Radical Feminism

[Live From China]

I'm not realy interested in CHS's views: from what I have read of her in interviews and articles, I find her and her views hypocritical. This is, after all, a woman who travels far and wide making a living telling women that the route to happiness is in staying home and having a traditional family.

We can't be talking about the same person. I have read this book twice (once for a discussion group) and have heard the real Dr. Sommers on the radio several times. She has never once alluded to, stated, indicated, etc. that women should just stay at home and have a traditional family. You have been conned, bamboozled, misled, etc. Or you are lying. Of course, had you read the book, you would know that. In addition, Dr. Sommers is a professor of sociology at Columbia University, hardly a stay-at-home mom.

Hair splitting.

And you are spinning your tires

one should have soem ammo in their pocket to suipport heir views.

I did. I just used the critique to show it. By the way, I know this con game. And I am sure other posters have, too. Even I said, "Oh, it comes from the American Journal of Business and Economics and is an article on wealth holdings in the US. It is written by the feminist Dr. So-and-So. It is in the April 2000 issue, pp. 100 - 125", you still would not accept it as accurate.

So, to use an example you cite, women are disproportinately subject to rape and sexual assault. But they cannot claim victim status because of that?

Depends on what you mean by "disproportionately subject to." Rape and sexual assaults are terrible crimes are need to be dealt with severely. As a group, women cannot cry "victim" because not all women have been raped. All female rape victims (notice how I use that word) can and all efforts should be made to assist them. I find this kind of interesting and maybe someone can point out why the difference: as a male, I am 1.5 times more likely to be assaulted or killed in a violent crime (perpetrated by another male). If I were a black male in a US city (Detroit, as an "up there" example), it would even be worse, especially if I were between the ages of 15-30. Even though this is a fact, men do not cry "victim." And, please oh please, do not say I do not think rape is an issue for women; it is. I know because stopped one once!

Speaking of rape, Dr. CHS pointed out a huge disparity in funding between two universities in the US (the pattern was/is repeated nationwide). In a predominately white, middle-class university the rape relief centre received magnitudes more funding than a university in the same city attended mainly by black students. And ratio of rapes per year was something like 9:30. I think it is injustices like these that really need to be rectified.

[frogs]

Beatings are far worse than rape. Beatings occur far more often. Rape is bad. Littering is bad. Women that hate all men need be eliminated. Men that hate all women need be eliminated. False accusers need be eliminated. But all government systems are about hatred and stealing, so they support rape. Women that support the system support rape. Men, too. It's not a gender issue. It's a hate issue. Feminists are very good at hate issues. Hmmmm.

[Melanie_]

Jefferiah, you make some interesting points, and state your case well. I appreciate your willingness to engage in reasoned and intelligent debate. But you need to realize that the statements you quoted at the beginning of this thread are not representative of feminism today, and don't define what the feminist perspective is. Feminism is simply about women and men having the same opportunities, with no gender barriers. I've seen so many advances in this respect in my life, and I think that today's young women don't really understand what it took to get them to the point they are at - they are free to reject their understanding of "feminism" because feminism has come so far. And I celebrate that.

Your concern seems to be about abortion; why should your tax dollars go to fund something you disagree with? Catch Me is right on this, though. Abortion might not be something you agree with, but once we start limiting medical procedures based on individual's beliefs in their merit, rather than on medical determination, we open the debate on many different procedures that could also be argued against. Its the slippery slope arguement.

[Borg]

16 Unto the woman he said,

I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;

in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;

and thy desire shall be to thy husband,

and he shall rule over thee.

http://www.bartleby.com/108/01/3.html#S3

I will bet you 20 million dollars that this was not written by a.) a woman or b.) an invisible entity.

It was written by men. Human men who, in their era, saw women as property to be controlled.

... and the world is flat AND the sun orbits the earth...

We no longer believe the above, so why do some people continue to believe words written over 2000 years ago?

I started into this thread and stopped here - not wanting to be bothered reading the entire load of drivel - but as for women being property and believing / not believing words written many years ago?

Go ask your local mullah, because I know of no western religion that does these things now. Only your friendly neighbourhood mullah can provide what you need.

Awaiting the response of slings and arrows .........

Borg

[Melanie_]

I find this thread of particular interest now, as the Robert Pickton trial is set to open tomorrow in Vancouver. We are about to examine the murders of 25 women who made their living providing a service to men, but who are condemned for doing so. The men who used the services are annonymous and free of any public censure. The loss of these women's lives is somehow eclipsed by the fact that they were prostitutes, as if that fact counterbalances their hopes, dreams and struggles for a better life. This trial, and the media that surrounds it, will be a true indication of the extent of misogyny in Canada today.

[Borg]

I find this thread of particular interest now, as the Robert Pickton trial is set to open tomorrow in Vancouver. We are about to examine the murders of 25 women who made their living providing a service to men, but who are condemned for doing so. The men who used the services are annonymous and free of any public censure. The loss of these women's lives is somehow eclipsed by the fact that they were prostitutes, as if that fact counterbalances their hopes, dreams and struggles for a better life. This trial, and the media that surrounds it, will be a true indication of the extent of misogyny in Canada today.

Yup - 25 - or more? - or less? - prostitutes or drug addicts or whatever - that were once children and girl friends and possibly wives and so on are dead because of an alleged murderer. A tragedy and a travesty.

Yet there are serial killers that are of the female persuasion as well.

Just because a man kills a woman - does that mean he is evil as a man, or is he evil as a killer?

Just because a woman drowns all of her children - does that make her evil as a woman, or is she evil as a killer?

Or do we wait for someone to explain it all away with a couple of studies, some religious background and a medical problem?

Perhaps I am one of the few, but I give a damn who those women were or what they did. I also detest anyone who would attempt to make miles out of the fact they were women.

They are dead.

Now, let's get to the bottom of the issue - who did it?

Then kill the killer.

Borg

[Catchme]

Rape and sexual assaults are terrible crimes are need to be dealt with severely. As a group, women cannot cry "victim" because not all women have been raped. All female rape victims (notice how I use that word) can and all efforts should be made to assist them. I find this kind of interesting and maybe someone can point out why the difference: as a male, I am 1.5 times more likely to be assaulted or killed in a violent crime (perpetrated by another male). If I were a black male in a US city (Detroit, as an "up there" example), it would even be worse, especially if I were between the ages of 15-30. Even though this is a fact, men do not cry "victim." And, please oh please, do not say I do not think rape is an issue for women; it is. I know because stopped one once!

There is no rape in Canada, it is classified as a sexual assault.

Sexual assault stats have long shown 1 out of every 4 women have reported to have been sexually assaulted. However, other stats show that only about 10% of sexual assaults are reported.

Statistics on violence against women

As many as 1 out of 5 young women in high school are in abusive relationships

60% of all sexual assault victims are children under 18 years of age

More than 13 women and girls are sexually assaulted in BC every day

Some women have been beaten by their partners 35 times before they ever call police

Every year, over 90,000 Canadian women and children are admitted to shelters for battered women

45% of women assaulted by a male partner suffered physical injuries that include bruising, cuts, burns, broken bones, fractures, internal injuries, and miscarriages

Girl children are targets of abuse in the family more so than boys. 4 out of 5 family related sexual assaults are 79% girls and over half 55% of physical assaults are against girls by family members.

In 1997, fathers accounted for 97% of sexual assaults and 71% of physical assaults of children

Only 10% of sexual assaults on women are reported to the police

In Canada, there are approximately 509, 860 cases of reported and unreported sexual assault incidents per year, which amounts to 1,397 sexual assaults per day. This daily figure is refined into one woman or child who is being sexually assaulted every minute of every day

http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Initiatives/Sex.../Statistics.htm

A 1984 study found that one in four Canadian women will be sexually assaulted during her lifetime. Half of these assaults will be against women under the age of 16. (2)

For women with disabilities, these figures may be even higher one study indicates that 83% of women with disabilities will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime. (3)

http://www.womanabuseprevention.com/html/sexual_assault.html

Now, there are also the passive aggressive sexual asaults that are not accounted for. So, when all things are factored in: the former, and the 1 of 4 who report, that are actually only representative of 10% of those who are sexually assaulted, it would not be unrealistic to say; "most likely the figure is close to 100% of women have experienced, or will experience, sexual assault within their life time".

It is something that concerns ALL women, and the problem is men. The largest % is men victimizing women and the largest % is men victimizing other men. It is not women victimizing women by sexual assault in the largest numbers, nor women victimizing men in the largest numbers.

Women are justified and correct in their gender group concern of high level of violence against their female gender by the male gender.

[Borg]

catchme - you are absolutely right

Men are such pricks - each and every one of them - all potential rapists and killers and scum of the earth.

Not a good one to be found anywhere.

I will just pack up my tent and leave now - after all, you have proved your point that the problem is men and the fact they are animals.

Joke for you - hmmm - nope - you would take it personal and tell everyone I have proved your point.

Glad you are not my mom / wife / sister / daughter.

On the other hand if you were, and you were troubled by a male of the species you would likely know how to handle it and get clear before the police manage to arrive. Why would you not preach arming for self defence? You would love the women of this family - I know us men do.

Oops - I bet you come back with some soft - can't be done because someone might get hurt.

I am so tired of women complaining about how men are slime.

Of course, there is never a return to the swing on this door is there?

Have a good one.

Borg

[Live From China]

it would not be unrealistic to say; "most likely the figure is close to 100% of women have experienced, or will experience, sexual assault within their life time".

You must think we were born yesterday!

The Official "One in Four" Figure

"One in four" has since become the official figure on women's rape victimization cited in women's studies departments, rape crisis centers, women's magazines, and on protest buttons and posters. Susan Faludi defended it in a Newsweek story on sexual correctness.[13] Naomi Wolf refers to it in The Beauty Myth, calculating that acquaintance rape is "more common than lefthandedness, alcoholism, and heart attacks."[14] "One in four" is chanted in "Take Back the Night" processions, and it is the number given in the date rape brochures handed out at freshman orientation at colleges and universities around the country.[15] Politicians, from Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, a Democrat, to Republican Congressman Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, cite it regularly, and it is the primary reason for the Title IV, "Safe Campuses for Women" provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1993, which provides twenty million dollars to combat rape on college campuses.[16]

When Neil Gilbert, a professor at Berkeley's School of Social Welfare, first read the "one in four" figure in the school newspaper, he was convinced it could not be accurate. The results did not tally with the findings of almost all previous research on rape. When he read the study he was able to see where the high figures came from and why Koss's approach was unsound.

He noticed, for example, that Koss and her colleagues counted as victims of rape any respondent who answered "yes" to the question "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" That opened the door wide to regarding as a rape victim anyone who regretted her liaison of the previous night. If your date mixes a pitcher of margaritas and encourages you to drink with him and you accept a drink, have you been "administered" an intoxicant, and has your judgment been impaired? Certainly, if you pass out and are molested, one would call it rape. But if you drink and, while intoxicated, engage in sex that you later come to regret, have you been raped? Koss does not address these questions specifically, she merely counts your date as a rapist and you as a rape statistic if you drank with your date and regret having had sex with him. As Gilbert points out, the question, as Koss posed it, is far too ambiguous:

What does having sex "because" a man gives you drugs or alcohol signify? A positive response does not indicate whether duress, intoxication, force, or the threat of force were present; whether the woman's judgment or control were substantially impaired; or whether the man purposefully got the woman drunk in order to prevent her resistance to sexual advances.... While the item could have been clearly worded to denote "intentional incapacitation of the victim," as the question stands it would require a mind reader to detect whether any affirmative response corresponds to this legal definition of rape.[17]

Koss, however, insisted that her criteria conformed with the legal definitions of rape used in some states, and she cited in particular the statute on rape of her own state, Ohio: "No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another person . . . when . . . for the purpose of preventing resistance the offender substantially impairs the other person's judgment or control by administering any drug or intoxicant to the other person" (Ohio revised code 1980, 2907.01A, 2907.02).[18]

The Blade Cuts Deep

Two reporters from the Blade a small, progressive Toledo, Ohio, newspaper that has won awards for the excellence of its investigative articles-were also not convinced that the "one in four" figure was accurate. They took a close look at Koss's study and at several others that were being cited to support the alarming tidings of widespread sexual abuse on college campuses. In a special three-part series on rape called "The Making of an Epidemic," published in October 1992, the reporters, Nara Shoenberg and Sam Roe, revealed that Koss was quoting the Ohio statute in a very misleading way: she had stopped short of mentioning the qualifying clause of the statute, which specifically excludes "the situations where a person plies his intended partner with drink or drugs in hopes that lowered inhibition might lead to a liaison."[19] Koss now concedes that question eight was badly worded. Indeed, she told the Blade reporters, "At the time I viewed the question as legal; I now concede that it's ambiguous."[20] That concession should have been followed by the admission that her survey may be inaccurate by a factor of two: for, as Koss herself told the Blade, once you remove the positive responses to question eight, the finding that one in four college women is a victim of rape or attempted rape drops to one in nine.[21] But as we shall see, this figure too is unacceptably high.

For Gilbert, the most serious indication that something was basically awry in the Ms./Koss study was that the majority of women she classified as having been raped did not believe they had been raped. Of those Koss counts as having been raped, only 27 percent thought they had been; 73 percent did not say that what happened to them was rape. In effect, Koss and her followers present us with a picture of confused young women overwhelmed by threatening males who force their attentions on them during the course of a date but are unable or unwilling to classify their experience as rape. Does that picture fit the average female undergraduate? For that matter, does it plausibly apply to the larger community? As the journalist Cathy Young observes, "Women have sex after initial reluctance for a number of reasons . . . fear of being beaten up by their dates is rarely reported as one of them."[22]

Katie Roiphe, a graduate student in English at Princeton and author of The Morning After: Sex, Fear, and Feminism on Campus, argues along similar lines when she claims that Koss had no right to reject the judgment of the college women who didn't think they were raped. But Katha Pollitt of The Nation defends Koss, pointing out that in many cases people are wronged without knowing it. Thus we do not say that "victims of other injustices-fraud, malpractice, job discrimination-have suffered no wrong as long as they are unaware of the law."[23]

Pollitt's analogy is faulty, however. If Jane has ugly financial dealings with Tom and an expert explains to Jane that Tom has defrauded her, then Jane usually thanks the expert for having enlightened her about the legal facts. To make her case, Pollitt would have to show that the rape victims who were unaware that they were raped would accept Koss's judgment that they really were. But that has not been shown; Koss did not enlighten the women she counts as rape victims, and they did not say "now that you explain it, we can see we were."

Koss and Pollitt make a technical (and in fact dubious) legal point: women are ignorant about what counts as rape. Roiphe makes a straightforward human point: the women were there, and they know best how to judge what happened to them. Since when do feminists consider "law" to override women's experience?

Koss also found that 42 percent of those she counted as rape victims went on to have sex with their attackers on a later occasion. For victims of attempted rape, the figure for subsequent sex with reported assailants was 35 percent. Koss is quick to point out that "it is not known if [the subsequent sex] was forced or voluntary" and that most of the relationships "did eventually break up subsequent to the victimization."[24] But of course, most college relationships break up eventually for one reason or another. Yet, instead of taking these young women at their word, Koss casts about for explanations of why so many "raped" women would return to their assailants, implying that they may have been coerced. She ends by treating her subjects' rejection of her findings as evidence that they were confused and sexually naive. There is a more respectful explanation. Since most of those Koss counts as rape victims did not regard themselves as having been raped, why not take this fact and the fact that so many went back to their partners as reasonable indications that they had not been raped to begin with?

The Toledo reporters calculated that if you eliminate the affirmative responses to the alcohol or drugs question, and also subtract from Koss's results the women who did not think they were raped, her one in four figure for rape and attempted rape "drops to between one in twenty-two and one in thirty-three."[25]

From: http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html

And thanks to melanie (and Dr. Hoff-Sommers) for a much saner and balanced view.

[Catchme]

Oh, I could kick holes all over that flimsy rebuttal and redefinging of the questions, and excluding results because a woman admits she has further intercourse with an identified raper.

Excuse me, just because a woman, lets say a wife has sex, after her partner her husband rapes her, does not mean she was NOT raped.

Nor excluding those who were raped under the influence of drugs or alcohol. There was no evidence to suggest it was remorse when they answered yes.

What Hoff has done is parse tell she can proves what she wants to prove.

I will share something with you, I ask every woman who I come to know, if she has been sexually assaulted, or forced to have sexual intercourse against her will. I have yet to find one who hasn't been, not even my grandmother, or mother could report they had not been sexually assaulted at one point during the course of their life. I come from a moderately priviledged WASP family where spousal abuse was not a factor, and lived community in Bible belt prairies. The women that I have asked cover ALL walks of life and economic classes. This saddens me. It saddens me even more that women still have to far to go.

[Borg]

News flash ladies and gentlemen: 100% of children born today spring from the loins of women!!

Catchme - I am a man. I had no idea you hated us so badly - I will do my darndest to never make fun of you in the future and I will do my darndest to never call you out on any topics - even though I may have to heavily bite my tongue.

You appear to be quite ..... mmmmm ..... adamant that men are the source of all evil. So let me assure you that I have never forced myself upon my grandmother, mother, wife, sister, daughter, girl friends from long time past - or any other female associate that I can honestly think of.

You on the other hand are the type of woman that scares the heck out of me. If you and I were in an office together, I would not allow us to be seated alone - I would want a witness with me at all times - or I would leave. You are a person I definitely would not want to be alone with. If I so much as looked at you in the wrong manner I might very well be charged with some type of sexual assault.

You really are quite rabid you know.

Must run.

Borg

[margrace]

News flash ladies and gentlemen: 100% of children born today spring from the loins of women!!

Catchme - I am a man. I had no idea you hated us so badly - I will do my darndest to never make fun of you in the future and I will do my darndest to never call you out on any topics - even though I may have to heavily bite my tongue.

You appear to be quite ..... mmmmm ..... adamant that men are the source of all evil. So let me assure you that I have never forced myself upon my grandmother, mother, wife, sister, daughter, girl friends from long time past - or any other female associate that I can honestly think of.

You on the other hand are the type of woman that scares the heck out of me. If you and I were in an office together, I would not allow us to be seated alone - I would want a witness with me at all times - or I would leave. You are a person I definitely would not want to be alone with. If I so much as looked at you in the wrong manner I might very well be charged with some type of sexual assault.

You really are quite rabid you know.

Must run.

Borg

And this is a good example of the wide chasm between men and women. Too often men assume that sex is something that women need purely because men cannot seem to get along without it. Most men do not know the difference between wham bam thank you mam and a careing relationship. I was a widow and I had men phoning to give me a good time. It was so insulting to think that I could not get along without their sevices.

Date rape has become epidemic in our society and it is the attitudes of people like the above poster that force women to cover it up. The attitude of a lot of men is that if a woman is out daring to try to have a good time then she is asking for it.

Sexuall suggestions in an office are not welcome and men make them pretending to be funny but all most women understand that it is not pretense and they had better be careful. Father knows best is still a strong message to women and men use it all the time to get what they want.

[Borg]

margrace:

I said this- "you appear to be quite ..... mmmmm ..... adamant that men are the source of all evil. So let me assure you that I have never forced myself upon my grandmother, mother, wife, sister, daughter, girl friends from long time past - or any other female associate that I can honestly think of."

And you responded with - "Too often men assume that sex is something that women need purely because men cannot seem to get along without it. Most men do not know the difference between wham bam thank you mam and a careing relationship. I was a widow and I had men phoning to give me a good time. "

It would appear that it is you that does not get it.

I am glad I do not live in your mean spirited, narrow minded, vicious, man hating, self pitying and self loathing world.

Mine is - despite what you might think - one of laughter and happiness - with famiy and friends - yes, both male and female.

Yours sounds too lonely, bitter and filled with spite for me. But then again I already know why - you have told us your opinion of man.

You reap what you sow little woman,

Borg

[jefferiah]

Jefferiah, you make some interesting points, and state your case well. I appreciate your willingness to engage in reasoned and intelligent debate. But you need to realize that the statements you quoted at the beginning of this thread are not representative of feminism today, and don't define what the feminist perspective is. Feminism is simply about women and men having the same opportunities, with no gender barriers. I've seen so many advances in this respect in my life, and I think that today's young women don't really understand what it took to get them to the point they are at - they are free to reject their understanding of "feminism" because feminism has come so far. And I celebrate that.

Your concern seems to be about abortion; why should your tax dollars go to fund something you disagree with? Catch Me is right on this, though. Abortion might not be something you agree with, but once we start limiting medical procedures based on individual's beliefs in their merit, rather than on medical determination, we open the debate on many different procedures that could also be argued against. Its the slippery slope arguement.

Thanks for your understanding Melanie and willingness to see my side without lashing out at me. Also, I must point out that I said not all feminists are like this in that original post of mine with the quotes. Now you say feminism today is not about this or not about that. But nonetheless there are some questionable things. The government of Canada has funded the Advisory Council for the Status of Women for years now. They are in charge of distributing funding to other feminist groups. Have you ever checked out some of their websites? The groups which they fund, I mean. I do not think most women think this way. But some of these people are crazy, and also your assurance that feminists would never do anything wrong or have an unfair idea does little to console me in respect to Catch Me's formulation that it is mysogyny to argue with a feminist. If I am to give up my right to dissent because you assure me that no feminist would ever have an idea worth arguing with I leave myself in a pretty shitty position.

[jefferiah]

And I still disagree with what you are saying about the slippery slope argument about health care. I am saying that when abortion actually constitutes health care it is a different matter. When health care is distributed Melanie there is usually a reason for it determined by a doctor. You cannot just go into a hospital and say "one Chemotherapy please!" They distribute this "health care" because there is a "health" concern determined by a doctor. Not all abortion is deemed necessary by a doctor. There is no slippery slope there---or else you have to say that if all abortion must be funded even when unneccessary we must also allow hypochondriacs free surgery for cancer when they decide on their own merit that it is necessary.

[jbg]

Feminism is simply about women and men having the same opportunities, with no gender barriers.

That's a bit of an overstatement. When male supervisors run the risk of an occasional crude joke, while wrong, turning into a lawsuit costing tens of thousands to defend, that's the dark side of feminism.

[Borg]

Feminism is simply about women and men having the same opportunities, with no gender barriers.

That's a bit of an overstatement. When male supervisors run the risk of an occasional crude joke, while wrong, turning into a lawsuit costing tens of thousands to defend, that's the dark side of feminism.

Interesting comment.

Last week a female supervisor told my buddy - in front of about 6-7 people he had a "great ass" and that he should wear jeans more often.

I wonder how the judge would have treated this obvious sexual harrassment of a man by a woman had he laid charges. It would have been laughed out of court.

It is not a two way street out there.

" Feminism is simply about women and men having the same opportunities, with no gender barriers."

Maybe once upon a time - now it is a boatload of hooey.

Feminism has become feminatzism.

Borg

[Melanie_]

But some of these people are crazy, and also your assurance that feminists would never do anything wrong or have an unfair idea does little to console me in respect to Catch Me's formulation that it is mysogyny to argue with a feminist.

That's not my position at all. I agree that some feminists are unfair, and that they use the irrational arguement that because women have been discriminated against in the past, it is okay to use reverse discrimination now. I reject that line of thought, but that doesn't mean I reject feminism.

That's a bit of an overstatement. When male supervisors run the risk of an occasional crude joke, while wrong, turning into a lawsuit costing tens of thousands to defend, that's the dark side of feminism.

I don't think its an overstatement at all - it is really the crux of the matter, stripped away from all the baggage that has been attached to it over the years. As for sexist jokes, there's a time and a place for everything - supervisors making sexist comments should know better. An occasional sexist joke might be ignored; repeated sexist jokes might elicit a complaint; constant sexist jokes is harrassment and should result in legal action.

Last week a female supervisor told my buddy - in front of about 6-7 people he had a "great ass" and that he should wear jeans more often.

I wonder how the judge would have treated this obvious sexual harrassment of a man by a woman had he laid charges. It would have been laughed out of court.

She should know better, too. We can't have it both ways, and people like her undermine the struggles so many women have had to go through to achieve nonsexist workplaces.

[jefferiah]

Do you think that gender parity should be enforced in parliament? The publically funded Advisory Council on the Status of Women has proposed this idea. This is the largest feminist organization in Canada, and they are responsible for funding all the other feminist groups in Canada (consequently they usually choose to fund women's groups who are not conservative more "liberally"). Look you can assure me that no woman would ever want this and that this kind of thinking does not exist in the feminist movement. I dont think all women are aware of this. I dont think there is a woman out there who doesnt believe women should be equal, but that does not mean that The Advisory Council represents their views. In fact I dont think they would subsist without generous government funding. I dont think they are taking in very much from grassroots campaigning.

[Live From China]

I will share something with you, I ask every woman who I come to know, if she has been sexually assaulted, or forced to have sexual intercourse against her will. I have yet to find one who hasn't been, not even my grandmother, or mother could report they had not been sexually assaulted at one point during the course of their life. I come from a moderately priviledged WASP family where spousal abuse was not a factor, and lived community in Bible belt prairies. The women that I have asked cover ALL walks of life and economic classes. This saddens me. It saddens me even more that women still have to far to go.

Hmm. Seems to me you are doing exactly what you accuse Hoff-Sommers of doing: you are setting out to prove something you want to prove.

Feminism has become feminatzism.

Well, I don't know about that, but I can understand why you feel that way. Fortunately, the more moderate voices will prevail. These are the ones that bargain in good faith, the ones that say men aren't the enemy.

The voices like melanie's who have brought balance to this thread.

[Black Dog]

We can't be talking about the same person. I have read this book twice (once for a discussion group) and have heard the real Dr. Sommers on the radio several times. She has never once alluded to, stated, indicated, etc. that women should just stay at home and have a traditional family. You have been conned, bamboozled, misled, etc. Or you are lying. Of course, had you read the book, you would know that. In addition, Dr. Sommers is a professor of sociology at Columbia University, hardly a stay-at-home mom.

It could be I've got he rmixed up with another anti-feminist.

And you are spinning your tires.

Zzzzzzzzzzz...

I did. I just used the critique to show it.

Let me refresh your memory: you posted a bok review, I called for clarification on a point and you responded with "read the book." Well, I shouldn't have to read the book. The onus is on you to support your claim.

By the way, I know this con game. And I am sure other posters have, too.

Good for you, champ.

Even I said, "Oh, it comes from the American Journal of Business and Economics and is an article on wealth holdings in the US. It is written by the feminist Dr. So-and-So. It is in the April 2000 issue, pp. 100 - 125", you still would not accept it as accurate.

If you could provide that much information, surely you could then tell me what it says. Jesus.

Depends on what you mean by "disproportionately subject to." Rape and sexual assaults are terrible crimes are need to be dealt with severely. As a group, women cannot cry "victim" because not all women have been raped. All female rape victims (notice how I use that word) can and all efforts should be made to assist them. I find this kind of interesting and maybe someone can point out why the difference: as a male, I am 1.5 times more likely to be assaulted or killed in a violent crime (perpetrated by another male). If I were a black male in a US city (Detroit, as an "up there" example), it would even be worse, especially if I were between the ages of 15-30. Even though this is a fact, men do not cry "victim."

Tell me: which crime is predicated on the basis of the victim's gender? Males are victims of violent crime because males are statistically more likely to be involved in crime. There's various economic and even cultural factor sthat play into that. But rape, rape is a gendered crime.

Speaking of rape, Dr. CHS pointed out a huge disparity in funding between two universities in the US (the pattern was/is repeated nationwide). In a predominately white, middle-class university the rape relief centre received magnitudes more funding than a university in the same city attended mainly by black students. And ratio of rapes per year was something like 9:30. I think it is injustices like these that really need to be rectified.

Sure. But what does that have to do with women not being victims?

[margrace]

margrace:

I said this- "you appear to be quite ..... mmmmm ..... adamant that men are the source of all evil. So let me assure you that I have never forced myself upon my grandmother, mother, wife, sister, daughter, girl friends from long time past - or any other female associate that I can honestly think of."

And you responded with - "Too often men assume that sex is something that women need purely because men cannot seem to get along without it. Most men do not know the difference between wham bam thank you mam and a careing relationship. I was a widow and I had men phoning to give me a good time. "

It would appear that it is you that does not get it.

I am glad I do not live in your mean spirited, narrow minded, vicious, man hating, self pitying and self loathing world.

Mine is - despite what you might think - one of laughter and happiness - with famiy and friends - yes, both male and female.

Yours sounds too lonely, bitter and filled with spite for me. But then again I already know why - you have told us your opinion of man.

You reap what you sow little woman,

Borg

Typical attack the sender. women are not entitled to their own well earned opinions aye. I bet I been around a lot longer than you little boy and have seen a lot more of the world.

[Live From China]

The onus is on you to support your claim.

And I did.

Good for you, champ.

Thank you!

Sure. But what does that have to do with women not being victims?

It doesn't and that particular entry has nothing to do with "victims." Rather, the injustices that some feminists don't care to deal with. Oddly enough, this was an example of women hurting other women. Which I guess makes them victims of a kind.

If you could provide that much information, surely you could then tell me what it says. Jesus.

And if I did, you would discard it as misogynist, backlash, etc. All through this thread I have posted a considerable amount of information, quoting book, chapter and verse. Enough will only be enough, when it says only what you want it to say.

[Black Dog]

And I did.

In my boks, saying "Read the book"doe snot constitute adequate proof or evidence. It's a deferral.

It doesn't and that particular entry has nothing to do with "victims." Rather, the injustices that some feminists don't care to deal with. Oddly enough, this was an example of women hurting other women. Which I guess makes them victims of a kind.

Strawmen make for specious claims:

1) On what do you base the claim that "feminists" don't want to correct the imbalance of funding between rape crisis centres?

2) On what do you base the idea that this imbalance is "women hurting other women"? Do women control the funding for these centres? How are women responsible for this phenomenon?

And if I did, you would discard it as misogynist, backlash, etc.

Spare me the amateur psychic routine.

All through this thread I have posted a considerable amount of information, quoting book, chapter and verse. Enough will only be enough, when it says only what you want it to say.

I asked for clarification of one specific claim which was made in the book, repeated in the review and cited approvingly by you. When pressed on the point about wealth you responded:

Read the article. If you cannot answer this question after doing so, I will not be able to explain this to you.

The linked article of course, did not contain any further elaboration on the point CHS made re: women's alleged control of 1/2 of the nation's wealth.

Now it took me about 0.23 seconds on google to find some clarification. Mostly: that figure stems from women controlling the bulk of household spending. But the question of who's wealth it is in the first place is still open.

But that's a nit I'm sick of picking. My major beef with CHS is her apparent denial of any social or cultural bias against women. By defining feminism as a mere struggle for legal equality, CHS is able to create a strawman of the other side to rail against.

[Live From China]

Spare me the amateur psychic routine.

No! Spare me the angry feminist routine!