and hateful" or whatever - then they take the fact that you're angry and say, see? You're a fuckin' angry man-hater.

It's a bit frustrating - to say the least.

[omega minimo]

11. Feminism has not "morphed into an us vs them meme"

"Unfortunately feminism has morphed into an us vs them meme that says men are stupid and violent while women are smart and nurturing."

Feminism has not "morphed." The WORD "feminism" was demonized and the meme perpetrated to insist that feminism "says men are stupid and violent while women are smart and nurturing."

A lot of people fell for that. Knee jerk jingoistic claptrap to go along with all the other Wrong Wing reversals of recent social progress. And here we are today!!! :hi:

"Whether that was a deliberate act on the part of the media (old-school patriarchy) or some other source, I don't know..."

If you have read or even know the existence of "Backlash" by Susan Faludi... if you have listened for two minutes to Limbaugh the Hut's "feminazi'" spew; if you've noticed the violent attacks on ""gender-rights", "sexual freedom", and "reproductive rights""-- then you probably do know whether it was "a deliberate act on the part of the media (old-school patriarchy) or some other source."

Talk about "framing." I get your point, but it sounds like you almost fell into it. There is a difference between the impression of feminism that has been broadcast by the hatemongers and the reality of feminism. As a DUer and presumed Dem or progressive, I'm sure you get that.

Although a lot of good foiks don't. Even on the aspect that feminism already includes the good points raised by the OP.

:evilgrin:

[omega minimo]

8. That's a lot of dots to connect

It's all there......

B-)


Tho not sure how you mean to advocate "men's rights."

"That is why feminists should support men's rights too in this aspect."

As I understand feminism, it already encompasses the concepts you raise.

[Nikia]

15. Feminism does encompass many things

Including this concept. Various feminists do take different approaches in attacking patriarchy. Some approaches are more inclusive than others. I will even acknowledge the value of some less inclusive feminist thinkers as they often do address issues that need to be addressed also.
I do like posts like my original post, which I feel are complete works, to stand by themselves without additional commentary.
All I am saying is that I feel that the feminist cause is better advanced by being inclusive in gender rights (the right to be who you are as opposed to a particuliar gender role and the acknowledgement of the value of both maculine and feminine in both female and male individuals and in society in general) for all. Of course, we should continue to work for issues that are particuliar to women, but if we don't address gender rights for men either, we are only fighting part of the battle against patriarchy.

[omega minimo]

19. Your OP is turgid enough to "stand by itself"

:evilgrin: and cogent enough to contain all the questions and all the answers. All the dots are there.

I get the concept. I was asking, not why, but HOW you mean to advocate "men's rights."

Even tho, "As I understand feminism, it already encompasses the concepts you raise," that's not to say "men's rights" does not belong.... I was curious as to how you would open that particular can of worms.

:hi:

[put out]

45. If your original post, which, as you say you feel,

"are complete works, to stand by themselves without additional commentary" would you ever in the wide world put something out there on the net, obviously inviting comment, and then comment on YOUR OWN POSTS?

Good that you feel that way about your original post. I get it.

But don't believe it. Something else is going on, methinks.

[newswolf56]

10. I am a man old enough to remember when feminism was NOT a war on men...

and have long believed it was deliberately manipulated in that direction by the powers that be -- this to destroy the potentially revolutionary solidarity that was aborning during the late 1960s and early 1970s: what better way to smash a united front than by turning one gender against another? In any case, I was there in New York City when the original American feminist renaissance began in 1968 and 1969, and its initial impetus was not toward separatism and antagonism but was rather toward wholeness and healing. At least as far as I could tell (being a male and therefore necessarily an "outside" observer), one of the most important original feminist motives was recognition of the need for truth in relationships: the notion that what bohemians of that period regarded as a supreme goal -- becoming "soul-mates" -- was possible only if misleading and often stupid gender-stereotypes were completely set aside. A common saying among women at that time was "I want men to understand that the way into my pants is through my mind": an assertion that "sissies" like myself -- a man who as a boy (and even more so as an adult) generally preferred the company of women -- could endorse wholeheartedly. But later feminism's blessedly embracing idealism gave way to the hatefulness and vindictive anger we saw for the next three decades, though I think the reality of what Nikia says is at last again being recognized. In any case -- this from a man who very much understands the survival imperative in the banishment of patriarchy -- thank you Nikia for saying it.

[Kipepeo]

14. Oh my gawd

Please tell me where how feminism has turned into a "war on men." Please, as a feminist myself I'd like to know. You know, I've pulled out a lot of feminist texts...bell hooks, inga muscio, susan faludi, june jordan, susan brownmiller, audre lourde...and I can't for the life of me see this so-called "war on men."

Perhaps I could look at where women stand in politics and the economy and business and see the war there? Is that where it is?

Look, I'm not discrediting your early days in the feminist movement - I'd just like to see some examples that feminism "..gave way to the hatefulness and vindictive anger.."

You know what makes me hateful and vindictively angry? To see liberals spouting right-wing talking points that were DESIGNED to take down feminism and roll back the accomplishments of the women's movement. It's this kind of trash-talking that leads young girls who aren't educated in women's history to proclaim that they're not some (insert sexist term here) feminist because they don't (insert some lie about feminism here).

[omega minimo]

18. your "(insert sexist term here)" got un-inserted

"...because they don't like hairy legs"?
"...because they like makeup"?
"...because Feminists are lesbians"?
...because they only heard about Feminism from the Limbot crowd?




Tag, you're it

[Kipepeo]

22. eek - i fixed it !

Reading these posts today is interesting for me because I just read an essay on feminism by a 15 year old girl the other day, who interviewed some of her male peers on what feminism means. The fact that some of the replies were those kinds of things: "ball-busting" "angry dykes" and "women who have gone over their rights" was not surprising. It's like I *know* at this point that the general public has a fucked-up view of what feminism means. But it's still disheartening to see it, especially from people who say that they embrace everything that feminism truly stands for.

Here is her essay: http://www.thef-wordzine.com/reader_backlash505.html

Also, I read a recent feministing post on people's fear of the word feminist after what the right-wing has done to it: http://feministing.com/archives/001554.html

This part at the end made me laugh but it's essentially true:

"You could call it "suckacockism" and people would still hate it as long as you were calling for women's social, economic and political equality."

[omega minimo]

24. Sometimes "framing" is not enough

:rofl:

[newswolf56]

21. Please see my response (#20) below.

[omega minimo]

16. ...then you're old enough to know that FEMINISM IS NOT A WAR ON MEN

Thank you for your perspective of that time and those intentions.

You've noted the power of the movement and the reasons that it was dangerous to The Powers That Be:

"...have long believed it was deliberately manipulated in that direction by the powers that be -- this to destroy the potentially revolutionary solidarity that was aborning during the late 1960s and early 1970s: what better way to smash a united front than by turning one gender against another?"

You're old enough to know that there are feminists who well know that Feminism is not a "war on men." Where do you think we went? Do you think we all fell for the Backlash and the hatemongering, or became so "bitter" about the Backlash we decided to "war on men" for the hell of it? Don't you know any feminists or women who understand that:

FEMINISM IS THE RADICAL NOTION THAT WOMEN ARE PEOPLE.

Wonder how you got from NYC 1969 to, "later feminism's blessedly embracing idealism gave way to the hatefulness and vindictive anger we saw for the next three decades."

"Hatefulness and vindictive anger"? Is is possible that your perspective has been infiltrated by the hatemongering of the "feminazi" Limbot thugs? If you understand that Feminism "was deliberately manipulated in that direction by the powers that be," is it possible the "framing" worked? Have you adopted any attitudes from the techniques of media and mental manipulation that they use against us?

Is this the prejudiced perspective of Feminism that female DUers encounter when we advocate being able to participate in discussions in "potentially revolutionary solidarity" rather than as a disrespected sub-group?




B-) edit for clarity and curiosity about the "prejudiced perspective of Feminism" on DU or amongst "progressives"

[newswolf56]

20. Feminism became a war on men when it called for a total embargo...

on all social services to males (including veterans benefits!) until such time as women are granted absolute economic parity. This delightful expression of feminist rage became the basis of social-services policy in many states, with feminists clandestinely scheming (c. 1981 or thereabouts) to use Reaganoid welfare cuts as a cover for "restructuring social services in accordance with feminist doctrine": i.e., imposing gender quotas. These quotas were then strictly enforced with gleeful malice, particularly against two classes of men: formerly productive, temporarily disabled males who with proper treatment could have been returned to the workforce, and permanently disabled military veterans dependent on welfare because of the interminable delays the VA has ever more ruthlessly imposed on disability claims since the LBJ years. Nor is this some right-wing myth: the discrimination -- and in many cases the total ruination of men's lives by the malicious denial of treatments that could have returned them to productivity -- is absolutely real: it is among the great unreported stories of the '80s and '90s, proven beyond doubt by statistics most of today's reporters are too inept (or too intimidated by political correctness) to research. In one state I know of, economically middle-class single and divorced mothers were granted full daycare subsidies by a welfare agency that was simultaneously denying even wheelchairs, crutches and eyeglasses to disabled males. As a caseworker defiantly said to me at a social gathering (not realizing she was talking to a journalist): "I love it -- you men lorded it over women and minorities for thousands of years, and now it's your turn to suffer."

Edit: for clarity.

[Kipepeo]

23. Please cite your sources for such an

"embargo on all social services to males" etc. I think that's ridiculous, and without anything to back it up I'll have to take it on your word, which I won't. Anyone can throw around baseless accusations. I'm especially interested in the quote you put in your post. If it is in quotes I am assuming you can cite a source for it? Please do so we can really have a discussion.

As for the person story with one woman who told you it's your turn to suffer - that's just it, it's a woman who told you this. It is not feminism, it is not a feminist organization, it is not a feminist movement or text or tenet or goal.

[newswolf56]

26. A man with whom I am reasonably close -- I cannot say more without...

dangerously breaking anonymity -- was destroyed precisely as I described: he had been productive all his life, he became temporarily disabled, as a result of his disability he was unable to work, and the exhaustion of his unemployment compensation and then his savings eventually compelled him to go on welfare. The welfare bureaucracy issued him a small stipend but flatly refused him any treatment or additional aid -- this as it was generously volunteering full treatment packages (including vocational training) to women who were demonstrably risky investments: for example drug-addicted former prostitutes whose rap-sheets included felony convictions. When the man in question studied the situation in detail, it became obvious the only reason for his denial was quota-mongering on the basis of gender. When he threatened to sue over the treatment denial -- precisely because of his background he would have had a very strong case -- the welfare bureaucrats vindictively (and in obvious retaliation for his months of protests) changed his diagnoses to one labeling him permanently unemployable, and on that basis forced him onto Social Security: condemning him at age 49 to hopeless and ever-worsening poverty (with all its resultant emotionally devastating shame and isolation), thereby totally wrecking his life. As you might imagine, this man's bitterness is infinite: his need for revenge turned him from a lifelong liberal Democrat -- a former anti-Vietnam-War activist -- into a fierce (albeit often guilt-ridden) Republican. As he has said to me many times, "voting Republican is the only vengeance I am allowed" -- though lately his growing disgust with the Bush Administration has begun to move him back toward electoral sanity.

Knowing what I know, I cannot but wonder how many more thousands of votes for the GOPorkers are similarly motivated.

As to the feminist demand I cited, I believe I saw it first expressed in the underground newspaper Rat, which was published in New York City during the late '60s and early '70s and included several articles protesting the welfare system, especially the diverse indignities it specifically inflicts on women. As I recall, the notion of an anti-male social services embargo (to free up more money for women) was also discussed during the middle 1970s in several of the more radical feminist journals (i.e., Heresies, WomanSpirit etc., maybe even Ms. though I don't specifically remember that. I also have a dim recollection of at least one such discussion elsewhere in national Leftist media: possibly Mother Jones but I surely wouldn't want to swear to it. The first time I focused on such an embargo as potential policy was when I was covering social issues through the '70s and at the beginning of the '80s in Washington state. A woman from the now-defunct National Welfare Rights Organization alerted me to the fact such an embargo was being considered (just as I reported above), and in response I questioned several feminists in Seattle, Olympia and Bellingham about the matter; the quote you asked about came from those discussions. While there was (of course) disagreement among individuals and groups, the consensus was nevertheless strongly in favor of such an embargo. I wrote one or maybe two stories about it, each buried in inside sections. Sorry I can't be more specific: all my personal files from that period (which included extensive notes on feminism and especially on the rebirth of the goddess archetype) were lost in an unfortunate incident many years ago. It is too bad so many of those old feminist journals are not available online; it would make some of my work today much easier. However if you are interested enough in this matter to research it for yourself, I'm certain you will find confirmation of my assertions.

As to the individual I mentioned, when I looked into his case I found many more like it, particularly among Vietnam vets, this also in Washington state. According to the veterans groups with which I subsequently spoke, the situation had grown so dire, lawsuits against welfare-agency gender quotas were being contemplated, not only in Washington but in several other states as well. Statistics provided me by a confidential source inside the welfare bureaucracy confirmed the state was methodically reducing social services to males, especially male Caucasians, even as it was increasing those services to women. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer scratched at one aspect of this story in the early 1990s, but quickly dropped it after editors apparently decided it would be dismissed as nothing more than another low-class squabble over welfare benefits -- in any case too complex for Joe Sixpack and his wife Suzy Detergent Sixpack to follow. Washington state got a new governor in 1992 -- a Democrat like his predecessor, but much more fair-minded -- and subsequent reforms greatly curtailed the quota-mongering, so the issue there became moot, and no suit was ever filed. Whether any of the associated lawsuits were ever actually filed in other states, I do not remember. As to other outcomes elsewhere, I simply don't know: changes in personal focus, passage of time and changes of address have distanced me from most of the people who were involved in these matters.

I hope this helps; it will at least point you in the proper directions.

Edit: for clarity.

[omega minimo]

28. Hey edit for clarity

Use your own damn material

[Kipepeo]

29. ok, long response

So in your first paragraph you offer an anecdotal personal story - of which you say you cannot divulge any info without breaking anonymity. I can respect that - that's why when you make an assertion it is best not to rely *solely* on an anecdotal personal story. If you can point me to any documented evidence of a feminist plan to shut down social services for men, specifically for (only male?) veterans at the benefit of prostitutes with long rap sheets, please do. Otherwise, this holds no water. If it happened to your friend, whose specifics you can't go into, as part of a bigger feminist plot to deprve veterans of social services, then there should be evidence of this that does not have to include your friend.

With your next stand-alone sentence you attempt to blame feminism for people voting Republican. Nice.

As to your second paragraph - yes I am mildly familiar with Rat, at least as one can be with a now defunct radical feminist text from that time period. I think the fact that it was *underground* and you can't even read it online because it was so obscure and rare, and you can hardly find people who know of its existence should count for the fact that those women had no power in this patriarchal society. Do you really believe that a small subset of the feminist movement in the 60s has had any kind of power in this society - has shaped the present in such a way as to rain on your parade? Besides the obvious fact that we can't even confirm that any of what you say appeared in Rat did? (I highly doubt it was in Ms. or Mother Jones). Let's take you at your word and say it did - does that have any impact on our power structures? Did it ignite a war against men? I find that laughable. Let's take a much cited radical feminist text like SCUM Manifesto - is that book representative of feminism or the feminist movement? Is it evidence of some nefarious feminist war on men? Give me a break.

"I'm certain you will find confirmation of my assertions." Well no, I haven't. And afterall, that's up for you to provide if you want to be taken seriously.

Your last paragraph: I can't find one single article to back any of this up.

Final thoughts: What I really can't wrap my mind around is that one might believe that feminism is some huge cover for a strategic behind-the-scenes war on men and that it's all so fucking subtle (or else so many people are in on it) that we can't see any evidence of it. Exactly what parts of feminism are in on this scheme? NOW? The Feminist Majority Foundation? Planned Parenthood? The Third wave Foundation? And what of all of day-to-day feminists? Are we in on it as well?

[omega minimo]

31. I wish Rage Central would send us our talking points

I haven't heard much since I called Camille Paglia "rabid."
:evilgrin:

"Quota mongering," "Republican vengeance" and "Suzy Detergent Sixpack"?

Is this DU?

[newswolf56]

32. I think the real issue here is not evidence and its availability but...

rather the reflexive belief -- unfortunately almost as common here on the Left it is on the Right -- that criticism is identical to rejection, the corollary of which is all too often that doctrinal nonconformity on even a single issue brands one "an enemy of the movement" and is therefore tantamount to betrayal and the political equivalent of treason.

My own rather impassioned belief that human survival demands the obsolesce of patriarchy and the evolution of something more eco/egalitarian (and therefore intrinsically more democratic, especially in the economic sense) is a matter of record available to anyone who can (or will) trouble themselves to access my other DU posts on this topic. As you will surely see, I believe feminists have the lead role in this process, ecofeminists especially, with environmentalists close behind; I also believe the process will eventually revitalize Marx. However like most writers I claim ultimate doctrinal independence and therefore also the artist's right to criticize, applaud and even denounce as I see fit. But I am quick to acknowledge errors and/or simple changes of mind: life and work for me are processes, never static states. In this context I find the notion that feminists have "no power" in this society is laughable: the whole froth-at-the-mouth reaction of the Right -- particularly the Christofascist Right -- bears testimony to the power of feminism. Patriarchy is seriously threatened -- Blessed Be! -- and it is responding accordingly. Circumstance thus urges us toward a new version of our former "revolution-in-consciousness" solidarity -- which makes the vital debate about who we are and what we are about all the more compelling.

Every woman I know is a feminist in the generic sense -- that is simply the nature of the circles in which I move -- and the most politically knowledgeable, emotionally secure (and therefore honest) of these women will freely admit that their movement (like all other movements) has made some grave tactical errors over the years. Maybe the willingness to make such admissions has to do with political geography -- Washington state has long surpassed New York City as a wellspring and sanctuary of feminist thinking, especially in the spiritual mode, though that was clearly NOT the case in 1970, when Rat was literally the voice of Women's Liberation in the Northeast. In any case, most of the women I know here are aware of the former incipient controversy over gender quotas even though it only barely made it into mainstream print, and most will agree it was a big tactical error on the part of the movement -- one of the more significant sources of the oft-repeated complaint that feminism was too white and too upper-middle-class and therefore too insensitive to minority and working-family concerns.

(Indeed that was the precise fear of my NWRO source: that the imposition of gender-quotas would incurably wound working families in which the primary breadwinner was male and had become temporarily disabled. Nor was her concern misplaced: some feminist welfare bureaucrats actually regarded such disabilities as unique opportunities to forcibly restructure families by proclaiming the husbands' disabilities permanent even when they were not and thereby propelling the wives into the workforce.)

All of which -- reality, rumors, fears, related falsehoods -- helped fuel the Right's attack on social services by driving people into the arms of the Republicans -- or out of the political process entirely. Whether this was the result of feminism per se -- or merely the historical arrogance of the welfare bureaucracy seizing upon feminist rationale -- I cannot say. Indeed I believe such a question would make a very fruitful topic for serious academic inquiry, especially since it was concurrent in time with skyrocketing welfare costs: costs that welfare bureaucrats deftly but falsely blamed on recipients but which were in fact the results of a more-than-5000-percent (not a typo) inflation of administrative expenses -- this as the same bureaucrats slashed by nearly two thirds the dollar value of the stipends and services they doled out. Whatever, the result was identical: the poor in general lost out, but women's programs were nevertheless dramatically expanded -- a trend especially evident in Washington state.

My former source within the welfare bureaucracy has retired, and as I indicated above, I am at something of a disadvantage in this discussion because -- at least where I live -- the whole embargo issue is nearly 12 years old: the problem in Washington state was largely ended by the election of a new governor in '92. As I indicated above, both governors were Democrats, but as I failed to explain, the new governor was much further to the genuinely democratic Left and was therefore much more fair-minded than his predecessor.

Nevertheless, undeniable evidence of the sort you demand is to be found in Statistical Abstract of the United States-- the vast summary of sociological and economic data maintained by the federal government. It shows that, beginning in the late 1970s and continuing through the present, the nationwide percentage of males in the workforce has declined substantially even as the percentage of females has increased; the decline is especially sharp for Afro-American males. Other federal data confirms the steadily increasing expenditures for women's programs. Unfortunately I am not computer savvy enough to understand the seemingly very complex and user-unfriendly process of accessing this material on-line and linking to the official records therein -- every such attempt I have made has failed miserably, even with the dependability of broadband. But the same data is available in book form at most if not all local public libraries (which -- though I have been online for nearly a decade --is where I go even now when I need to consult it). The statistical trend I cited above is valid at least through 2002, the last time I had any occasion to look it up.

Hence I will stand by the truth of my reporting and the accuracy of my analysis even as I defend the necessity of protecting the anonymity of primary sources. At the same time I apologize for the time-softened focus of my broader recollections. Above all I am sorry if my disclosures seemed to give offense, for that was surely not my intention.

[noamnety]

33. accessing your other DU posts on the subject

I wouldn't normally do that, but given the specific invite, I did search some of your other posts.

Bush is worsening the class divide ... but really we should blame Clinton, and democrats are doing nothing and are incapable of doing anything to help the working class - and p.s. Hillary ruined health care for generations. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1546285#1546681

Suggesting that families should consider not having more kids than they can afford is pushing working class people to vote republican. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1580303#1580361

Janet Reno was as huge a threat to liberty as Bush. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1926528#1926577

It's the democrats' fault that the NRA endorses candidates.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=107456#107484

Environmentalists are as bad as the worst Republicans and are the enemy of the working class.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=25252#25254

And now feminism is responsible for attacks on the working class, it's a problem stemming from New England elitists (sound familiar?). Gosh, I may as well just vote Republican. :)

The working class is women that want fair pay and fair access to jobs (let's call them feminists). It's hunters who don't want to see the destruction of the woods they hunt in, or lose their children to random gun violence (let's call them parents). It's people who don't want to get cancer because a corporation was allowed to dump toxic chemicals in their neighborhood or spray their food with cancer causing pesticides (let's call them environmentalists).

[Ripley]

35. Wow, thanks lwfern.

For pointing out those misogynistic posts. I really wonder what happened to some of these men as children to make them grow up to hate women so hysterically. They claim to be liberals yet are the first to say "let RvWade get turned back, that'll wake women up" or blame Hillary for God's sake for having the power as First Lady to have set anything back for ages. And Janet Reno???

Wake up little snoozies! Men are in power. Men are in control. Men make the decisions in our country. (Only 14% of Congress are women assholes) So picking the one or two females who have gotten close to power, close to the top, or are in positions to speak out and TRASHING THEM is not a very good sign that you support Feminists.

Why don't they ever post such vitriol towards the men who got us in this mess?

[hfojvt]

94. I think a point has been proven, if unintentionally

This statement was pulled out of a long post and held up for ridicule as false statement, or one that needed proof.
"Unfortunately feminism has morphed into an us vs them meme that says men are stupid and violent while women are smart and nurturing."

Yet I find evidence that leans towards an "us vs. them meme". For example: "I really wonder what happened to some of these men as children to make them grow up to hate women so hysterically."
Not that there are not all too many men in the world who have hatred and/or contempt and/or fear of women, yet it seems to me that the M (misogynist) card is played a little bit too quickly, and the only pieces of evidence needed are for the accused to be a) male, and b) to have deviated from a "feminist orthodoxy".
Second and third example: "Men are in power. Men are in control. Men make the decisions in our country." "Funny. I thought men were still in charge."
To me that very much sounds like an "us vs. them". Somehow, even though I have almost no power, almost no control, and make very few decisions in our country, I am one of "them". I am a man, and men are in charge. Contrast that sentiment with this quote: "Why don't comtemporary men rise up in protest against their betrayal? If they have experienced so many of the same injuries as women, the same humiliations, why don't they challenge the culture as women did?...If men have feared to tread where women have rushed in, then maybe that's because women have had it easier in one very simple regard: women could frame their struggle as a battle against men."
That author seems to feel that some feminists have made it a woman vs. man battle. Even on this thread, there is talk about the patriarchy. I think that misses the point. It is not the patriarchy as much as it is the hierarchy, the tyranny, the fuehrer-prinzip. Contrast that with democracy and partnership and co-operation. The idea is to get rid of the whole master-servant relationship that runs through our whole society, to reduce the disparities of privilege and power and tie them more to service and responsibility.

[highlonesome]

95. I agree. Ironic isn't it? n/t

[omega minimo]

103. Righteo. So can you sway your DU brethren to quit perpetrating the former

so we can get on to the latter?

That would be splendid!

::bounce: :bounce:

[omega minimo]

42. All I can say is

:patriot::applause: :woohoo: :applause: :grouphug: :smoke: :kick:

[newswolf56]

44. I was warned before I joined DU that some of its posters are...

venomously intolerant of even the slightest doctrinal nonconformity, but until now I had encountered -- apart from good-natured and intelligent disagreement -- nothing but warm welcome. Indeed I recently told the cautioner, who is another lifelong Democrat of my generation, that I had encountered none of the alleged intolerance at all. But that was before this thread unfortunately evolved into what it has obviously become: a concerted effort by a few posters to falsely portray me as an enemy and so secure my banishment from the site.

This effort is worse than absurd: it would be comical if it were not so painfully disappointing. I have never been so thoroughly, hurtfully misrepresented in my life, quoted not only out of context, but with such a deliberate reversal of meaning it can only be malicious -- all this to make a portrait in which black is white and vice-versa -- indeed precisely as if someone were using the verbal equivalent of PhotoShop, with a degree of skill that strongly suggests spinmeistering for hire or professional character assassination. Apparently -- for some people -- factual, thought-provoking writing morphs very quickly into "crimethink" and unpardonable violation of taboo.

The examples are many (including every one of lwfern's misrepresentations above) but one example should suffice: I wrote my first post on this thread to commend the original poster on her insightfulness (in the profound hope that I was witnessing the dawn of a New Day in which some of the very real political wounds of the '80s and '90s would at long last be healed). In response, I was not merely criticized but attacked -- attacked venomously at that (and not even by the original poster) -- specifically for contrasting the flickering rapprochement and quest for solidarity characteristic of this (possibly dawning) New Day to the disuniting clash of grievances indisputably characteristic of the old.

But I guess -- at least among my opponents on this thread -- the demand for absolute doctrinal conformity trumps even one's own desperate need to find hope amid the present sociopolitical darkness.

Evidently, just as if I were a member of some Christian Fundamentalist congregation, I am required to believe unreservedly in at least six premises:

(1)--That the Democratic Party is incapable of error and its constituent groups are infallible;

(2)--That the Democratic Party and its constituent groups have never made any mistakes;

(3)--That the Democratic Party and its constituent groups are sacrosanct;

(4)--That the Democratic Party and its constituent groups are the embodiment of the AllGood (even when the party is serving the interests of the oligarchy above those of the people, as with NAFTA or CAFTA), just as the Republican Party is the embodiment of the AllBad (even on those very rare occasions when it accidentally represents the interests of the people over the plutocracy);

(5)--That the Democratic Party (since it is infallible and sacrosanct) bears no responsibility whatsoever for the present-day political nightmare of the Bush Regime;

(6)--That since the Democratic Party bears no responsibility for the present crisis, there is no reason for evaluation of the party's past performances or the behavior of its constituent groups: the party is perfect, "as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, amen."

Alas, personal aesthetics will not allow me to submit to such lockstep perversity: my doctrinal independence is my integrity.

The fact is I believe in the Big Tent Democratic Party -- the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the party of Eleanor Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr. -- and I believe the ongoing attempt by certain authoritarians to maintain instead a Small Tent party of rigid doctrinal conformists is the primary reason the Republicans now hold more power in this nation -- more power held more ruinously -- than at any time since the Herbert Hoover era.

Since we are fighting a duel of links, let me point out that posts accurately representative of my core views on feminism and environmentalism are to be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4067158

and here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=7454&mesg_id=7454

I would therefore respectfully suggest that before anyone send me to the metaphorical guillotine, they please take the time to read my words in full: the underlying thrust of each and every one of my critical DU remarks is the crying need to learn from the mistakes that led us to the present political horrorshow. Indeed I joined this website precisely because I believed the long-term focus of DU was a grassroots dialog for healing the party: restoring precisely those Big Tent qualities that enabled us to win every national election between 1932 and 1964 (and so bring to the United States not only an unprecedented prosperity but unprecedented progress toward social justice as well). I believe such a restoration is the ONLY way we can preserve American liberty -- the only way we can defeat the Christofascists and their schemes to impose oligarchic theocracy on us all. I believed too that as someone who has written about public affairs for most of five decades -- written as both activist and reporter -- I could make a valuable contribution to the healing process: that I could and should. But now I am not so sure: this thread makes it obvious I cannot freely share my knowledge and experience -- much less my thoughts about that knowledge and experience -- without severe risk of denunciation and the reprisals of calculated misrepresentation. That itself imposes the chill of censorship: as much as I may delight in defending my arguments, which is always an occasion for intellectual growth (especially if I am proven wrong), I do not want or need the anguish and tedium of responding to would-be character assassins. It is therefore among my most profound hopes I have not made a grave error in judgment: I hope that what I have encountered here on this thread is merely the malice of a few self-appointed tyrants -- surely not the voice of the DU majority.

(My heartfelt thanks to the moderators for allowing me the privilege of rebuttal.)


Edit: removal of redundant adjective in sixth paragraph.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

68. Translation:

Damn that search feature!

Unedited.

[lukasahero]

76. I haven't said this before but should have

You are one of my favorite posters - ever. :loveya:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

89. Thanks.

Unedited.

[lukasahero]

75. "nothing is more infuriating than being lectured by some obscenely"

"obscenely pampered, super-rich, infinitely arrogant, smugly self-righteous college kid..."

I'm sorry, who were you calling "venomous"? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=25252#25254

[highlonesome]

77. When read in context....

....the post you point out isn't really venomous at all. The writer was relating an experience that took place 23 years prior and not attacking a particular poster as you would make it seem.

Additionally, he apologizes two posts below that if he was misunderstood.

Personally, I think this guy is quite well spoken an highly literate. I'm enjoying much of what he writes.

[lukasahero]

78. Good for you.

I never suggested that this was directed at a particular poster. I quoted his thoughts about college students involved in the environmental movement. I suspect we have some of those college students here but I find the generalization to be sufficient on it's own to warrant attention.

[Misunderestimator]

92. LOL... Funniest post on the thread!

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

93. Are the cool men

who are interested in potential discussion but don't have the need to dominate or intimidate-- are the cool men "put off" by these repetitive threads where we never get out of the starting gate of: !!!!!R-E-S-P-E-C-T find out what it means to me!!!!! and on to discussion?

This is why I was invoking the Rules as backup to provide a clear zone to work in, without continuous contentious bullshit. That's supposedly why the Rules exist. And the Goals. Otherwise, WHY ARE PEOPLE HERE? And I asked-- if men are harrassing and disrupting for their own reasons, how are we to recognize them from Frurkers?

FG was born because of the pointlessness of petty attacks from men. Is there no middle ground and no way or no place to hear from cool men and participate in discussions on big picture issues that affect all of us?

I could see the potential for a discussion on the overarching subject of rigid gender roles being the Repugs' ace in the hole. Didn't happen here.

:kick:

[Misunderestimator]

91. "I am a man old enough to remember when feminism was NOT a war on men."

"I have never been so thoroughly, hurtfully misrepresented in my life, quoted not only out of context, but with such a deliberate reversal of meaning it can only be malicious..."

LOL!! Out of context, reversal of meaning? Ok, I'm at a loss, what exactly was your meaning when you insinuated that feminism is a war on men?

Malicious! Hurtful! You were venomously attacked! Character assassins and self-appointed tyrants are bringing you down! Sent to the metaphorical guillotine! And my favorite... severe risk of denunciation and the reprisals of calculated misrepresentations! Wow! All that simply because you started you first post on this thread with a BLANKET ATTACK ON FEMINISTS.

While we are all learning from our mistakes, I'd suggest you do the same.

[hfojvt]

96. a blanket attack on some perhaps

"The implication of so much of the feminist critique of the seventies was that SHE was being controlled and being objectified by HIM. What was not then recognized were the ways in which men, too, were being controlled and objectified....Men, not the marketplace, many women believed, were the root problem - and so, as Willis put it, 'the task of the women's liberation movement is to collectively combat male domination in the home, in bed, on the job.'...They had a clearly defined oppressive enemy: the 'patriarchy.'"

That is not that different from what he said, that feminism became mainly a war on men in the 1970s. Even today, the battle is still against the "patriarchy". From a male perspective it seems that every man is automatically a member of the patriarchy. Or did Susan Faludi become a misogynist when she wrote "Stiffed"?

[Misunderestimator]

97. A war on men. No it's not a war on men. You know that, I know that.

Patriarchy... maybe... I can't help it if you somehow identify with an oppressive patriarchy, but the war is against those who seek to limit women's opportunities and women's rights. The FIGHT for equal rights for WOMEN is not a war against MEN... how incredibly egotistical to think it is. Not EVERYTHING is always about men...

[hfojvt]

105. Of course it is not always about men

It is always about ME! That N on the end is not really necessary.

I would say that it is neither about women, nor about equal rights. It is about social transformation. "The society to be transformed must first be known. In Gilman's work it is not the scientist, the warrior, the priest or the craftsman, but the mother, who is the connecting point from present to future. In her utopia, Charlotte Perkins Gilman transforms the private world of mother-child, isolated in the individual home, into a community of mothers and children in a socialized world. It is a world in which humane social values have been acheived by women in the interest of us all." Ann J. Lane foreward to Herland 1978

Let me repeat that "humane social values ... in the interest of us all".

"And so with the mystery of men's nonrebellion comes the glimmer of an opening, an opportunity for men to forge a rebellion commensurate with women's and, in the course of it, to create a new paradigm for human progress that will open doors for both sexes. That was, and continues to be, feminism's dream, to create a freer, more humane world." Susan Faludi, concluding paragraph to "Stiffed"

Creating a freer, more humane world seems to be a larger and more inclusive vision to me.

[Misunderestimator]

106. It's not about equality, it's about social transformation?

Another feminism = humanism so why have feminism at all person.

Why do you keep quoting Susan Faludi, as if every single word she wrote is written in stone and sworn to by all feminists? Especially since you are only quoting from Stiffed. She's a journalist, not JUST a feminist. For the most part that book is about cultural and gender stereotypes... but you keep pulling out quotes that you think make a case for your "humanism" argument.

Creating a freer, more humane world is what feminism is ALL ABOUT, and that has always been Faludi's point as well.

[hfojvt]

107. well, "Stiffed" is a very recent discovery for me and it resonates

so it is like a current hit song that I want to hear over and over again, because I like that song. I tried to quote Gilman from 100 years ago, but the best I could find was Lane summarizing Gilman.

I quote Faludi the same way I quote anyone else, as someone who has said something with which I agree and said it very well. If we are saying, or agreeing with, many of the same things, then I am asserting that I am no more of an anti-feminist than Faludi. Not all feminists swear to Faludi any more than Faludi swears to all feminists.

I do not believe that I implied, much less stated "why have feminism at all?" I will state that IMO feminists have historically been some of the most cogent and insightful humanists, but again that does not apply to all self-described feminists at all times. Nor does that mean I agree with everything they say.

[Nikia]

98. I very much oppose patriarchy

If that was not clear from my original post, I apologize. To me patriarchy is about oppressing women and things and activities associated with women. By the nature of the word, it means that men have power towards the exclusion of women (without the possible exception of a few honorary men). In doing this, it also oppresses men who may be inclined towards "feminine" activities or who do not want to be oppressors, who value women as equal people.
If you are a man and do not want to be an oppressor or want to take part in any "feminine activites" or show a greater range of emotions, some of which are considered feminine, you should oppose patriarchy too. Patriarchy is only for those men who feel superiority to the other half of the population by virtue of their genitals, who enjoy being limited in their role and values as well. As you and others have hinted, patriarchial societies often are hierarchal and even oppress men who are following their role by the book. Such men really need to consider their role.

[Kipepeo]

64. You are not owning up to what you said

You say now that the problem lies in "the reflexive belief -- unfortunately almost as common here on the Left it is on the Right -- that criticism is identical to rejection." as if we are hysterical females unable to discern between criticism and rejection.

What you offered with these sentences is not criticism, it is an allout attack on feminism, served up in sexist right-wing talking points:

"I am a man old enough to remember when feminism was NOT a war on men..."

"But later feminism's blessedly embracing idealism gave way to the hatefulness and vindictive anger we saw for the next three decades."

:puke:

[Misunderestimator]

90. No it's not offensive at all to be told that we are waging a war on men.

Not at all... :eyes:

Wow, lots of words and anonymous sources there to skirt around the huge insult you made with your first post.

Did you ever consider that the numbers of men declined and the numbers of women have increased simply because women are given opportunities that were denied them before? Should women now give back these jobs to men simply because men are losing those jobs to more qualified women? 20 years ago the job I am in now would NEVER have gone to a woman. Should I hand it over to a less-qualified man now since it's so unfair that I actually have a job like this when many men don't?

Is THIS what you meant by a war against men? We have access to better jobs now?

How silly to use the increase in funding for women's programs as a club against women. Accusing feminism of robbing the poor...now we are not just attacking men, but we are attacking the poor. Wow.

Here's a link to the US Census Bureau source you use... http://www.census.gov/statab/www/. Perhaps you could navigate it to the specific place you reference and post a link, as I cannot find the trend of increasing expenditures for women compared to decreasing expenditures for the poor. There are links there for the following time periods:

2001 - 2005
1995 - 2000
1951 - 1994
1901 - 1950
1878 - 1900

[newswolf56]

100. Thank you for the link. As time allows -- I do have a life beyond DU --

I'll look for the data you demand.

Meanwhile here's a syllogism that is absolutely true: between 1970 and 1990, the dollar value of stipends and services to the statistically poor decreased by more than two thirds (even as welfare administrative expenses increased by more than 5000 percent, not a typo); therefore, since stipends and services specifically for women undeniably increased during that period even as general welfare funding decreased (not necessarily in raw dollars but always in dollar values), women's programs were indeed increased at the expense of not only the male poor, but the poor in general. The fact this is not immediately evident from the statistics does not make it any less true: in 1970, there were hardly any "women's programs" per se; now there are thousands of them, nearly all administered under the social-services umbrella (which happens to be by far the most female-dominant employment category in the U.S.). Furthermore, since the Reagnoid victory of 1981, this multiplication of programs has taken place in the context of a methodical and often vicious DemoPublican war against welfare recipients.

Were I still covering social issues as I did during the '70s and '80s (with superb confidential sources within the bureaucracy), I could show you the figures for Washington state, where this shift of funding was far more glaring: in some instances it was even performed illegally, in defiance of the legislature, and deliberately concealed by employment of the gangland tactic of dual bookkeeping. Indeed this discriminatory practice was first exposed by State Sen. Janice Niemi (D., Seattle), who accused the Department of Social and Health Services of "keeping two sets of books" to enable DHSH bureaucrats to secretly shuffle funds into unauthorized programs, thereby thwarting legislative oversight. (As it happens I still have the clipping in an old "welfare" file: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Page 1, March 30, 1991.)

But even if I find the specific data you request -- which (if I remember correctly) is not fingertip-available but requires some work at arithmetical comparison to disclose -- I sadly suspect it is pointless to continue this discussion. Far too many feminists seem to believe their movement is either beyond criticism or that it functions in a vacuum -- that is, without consequences outside itself, while the truth is quite the opposite: feminism is part of a sweeping and long-overdue transformation of human consciousness, undoubtedly the most powerful force in modern history. Which does not excuse its excesses -- nor how they play into the hands of the Fundamentalist enemy.

[omega minimo]

25. I didn't get that memo

"Feminism became a war on men when it called for a total embargo on all social services to males (including veterans benefits!) until such time as women are granted absolute economic parity. This delightful expression of feminist rage..."

Funny. I thought men were still in charge.

It's interesting that you point to the effects of "Reaganoid welfare cuts as a cover" and focus rage on feminism, rather than the socially-, economically and politically-regressive policies of the Great Destructionator himself; policies, agendas and attitudes which the nation is still suffering from and continues to pay the price for.

The "Reagan Era" was, of course, the genesis of the Backlash against women, against feminism, against social progressivism. The beginning of the demonization of "welfare mothers" (and African-Americans); the abandonment of programs and closure of facilities for mentally ill people, who became "the homeless" and demonized in their turn. Reagan was an equal-opportunity Fucker-Overer. (Please note that the same mercenary gang is still in power).

And you blame Feminism? "...feminists clandestinely scheming (c. 1981 or thereabouts) to use Reaganoid welfare cuts as a cover for "restructuring social services in accordance with feminist doctrine": i.e., imposing gender quotas." Which Wrong Wing hatemonger are you quoting there? Where can I get a copy of The Feminist Doctrine?

Wouldn’t the broader cause and “the survival imperative in the banishment of patriarchy” be better served by a focus on the perpetrators’ policies, rather than the down-the-food-chain folks trying to slice up a disappearing pie? Rather than representing a “...’feminist doctrine’: i.e., imposing gender quotas,” is it possible the person at that meeting was being a Jerk?

With your background in that early Movement as a kid, what happened to make you set down the “blessedly embracing idealism” and buy into the “hatefulness and vindictive anger”? Can you understand the confusion of women here at DU who have this sort of limited and hostile perspective foisted upon us (or upon Feminism), by folks who are ostensibly comrades? And how are we to tell Progressive hostility from Freepers?

btw: "politically correct" is another hijacked and bullshittified meme. The real meaning is R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Don't let them fool ya.



edit for: the hell of it

[Ripley]

36. Isn't it a sorry, sorry Hoot?

Women's rights have been steadily eroded since Reagan. The chipping away at reproductive rights (not just abortion, but access to birth control itself) is marching full steam ahead. Women only make up 14% of our Congress. Rape and sexual harassment stats are way up.

Yet, these jerkoffs are crying in their beers that Feminist hurt them. Feminists hurt us all. Feminists have taken over. Feminists have taken from men and given to women.

It is completely delusional. Not reality. How can so many of them be so wrong? I know hate radio and the Heritage Foundation have brainwashed the repukes, but what happened to so many liberal men?

[Eloriel]

88. Ahhh, objection to the War on Male Privilege

Sisters, I'd like to point out this sterling example, above and also downthread, of one of the typical and fully standard responses by members of the Dominant Culture to women and our simple demands for mere equality:

*********Okay, you gals can have a few more rights, but absolutely nothing approaching Real Equality, ya hear? And if you DARE ever get something so much as reminiscent of an ADVANTAGE over men, even temporarily, even if it's only one or a handful of you somewhere in some Western state, or a mirage (just a figment of OUR imagination), prepare for the whole weight and wrath of full-out Male Patriarchy to come crashing down on your head.

Bank on it, sister. ********



Now let's say this tawdry little story about a few ne'er do well women in Washington State -- oh, yes, acting in a conspiracy with their East Coast whacko liberal sisters -- ruining some poor chump's life forever is absolutely true (which I just can't bring myself to quite believe, not fully), please note the misogyny it engenders, the hatred and disdain and distrust and dismissal of all feminists, not just back then but for THREE SOLID DECADES incuding now, including here. He can't just blame those few stupid people involved -- for being, well, stupid -- no. It's ALL feminists who are to blame; they've declared war against MEN, all men, even him.

Only so "equal" and NO MORE!! That's why the Dominant Culture is against affirmative action, btw. The mere idea that a member of ANY historically oppressed minority MIGHT actually get the slightest ADVANTAGE over even a single member of the dominant culture is absolutely intolerable, and therefore CANNOT STAND, simply cannot be allowed.

That's partially what's behind the inevitable and wearying cries on EVERY thread that EVER talks about women's issues at DU: "but men are victims too" or "men have it rough too" or "men's rights are important too" or "men should be part of the discussion too," etc., etc., ad nauseum. It's that they simply can't let go of the Dominant Culture's unwritten promise to them that they, too, as a cherished member of the Dominant Culture, can have THEIR interests and concerns be, well, dominant, fer chrissake, else what's a Male Privilege for???? Boohoo. Waaaah!

It's also what was totally behind the Backlash -- then AND now.

Feminism is not, NEVER HAS been and never will be a "war on men," but it IS -- and men should definitely see it as the ultra-threatening thing it really is -- a War on Male Privilege. And to the extent men are afraid of that, then they damn well better take cover because we're coming for them, and fully intend to dismantle their Male Privilege. (They'll getb completely and blissfully liberated as a result, but don't try to convince them of that, it'll only confuse them and they'll never buy it anyway, since they really LIKE all that male privilege they've become so accustomed to.)

No wonder they're shaking in their boots, crying like babies.

[newswolf56]

101. Ideas have consequences. What you dismiss as "this tawdry...

little story about...ruining some poor chump's life forever" is the real-world expression of the feminist demand (c. 1971 or thereabouts and issued under the slogan "welfare is a feminist issue"), that social services to men be embargoed until women have economic parity. The corollary argument was that -- as long as women are oppressed by economic inequality -- providing social services to males merely reinforces the oppression. I say again: ideas have consequences. Sometimes unspeakably dreadful ones.

And I am not so constituted I can dismiss the malicious ruination of anyone's life, especially as this man was ruined, essentially for protesting discrimination of a kind and degree that -- had it been inflicted on a woman or a minority -- would have sparked immediate outrage.

Though the stories of such atrocities were mostly suppressed by mass media, they were nevertheless common knowledge, especially among anyone who knew Vietnam veterans and/or disabled people, a substantial majority of whom are male. Hence the passage in 1998 of Initiative 200, prohibiting the enforcement of racial and gender quotas by state agencies -- this by a 60 percent majority in an overwhelmingly Democratic state -- a state with such a proud history of Left-radicalism that Harry Truman's postmaster general often spoke of "the 47 states and the Soviet of Washington."

Bottom line, the very "dismissal" you (legitimately) decry was far too often at least partway fueled by the excesses of feminism itself. But perhaps the feminist movement is still so constituted that only a man dare say it.

[hfojvt]

108. "inevitable and wearying cries"

So am I crying like a baby? Or is it just that my Y chromosome and melatonin make my POV or my problems irrelevant and untrue?

"That's partially what's behind the inevitable and wearying cries on EVERY thread that EVER talks about women's issues at DU: "but men are victims too" or "men have it rough too" or "men's rights are important too" or "men should be part of the discussion too," etc., etc., ad nauseum. It's that they simply can't let go of the Dominant Culture's unwritten promise to them that they, too, as a cherished member of the Dominant Culture, can have THEIR interests and concerns be, well, dominant, fer chrissake, else what's a Male Privilege for???? Boohoo. Waaaah!"

Well, one never knows how they have accepted their culture's indoctrination and even an examined life probably leaves many assumptions unchallenged. However, being part of a discussion is a way to have them challenged, not a way to dominate a discussion. If I try to make the point that "men have it rough too" or "not every man has 'male privileges'" then that can be shown to be false or irrelevant. That paragraph however, does not do so, all it says to me is "shut up, ya whiny broken record!"

However, I cannot just read when things like "male privilege" are being discussed which I believe to be a false and divisive concept, or at the very least which needs further explication. Granted it can be frustrating when you are trying to discuss the calculus and people keep asking questions or requiring proof of basic math, but perhaps a wider dissemination of basic math is more important than esoteric discussions of calculus.

[omega minimo]

110. "masculinity is the only point of view that does not know it is one."

1 + 1 is not = to "I"

"...patriarchy has succeeded in disguising itself as objective truth. "By masculinist epistemology," observes Ellyn Kaschak, "I mean systems of knowledge that take the masculine perspective unself-consciously, as if it were truly universal and objective," Or as she puts it more succinctly, "masculinity is the only point of view that does not know it is one.""

[Finder]

27. Wonderful post, Nikia.

Hope you post in the Feminist forum as well.

[skids]

30. Very good points....

...and I must say, I really do envy the amount of stuff you ladies can carry around at hand's reach in those purses :-) I would not dare do that as a male even in my liberal area -- mostly because it would cause the wrong gender of person to consider hitting on me.

And, no, I can't stand fanny-packs.

[Ripley]

34. And I don't.

Why don't you read some of the male posts here in response to your thread. Isn't it obvious to you what this does? Men want to dominate the Feminist movement to talk about their problems. They blame Feminists as being man haters and all that other right-wing bullshit about feminists. Thanks for invited that shit into this forum.

The problem with some women is that they are exactly like the spineless Democrats in Washington. Let's play nice. Let's placate those who continue to put us down, put us in our place, tell us how to act, what rights we have and don't have.

Well, I for one, expect Feminists to act like Howard Dean and speak the truth, and too fucking bad if it hurts some men's soft egos. I didn't cause their problems and neither did anyone else in the Feminist Movement.

99% of the time I have seen men want to "join feminists and help us with our issues" the story always gets turned back to them. How things are seen from a man's POV. Well you know what? I have no desire to have them control women from inside the Group.

Would you have also thought it appropriate for a lot of white guys to try to bully their way into the high ranks of MLK's movement in order to help the blacks try to end racism? It's one thing to support those who are affected the most harshly and directly from bigotry, it's quite another thing to give them an equal share of time and a plate at the head of the table.

Especially when they often have a hidden agenda, in case you hadn't noticed.

[omega minimo]

58. I think the issues are bigger and do affect all of us

Pretty profound, huh? What I mean is, the OP hints at the germaine issue of gender roles. Newswolf stated how TPTB intentionally broke up some radical communication way back when. What can we infer from that?

Out of 7X,000 DUers, I can't believe there aren't cool men who want to particpate, who understand that issues of gender role straightjacketing is the big blunt weapon that the Repugs keep hitting the Democrats over the head with.

We keep getting caught up in bickering and petty bullshit, which is not unique on DU-- it has a different flavor here, with a different set of assumptions and cliches to hurl.

As you know from my comments when the Pink Ghetto formed and the Feminist's Group was developing, I am not in favor of balkanization. I believe we have the right to discuss whatever, however, whenever (cause I'm a feminist). I thought we had the Rules to back us up. After seeing how attached a lot of DUers are to their "right to gender bigotry" (as Newswolf quoted me) in defiance of the Rules -- which they don't "agree with," as if that's an option.... well, I guess it is. I can understand why women retreat at DU.

However, there is a great potential to learn from each other. If we could figure out how to use WR&I to be inclusive of respectful men and boring to the disruptors, FG could still remain "private."

I asked the OP about "men's rights" because that term is so charged. Yet I understand her point to be that rigid gender roles harm all of us. It's a vital point and we need to look at the big picture.

With respect, Ripley, it seems you're being pretty harsh on the OP. "The problem with some women is that they are exactly like the spineless Democrats in Washington. Let's play nice. Let's placate those who continue to put us down, put us in our place, tell us how to act, what rights we have and don't have." Have to tell you, in FG recently, I saw exactly this going on, where some men had come in and ruffled feathers, then made up. The resulting "placation" almost seemed like a put-on. Hard to tell if some weren't just messing....

May I quote myself addressing the petty puds from the "All right boys" post?:

"If you think women here fufill your expectations of everything-that's-wrong-with-feminists, imagine how you look to adult women who have something to say when you get all cranky and petulant about the way you think YOU are being treated?
Maybe you have more to say. Maybe we need to have some discussions about what feminism REALLY is, instead of lots of petty bullshit. Would you like that?"

This lengthy comment is merely to say, I hope we can get there. Might be fun. Might learn something. Shoo away the petty puds and watch the cool men come out of the woodwork.

:bounce: :bounce:

edit: for up-in-the-airity

[Ripley]

62. Okay, maybe I didn't point out the good in the OP.

I typed that post after reading this "I am a man old enough to remember when feminism was NOT a war on men" and this "But later feminism's blessedly embracing idealism gave way to the hatefulness and vindictive anger we saw for the next three decades."

That shit burned me up so much, he could have posted the Dali Lama's words for the next century and I still wouldn't be able to get past those hateful lying words.

I see you and him get along great and yet he never apologized for that. Well excuse the fuck out of me, but I am a woman old enough to remember the last three decades and I saw nothing but HATEFUL BACKLASH towards women, not the other way around. Gee, does he even remember the "Angry White Male Voter" syndrome, or how about the escalating statistics of violence against women and the erosion or stagnation of women in positions of power and wages?

To the OP: Yes, gay men and men who want alternative jobs, expressions, etc. face discrimination in this country. But if you will recall Reality, women are still paid less than gay men or "alternative" men. Men still represent 86% of Congress (shock! Even gay men!). There is not currently a roll back on laws to pull Gay men out of their homes and put them in jail, yet women can't even have their BCP prescriptions filled at some major Pharmacies!

The glaring disparities gets me mad. So frankly, I'm tired of every single time Women's Issues are brought up, I am supposed to "think about the Men!" Well no thanks.

[Nikia]

99. I know that we women are up against a lot

Especially with Bush&Co and his so called "Christian values" who wishes to push us back. Even without him, the status of women in this country still wouldn't be far enough.
There are several issues that affect only or mostly women that also need to be furthered. If you want to focus on these things, that is fine.
I reread your "Feminization of Males" thread and I was sort of suprised that you were so opposed to my original post. Yes, there were those men who didn't quite get what I was saying and they have been addressed by others in the past few days and I recently addressed one. By your thread post to which I referred, it seems that you acknowledge that one way Bush and his similiarly minded conservatives attack women is by attacking men who are not following their patriarchal masculine role. By counter attacking on that point, we include men, who might realize that their destiny is tied to ours, and further our cause as well. These are the men's rights that I am talking about, not the right to oppress women or to act irresponsibly, in the name of being a man.
You might argue that men should have their own movement opposing patriarchy. While that might work and might be desirable to some, I am still an idealistist in hoping that women and men can join together in creating and supporting a balanced society based on equality, personal freedom, responsibility, and respect.

[MindPilot]

37. Nothing Illustrates my point better than the responses in this thread

"Why don't you read some of the male posts here in response to your thread. Isn't it obvious to you what this does? Men want to dominate the Feminist movement to talk about their problems. They blame Feminists as being man haters and all that other right-wing bullshit about feminists. Thanks for invited that shit into this forum."

If this isn't exclusionary gender politics, I don't know what is.

[Ripley]

38. Exclusionary gender politics?

You mean because this is a WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND ISSUES FORUM?

I'll tell you what is exclusionary gender politics...The fact that only 14% of the Congress of the United States of America are women, when we are supposedly the best Democracy in the World. America ranks 61st when it comes to women's participation in government and legislative bodies...and that is behind Rwanda and Iraq.

Doesn't that possibly seem a bit unfair to you? Doesn't that possibly suggest a major problem in our country? Doesn't that even in the least tiny bit give you an idea how pissed off some of us women feel when men demand Feminists dedicate part of their time and effort to discussing how they can be made more comfortable to choose to be stay at home Dad's or nurses?

It is condescending. I'm sorry you can't put yourself in my shoes.

[MindPilot]

39. Exactly how many times have YOU run for office?

And exactly how many of those times did your gender prevent you from doing so?

No one--least of all me--is saying there isn't a problem. I'm surprised you would even suggest that. But the fact that you do simply illustrates my point even further. Thanks for perpetuating the sterotype...I'm sure the freeps are cross posting this one already.

Sorry, I guess I overlooked the section of the DU rules where it says this forum is off-limits to men.

[Finder]

40. Better yet, how many women have you not voted for...

because they did not fit your idea of being a feminist?

[omega minimo]

41. LOL HellllLLLLLOO Women's Rights and Issues Forum!

Look guys, you need to get over the fact that we have a right to discuss these things and you are invited to contribute, if you are capable of doing that.

We are interested, as Ripley asked above, in hearing WHAT HAPPENED TO SOME OF YOU to end up so twisted, if in fact you really are "liberals" or "progressives" or even Democrats. We are interested in hearing from cool men who understand we are in this together; we are interested in learning something... but mostly what we get in here is inflammatory harrassment. What is the point?

My question was never answered: given the hostility, disruption and time-wasting bullshit that is piled on DU women trying to have A DISCUSSION, how are we to tell legitimate, interested DU men from fucking freeper trolls? And then YOU get huffy. What a bloody JOKE.

:rofl:

[Kipepeo]

63. No - nothing illustrates the point you quoted

"Why don't you read some of the male posts here in response to your thread. Isn't it obvious to you what this does? Men want to dominate the Feminist movement to talk about their problems. They blame Feminists as being man haters and all that other right-wing bullshit about feminists. Thanks for invited that shit into this forum."

better than the posts by some men in this thread.

You know what - I think there is a place for men in the Feminist's movement, as long as it comes from a place of respect and an eagerness to learn and live Feminism - but posting LIES about Feminism and bashing the movement does neither and is *not* the place that feminists have in mind.

Do you find it problematic being asked not to bash Feminism with sexist right-wing talking points in a Women's Rights Forum?? Why on earth?

[hfojvt]

109. actually that was called quite early

before I even posted, I believe. By the time of post #32 there had been 5 male responses that were mostly positive to the OP. There were one or two, posts #6 and #10 which were positive with the caveat that feminism in the seventies had turned into (or was made to look like this by the right wing media) a women vs. men theme.

So with six positives to two negatives, there then needs to be an attack on men which goes from a statement about "some" men to a sweeping indictment of all men - "men want to dominate ..." Note that was not said about some men, or one or two men. The word was just plain "men" - as in all men.

At that point, and even now, there are very few men pushing right wing BS about feminists or talking about their problems. Just a few bad apples like me.

[omega minimo]

43. Okay boys, listen up, here's how it is

newswolf56 had a good point:

"...have long believed (feminism) was deliberately manipulated in that direction by the powers that be -- this to destroy the potentially revolutionary solidarity that was aborning during the late 1960s and early 1970s: what better way to smash a united front than by turning one gender against another?"

"At least as far as I could tell (being a male and therefore necessarily an "outside" observer), one of the most important original feminist motives was recognition of the need for truth in relationships: the notion that what bohemians of that period regarded as a supreme goal -- becoming "soul-mates" -- was possible only if misleading and often stupid gender-stereotypes were completely set aside."

newswolf invoked the "blessedly embracing idealism" before we parted ways over his "the hatefulness and vindictive anger we saw for the next three decades." From a feminist perspective those same decades were chock full of "hatefulness and vindictive anger" directed at women and women's issues. If you think women here fufill your expectations of everything-that's-wrong-with-feminists, imagine how you look to adult women who have something to say when you get all cranky and petulant about the way you think YOU are being treated?

Maybe you have more to say. Maybe we need to have some discussions about what feminism REALLY is, instead of lots of petty bullshit. Would you like that?

The OP said:
"Men being held to strict gender roles, reinforces patriarchy as much as holding women to strict gender roles. Being who we are as opposed to following gender roles is in direct opposition to patriarchy."

Gender role issues are at the top of the list of Repug wedge issues. There are deep and significant political implications in the comments made by the OP, Newswolf and others here; including my own suggestion that we "connect the dots."

So can we do that? May we carry on without disruptive, petty attitude from spoiled brats who complain if they don't get the right kind of attention and then try to make US feel guilty about it?

Ya know what we complain about? Slurs, insults, disrespect, hostility-- all of which are considered "normal" and "acceptable" and we should "get over it." All of which, btw, is especially fucked up because it violates DU Rules and happens frequently, perpetrated by individuals who "don't agree" with the Rules or "just don't get what the big deal is." :puke:

You guys complain if someone doesn't agree with you automatically-- you feel threatened and challenged, esPECially if it's by women. Maybe that's part of your Big Daddy conditioning that you could reveal and discuss, let your hair down in the Women's Rights & Issues forum.

Later.

[newswolf56]

46. Thank you; in return I owe you an (apologetic) explanation:

It seems to me -- correct me if I am wrong -- that when this thread first opened, it was a general discussion thread: not a women's issues set-aside. At least that was my impression, and it was on that basis I initially participated. Then, having trod as it were into the sacred grove, I had no choice but to respond as the comments seemed to require. Had I realized at the beginning this was (or would become) a women's issues thread, I would have rightly assumed that as a man I would be profoundly unwelcome here regardless of my views -- that my mere presence (perhaps even as a silent reader) would be regarded as an unwanted intrusion -- and I surely would not have attempted to contribute to the discussion. While I retract not one word of what I said, please believe my encroachment itself was unintentional -- an accidental offense for which I nevertheless feel I should apologize -- an inadvertent transgression I assure you (and all other women here) will never, ever happen again.


Edit: for clarity.

[omega minimo]

47. Sacred Grove! Where?!!!

:rofl:

Something is in the air today newswolf56, and wires are getting crossed, not only on this thread.

I thought we had some open questions for you when you faded out today.... we were wondering where you were coming from; the quotes seemed to indicate a direction.

I was interested in more of your perspective and more about your thoughts on ecofeminism, etc.

In this post and your other "kiss-off" post above, I'm not sure quite why you are SOOOOOO offended, because I thought there was still a discussion going on. If we all keep getting caught up in ego slights continuously, the spinning circles on DU could be harnessed as a new alternative energy source. (btw that rant on Democratic cant-- what's that got to do with anything here?)

I think you are right-- as a writer and with your interests/experience you may have a lot to contribute. It sounds like you are interested in making PROGRESS. If we were able to continue, I would ask you to reconsider the questions that were left hanging above.

BTW "I would have rightly assumed that as a man I would be profoundly unwelcome here regardless of my views -- that my mere presence (perhaps even as a silent reader) would be regarded as an unwanted intrusion -- and I surely would not have attempted to contribute to the discussion." As I am sure you already know, men are welcome here-- disruptors are not.

The only offense you may want to correct --and indeed you may be unaware of -- is to embellish your posts correctly when you need :sarcasm:


edit: for hilarity

[newswolf56]

48. Invited back so graciously, it would be unforgivably churlish...

of me to decline, especially when the invitation is extended by someone who writes so incisively of the negative impact of "scrotumhood" (a truly wonderful word!) and then concludes -- with needle-point accuracy -- that "The minority who insist on their right to gender bigotry are detrimental to the greater DU community (and the Dems)."

Declining would be even more impolite given that the individual in question also edits for "hilarity" -- thereby satisfying one of the (three?) cosmic needs denied by patriarchy.

Ask away, omega minimo, and I'll do my best to answer. I'll also try not to get upset (and withdraw like the too-sensitive child I once was) if someone trashes me again.

[omega minimo]

49. 3 Graces

Hilarity :rofl: Clarity :think: ...Parity :toast:

[newswolf56]

50. I was thinking hilarity, sensuality and wisdom (which by...

definition should include parity), but it surely sounds as if we're in the same clump of trees.

[omega minimo]

51. AND we can

see the forest
:evilgrin:

[newswolf56]

53. "The tops of the beech tree...

have sprouted of late,
Are changed and renewed
From their withered state..."

[omega minimo]

56. Grace trumps churl every time

I would like to suggest that being challenged is different from being trashed. (We're all recovering too-sensitive children-- part of the OP's point).

[newswolf56]

57. Very much agreed (on both points). But I took #s 33 and 35...

as unabashed trashings: #33 was the worst, most malicious misrepresentation I've ever been subjected to, and I've been in the word business -- often in association with major controversies -- for a very long time.

[omega minimo]

59. Your discomfort is understood

yet 33 used your posts and 35 was true. I think Ripley has the right to say what she did. Maybe it stung, but I didn't read it as a personal attack on you.

As I recollect, you made some sweeping statements, including sideswiping "30 years of feminism" that amounted to fighting words. It seemed we were still waiting for some backup to your broad assertions when 33 used your words as context.

Again, I think we have the right to discuss, challenge each other and question assumptions --especially when, as yours was, presented as fact or history. It couldn't have surprised you, once you realized this was Women's Rights & Issues.

[newswolf56]

60. I'd be very interested to know...

precisely which parts of #35 you think are true.

I'll proudly acknowledge my criticism of Reno: probably the only U.S. attorney general in history whose proposals were so draconian they united the ACLU and the NRA in opposition -- proposals for dramatically increasing the federal police and covert-action power that were resoundingly defeated by a Left/Right libertarian coalition in Congress but have since became part of the Patriot Act. I'll also acknowledge -- again proudly -- my critique of Hillary, who after she was put in charge of healthcare reform by the president proceeded to wreck it for years to come by {1} working behind a screen of secrecy that was controversial from day one and {2} linking it to the forcible disarmament of U.S. citizens. As to the damage so inflicted, that's the consensus of every health care advocate I know (including even the many who are anti-gun fanatics): we desperately need some form of socialized or universally available medicine -- in fact we are the only industrialized nation on the planet without it -- but the whole notion was so utterly discredited by the events c. 1993-1994 it probably won't be possible to even bring it up for consideration again before about 2035. And it is a simple fact of history that the NRA was merely an organization of target shooters until the late 1970s -- when the increasingly strident anti-gun politics of our very own Democratic Party inflamed it into the "gun lobby" it is today. The first political endorsement in its entire lifespan (it was founded in 1871) was of Ronald Reagan in 1980: this because of support within the Democratic Party for a total ban on the private possession of several categories of legal firearms.

Moreover -- and this is a very big moreover -- neither my objections to Reno's proposals nor to what the Right so ruinously dubbed "Hillarycare" had anything whatsoever to do with gender, a fact that would be clear to anyone who bothered to read what I wrote. Thus to claim otherwise is precisely what I said it was: malicious misrepresentation. Completely apart from the question of deliberate distortion, I believe anyone who confuses these policy issues with gender issues is guilty of shallow thinking. The ACLU that so opposed Reno has for many years represented definitively feminist positions (note for example ACLU's impassioned advocacy for Andrea Yates and its even more stalwart defense of reproductive rights). And on the basis of every national poll I saw, the tragic failure of single-payer national health insurance had everything to do with the manner in which the issue was handled (truly as if its proponents were secretly working for the corporate opposition) and nothing whatsoever to do with the gender of its chief spokesperson.

And I'll gleefully admit to one more of #35's accusations: it is absolutely true I'm not a "liberal" -- I'm much further Left than that. Real mobilize-the-workers Left, generous-job-training-for-displaced-commercial-fishers Left, more-timber-jobs-through-selective-logging Left (which also by the way protects the environment), free-education-through-four-years-of-college Left, equal-pay-for-equal-work Left. What I'm absolutely NOT (for many reasons, including the fact that unlike most American intellectuals I've actually worked several years at blue-collar jobs), and what I could never be, is the upper-middle-class "to hell with the blue-collar workers" pseudo self-proclaimed Left (formerly aka "New Left"), the make-believe Left that emerged from the (still-unresolved) domestic class-conflicts over Vietnam and so hopelessly muddies the American political debate even now.

But "misogynistic?" "Hysterically hate women?" Only a specialist in vindictive disinformation -- or someone who truly believes Janet Reno or Hillary Clinton are beyond criticism simply because they are women -- could make such an accusation.

Edit: last sentence (for clarity).

[omega minimo]

61. The part where she made general statements in general generally

You are confident in your information and offended when it is not accepted, unquestioned? You are making broad statements that you know could inflame, and you're surprised by the reaction? You come to DU with 40-50 years of assumptions built up and then limit your potential communications by projecting them on a digital community? I am interested in the grey areas; you are advocating some; there is real potential in the cracks b/w the cliches; yet you are also reinforcing the cliches.

And you continue to "edit for clarity"

[newswolf56]

67. As I said before relative to what you call "grey areas"...

ask me anything you like and I'll attempt to clarify. I assume you are particularly interested in my analysis that patriarchy -- and more specifically all Yehvehistic religions -- are the root causes of the potentially apocalyptic crisis facing humanity today. (There are many problems but they are really all expressions of the same crisis, the root of which is the innate Yehvehistic/patriarchal hostility toward the microcosm of femaleness and the macrocosm of nature.)

Hint: I regard Fundamentalism as the real Christianity, the real Islam, the real Judaism. All the remainder -- so-called "liberal" Christianity etc. -- all this is simply the Fundamentalist original enlightened by the pagan influences the Fundamentalists have thus far been unable to purge from Civilization; for example: democracy, a hybrid of Classical Greek notions grafted on to pre-Christian British tribal folkways evolved through Time and spread globally by English-speaking peoples (and a few Germanic-speaking peoples too) merely because, beneath the hurly-burly of history, they included the last unreconstructed pagans on the planet -- and were among the first to resurrect the goddess too. (The first at the resurrection -- the very first that I know of -- were the Ghost Dancers, specifically the Cheyenne: The White Man's god has forsaken him/ let us go and look for our Mother/ we shall live again!) (For an accurate reconstruction of the chant's rhythm, listen to Patty Smith's song by the same name: "Ghost Dance." The first time I heard it, nearly 30 years ago, it stood my hair on end.) In any case, what I think is happening today -- this in direct response to that resurrection and its (infinite?) power -- is a (probably final) war by the Fundamentalists to secure their stranglehold on this earth: that is why the contradictions -- us and them -- have suddenly become so glaring. That is also why it is so vital we stop fighting among ourselves: the Dominionists are again already literally talking of burning us at the stake or stoning us to death. (Google: "dominionist christianity.") Ours is no longer a mere game of rhetoric: we are no doubt even now already under enemy observation.

As to issues specific to this thread: far from being being "surprised by the reaction," what astonishes me is the malicious misrepresentation, not the vehemence of the objection. (Remember the phrase from the Army-McCarthy Hearings, "I differ violently..."? It like "point of order" became a staple of conversation for a time after that.) In any case I take no issue with people who differ, nor with their vehemence (at least as long as the violence of the differing remains purely metaphorical). But I will always take issue with misrepresentation. As for editing "for clarity," such is the lifelong curse of the writer who has not only run a typewriter, but wielded an editor's pencil as well.

[omega minimo]

69. Yehvehistic!!!

Gesundheit!


:smoke:
May I comment on your response to Ripley?

"I absolutely acknowledge your right to perspectives that differ from or even clash with my own: specifically, that what for some people was "30 years of hate and vindictiveness" was for others 30 years of dreadful misunderstanding -- and for others still, 30 years of triumph."

Some where between "dreadful misunderstanding" and "triumph" is a "perspective (that is).... necessarily the same as facts" i.e. being on the receiving end of "30 years of hate and vindictiveness." Not only being subjected to decades of derision and regression, but to be accused of having PERPETRATED "30 years of hate and vindictiveness"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On whom? Says who? Limbaugh?

It doesn't feel like "dreadful misunderstanding." More like "all expressions of the same crisis, the root of which is the innate Yehvehistic/patriarchal hostility toward the microcosm of femaleness and the macrocosm of nature."



Patti Smith. Aye. :patriot:

[newswolf56]

73. It just dawned on me this conversation is missing a vital note...

of context: I take it as self-evident that (with the discrediting of Marxism and socialism in general), feminism has been for a long while the sole remaining ideological wellspring of the entire American Left. I believe that in that central capacity (perhaps because they did not recognize just how much power they had), feminists made some dreadful tactical errors in the '80s and '90s -- errors that ultimately hurt not just themselves but all of us at this end of the political spectrum. Ideas have consequences, good and bad. The Right's attack on feminism did not occur in a vacuum; nothing of that magnitude ever does. However, it also now comes to me that my perspective may be somewhat distorted by the fact that I have spent all the years in question either in the Pacific Northwest or New York City, where feminism plays very central roles in the political process, which could skew my outlook as to the role feminism might play in politics nationally.

Nevertheless I understand why you found some of my phrases so inflaming: the bear sees the blueberries as especially delicious food, a seasonal treat; the rattlesnake sees the blueberry-patch as a superior place to live -- and both are absolutely correct in their judgment. Sometimes -- of necessity -- their interests conflict.

And this contextual note is also relevant: just as I have witnessed how the successes of organized labor economically benefited everyone, I have also noted many triumphs and advances in liberty for all that arose specifically from (often sadly misunderstood) feminism and feminist agitation: not the least of these is the opening of doors in the arts, the professions and the workplace in general, not to mention the broadening of acceptable sexual expression. I probably need not say that the ultimate significance of these (ongoing and now very much threatened) developments is not so much economic but psychological: the infinitely necessary potential to become what one truly is. Also I recognize that Gay/Lesbian Liberation began not at Stonewall in the late summer of 1969 but at least a year earlier with publication of Notes from the First Year -- an impetus further fueled by the examples of the Anti-War and Civil-Rights movements. But for some people the '60s came too late. One of my lifelong heartaches is the ultimately lethal injury inflicted on my mother by the rigidly defined role of women in the years between universal suffrage and the feminist renaissance of 1968: my mother, now several years dead, was a brilliant woman albeit unconventional woman, and she was utterly destroyed by patriarchal bigotry. So at least in that sense -- and actually in many others (the disclosure of which would jeopardize my own anonymity) -- I too have a proverbial dog in this fight against patriarchy. Indeed I believe it is patriarchy -- more specifically the concepts spawned therefrom -- that makes democratic socialism impossible at present.

[Ripley]

65. Since you're talking about me...

1. Why do you come in here and spend so many keystrokes attacking the few liberal women ever in positions of power? Of course they aren't above criticism, but why do you find it even remotely appropriate to do that in this particular thread?

2. You sure are touchy about me calling men hysterically misogynist yet you still have not in all your posts explained why you attacked all Feminists? Do I have to spell it out one more time? What fucking war by feminists on men? What 30 years of hate and vindictiveness?

You play an absurd game in here that would not be tolerated and left to stand if you has posted that about blacks. You know like this "I am a man old enough to remember when civil rights for blacks was NOT a war on white people..." or "But later black's blessedly embracing idealism gave way to the hatefulness and vindictive anger we saw for the next three decades..."

I'll leave now, so you can continue to play games without me bothering you.

[newswolf56]

66. Two points in response to yours:

(1)--Contrary to your accusation, I didn't "come in here...attacking the few liberal women ever in positions of power(.)" The fact of the matter is that the posts in question were NOT originally made in (or to) the women's group, and were instead inserted here by lwfern as part of her effort to misrepresent me -- which left me no choice but to respond accordingly. Moreover -- as I have repeatedly said above -- when this particular thread opened (and well into the ensuing exchange), I believed it was a "general discussion" thread, not a women's thread.

(2)--I absolutely acknowledge your right to perspectives that differ from or even clash with my own: specifically, that what for some people was "30 years of hate and vindictiveness" was for others 30 years of dreadful misunderstanding -- and for others still, 30 years of triumph. But perspectives are not necessarily the same as facts, and are often therefore not arguable at all, which is why I won't be drawn into further discussion of this point on this thread. I stand by what I said, but even Newswolf the Fool knows better than to fetch an open can of gasoline to an already blazing fire.

[Ripley]

70. Men's Rights will get acknowledged by me when you STOP

blaming Feminists for your personal problems.

And what in the hell are you talking about when you say this: "30 years of hate and vindictiveness" was for others 30 years of dreadful misunderstanding -- and for others still, 30 years of triumph. But perspectives are not necessarily the same as facts,..."

You want your perspective to negate all the progress that Feminists have made.

Again, your dislike of womens' advances is irrelevant. Our numbers will outnumber your dislike.

[newswolf56]

71. My "personal problems," as you put it, have never entered into this...

debate. And my alleged "dislike of women's advances" is such fiction it would be laughable were the accusation not so obviously antagonistic. However since there is apparently nothing I can say that will alter your opinion of me, please accept my apology if I see no point in continuing our particular discussion: masochist I am not.

[Ripley]

72. Yet you blame Feminists.

You guys use the exact same words.

Why don't you apologize?

[Eloriel]

87. The whole FORUM is "a women's issues set-aside"

you dolt. And you say you are a writer?

[newswolf56]

102. When this thread was opened, it was my impression...

it was opened as a general discussion thread -- the very wording of the OP confirms the probability my impression was accurate -- and it was on that basis I responded. The only thing that made me a "dolt" was therefore my utterly moronic belief in the possibility of dialogue -- a belief so strong I allowed myself to be convinced to return here after once departing. But I am not such a "dolt" I will make that mistake again. It is one thing to to be the target of a disagreement, even a raging one. It is quite another to be the mark for a spittle of vile names -- the latter an unpleasantness I quite simply will not abide. Good-bye, and thank you all: this has truly been one of the more informative encounters of my life.


Edit: because, "dolt" to the bitter end, I accidentally clicked on the wrong command before I was finished writing.

[Nikia]

52. Thanks for your post

I am reconsidering letting my post stand as it is without commentary by the way that I see this thread has been going. I wanted it to stay positive and not turn into a flame fest. A couple people from opposite perscpectives don't quite seem to get what I am trying to say even though I think that I make it clear. I think that you have a good understanding of the point that I was trying to make.

[omega minimo]

55. Thanks Nikia

for the OP and the feedback.

[Misunderestimator]

74. Good post, omega...

Glad I got through the whole thread before responding. There's really nothing I can add. :thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

80. Cheers, Misunderestimator

:toast:

Do you think we can get there? Bickering seems to sideline many discussions on DU (especially lately?)

Maybe its the digital medium or a human being thing?

[Misunderestimator]

81. Frankly, it's probably more the digital thing...

and the fact that people can claim to be anything they like here. Many people seem to be here specifically to sew discord. Sometimes confronting it before the infection spreads is the only answer.

[omega minimo]

83. Right, I keep getting stuck on

thinking that DU has Rules and Goals and stuff......


:think:

[Misunderestimator]

84. I think I need some clarification.

Are you criticizing me?

[omega minimo]

85. I'm sorry-- absolutely not

I was making fun of my own idealism. The urge to look at the big picture and get on with it.

Again, apologies-- I know your name but don't have an association from previous reads; perhaps you were a Mod (?)

No dig intended.... just had a recently reality check on how things are vs. how they could be.

There's that idealism again!

:evilgrin:

[Misunderestimator]

86. Sorry for misunderstanding... I've been taking some grief lately

for expressing myself and confronting some disruptors here. :) Guess I'm a little sensitive.

I do agree that the bickering doesn't help in the long run. Peace... we should have such ideals. :hi: