REAL WOMEN

[betsy]

fROM THE WEBSITE OF REAL WOMEN.

"WHO WE ARE

REAL Women of Canada (Realistic, Equal, Active, for Life) is a non-partisan, non-denominational organization of independent women. We come from all walks of life, occupations, social and economic backgrounds. Some members work full or part-time outside the home, while some mainly work in the home. We represent a broad spectrum of Canadian women who, until our formation, did not have a public forum in which to express their views.

Objectives

We promote equality for all women. One of our objectives is to support policies for women that provide equal opportunity in education, employment and retirement. We believe that social and economic problems and solutions for women today should be resolved by taking into account their impact on the family and society as a whole.

Our view is that the family, which is now undergoing serious strain, is the most important unit in Canadian society. We believe that the fragmentation of the Canadian family is one of the major causes of disorder in society today.

Our objectives are as follows:

To reaffirm that the family is society’s most important unit, since the nurturing of its members is best accomplished in the family setting.

To promote the equality, advancement and well being of women, recognizing them as interdependent members of society, whether in the family, workplace or community.

To promote, secure and defend legislation which upholds the Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage and family life.

To support government and social policies that make homemaking possible for women who, out of necessity, would otherwise have to take employment outside the home.

To support the right to life of all innocent individuals from conception to natural death.

Motto: Women’s rights, but not at the expense of human rights.

[scribblet]

http://www.realwomenca.com/analyses/analyses_01.htm

Radical fem. groups have gone beyond wanting equality, they have become as bad as the establishment they were trying to overturn. Their agendas are not about equality anymore but about overturning the nuclear family. Even Betty Friedan warned, that this anti-marriage agenda places radical feminists profoundly at odds with the family aspirations of mainstream feminists and most other American women. The true force behind this, is nothing but a hate movement against all things male in Canada. A good example of this kind of hate driven male bashing, can be clearly seen by the Federal Liberal Government, and The Status of Women radical report they funded. Father's rights groups are now under attack by radical feminists, they are slandering them and taking away their rights on the taxpayer's dime.

Like many of these groups, the radical feminist groups have passed their best before date, and we now see the pendulum swinging too far the other way. Real Women to me, are a more moderate and representaive of women today. I don't agree with everything they do or say, but prefer them to NAC, they jumped the shark a long time ago.

Real Women are

[margrace]

I have to be honest, I haven't looked into anything about Real Women in years. However back when I did investigate what they were about I found that women who worked away from home were looked down on.

They supported the men in our communitys view that women should be seen and not heard.

They seemed to support the old adage "A woman should be kept bare foot in the winter and pregnant in the summer"

The women I grew up knowing were Real Women in my view. They all had stayed home and raised their families but they got up in the morning and they helped milk the cows. They worked in the fields right along with their husbands and they did all the housework. They had gardens and helped feed their familes.

But slowly the climate started to change, women who did the above were looked down on. Canada wanted cheap food and farmers no longer could make a living on the farms, so these same women went to work outside the home to support the farm.

The attitude of men did not change, they still looked down on women who worked, while enjoying the advantages that this gave them.

Real Women in our area were against abortion. They believed in large families. But in either case gave no support to women who were forced to go to work. When my husband died and left me to support four small children my father insisted that I get a job. There was of course Mother's Allowance" but only the lower classes claimed that.

In the work world, women who took any time off to look after sick children were castigated in the work place.

[betsy]

I've mentioned from the topic Scheherezade that women had gained through the movement, but unfortunately we've lost some too.

It seems that now when we've supposedly acquire more "freedom", women seems to have been entrapped into a situation where there's palpable "pressure" to "rise" above that position in the kitchen which, a lot of women, suddenly find so shameful and degrading. Ironically, the pressure doesn't come from the men....but from fellow-women who show contempt and scorn to those who prefer to remain in their kitchens.

Why is it so surprising to find a lot of women preferring home and kitchen? I think it is our natural habitat. We're natural born nurturers.

Way back, it was a big deal that women had finally managed to get men to do their share with house chores. But lately, when you talk to women, most of them admit that they still do the bulk of chores at home. Some even confess that nothing had changed...their husbands still would not lift a finger when it comes to domestic chores, other than the traditional taking-out-the-garbage routine, or handling the BBQ.

The reason why a lot of women end up doing the chores is basically identical. Men are so clueless when it comes to cleaning...that either you put up with a sloppy job or end up doing the chore yourself. A lot of women cannot abide by the former, thereby they end up opting for the latter.

I think we've been had!

Now women do so much more in AND outside the house! They're stressed out and harried more than ever!

[Black Dog]

Radical fem. groups have gone beyond wanting equality, they have become as bad as the establishment they were trying to overturn

Conspicuous in its abscence is any reference to actual feminist groups. The idea that there are powerful radical man-hating feminist groups out there is a strawman fantasy.

It seems that now when we've supposedly acquire more "freedom", women seems to have been entrapped into a situation where there's palpable "pressure" to "rise" above that position in the kitchen which, a lot of women, suddenly find so shameful and degrading. Ironically, the pressure doesn't come from the men....but from fellow-women who show contempt and scorn to those who prefer to remain in their kitchens.

Why is it so surprising to find a lot of women preferring home and kitchen? I think it is our natural habitat. We're natural born nurturers.

Feminism is about allowing choice, so if you want nothing more than to sit in kitchen making you rman dinner with occassional breaks to shoot out a kid, that's your perogative. However, no choice is truly "free"; peopel are not rational actors and our choices as individuals are informed by society, culture and the individual's position within that culture. Feminism is about promoting choices for women but also examining those choices to see what influences them (er..inasmuch as a non-monolithic philosophy can be). That includes questioning assumptions like "women are natural born nurturers".

Way back, it was a big deal that women had finally managed to get men to do their share with house chores. But lately, when you talk to women, most of them admit that they still do the bulk of chores at home. Some even confess that nothing had changed...their husbands still would not lift a finger when it comes to domestic chores, other than the traditional taking-out-the-garbage routine, or handling the BBQ.

The reason why a lot of women end up doing the chores is basically identical. Men are so clueless when it comes to cleaning...that either you put up with a sloppy job or end up doing the chore yourself. A lot of women cannot abide by the former, thereby they end up opting for the latter.

And why are men so clueless? It wouldn't have anything at all to do with the underlying belief that housework is "women's work" and therefore emasculating, would it?

I think we've been had!

Now women do so much more in AND outside the house! They're stressed out and harried more than ever!

Which shows that feminism still has an important role to play and a long way to go.

[betsy]

http://www.realwomenca.com/analyses/analyses_01.htm

Radical fem. groups have gone beyond wanting equality, they have become as bad as the establishment they were trying to overturn. Their agendas are not about equality anymore but about overturning the nuclear family. Even Betty Friedan warned, that this anti-marriage agenda places radical feminists profoundly at odds with the family aspirations of mainstream feminists and most other American women. The true force behind this, is nothing but a hate movement against all things male in Canada. A good example of this kind of hate driven male bashing, can be clearly seen by the Federal Liberal Government, and The Status of Women radical report they funded. Father's rights groups are now under attack by radical feminists, they are slandering them and taking away their rights on the taxpayer's dime.

Like many of these groups, the radical feminist groups have passed their best before date, and we now see the pendulum swinging too far the other way. Real Women to me, are a more moderate and representaive of women today. I don't agree with everything they do or say, but prefer them to NAC, they jumped the shark a long time ago.

The radical male-hating feminist groups that we've been reading about most probably came from the radical Lesbian-Feminist group from the 70's. Here are some excerpts from the site (which I got from another site called "QueerbyChoice").

1970s Lesbian Feminism

While doing research for a video project on early 1970s lesbian feminism, we found few Web resources dedicated to this vibrant, controversial, and radical movement. The materials on this site primarily cover the development and emergence of lesbian feminism, a moment from roughly 1970 to 1975, and addresses the related but separate trajectory of lesbians of color.

In 1970, lesbian feminism emerged as a radical political project from within the U.S. left -- the anti-war, student, and civil rights movements; welfare activism; anarchism; second-wave feminism; and also from lesbian subcultures.

The early 1970s lesbian feminists, and especially separatists, were mainly but not exclusively white, and came from a range of class and cultural backgrounds. Radical lesbians extended feminist theory even further, pointing out that (compulsory) heterosexuality is key to male dominated society (a.k.a. patriarchy). The logical strategy for feminists is to escape heterosexuality, and embrace lesbianism, in order to free themselves, overthrow the social order, and create a more just society.

Lesbian feminist activists aimed to deconstruct, decenter, and destabilize patriarchal society. They organized political actions to criticize homophobia within the women's movement (the "Lavender Menace") and in the larger society.

http://womens-studies.osu.edu/araw/1970slf.htm#lesbian

----------------------------

No wonder there's so much male-bashings....they mean to eradicate 'em!

[betsy]

Maybe that's why REAL WOMEN group chose that name on purpose? To indicate they're really "Real" women?

[Black Dog]

In 1970, lesbian feminism emerged as a radical political project from within the U.S. left -- the anti-war, student, and civil rights movements; welfare activism; anarchism; second-wave feminism; and also from lesbian subcultures.

Get with the program. Second wave feminsim is yesterday's news. May I suggest reading up on modern (third wave) feminism before you denounce the movement?

No wonder there's so much male-bashings....they mean to eradicate 'em!

Yeah: modern feminsist want to get rid of men (except for those in NAMBLA).

[BubberMiley]

So some radical feminists hate men and some radical real women hate radical feminists. So what?

[betsy]

In 1970, lesbian feminism emerged as a radical political project from within the U.S. left -- the anti-war, student, and civil rights movements; welfare activism; anarchism; second-wave feminism; and also from lesbian subcultures.

Get with the program. Second wave feminsim is yesterday's news. May I suggest reading up on modern (third wave) feminism before you denounce the movement?

It may be yesterday's news...but I bet some radical man-hating feminists nowadays have been inspired by it...and some who had belonged to it are still carrying the torch for it.

Well, isn't it odd why a feminist group like the one I described from the other topic had spurned a male's show of support for womens' rights? Why the insensible hostility towards someone supporting the cause?

Women's Rights shouldn't be about a "in-your-face-pissing-contest" with men.

[BubberMiley]

Why the hostile pissing contest against feminists?

[betsy]

Why the hostile pissing contest against feminists?

Because I don't agree with the deceitful ways these testosterone-laden wimmin are using and exploiting the real issues real women are concerned and troubled with! And to think that taxpayers are funding some of these farcical movements!

[betsy]

"CANADA COURT WATCH: WOMEN'S SHELTERS

Currently in Canada, hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on women's shelters across Canada. The Family Justice Review Committee does not dispute the fact there are indeed a number of women (and men) who are abused by their partners and in need of a place of temporary shelter during these times of family conflict.

However, information gathered by Court Watch from a number of credible sources including information and testimony from former women residents, children who were residents and former shelter managers, clearly indicate that there is a very dark and ominous side to the women's shelter and violence against women movement. Court Watch has obtained powerful video testimony from both children and former women residents which shows that women and children are being abused, threatened, brainwashed, intimated and assaulted while inside some of these government funded women's shelters and which is going unreported.

Some of the disturbing information that has been reported to Court Watch by various sources include:

* That women who work in women’s shelters hate men and that one of their main goals is to get the other women who come to the shelter to hate and destroy their spouses as well. Some of the women's shelters are operated like anti-male bunkers which spread hate while putting up a facade to the community that they are helping women and children.

* That some shelter workers have fraudulently taken money given to the shelter by taxpayers and through donations and spent the money for personal use.

* That women who are fleeing from authorities, sometimes with children they have abducted, have used women's shelters to hide out and have never been asked as the the circumstances as to why they are at the shelter with their children. Police are barred from entering many of the shelters, even if looking for women who may have arrest warrants against them and who police suspect may be hiding in a shelter.

* That some children in the shelters cry and want to see their fathers but are denied meaningful contact with the fathers even when there is no issue of abuse of the children and no ethical or moral reason for denying contact. In some cases, workers at women's shelters assist some mothers to violate court orders in relating to a father's access to his children as part of a plan to unlawfully keep children from seeing their fathers. The rights and freedoms of the children are often violated by forcefully detaining the children in the shelter against the child's wises and preferences and in many cases denying the children even phone contact with their fathers.

* That workers spy on women residents and sometimes listen in on private phone calls.

* That many of the shelters have no formal accounting system for keeping track of money and donations and that there are few, if any, audits on shelters. Yet, millions of tax dollars flow to these facilities.

* That some of the women working in shelters are lesbians who deplore men and many of the other women hate men partly because they can’t find a man themselves or because they have been the victim of abuse themselves.

* That some of the staff at shelters have made sexual advances towards the new women who come into the shelter and attempt to coerce new women into lesbian relationships at a time when these new women are vulnerable. Some women have reported being told that if they enter into sexual relationships with shelter workers they will receive preferential treatment by the shelter workers and can obtain special access to donations which come into the shelter.

* That many of these women who work at shelters don’t want to see other women happy and married, so one of their main objectives appears to be to to destroy and break up families.

* That many of the women who are in the the shelters, including some workers, have emotional and psychological problems themselves and in many cases are more violent than the partners they left.

* That many staff members are former abused women themselves with emotional problems and have an automatic bias against men.

* That children are being shown videotapes of men beating up women and then being brainwashed into believing that only fathers are the ones who are violent towards their partners and children. Yet published research clearly shows that children are safest in the care of their biological father.

* That some women assault each other in the shelters but the shelters hush this up using threats to residents to keep silent, so that the police and the public will not become aware of the violence in the shelters.

* That women who come into many of the women's shelter are told they must sign an intake form agreeing that they will not report about anything they witness in the shelter and to waive their legal rights to sue the shelter. It has been reported that the women are being told that they cannot even take the agreement they signed out of the women's shelter so that others might be able to see what it is they have signed.

* Some shelters tell new residents they are not allowed to call police in regards to any illegal activities or incidents of abuse or violence at the shelter without the permission of the shelter. They are told that this is for "security and privacy" reasons. The real reason why this is done is to conceal illegal activities and violence in the shelter so that members of the public will not become aware.

* That there is a a lot of swearing used in the facility and that young children are exposed to swearing and foul language while in the shelter.

* That new women who come into the shelter are expected to never go back to their husbands and partners and are expected to destroy their marriages. Even if a woman want to attempt to make her relationship with her partner another chance, she is forced into silence often under threat that she will get kicked out of the shelter is she says anything about wanting to see her former partner.

* That donations made by corporate sponsors are being squandered and in some cases, removed from the shelters for the profit of staff members.

* That there is a pecking order in the shelters. Women who do what they are told by staff get extra privileges granted of them by shelter staff. Some women feel more abused in a shelter then they did when they were with their partners.

* That workers at shelters routinely provide family courts judges testimonial letters saying that new residents are excellent mothers without doing any check into the past history of the mother. This is done as part of a strategy to misled the court and to help the mother destroy her children's relationship with their father. In some cases violent mothers who have seriously abused their children are willingly been accepted into a shelter and provided a most praising letter to the court.

* That some women with significant financial assets have stayed at women's shelters at the expense of taxpayers without having to disclose their financial status. In some cases women have had properties they owned where they could have stayed instead of using the facilities of taxpayer funded facilities.

* That some shelters are referring new women residents to certain lawyers who are lesbian and radical feminist or who are known to be unethical. Often these types of lawyers will resort to any dirty and unethical trick to help women destroy their children's relationship with their fathers.

* That women's shelters have been known to harbour women who are fugitives from the law. It has been reported that some women have kidnapped children and have used women's shelters in various communities and provinces to hide themselves and their children from apprehension from the law.

* That many women who felt that they or their children have been mistreated by the women's shelter feel that there is no place that they can file a complaint about their experience without fear of retribution by those who operate the shelter.

Women’s shelters have been referred to as “One stop divorce shops” by journalists who have written stories about them. The Family Justice Review Committee believes that any women's shelter, especially those that receive any sort of government or community funding should maintain the highest standards of accountability and professionalism.

http://www.canadacourtwatch.com/positionst...20Shelters.html

[geoffrey]

It's true if you've ever seen them. All you see inside is divorce divorce divorce. There isn't such thing as trying to fix marriages anymore. At your first problem, just call up the lawyer.

[BubberMiley]

I know. Some of them don't think a man should be allowed to hit his own wife.

[geoffrey]

I know. Some of them don't think a man should be allowed to hit his own wife.

Come on now, don't over exaggerate things. I'm just saying in many situations, the pressure for an unneccesary divorce is too great. Abuse is a reasonable divorce reason, "I'm bored" isn't.

I really don't care about the adults if they choose to be irresponsible with their lives. But kids in divorces are always hurt by it... parents need to be less selfish in many situations.

[scribblet]

I have to be honest, I haven't looked into anything about Real Women in years. However back when I did investigate what they were about I found that women who worked away from home were looked down on.

They supported the men in our communitys view that women should be seen and not heard.

They seemed to support the old adage "A woman should be kept bare foot in the winter and pregnant in the summer"

Nah ! Just barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen

[scribblet]

Radical fem. groups have gone beyond wanting equality, they have become as bad as the establishment they were trying to overturn

Conspicuous in its abscence is any reference to actual feminist groups. The idea that there are powerful radical man-hating feminist groups out there is a strawman fantasy. D

I'm thinking of NAC, government funded too, while Real Women do what they do from memberships and donations.

[betsy]

I know. Some of them don't think a man should be allowed to hit his own wife.

Well I don't think a man should hit his wife either....and I think a lot think that way too.

But what these radical lesbian-feminists are doing is exploiting and using these women and children, (who are already troubled by their domestic problems), to gain their own end.

What kind of people would take the opportunity to turn these unfortunate situations to their own advantage?

This is not SUPPORT. THis is ABUSE! Abuse of authority or power over someone who's desperate or traumatized or troubled or all of the above! Despicable!

[betsy]

I had an eight yearl old girl who had been with me since she was 2. I've known both of her parents...and been there when they had another baby (whom I cared for too)...and I was there too when they ended up splitting and involved in a nasty custody fight. The children were being shifted EVERYDAY from one household to the other. One night with dad...the next night with mom. They literally live in a suitcase.

One time, the youngest one (already three at the time) got confused and asked me, "I forgot. who picks us up tonight?"

The two kids had always had a loving relationship with their dad. The way they cling to his neck whenever he came to pick them up. It's always been like that ever since I've known them. There's no question as far as I'm concerned that he ever was abusive towards his kids. The marital problem was between him and his wife.

It had always been my policy never to become involved...or take sides on any marital disputes between my clients.

The 8 year old freely talks to me about her dad. I never was judgemental nor have criticized the dad in any way. She is the sensitive type. The type who also tried to avoid hurting or slighting anyone, the type whom I noticed tried to please so much.

Mom hangs around with a girlfriend and her own boss (a woman), who actually looked "butchy" (it was the first impression I had of her when I first saw her). She managed a group home, where mom works.

And telling from what the mom relays to me, I could picture these three women bashing dad over coffee, not caring whether children were listening. I honestly think the mom was getting some advice from these two.

My suspicion was further bolstered by the fact that the boss came to pick up the kids at my daycare (with mom's instructions). We had to go to the school bus stop to wait for the 8 year old. While waiting, this woman whom I hardly know (my second time to meet her actually) started badmouthing the dad to me. The 3 year old was beside me...and I indicated to her through signals that the child was listening.

Finally, things got more serious (he stormed in home of his wife's friend while mom and the kids were there and tried to take his kids. He was furious that his children were being dragged to someone else's house at a late hour in the middle of a school week). Restraining orders were taken against the dad.

Fortunately, he never put me in any awkward situations...he respected and stayed away from the daycare.

One time we were having lunch (no svhool that day), the 8 year old suddenly just burst into tears for no reason. I just hugged her as she started saying "they're always saying bad things about him!"

To make the long story short, my 8 year old tried to commit suicide. This happened on a summer while she was vacationing with mom's brother and his family. Mom told me about this.

A few weeks before that happened I remembered her asking me several times if she can stay and sleep at my place. At the time my guest room had been turned into a "junk room" so I did not have any place to put guests. She volunteered that she can sleep on the floor.

I told mom that. And also told her how her gilr was bothered by what she's been hearing from her friends.

Mom married a guy from out of town and finally moved 3 hours away from us...but the girls still keep in touch. The half-sister of the two girls (dad's side of the family) had been bringing her baby to me...and she tells me about them. Everything is fine now. The dad also re-married and moved closer to his children...no more restraining order and the kids get to visit and stay with dad. From what I hear, the two couples became good friends and even go out together!

If they ended up being this close...chances were things were not as bad before as it had been painted. I think mom was egged on by her boss and friend....only making the situation worse.

[Liam]

I'm not Canadian, but this "Real" Women group sounds strikingly familiar to a radical right wing group here in the US: The Concerned Women for America. No one on the right sees the irony behind the fact that the CWA is headed up by a man. Essentially, it acts like a counter-reformation to the feminist movement whereby it seems that its underlying tenet is that women are equal (white, Christian, anti-Darwinist, anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-barefoot-and-pregnant women, that is).

[Liam]

What kind of people would take the opportunity to turn these unfortunate situations to their own advantage?

This is not SUPPORT. THis is ABUSE! Abuse of authority or power over someone who's desperate or traumatized or troubled or all of the above! Despicable!

And I suppose you're similarly outraged by conservative groups, ministers, and the like who counsel abused and terrified women to return to their marriages, oh, and drop some money in the collection box on the way out...(?)

I read through your litany of terrors that await women in shelters and, maybe it's the lawyer in me, but it strikes as a huge pile of horse-sh*t. Anyone can find a handful of examples of bad behavior or corrupt individuals within institutional structures and report that "some" are this, that, and the other. The fact remains that 99% of shelters provide life-saving services to abused women and kids and those victims need the services and welcome the support these shelters provide. Would you rather we shut down these places (heaven forbid some of the social workers in them should be -- gasp! -- lesbians!!) and send women back to a life of intimidation, and back to verbal and physical abuse and possibly death?

[Black Dog]

It may be yesterday's news...but I bet some radical man-hating feminists nowadays have been inspired by it...and some who had belonged to it are still carrying the torch for it.

It's preety clear you know about as much about feminism as you do about the gay rights movement (that is: nothing). If you did, you wouldn't be making snap judgements for the entire feminist movement, a movement that is incredibly diverse and even fracticious.

Well, isn't it odd why a feminist group like the one I described from the other topic had spurned a male's show of support for womens' rights? Why the insensible hostility towards someone supporting the cause?

Women's Rights shouldn't be about a "in-your-face-pissing-contest" with men

Well, I don't know what you're referring to (link?).

Because I don't agree with the deceitful ways these testosterone-laden wimmin are using and exploiting the real issues real women are concerned and troubled with! And to think that taxpayers are funding some of these farcical movements!

Who are you talking about? Instead of focussing on one aspect of 1970's second-wave feminism, why don't you cite some current examples? Or maybe you can't because, as I suspect, you rely on misinformation from anti-feminist groups like REAL women and "father's rights" groups.

It's true if you've ever seen them. All you see inside is divorce divorce divorce. There isn't such thing as trying to fix marriages anymore. At your first problem, just call up the lawyer.

Yeah: what's with women these days? Used to be they could take a punch, right?

CANADA COURT WATCH: WOMEN'S SHELTERS

Currently in Canada, hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on women's shelters across Canada. The Family Justice Review Committee does not dispute the fact there are indeed a number of women (and men) who are abused by their partners and in need of a place of temporary shelter during these times of family conflict.

betsy, check your sources. This guy sounds like a Grade A kook.

Dorion Baxter

The Rev. Dorian Baxterwas born in Mombassa, Kenya on April 3rd, 1950. He imigrated to Canada in 1968.

Baxter spent several years teaching Grade 4 at Royal St. George's College, in Toronto, an Anglican choir school.

Currently he is an independent Anglican priest and Elvis impersonator in Newmarket, Ontario, Canada.

He is a fathers' rights advocate and former teacher in the York Region District School Board, and he was ordained in the Anglican Church of Canada. He broke with that church after being denied permission to solemnize marriages in his "Elvis Priestley" persona. He has since formed his own body, Christ the King Graceland Independent Anglican Church of Canada, and styled himself archbishop. Concerning his place in the historic episcopate, his website states "His consecration as Archbishop of Yorke is in fact the laity selecting church Leadership in the true model of apostolic succession allowed in the New Testament and adopted by the Church of England" [1]. (This model is in fact not used or recognized by the CofE, and thus his episcopacy would not be recognized by the Anglican Communion).

Well I don't think a man should hit his wife either....and I think a lot think that way too.

But what these radical lesbian-feminists are doing is exploiting and using these women and children, (who are already troubled by their domestic problems), to gain their own end.

What kind of people would take the opportunity to turn these unfortunate situations to their own advantage?

This is not SUPPORT. THis is ABUSE! Abuse of authority or power over someone who's desperate or traumatized or troubled or all of the above! Despicable!

Your mighty credulous. I find it very interesting that you are willing to believe the absolute worst about the femisnist movement based on the meanderings of some random internet whackjob.

[betsy]

Your mighty credulous. I find it very interesting that you are willing to believe the absolute worst about the femisnist movement based on the meanderings of some random internet whackjob.

There are various fractions of feminist movements...and I am not saying that all of them are duibious or with ulterior motives. But there is one that I've read in an article (approx. 4 years ago) that featured one group (I cannot remember exactly what their group is called but the article appeared on either National Post or Ottawa Citizen)...and what struck me was the kind of hostility the spokesperson for the group exhibited towards a man who wrote to them giving his support and calling on men for the end to violence on women.

Why such hostility? I can't help but wonder about that!

That is why, women ought to be wary of groups that claim to speak for themselves. Women ought to find out more about the groups that they support!

Another article published sometime ago, similar to that which I posted above or maybe that's the same thing, featured the same complaint about womens' shelters.

[betsy]

It's preety clear you know about as much about feminism as you do about the gay rights movement (that is: nothing). If you did, you wouldn't be making snap judgements for the entire feminist movement, a movement that is incredibly diverse and even fracticious.

Well Black Dog, it was pretty clear who knew nada about that argument we had regarding NAMBLA. Your explosive temper tantrum and personal insults sez it all.

As usual...you put words in my post. You know I am not making snap judgements on the ENTIRE feminist movement. I am pissin on the radical lesbian-feminist inspired movement that are bent on being anti-male!

For obvious reasons!