jefferiah

Exactly. In the US you have to go to an abortion clinic and pay for the abortion yourself. If you can't afford the pay I beleive that there are burseries funded by womens groups and private organizations that will pay the $300 to get it done. The tax payers aren't on the hook. Mike, you horrible awful mysogynist. Expressing concern over where your tax dollars go. How dare you? Ah but your using tax dollars as a cover for misogyny and sexism. My example of the 300k minimum quad by pass stands. It is after the fact care. But anyway I recognize you all will justify your misogyny how you will, and I need not participate. And ya notice all there are not a lot of women who post here, I wonder why? Har Har. Thats ridiculous. And there are a lot of women who post here. Mike and I dont support abortion. Not because he hates women, because he believes its wrong. And as I have pointed out again and again, neither Mike or I can stop any woman from having one. You can have five thousand abortions if you like and we cant do anything about it. But if we dont believe in it, because we believe that you are using women's rights to label any dissenters of abortion as anti-female, when we believe that the choice you are making is not just for your body but for another living thing----why should we have to subsidize it. If you believe in it, then I cant stop you. But why should I pay for what is mostly an unnecessary surgery. Thats not mysogyny. Thats having an opinion.

Anyways, I would like to thank you Catch Me, because you have inadvertently very instrumental in helping me make the point I was trying to make. In fact, I think you made it more clear than I possibly could have.

Ah but suppose a woman asserts that there is an inequality somewhere and she makes the accusation unfairly. Then what? If I point out to her that she is wrong, or state my own case is this mysogyny. Who says that the feminist view is always on par with true equality? Do you think that the quotes I posted were examples of true equality. Do you think the assertion that heterosexual sex is degrading to women is true? Or the quote about all men being rapists. If I dare to disagree with her, well I am damned by you, because that mysogyny, right? 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. Well I say I put up a help wanted sign and only men applied. I would have hired a female. But she becomes unreasonable and says oh yeah I'll just bet you would. And I want to defend myself then. What? Am I not allowed to argue. If humans can be wrong, is it not natural to assume that humans who belong to the feminist movement can also make wrong judgements. And if they do why is it bigotted to try to point that out and defend your own views?

Ah, hell. Ok Thelonius Monk Flea Bag, in the future I will try to remember to state my intent.

Exactly. In the US you have to go to an abortion clinic and pay for the abortion yourself. If you can't afford the pay I beleive that there are burseries funded by womens groups and private organizations that will pay the $300 to get it done. The tax payers aren't on the hook. Mike, you horrible awful mysogynist. Expressing concern over where your tax dollars go. How dare you?

Very well, my apologies. However, without context, (whether or not you agreed with them, for example) motivation or intent is open to interpretation. For example, if I were to cut & paste some racist jokes from some skinhead sites, and said it was simply FYI, I think I could reasonable expect to be reported, even if my original intent was to say, "Look at what these morons believe! Why do we allow them to reproduce?!" Without the caveat of intent, some people would get their nickers in a twist. This says a ton more, and then becomes a debatable point, one that I agree with you upon. But, really, is there a difference betwwen 'feminism' and radicalism? Or is it simply the bleatings of a special interest group? Is 'equality' (of not just the sexes, but of races and abilities)greater than 'feminism', or are they 'equal but different'? Once again I will point out the difference to you. The racist jokes could mean you think they are funny or that you are spreading awareness. I think it was well understood that I was not in support of these quotes.

Look this is NOT about men, and yes if it is a man thinking a feminist is wrong, then it is misogyny, as then the male has set himslf up to know more than the female, even though as male is quitye obviously not female, and thus could never know. And that is not saying some females can not be wrong, please keep in mind not all females are feminists, just as not all males are misogynists. In fact there are a good number of feminist males. For example Plato is considered on of the earliest. Feminisn, has progressed, or shall we say changed, over the years and centuries, fundamentals have remianed, such as no debate on the rights of self determination. wiki though not the best does address a broad range of info for those who seriously want to discuss feminism outside of the right to self determine should read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminists LOl Catch me. That is completely ridiculous. It is mysogyny for a man to think a feminist could be wrong. Maybe you really believe this. I dont know. If its not your intent, you should at least be aware that this accusation provides a very convenient way to disregard any dissent at all. By this logic, if a feminist wanted to crown herself world dictator it would be wrong to stop her. I speaking in only regards to feminism, feminist thought and regarding woman's self determination, not the broader world, I had thought I was quite clear on that. And reading back I see, yes, I was. __________________________________ Men in history used to be very effeminent as opposed to today's men, they wore: long hair, make up, wigs, heels on their pumps, plus bows ruffles and lace. Men who use women's equality rights to try a frame a discussion around the fact that is why there are effeminent men today have no basis in fact to do so. I never even said anything about effiminate men. Anyways actually yes why cant a feminist be wrong, and why cant a man point out that she has unfair ideas if indeed she does. That is not mysogyny. Thats criticism. Suppose I labelled all my arguments against feminism Male Protectionism (which I wont do) but that would make all your defenses arguments against my position. And you would be a man-hater.

Once again I will say that no one is forcing anything on you. Abortion is legal. Mike and I have expressed our beliefs that is wrong, but we are not out bombing clinics or stopping women from getting them. So no one is forcing anything on you. Is abortion a mandatory procedure? If someone needs medical care then yes they have a priviledge to receive that in Canada. That is a priviledge you know. But is abortion mandatory for medical well-being. What percentage of abortions are done because of a mandatory medical need? Keep in mind I am not even asking you to change your view on abortion because of this. But why should Mike have to pay for people to lobby for subsidization of a cause he doesnt support.

Mysogyny means hatred of women. So to disagree with anything a feminist says means you hate women. So my disagreement with the sentiments of the women I quoted makes me a mysogynist apparently. Now my appeal to the other posters is this. After seeing what Catch Me has said regarding Mysogyny, can any feminists out there concede that there are feminists who are basically the female equivalents of B. Max.

Look this is NOT about men, and yes if it is a man thinking a feminist is wrong, then it is misogyny, as then the male has set himslf up to know more than the female, even though as male is quitye obviously not female, and thus could never know. And that is not saying some females can not be wrong, please keep in mind not all females are feminists, just as not all males are misogynists. In fact there are a good number of feminist males. For example Plato is considered on of the earliest. Feminisn, has progressed, or shall we say changed, over the years and centuries, fundamentals have remianed, such as no debate on the rights of self determination. wiki though not the best does address a broad range of info for those who seriously want to discuss feminism outside of the right to self determine should read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminists LOl Catch me. That is completely ridiculous. It is mysogyny for a man to think a feminist could be wrong. Maybe you really believe this. I dont know. If its not your intent, you should at least be aware that this accusation provides a very convenient way to disregard any dissent at all. By this logic, if a feminist wanted to crown herself world dictator it would be wrong to stop her.

The rape argument is powerful. But is rape the determining factor in the vast majority of abortions.

What about the rights of the unborn female? DO you believe that you should be able to abort because of the sex of the unborn child say in the third trimester? See how your 'rights' argument is in of itself a strawman? No that is not a strawman in the rights argument. You have pre-supposed an answer and then kicked it down, your own strawman actually. Pro-Choice means self determination on the part of the female, if the woman's personal choice is being manipulated by anyone, or any type of religious social desire/belief such as boys are more important than girls, then it is not free choice is it? It is imposed externally. However, what you talk about is more to the point of discussing whether or not the sex of the feotus should not be known until born. As opposed to woman's equal rights to self determine in ALL things. They are not the same thing. One can be discussed the other cannot. You are deliberately ignoring the fact the Pro-Life supporters believe that there is another "self" involved in what you call self-determination. That the woman choosing to abort is making a choice not only for herself but for an unborn child as well. While we dont agree on this issue can you at least concede that our intent is not to restrict women from choosing how to live, simply that we believe there is another life there. Abortion is legal and I am not out bombing clinics. But I dont support subsidization of abortion. This is what Mike is referring to. Why should he have to pay for it?

Finally, you have made a debatable point. As kimmy pointed out, without this, inflammatory quotes are merely 'flamebait'. Some of the quotes you provided are indeed, as you named some names above, the extreme edge of the tattered fringe of reason. While it is true women have been historically treated (in some places, to this day) as inferior, the nonsense spouted by Marilyn French (and others) in your quotes does absolutely nothing positive to address the issue. I recall a woman by the name of Judy Rebick, who was formerly the head of 'NAC', or "The National Action Commitee on the Status of Women" (succeded by Sunera Thobani, I believe) whose militancy and abrasiveness probably drove away more women from the issues than it attracted. Thobani was much more level-headed and reasonable when she presented issues, though I haven't followed anything from the group for quite some time. I dont think its flaimbate at all. Nobody called Jesus Camp or posts on Christian groups flaimbate. For the record I would never send my kids there (if I had kids that is). But that's just it. I think the quotes were pretty self-explanatory. Feminism is not all roses. The quotes are simply awareness. Maybe they will change the way people view a person who says he/she would never support these movements. Even the great Gloria Steinem, she had some pretty whack things to say about how destroying the institution of marriage was a necessary step in liberation (and capitalism as well).

Basically if society takes measures to keep men in check or other groups in check because of the possibility that they are totally unfair in the way they do business. But why do we assume that feminists cannot also be unfair or cannot be prone to bad logic, that they do not need to be kept in check. Do you believe that only men can be unfair? Is it not possible that in some cases the word "equality" can be abused by those who purport to seek it, or that even if not abusing it that they can be wrong in some cases? Is it bigotted to think a feminist can be wrong?

What socialist policy are you referring to? I've yet to hear of a socialist policy called "one size does not fit all'. Do you view equal rights for women as a socialist policy? How about equal rights for different races...is that a socialist policy? Are all socialist policies bad and fraught with problems? Oh norman, those that frame their commentary by using "afraid of honest debate", are just throwing up straw men and kicking them down. They don't have a honest bone in their body let alone the desire to allow women to have equality. Perhaps they may not even understand what equality really means, and not just between the genders. You see the opposite of "honest debate" is "dishonest" so they have already framed what they want to talk about as anyone being opposed is dishonest, and thereby they have the default position of "honest". Not true. False premise, dishonest and closed position. Feminists and progressives quite "honestly" say there is NO debate on equality issues are just that equality rights for all. No one else has the right to debate substantive reasons for having my equality rights taken away, nor anyone else's. They stand as they are, equality always = equality. Needess to say behind all this, is the fact that once one decides to take away others equality rights their equality rights are equally up for grabs. The Rights of Equality stand not up for discussion from the position of taking away. I think that is a very shallow view of things. The method of employing equality that many groups seek is one of (as I think I said before) evening out the end result of everything. This means we have to have even numbers across the board. Now if we assume that in an ideal society where people did not discriminate numbers would magically pan out this way, then it would make sense. But I think it is highly unlikely. Not because either men or women or better. To put it another way, the same logic assumes that where numbers are uneven there must be discrimination. There is no other explanation. So in order to fix the problem we even out the numbers. A friend online was telling me that his IT company has a quota for so many women. But relatively few are applying for the job. Meanwhile many men are applying but have to be turned down. I dont know why fewer women are applying. But meanwhile lots of qualified men are coming in first and not getting served. By the same token, this could conceivably backfire against women as well. The problem with this equality thing is conceptualization of groups. First off we have the problem of discrimination in the first place which is based on conceptualizing groups. Then we are proposed with solutions which do the very same thing. The men applying for the job I mentioned above, are being denied jobs because they belong to a certain group, men. It is not discrimination in the usual sense I will admit, but I dont see why a company can't staff itself with what qualified people are being made available. This is one of the problems with legislation to create equal numbers. I am not saying there are cases where discrimination against women does not exist. I am sure you could find some very horrifying ones. But I really believe that in today's society most of us see things differently. I have no problem with women being in politics or no problem voting for a woman, but I certainly dont support the idea of gender parity in parliament. Can you understand why without resorting to calling me a bigot? How would such parity be enacted? If you made a move to legislate that every party has to have an equal number of women running in ridings as men, this would not guarantee parity. Because it could happen that either more women end up getting elected or more men end up getting elected. So what then. How do you rectify this? Do you supercede the votes of certain ridings? Also what if a greater number of men or a greater number of women vying for a political spot in a party are more qualified for the job than others. What if reasons for choosing one over the other in some cases have to do with a real assessment of the individual, rather than being based on sex. My family is Conservative. So I can tell you that if a conservative woman was running against a Liberal man they would vote Conservative. And not just because they feel its the lesser of two evils, which will definitely be your next accusation. This is because we vote Conservative, male or female.

B. Max aside....since I dont agree with what he is saying either, does this make these quotes by prominent feminists right. Do these quotes sound as if they are coming from people who only want equality? If I can say I am a fundamentalist Christian but that I don't agree with B. Max or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, can you concede that not all feminists are to be glorified or that they set a good standard and a good example.

Ah it seems you misunderstood my intent by "one size does not fit all". I was not referring to a socialist policy by this remark, I was making my own remark as to why I disagree with socialist policies, that being one size does not fit all. Whenever a policy is enacted or legislation is made there ought to be a very very great demand for it, because no policy can ever be worded to take into account individual situations. I cant remember the statistics, but I think it was a The Status of Women here in NB that found that women were earning 83% of what men do. Having had this statistic challenge on grounds that there could be other factors than discrimination, they had to dig deeper. I commend them for doing so. What they found was that there were definitely some good reasons to account for some of the cases including the amount of hours worked. But still they found through their own research that about 50 percent of this could not be accounted for by the other factors they investigated. They use this 50 percent to indicate the amount of discrimination. Now even this could be very wrong, since we dont know the individual cases. The danger in employing an equity policy is that it does not take into account alot of individual situations. For this reason (even though I am sure there is racism and sexism out there) I dont support a move to legislate equity. If we look at affirmative action (as an illustration), maybe you support it, maybe you dont. But I think it is not unreasonable to say that there are people who have good arguments against it, and that the reasons they dont support it are not because they are bigotted. I think we all are aware of why alot of people disagree with it, and can say that doesnt necessarily mean one is a bigot. Nonetheless I would say that at the time it was implemented, supporters could point to the fact that there was indeed a huge problem with blacks getting jobs or even being able to live in certain neighbourhoods. I think that attitudes have changed a lot since then though and even though racism is not totally eradicated I think that the contra argument has a lot more ground these days. There is an African American show on PBS...American Black Journal I believe. I was watching this show last year and many of the people on that show were talking about the problems affirmative action causes, how it is not fair, does not account for individual situations, and ultimately the speakers on this show found that it was actually "racist". They believed that though racism does exist today, there is reasonable ability for a black person to compete in society and that its racist to employ a policy to help them as if they can't do it on their own. And they also pointed out that it causes a lot of unfair hiring, the same argument people against affirmative action have been making all along. Now, it may have been necessary to enact the interventionist policy at one time because there was such a clear line indicating that discrimination was definite. It is in these situations that I believe interventionism should be employed, and only these. When it is urgent. Because it also causes problems. Alot of the feminist groups point to socialist solutions to their problems. This is what I disagree with. I have no problem with the equality. I think women should earn as much as men or be able to work wherever they want, etc etc. I dont appreciate being labelled anti-female because I dont believe in interventionism. The situation with women is nothing compared to what it was with blacks when affirmative action was implemented. You have pointed out the fact that feminists have changed alot of society's views for the better. Given this, given the trends of change is it necessary to enact policies to help women (that can end up causing greater injustice) when they have a reasonable chance of competing in todays society.

Of course social conservatism can be extreme NOrman. So can feminism. It can be dishonest too. Or perhaps only men are dishonest. And if you dont believe that there are alot of feminists out there with extreme agendas (though not all of them) you are kidding yourself.

Do you have a problem?I'm confused as to whether you're trying to say something, or if you just thought it was rich comedy, or if you're hoping to create some sort of debate, or what.I'm sure we could find an equally damning bunch of quotes from some fundamentalist Christians, or just about any other group for that matter, but I'm not sure what the point would be. -k Lol. Well I think you will notice that I said not all feminists are like this. But I think these quotes would cause some concern from most feminists. And I think if they read some of the quotes of people like Gloria Steinem perhaps more of them would be loathe to associate themselves with them. But the Lol at the first of my post---I'll explain that now. You asked if I had a point. And I asked if you had a problem with me posting these quotes. And now it seems your course of action is to say we could easily dig up some Christian quotes. No doubt. And may I point its already been done. In fact, if I remember correctly it was you who made mention of a desire to attack a young girl if she approached you to proselytize a la Jesus Camp. But I havent threatened to beat up these whacko feminists who made these quotes. I am just spreading the word.

Your interpretation is absolutely correct norman. No feminist would even think to demand equal pay for less hours worked no matter the gender of the person, at the same pay rate and position level. I sometimes wonder whether those who distort the feminist position perhaps feel uncomfortable with the notion of women being equal to men. Women have made considerable progress in obtaining equal rights in recent decades relative to their slow progress in previous millenia, and this has probably created irrational fear discomfort for those who like societal change to be gradual even when it involves human rights. I sometimes wonder if those who are afraid of honest arguments about the problems that come with socialist policies (one size does not fit all), are so uncomfortable with our arguments against them that they resort to these tactics of calling it bigotry and a fear of equality with complete knowledge of what they are doing.

Nothing, except why should my taxdollars go to a pro-choice organization, when I am pro-life. We see the same thing with abortion, these group's will claim to represent all women, when even many women disagree with abortion. As for social and economic equality, sure. However what does that even mean. Well, it is nice that you think that, however, history and present day, has proven that social conservatism can be particularly extreme, especially as a political philosophy, after all we would not be in Afghanistan if this were not the case, now would we? It is only a manner of degree. What is this reasonable argument, you say that social conservatives have with regards to what morals and virtues a country should have? Furthermore, who are social conservatives to denote the morals and virtues in the first place? Why should my tax dollars go to fund military, and military organizations that I do not agree with, or indeed to any infrastructure or program I do not agree with by the same token? W Pro-Choice does represent ALL women, what do you not understand about the word choice? Choice is just that, choice to do/think whatever the woman chooses to do or think. Not what some other woman, or man, chooses for them. If a “woman” chooses to be pro-life, that is still her own choice, in the feminist mind. The difference is the impingement on rights. Pro-choice means absolute rights of choice/self determination by the woman but we do not allow others I.e. pro-lifers, neo-cons, the right to self determine ourselves, no one has that right. And this equality of mind and body, is not limited to abortion access, this covers all levels of society, in every situation. Now you said above: Well, then there can’t be many radials out there, as I have never met 1 woman, in my life, who believes that the only people capable of evil are males. In fact, I have never even heard 1 refer to males as evil in a generality. There are quite a few male feminists you know. This I totally disagree with. Pro-choice as regards abortion does not represent the views of all women. Many women do not agree with abortion. And I (though I am a higly unqualified man) dont agree with it either. I am not against a woman choosing what she can or cant do with her body, its just that in my opinion when it comes to abortion she is making that decision for another body as well. It is my belief that the fetus is a living thing. We can argue this til the cows come home, and neither of us will satisfy the other. The point is people who are pro-life are not trying to take away the choices of women, but they believe that choice ends where they truly believe another life begins. So the person was asking why should his tax money go to this. To him it is not a woman's issue. It is a question of whether the fetus is a living thing or not. He believes it is.

Your interpretation is absolutely correct norman. No feminist would even think to demand equal pay for less hours worked no matter the gender of the person, at the same pay rate and position level. I sometimes wonder whether those who distort the feminist position perhaps feel uncomfortable with the notion of women being equal to men. Women have made considerable progress in obtaining equal rights in recent decades relative to their slow progress in previous millenia, and this has probably created irrational fear discomfort for those who like societal change to be gradual even when it involves human rights. Sadly women still remain unequal in many parts of the world and even within Canada in many religious institutions. For example, how likely is a Canadian woman to advance in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church? I don't see female archbishops and popes just around the corner. You know what Norm. If it was my church women would be allowed to be Priests or whatever. I have no problem with that. I dont agree with the Catholic position that women cant be religious leaders or that priests must be unmarried. But then again, I am not a Catholic. This is their doctrine. Their policy. This is part of Catholicism. If you dont like Catholicism you dont have to go to a Catholic church.

I am a conservative. And in some ways socially so. But I am not campaigning for the prohibition of alcohol. Nor do I think women should be kept locked up in a kitchen, or not allowed to vote. You say, you and I both know. Thats funny, you base it on absolutely nothing, except that you know, apparently. You know what we conservatives are thinking despite what we tell you to the contrary. Lol

Do you have a point? -k Do you have a problem?

I realize that not all feminists are radical, but some of the supporters of the feminist movement can be quite vocally radical. I found some quotes that may be of interest. "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students. "As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE." Marilyn French (her emphasis) "The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist". Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey (p. 86). "All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." Catherine MacKinnon "I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." -- Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan "All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room" "The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands..." -Declaration of Feminism "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." -U.S. National organization for Women Times. "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, MS. Magazine Editor "I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin