jefferiah

Actually Kimmy it would be important to hear you say this. To say that women can be just as wrong as men. To say that women can be just as unfair as men. To hear you condemn Catch Me's statements. I expressed my disagreement with B. Max. So far everyone has expressed their concern with me, but no one has even said what Catch Me said is unfair.

For a woman to say of an innocent person, he could gain from the experience of being unjustly accused of rape......you dont think that is a bit conceited. And if he was unjustly accused what hot stove did he touch.

Dude, that's not even what the quote actually says: That doesn't mean they should be unjustly acussed or rape or that its a good thing for men to be unjustly accussed of rape. Let me put it this way: children who put their hands on hot stoves can sometimes gain from the experience. Context! More context! Even so Black Dog, imagine a person says a black man could gain from the experience of slavery.

I would add that I wonder how many people who use Dworkin (or indeed, any of the women cited) to slam feminism have actually read more of them than just the quotes in question? Context! I need context! Context. Jeez. I have quotes there saying its a good thing for a man to be unjustly accused of rape. What kind of context can that be viewed in that makes it ok?

And my point is not about the abortion issue selectively, but about a not uncommon feminist view which I think is radical that people who dissent from the views of feminists are all bigots. This view is not something which only existed 20 years ago and no longer exists today, nor or the discriminatory views which feminism was created to eradicate. I think my posts indicate that women can be unfair. I think the posts of Catch Me illustrate that she believes it is wrong to say that a feminists views regarding feminism could be wrong is quite unfair, and is basically license for her to disregard any dissension whatsoever that could come from a male who is being reasonable. I said that I do not stand by B. Max's views. If you will say to me you dont agree with her, and that disagreeing with a feminist is not mysogyny. I would be very pleased. And I will apologize to you. In fact since my infraction occured first, I will say "I am sorry Kimmy for bringing that Jesus thread up." Is that fair enough?

What is bad is that you grossly misrepresented my opinion, and I notice still have not apologized for it. You opened the thread with a bunch of quotes (old ones, as Dancer points out) that for reasons Fleabag already explained, just looked like a slam on feminists. (If I posted a bunch of the worst quotes from the most embarrassing Christian leaders, with no context and no explanation other than "just getting the word out", how would people take it? How do you think Christian readers would interpret that message?) Now, after a whole bunch of backpedalling and shifting of gears, you actually want to talk about an issue in New Brunswick regarding abortion access. hmmm, maybe if you'd said as much when I asked "do you have a point?" we'd have avoided all of this unpleasantness. -k Well, actually for instance in the Jesus Camp thread there was a You Tube video given and sort of a message about it being a cause for concern. I didnt just post the quotes, I said that not all feminists were like this nonetheless these are some interesting quotes. Also the topic was radical feminism. Which implies a certain brand of feminism, does it not. As the Jesus Camp thread would also imply a very select branch of Christians.

So you go around smearing people and blame it on your shitty memory? If you were any kind of man you'd apologize. -k If you were any kind of woman, you would be honest enough with yourself to see that I have been quite fair with you.

While I am certain sure you don't agree with the views expressed in those quotes, Kimmy, or as you say you don't associate yourself with feminists, there are people who do today nonetheless, and some of them can be quite unreasonable. And when you criticize this you are automatically a mysogynist as someone else on this forum has shown us. She didnt say this 20 or 30 years ago. And if you read my post about the woman from the advisory council I think it is ridiculous for her to call it discrimination just because women can't get free abortions. And its discrimination to argue with her as well. Furthermore I think that there are probably a lot of great things that the Advisory Council does. I understand that they do great work for women who are victims of abuse, and other such things. I just think it is highly unreasonable to suggest that Pro-Lifers (some of whom are women, all of whom are tax-payers) are discriminating against women, not just because they don't condone abortion, but because they assert that perhaps freedom to self-determine should cover the freedom to self-determine whether we all should fund public abortions. Also, I realize that whoever said (if I was wrong about it being you) they would inflict violence on a proselytizer was probably not serious and would never do so in real life. Nonetheless you accuse me of stooping to a low level for using that, which may be true, but it was in response to you diverting attention away from my original topic by pointing out that quotes from Christians could be mocked as well. This has been done, Kimmy. And if I was wrong about how you said it, you were definitely instrumental in posting about it. So why is it so bad if I do the same thing.

You will notice Kimmy, that I said "if I remember correctly".

Even if the quotes are old (I didnt check the dates on them) we have at least established that Catch Me, who I assume is not living in some sort of time anomaly, does not condemn them.

My opinion is that if you disagree with feminism, you are a mysogynist. Note: I said feminism, not feminists. ("Feminism" = the movement that stresses womens' equality and the drive to open society to equal opportunity in treatment, jobs, education, etc.) If someone disagrees with the equality of women, I would consider that person a mysogynist. It's an entirely different thing to disagree with certain feminists or even with the tactics of the feminist movement or radical statements made by certain people. Criticising those are completely fair game, in my opinion. Interesting the Diane Ablonczy item was totally ignored. I am sorry Margrace I will have to read about this. Give me a day or so.

My opinion is that if you disagree with feminism, you are a mysogynist. Note: I said feminism, not feminists. ("Feminism" = the movement that stresses womens' equality and the drive to open society to equal opportunity in treatment, jobs, education, etc.) If someone disagrees with the equality of women, I would consider that person a mysogynist. It's an entirely different thing to disagree with certain feminists or even with the tactics of the feminist movement or radical statements made by certain people. Criticising those are completely fair game, in my opinion. Well what about a movement for equality stressing the equality of both sexes. Wouldnt that be preferable to a movement for equality only named after one sex?

I will make another point. The head of the Advisory Council for The Status of Women in my province writes an article in one of our newspapers. In her articles she claims it is discrimination that there is limited access to abortion doctors in our province. Actually there is limited access to a lot of things in NB and this is easily explanable since we are a pretty small and rural province. Limited access concerning anything is just a fact of life here. But anyways she believes that NB should subsidize abortions. As her defence she uses the argument in her articles that people have a right to belief and a right to conscience. But its unfair to say that this right is being breached since abortion is legal. But she says that the province should provide greater access to free abortion. Some people cant afford it. But I say well that's just a fact of life. To you that may sound harsh, but look at it this way. Many of the tax-payers are pro-life. (She refers to them as anti-choice in her articles by the way, which I think is unfair). Now while she or alot of people here may not agree with the Pro-Life position, it seems she does agree with freedom of belief and conscience. So if abortion is legal there is no freedom of conscience being violated for her, but where does her pro-choice stance regarding conscience disappear when it comes to people who would not be willing to fund public abortion. Now, I dont think all feminists would agree with this woman. I realize that. But nonetheless is it reasonable to say that disagreeing with a feminist is not necessarily mysogyny, which is the belief that Catch Me expressed.

But see Margrace the difference is in how you and I look at it. I think cases of this nature should be handled on the individual level, I have no doubt you can find an example of where a woman was a victim of discrimination, does that make all cases the same. Pay equity is not the only issue here. There is the gender parity issue which i think you will agree does open up a lot of doors for unfair decisions to be based on sex when there is no proof that all cases of inequal representation beforehand. I mean alot of people could point to a lot of things in society that are uneven. For instance I dont know too many Prime Ministers (male or female) who have come from my part of the country. Nonetheless I am not going to outright blame the system of discrimination. Maybe we should enforce a law which says we have to alternate the prime minister every term based on which province he comes from? Feminism is not just this equity issue. There are alot of feminists who look at my argument and rather than admit I have a point that they still dont agree with totally, they just say oh you are against equality. I would appreciate it if I could hear just one feminist say thats not fair. That it is wrong when this is done and done so blatantly and impulsively without any reasonable proof that someone believes what they believe because they are bigotted.

Another thing is what does the percentage of women worldwide have to do with Canada. I think women do have a pretty good chance of competing in society. Even though discrimination does exist I dont think they are so bad that enacting interventionist policies are mandatory. Because enacting an interventionist policy imposes on individual freedom. Showing me numbers means nothing. How can you prove that in all situations where numbers dont even out, that it was due to discrimination? And if they are uneven in some situations without discrimination, then it is not fair to enact a system which would rectify this. For instance there is the hiring quota I mentioned at the IT company. Male applicants are being denied in favour of female applicants who arent showing up. Does this mean that men are binding these women and gagging them? Is this the only explanation you can imagine for an uneven situation?

Indeed, this argument is pretty much the epitome of the 'false dichotomy'. August1991, I am afraid Liam is more right than you. If they are 'profit able' now, then they would have been equally so before now. Such was not the case. In fact, WWII did more to put women in the workforce than either feminism or 'free enterprise'. I dont think there is anything false about it. Catch Me said its mysogynism to disagree with a feminist, unless you are female. You don't think that proves there are real radical feminists out there. Also in one of her posts she reiterate the quotes I originally made, and she did not even express an "I dont support this". One of the quotes said that men can benefit from being falsely accused of rape. Her response was that people don't understand the quotes, and maybe men should learn from them. And according to her standard, it would be mysogyny not to. Imagine if someone said Rodney King can benefit alot from a good beating.

Explain how you would enforce gender parity in politics without infringing on democracy. As I said in another thread if you make a move to enforce that all political parties have the same amount of women and men in them, then you still can't gaurantee gender parity because they havent been elected yet. If fifty percent of the Candidates from every party are women, and fifty percent of the candidates over all are woman who says that 50 percent of the people are going to vote for them. And if they dont, what do you propose we do?

If a private company hired only males - ignoring more qualified females - it would soon find itself with a falling share price as competitors hired the competent females. If a woman is competent, then hire her. You'd be a fool not to.RB, the proof is in the pudding. See I agree entirely with this August. I would hire her. The point of my story was it was a small store where the employees being all male, or even all female could conceivably happen, and that fact that things dont pan out evenly doesnt necessarily mean any one was discriminated against. Of course it is unrealistic to assume that a great deal of fuss is raised over small stores, but its easier to make the point that things dont work out magically even with something small.

No. I suspect finding balance or finiding equality or even pointing out the errors of a particular thought (feminism) was not your intent. I suspect your intent at posting those quotes was to cast all feminism in a bad light. Thats a highly unfair assertion based on absolutely nothing. If you read what I said before the post, I said something along the lines of I know not all feminists are like this. You are making assumptions. I am giving reasonable arguments. Do people who claim to support equality and fairness hold the monopoly on those things simply because they identify themselves with those terms? Is it possible that they can be wrong? When they are wrong is it wrong to point this out to them? Can one safely do this without being labelled a bigot?

I have a tough time recalling anyone who claimed feminism was all roses, but I take umbrage with anyone claiming it did no good. I also have a problem when someone only publishes the most extreme and worst side of a particular philosophy or belief system when there is a lot of good to balance out the few points of bad. As someone else said, it would be just as easy to find a myriad of quotes spoken by men of faith. Would it be fair to cast all of the faithful as evil or mean based on the words of a few whackos? Would it be fair to ignore all the good that religion has done? No. I don't think many of us would want to live in a pre-feminist world. I am a single dad with two little girls. Thanks to feminism, my girls will grow up with professional and personal doors open to them that were closed to their grandmothers. We all know that's true. Just because there were a small handful of verbal molotov-cocktail throwers in the feminist midst does not make feminism itself evil or hateful anymore than taking quotes from Pat Robertson makes Christianity evil. Ok thats a good point Liam. I am not going to argue with that. What I am pointing out is that if something goes under the label feminist or purports to seek fairness and equality does that make it necessarily so? Can I object to it if I find a policy that they promote is not logical? Catch Me says it is mysogyny to do so, and I have run into this sort of thinking from alot of feminists. Its not so uncommon. "If you dont agree with me you dont believe in equality." That's the sentiment.

If a private company hired only males - ignoring more qualified females - it would soon find itself with a falling share price as competitors hired the competent females. Well yes, thats true but I dont think you understood my story. I opened (theoretically)a store like a Needs Convenience. Why would it be so odd that if my store only has five employees that all of them could be men, or women for that matter? The reason I used such a small store is because its a lot easier to illustrate a point when its a smaller matter. Of course in a larger business if every employee was male then you could say well something is rotten in Denmark. But, if the positions in a large business dont naturally even out does it necessarily imply that human resources was bigotted?

In another thread I told the story of a friend who works for an IT company. The IT company has a quota for so many women to be hired, but believe it or not, they are not applying in droves. However, male applicants are coming in droves. But since the quota requires women every ten qualified males to one qualified female who apply are turned away. Does this not illustrate the fact that it is possible for a woman to not apply? And it wouldnt make sense to say that they were advertising in such a way as to keep women out, since they were required to fill a quota. Do you think all things magically even out in life? If you toss confetti up in the air and hold out your left hand and your right hand, will just as much confetti land in your left as in your right? If more lands in your right hand was your left hand necessarily discriminated against?

Ah but suppose a woman asserts that there is an inequality somewhere and she makes the accusation unfairly. .... Suppose a woman comes into my store (I dont own a store, by the way) and sees five men employed and says I am a bigot because I hired no females. If you were a company hiring only males then I would presume you intentionally do not advertise where the females are found nor have to desire for opportunity to meet with more qualified folks. Females would never know of your jobs. This is the same situation found in politics, in senior management positions of companies, in previously male domination occupational types I mean in a country where the female population surpassed the male population only a handful of female are found in the Harper government....and he has recently downsize the number of females. You believe females do not wish to be Politicians? Judges? Doctors? Engineers? These are occupations kids gaze at when they are young. So answer this, what usually happens to the female that would halt their quest to be a Prime Minister? See but your presumption is sort of ridiculous. I put up a help wanted sign. You dont think its possible that only men would apply in that situation. It automatically was a conscious effort to keep women out. Thats ridiculous. And its unfounded. This is the type of illogical thinking I point to in the socialist method of attaining equality----as I have stated elsewhere, more than once. It operates under the assumption that in a perfect society numbers would magically even out. I can imagine a lot of situations to explain the difference that would be quite in line, and not constitute discrimination. You just look at a few face values and say well this must be bigotry. It cant be anything else. No other explanation. And thats that. Actually to tell you the truth I do believe there are less females interested in politics than men. Which may not be a good thing because I think there are a lot of women who would agree with my position.

If as you say Catch Me Pro Choice represents all women because they then have a choice to have an abortion whether they believe in it or not, well what about being pro-choice as to funding it. Are you pro that choice?

Not really, since it's about life and some people feel strongly that a nation should value life from conception on. Well, what if some people consider a fetus a human soul, thus it's a moral question. If it was so simple then their would be no abortion debate, the early feminists were strong opponents of abortion also. What kind of change is "good change". Look at Eugenics, that was supposed to make our world better. However as we found out, Eugenics only worsened human suffering despite promising to bring about a better world. Strangely enough abortion is in some ways a form of eugenics as people are starting to use abortion to determine the sex of the baby. Who know's, maybe in the future we will be able to manufacture children if we continue to progress in reproduction technology. I think we shouldn't be playing god, however that's my own personal opinion. If the early "feminists" were "against" abortion, that would mean (according to Catch Me's standard) that if you became pro-abortion over night Canadian Blue you would be as much as a mysogynist as men who disapprove of it, because you would be disagreeing with the opinion of a feminist.