Radical Feminism

[DarkAngel_]

deleted

[jefferiah]

OK Dark Angel let me point something out to you. You assert that a book is unfair, that you shouldnt have to blindly follow a book but follow your own heart etc. etc. That religion has kept people in the dark for many years and not allowed others to have their own opinion. Well the fact that you have another opinion is fine DArk Angel, but just because you think have freed yourself from the Bible or whatnot through your own majestic free-thinking (which I think is often a blind faith in some other idea or concept) does not mean that every one who believes in what the book says and believes that there is a God is being forced to. Do you understand that? I was not forced by anyone to believe in God. I was never forced to church. I had lots of books growing up on zen and eastern religion. I had Thus Spake Zarathustra. But I chose Christianity. My own heart tells me that it is right. My own heart has led me to believe that to say that all religions are equal and point in the same direction is bullshit, although at one time I fully believed it, because it is a nice idea. There are many points on which different faiths and philosophies converge but yet there are some very profound differences. This would mean that each faith to some degree contradicts the other. Now in order to maintain that all thoughts are equal at this point, you have to compromise each mindset. This means revisionism. Perhaps there were mistakes in the writings of the ancients so we will say oh they meant this and they meant that. But who gets to decide where the mistakes are. In order to do so the ecumenicalist must use his own individual discretion deciding where and on what issues he can (thousands of years later) soften the position of one faith and another to make them the same.

[margrace]

This may be off topic but it could help explain radical feminism to a degree. Two stories:

Three young children walking home form school on a lonely country road with no houses on it. They see a car parked some distance ahead Having been warned by their mother that this could be dangerous they cut across country and walk through the fields to their home. They tell their mother about it and she recommends that they continue to do that. One of the children has horrendous nightmares about this situation. The car finally does not appear again. It is thirty years before this man, who was monitoring all the country schools was finally charged. This was when the situation was finally recognized as dangerous for children. The mother had no place to report this and most of the country Moms could only warn their children. How much damage this man did to young girls is hard to measure. There was no one to report this too, only the country grapevine protected any children. It was not believed to be a serious situation. This was back in the 1940,s

A second incident happening just yesterday. A young boy on his way home from a school situated outside a small town is grabbed and tried to be forced into a car. This lad got away and ran back to the school reporting where it became a news story and the police and school were heavily invoved.

Maybe it was situations like the above that created some of what you call radical feminists.

[jefferiah]

This may be off topic but it could help explain radical feminism to a degree. Two stories:

Three young children walking home form school on a lonely country road with no houses on it. They see a car parked some distance ahead Having been warned by their mother that this could be dangerous they cut across country and walk through the fields to their home. They tell their mother about it and she recommends that they continue to do that. One of the children has horrendous nightmares about this situation. The car finally does not appear again. It is thirty years before this man, who was monitoring all the country schools was finally charged. This was when the situation was finally recognized as dangerous for children. The mother had no place to report this and most of the country Moms could only warn their children. How much damage this man did to young girls is hard to measure. There was no one to report this too, only the country grapevine protected any children. It was not believed to be a serious situation. This was back in the 1940,s

A second incident happening just yesterday. A young boy on his way home from a school situated outside a small town is grabbed and tried to be forced into a car. This lad got away and ran back to the school reporting where it became a news story and the police and school were heavily invoved.

Maybe it was situations like the above that created some of what you call radical feminists.

That is sad Margrace. But I must also point out that the second situation occured yesterday. Do you think that if those girls reported it yesterday they would have the same reaction they got in the 1940s? And of course I acknowledge that "radical" feminism probably has its roots in women who may have undergone some trauma. I certainly understand that, but even so I must resist their movement.

[jefferiah]

I feel I must post again, since Margrace you made a great point. A very very admirable point which shows you are an understanding person. I agree with it totally. Radical views can stem from bad experience, and there is no way that I could say I would definitely be immune to such views of the "radical" feminists had I been a woman who may have undergone something that they went through. I know that most women do not even identify with these radical views or would ever say something like "a man can benefit from being unjustly accused of rape." However perhaps some of these women led very tortured lives which led them to such hatred of men, because it was men who did it and men who did nothing about it. But I still must say that some of these views are unfair, while I can fully sympathize with these women.

A woman who was raped for instance sometimes becomes distrustful of the whole male gender. While I can sympathize with this, am I not also to sympathize with an innocent man in the event that a tortured woman sought to treat him unfairly.

Once again, I remind you that I am fully aware that most women are not like that. If I may ask your opinion....not on the personal matter of subsidizing all abortion whether you think I am a crazy unfair person for having this position? Does my opinion warrant the term mysogynist in your opinion? The fact that I am vocal about my moral concern over abortion, does this mean I am forcing women what to do with their bodies? Is there not a difference between voicing a concern, an opinion and forcing a woman to do something. My opinion cannot stop women from having abortions. I cannot stop the government from funding them. So is the mere fact that I have an opinion totalitarian. Or is it more totalitarian to say that I have no right to have this opinion?

[jefferiah]

If a woman reads my words and decides they are present a reasonable argument, then is that a problem? Is that totalitarian?

[jefferiah]

Dark Angel I ask that you forgive me for the cult assertion. You do understand that like everyone else I sometimes get a little heated when I am in debate. Also I want you to forgive me for my inconsiderate behaviour in not congratulating you on your surgery. I hope everything went well.

[DarkAngel_]

OK Dark Angel let me point something out to you. You assert that a book is unfair, that you shouldnt have to blindly follow a book but follow your own heart etc. etc. That religion has kept people in the dark for many years and not allowed others to have their own opinion. Well the fact that you have another opinion is fine DArk Angel, but just because you think have freed yourself from the Bible or whatnot through your own majestic free-thinking (which I think is often a blind faith in some other idea or concept) does not mean that every one who believes in what the book says and believes that there is a God is being forced to. Do you understand that? I was not forced by anyone to believe in God. I was never forced to church. I had lots of books growing up on zen and eastern religion. I had Thus Spake Zarathustra. But I chose Christianity. My own heart tells me that it is right. My own heart has led me to believe that to say that all religions are equal and point in the same direction is bullshit, although at one time I fully believed it, because it is a nice idea. There are many points on which different faiths and philosophies converge but yet there are some very profound differences. This would mean that each faith to some degree contradicts the other. Now in order to maintain that all thoughts are equal at this point, you have to compromise each mindset. This means revisionism. Perhaps there were mistakes in the writings of the ancients so we will say oh they meant this and they meant that. But who gets to decide where the mistakes are. In order to do so the ecumenicalist must use his own individual discretion deciding where and on what issues he can (thousands of years later) soften the position of one faith and another to make them the same.

ok, i get it... cool!

but there is more to it ya know, i havent just 'broke free.' i AM free, my thoughts are very wild and speratic, as i said: possibilities are endless: hence my choice for that freedom, the bible is a trap to very few, but it seems to pull in good feeling making hopes and dreames in good men and women, and falsifying morals: like the 'cut off hand, stoning children, and men are dominint' bull crap. all these things in reality are wrong, that comes from me, not a book, and i think the west and east are too proud to think, "what if we are wrong" and then the best of them all, "whats the meaning of all this?"

the answers in science, if it confuses, then take the time to gain understanding of it, it is indeed past what you may have mystisized or fantisized, and in the fact that most is not know, science is the only clearifier and light, besides philosiphy.

images of the mind, feelings in the soul, even your own sight cannot be trusted! so sit... look... and see what is around you, once you can define it, it seems to work together in beauty and grace, not in the name of an unproven faith, history is what we knew, what we were, and no proof of a god is present, nor is their of the 7-fold path, nirvana, or anything not proven by humankind, does that mean they are not there? no, it just means do not become zelous and mind-set, its unhealthy.

if you want knoledge of origin: look everywhere none stop! be smart by gaining it! wither by religion, science, philosiphy, you name the knoledge and it has to do with origin! but never look down a narrow door way and say you see past closed doors: no one can, and the will to downfall is from any pettiness that is, in essence, condesended beyond reason.

atheism is not the way to go nither, i picked it because of the 'blank' it gave me on stubbroness, it was the most stong in tolerance and change. search everywhere always be sceptical, take everything into acount, observe the match and drop between bad and good morals, search for tangible evidence, deduct which is most true based on images, tools, findings, theories, facts, observations, crack ravings, and human psyci.

prove it to be 100% possitive.

ominipresents is impossible: about 65% positive

evolution is so: 85% positive

defined religion comes from the past: 100% possitive

science has found knoledge pertaining to origin: 95% positive

Religion has had almost the same theory of origin then before: 99% positive

religion has found proof of origin: 1% possitive

(adding to above) but as histrical origin: 99% possitive

science is truth: 95% possitive

religion is truth: 50% possitive

existance did not start here, so us humans want no dooms day, and would like to see in fun and good time: how everything came to exist.

i do all this every day, if you think "i know what it is" all the time, eventually you stop learning.

and you'll get depressed and seem outcast (though that never changes) as well as begin to get more and more stubbern.

but i broke the cycle! all i'm saying is be smart about it, most religous peolpe know nothing of science: are you one of them? if so that is ignorance, or just lazy, i can admit i am lazy most of the time.

but please look into scientific origin, the big bang, as well as the red-blue shift pics taken showing you how they figured this out. (by deducting and tracking the expansion of galaxies and stars from a central location using rotational observations and ionized trails picked up on ultra-violite and also by tetermining the temp in spots of space to see long dead solar systems that may shed light on systems that we cannot see now.)

i beg you do this, and would love to see you develope your own understanding of science.

and please seperate religion and science if it is hard to combind them, it seems hard for me.

this is all i can give you...

now what should i do? by your wisdoms?

[jefferiah]

OK Dark Angel let me point something out to you. You assert that a book is unfair, that you shouldnt have to blindly follow a book but follow your own heart etc. etc. That religion has kept people in the dark for many years and not allowed others to have their own opinion. Well the fact that you have another opinion is fine DArk Angel, but just because you think have freed yourself from the Bible or whatnot through your own majestic free-thinking (which I think is often a blind faith in some other idea or concept) does not mean that every one who believes in what the book says and believes that there is a God is being forced to. Do you understand that? I was not forced by anyone to believe in God. I was never forced to church. I had lots of books growing up on zen and eastern religion. I had Thus Spake Zarathustra. But I chose Christianity. My own heart tells me that it is right. My own heart has led me to believe that to say that all religions are equal and point in the same direction is bullshit, although at one time I fully believed it, because it is a nice idea. There are many points on which different faiths and philosophies converge but yet there are some very profound differences. This would mean that each faith to some degree contradicts the other. Now in order to maintain that all thoughts are equal at this point, you have to compromise each mindset. This means revisionism. Perhaps there were mistakes in the writings of the ancients so we will say oh they meant this and they meant that. But who gets to decide where the mistakes are. In order to do so the ecumenicalist must use his own individual discretion deciding where and on what issues he can (thousands of years later) soften the position of one faith and another to make them the same.

ok, i get it... cool!

but there is more to it ya know, i havent just 'broke free.' i AM free, my thoughts are very wild and speratic, as i said: possibilities are endless: hence my choice for that freedom, the bible is a trap to very few, but it seems to pull in good feeling making hopes and dreames in good men and women, and falsifying morals: like the 'cut off hand, stoning children, and men are dominint' bull crap. all these things in reality are wrong, that comes from me, not a book, and i think the west and east are too proud to think, "what if we are wrong" and then the best of them all, "whats the meaning of all this?"

the answers in science, if it confuses, then take the time to gain understanding of it, it is indeed past what you may have mystisized or fantisized, and in the fact that most is not know, science is the only clearifier and light, besides philosiphy.

images of the mind, feelings in the soul, even your own sight cannot be trusted! so sit... look... and see what is around you, once you can define it, it seems to work together in beauty and grace, not in the name of an unproven faith, history is what we knew, what we were, and no proof of a god is present, nor is their of the 7-fold path, nirvana, or anything not proven by humankind, does that mean they are not there? no, it just means do not become zelous and mind-set, its unhealthy.

if you want knoledge of origin: look everywhere none stop! be smart by gaining it! wither by religion, science, philosiphy, you name the knoledge and it has to do with origin! but never look down a narrow door way and say you see past closed doors: no one can, and the will to downfall is from any pettiness that is, in essence, condesended beyond reason.

atheism is not the way to go nither, i picked it because of the 'blank' it gave me on stubbroness, it was the most stong in tolerance and change. search everywhere always be sceptical, take everything into acount, observe the match and drop between bad and good morals, search for tangible evidence, deduct which is most true based on images, tools, findings, theories, facts, observations, crack ravings, and human psyci.

prove it to be 100% possitive.

ominipresents is impossible: about 65% positive

evolution is so: 85% positive

defined religion comes from the past: 100% possitive

science has found knoledge pertaining to origin: 95% positive

Religion has had almost the same theory of origin then before: 99% positive

religion has found proof of origin: 1% possitive

(adding to above) but as histrical origin: 99% possitive

science is truth: 95% possitive

religion is truth: 50% possitive

existance did not start here, so us humans want no dooms day, and would like to see in fun and good time: how everything came to exist.

i do all this every day, if you think "i know what it is" all the time, eventually you stop learning.

and you'll get depressed and seem outcast (though that never changes) as well as begin to get more and more stubbern.

but i broke the cycle! all i'm saying is be smart about it, most religous peolpe know nothing of science: are you one of them? if so that is ignorance, or just lazy, i can admit i am lazy most of the time.

but please look into scientific origin, the big bang, as well as the red-blue shift pics taken showing you how they figured this out. (by deducting and tracking the expansion of galaxies and stars from a central location using rotational observations and ionized trails picked up on ultra-violite and also by tetermining the temp in spots of space to see long dead solar systems that may shed light on systems that we cannot see now.)

i beg you do this, and would love to see you develope your own understanding of science.

and please seperate religion and science if it is hard to combind them, it seems hard for me.

this is all i can give you...

now what should i do? by your wisdoms?

I never once said men were dominant. I never once said people should have their hands cut off.

[jefferiah]

OK Dark Angel let me point something out to you. You assert that a book is unfair, that you shouldnt have to blindly follow a book but follow your own heart etc. etc. That religion has kept people in the dark for many years and not allowed others to have their own opinion. Well the fact that you have another opinion is fine DArk Angel, but just because you think have freed yourself from the Bible or whatnot through your own majestic free-thinking (which I think is often a blind faith in some other idea or concept) does not mean that every one who believes in what the book says and believes that there is a God is being forced to. Do you understand that? I was not forced by anyone to believe in God. I was never forced to church. I had lots of books growing up on zen and eastern religion. I had Thus Spake Zarathustra. But I chose Christianity. My own heart tells me that it is right. My own heart has led me to believe that to say that all religions are equal and point in the same direction is bullshit, although at one time I fully believed it, because it is a nice idea. There are many points on which different faiths and philosophies converge but yet there are some very profound differences. This would mean that each faith to some degree contradicts the other. Now in order to maintain that all thoughts are equal at this point, you have to compromise each mindset. This means revisionism. Perhaps there were mistakes in the writings of the ancients so we will say oh they meant this and they meant that. But who gets to decide where the mistakes are. In order to do so the ecumenicalist must use his own individual discretion deciding where and on what issues he can (thousands of years later) soften the position of one faith and another to make them the same.

ok, i get it... cool!

but there is more to it ya know, i havent just 'broke free.' i AM free, my thoughts are very wild and speratic, as i said: possibilities are endless: hence my choice for that freedom, the bible is a trap to very few, but it seems to pull in good feeling making hopes and dreames in good men and women, and falsifying morals: like the 'cut off hand, stoning children, and men are dominint' bull crap. all these things in reality are wrong, that comes from me, not a book, and i think the west and east are too proud to think, "what if we are wrong" and then the best of them all, "whats the meaning of all this?"

the answers in science, if it confuses, then take the time to gain understanding of it, it is indeed past what you may have mystisized or fantisized, and in the fact that most is not know, science is the only clearifier and light, besides philosiphy.

images of the mind, feelings in the soul, even your own sight cannot be trusted! so sit... look... and see what is around you, once you can define it, it seems to work together in beauty and grace, not in the name of an unproven faith, history is what we knew, what we were, and no proof of a god is present, nor is their of the 7-fold path, nirvana, or anything not proven by humankind, does that mean they are not there? no, it just means do not become zelous and mind-set, its unhealthy.

if you want knoledge of origin: look everywhere none stop! be smart by gaining it! wither by religion, science, philosiphy, you name the knoledge and it has to do with origin! but never look down a narrow door way and say you see past closed doors: no one can, and the will to downfall is from any pettiness that is, in essence, condesended beyond reason.

atheism is not the way to go nither, i picked it because of the 'blank' it gave me on stubbroness, it was the most stong in tolerance and change. search everywhere always be sceptical, take everything into acount, observe the match and drop between bad and good morals, search for tangible evidence, deduct which is most true based on images, tools, findings, theories, facts, observations, crack ravings, and human psyci.

prove it to be 100% possitive.

ominipresents is impossible: about 65% positive

evolution is so: 85% positive

defined religion comes from the past: 100% possitive

science has found knoledge pertaining to origin: 95% positive

Religion has had almost the same theory of origin then before: 99% positive

religion has found proof of origin: 1% possitive

(adding to above) but as histrical origin: 99% possitive

science is truth: 95% possitive

religion is truth: 50% possitive

existance did not start here, so us humans want no dooms day, and would like to see in fun and good time: how everything came to exist.

i do all this every day, if you think "i know what it is" all the time, eventually you stop learning.

and you'll get depressed and seem outcast (though that never changes) as well as begin to get more and more stubbern.

but i broke the cycle! all i'm saying is be smart about it, most religous peolpe know nothing of science: are you one of them? if so that is ignorance, or just lazy, i can admit i am lazy most of the time.

but please look into scientific origin, the big bang, as well as the red-blue shift pics taken showing you how they figured this out. (by deducting and tracking the expansion of galaxies and stars from a central location using rotational observations and ionized trails picked up on ultra-violite and also by tetermining the temp in spots of space to see long dead solar systems that may shed light on systems that we cannot see now.)

i beg you do this, and would love to see you develope your own understanding of science.

and please seperate religion and science if it is hard to combind them, it seems hard for me.

this is all i can give you...

now what should i do? by your wisdoms?

I never once said men were dominant. I never once said people should have their hands cut off.

[jefferiah]

The foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man. I decline to accpet your view of things. I have my own, thank you.

[Black Dog]

That people (I extrapolate this to all people, not just women) cannot cry oppression when they have access to more economic, social and political power than anyone has had in the entire history of the world. Oppression is a non sequitur in such a case.

Bullshit. Let's look at Hoff-Summers' claims again:

American women outlive their male counterparts by nearly 10 years

And really, how is that relevant to adiscussion on feminism? Talk about a red herring.

control more than half the national wealth

What does that mean? Who's wealth are we talking about?

, and make up the majority of undergraduate students, law students, and voters.

Be that as it may, even if women have acheived parity withmen in some areas, that doesn't mean there are not areas where women remain disdvantaged.

[margrace]

My views on abortion once again go back to the past. In public school we had a well beloved music teacher, this again was back in the 40s. One night she was found bleeding to death on the steps of our local hospital, she had an illegal abortion. She was a beautiful young women and it broke our teacher's heart. We never saw her again.

There is a lot of judgment in people's views on abortion. Many would tell you a woman deserves what she gets. But It takes two people and as long as there are massive hormones governing actions the situation will not be resolved.

[Live From China]

Bullshit.

So why do you say this?

And really, how is that relevant to adiscussion on feminism? Talk about a red herring.

OK, here goes. A possible explanation. It is related to access to health care. When I was in high school (during the last Ice Age ), women, on average, lived 7 years longer than men. In 35 years, this has increased to 10 years. If the health care (as some feminists claim) is so uncaring about women's health issues, why has it contributed so successfully to increase their life spans? And yes, I am sure there are other contributing factors. Health care is definitely a feminist issue. Of course, it is also a human issue.

What does that mean? Who's wealth are we talking about?

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

Be that as it may, even if women have acheived parity withmen in some areas, that doesn't mean there are not areas where women remain disdvantaged.

I agree totally. But then this claim is never made nor even implied.

I get the impression you have not read this book. Correct me if I am wrong. It is meticulously researched and has a substantial number of footnotes and references. Many posters are constantly asking others to provide links, evidence, etc. This book does that; enough to satisfy even the most greedy "evidence hound." Of course, many people do not like to hear its message.

Go read it. Then we'll talk.

[DarkAngel_]

ok, i got it!

men are agressive, but often if raised right are good men, the same goes for women!

as well, my man brain 'pickings' don't force me to act in aggression toward women, but sometimes men, if the right to fight is needed, but not often.

as an add, if i was a women, i'd be a lesbian.

[Black Dog]

OK, here goes. A possible explanation. It is related to access to health care. When I was in high school (during the last Ice Age ), women, on average, lived 7 years longer than men. In 35 years, this has increased to 10 years. If the health care (as some feminists claim) is so uncaring about women's health issues, why has it contributed so successfully to increase their life spans? And yes, I am sure there are other contributing factors. Health care is definitely a feminist issue. Of course, it is also a human issue.

The point is simple: the fact that women live longer than men (and have for a long time, though the gap is shrinking) is not evidence that women are not oppressed.

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

I'm guessing you didn't read the article (actually a book review), because no further elaboration is given on that point.

I agree totally. But then this claim is never made nor even implied.

Actually it is:

Skeptics are starting to question whether this is a group genuinely entitled to victim status.

IOW: "Shut your pretty little yaps already."

I get the impression you have not read this book. Correct me if I am wrong. It is meticulously researched and has a substantial number of footnotes and references. Many posters are constantly asking others to provide links, evidence, etc. This book does that; enough to satisfy even the most greedy "evidence hound." Of course, many people do not like to hear its message.

Go read it. Then we'll talk.

This is a discussion forum, not a book club.

[Black Dog]

Here's an example of, not neccesarily oppression, but the bullshit women have to deal with.

LAUDING someone for their style on Capitol Hill is a lot like celebrating the best surfer on Florida’s Gulf Coast — it’s all relative, and some would argue irrelevant.

...

But with the ascent of Nancy Pelosi, 66, widely recognized and admired for her Armani and easy fashion savvy, the days of the dowdy Washington dress code may be numbered. At least that is the hope of a number of women on Capitol Hill, Republicans and Democrats, who see Mrs. Pelosi, the new speaker of the House, as a fashion leader, too.

What’s more, these women do not altogether fear that their seriousness as politicians will be undermined by speaking aloud about hem lengths or helmet hair, or what one of them, Representative Mary Bono, calls the “St. John uniform,’’ a reference to the safe brand of choice on Capitol Hill.

...

The men have it much easier because unlike women, they seldom are punished for fashion mistakes.

So it is understandable that women in politics are so skittish about their choices. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 59 was tortured for her monthly makeovers when she was first lady. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 52 photographed wearing black knee-high boots, an above-the-knee black skirt and a military-style black coat in 2005, was called a dominatrix by the fashion critic of The Washington Post.

Women in politics are still operating in a male world and don’t want to appear as lacking gravitas.

(Emphasis added)

[Live From China]

This is a discussion forum, not a book club.

No one said it was. I am sensing a closed, hostile mind. You seem to criticize the evidence presented in the book without actually presenting any counter-evidence of your own. And without reading the book.

And, to head you off at the pass, I have read books by authors that would be considered critiques of Dr. Sommers. I am interested in both sides of the story.

I'm guessing you didn't read the article (actually a book review), because no further elaboration is given on that point.

Actually, I did. Several times. To use your it-isn't-a-book-club attitude, it isn't a research article, it's "just" a book review. If you want the source of the data you will have to go to the book (which I guess means you will have to read at least part of it). It is meticulously researched with lots of footnotes which will help to answer your question, "Whose wealth?"

Actually it is:

and

Skeptics are starting to question whether this is a group genuinely entitled to victim status.

Actually it isn't. Disadvantaged does not mean oppressed. And disadvantaged doesn't entitle you to claim you are victimized.

"Shut your pretty little yaps already."

It's too bad you automatically got your hackles up. I tend to think of the book review as a way of saying, "Let's focus on the real issues." Rape, the "glass ceiling", wage disparity (where they exist), etc.

[Black Dog]

No one said it was. I am sensing a closed, hostile mind. You seem to criticize the evidence presented in the book without actually presenting any counter-evidence of your own. And without reading the book.

No: I'm asking to see the evidence presented in the book. But it's not really worth my time to investigate outside the confines of this forum. IOW: 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.

Actually, I did. Several times. To use your it-isn't-a-book-club attitude, it isn't a research article, it's "just" a book review. If you want the source of the data you will have to go to the book (which I guess means you will have to read at least part of it). It is meticulously researched with lots of footnotes which will help to answer your question, "Whose wealth?"

You sem to miss the point of this forum. It's to debate, which means one should have soem ammo in their pocket to suipport heir views. Defering to someone else's work and expecting posters to take their time to seek out that external information is not what we're here for. IOW: if I want book reccomendations, I'll go to my amazon.ca account.

Actually it isn't. Disadvantaged does not mean oppressed. And disadvantaged doesn't entitle you to claim you are victimized.

Hair splitting.

It's too bad you automatically got your hackles up. I tend to think of the book review as a way of saying, "Let's focus on the real issues." Rape, the "glass ceiling", wage disparity (where they exist), etc.

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?

[DarkAngel_]

i understand the hurt caused by past men... but men of today may be more inclined to rage because women can cause much worse hurt... my kin in youth, feel quite hurt by the youthful women of today. They deal with hurtful problems that instill rage in men, and can be hard to suppress...

this is an example from a real situation that happened to a friend of mine, put yourself in his shoes: a girl you 'love' cheats on you with your best friend, then dumps you, teases you every day and gets you into fights by instigating them with lies, then, ruins your chances with every other girl by decimating your reputation among the female group. (as well as telling your abusive father you raped her, and gitting so beat'n you have to go to the emergency room)

Emotional rape...

Brutal.

[Catchme]

i understand the hurt caused by past men... but men of today may be more inclined to rage because women can cause much worse hurt... my kin in youth, feel quite hurt by the youthful women of today. They deal with hurtful problems that instill rage in men, and can be hard to suppress...

Oh BS, now you're blaimming the victim, and saying it's womens fault they are getting beaten, because they cause much worse hurt.

Abusers say that to the women they are abusing, "it's your fault I have to beat you"! It's an excuse and nothing more.

Also, Steinam shoots back at CH here:

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

Why Being a Feminist Does Not Mean Backing All Women

By Gloria Steinem, Women's Media Center. Posted January 16, 2007.

There is still a false idea out there that feminists back every woman, regardless of how she behaves. Let's leave that behind right along with 2006.

In fact, feminism is just the belief that all people have the full circle of human qualities combined in a unique way in each of us. The simplistic labels of "feminine" and "masculine" are mostly about what society wants us to do: submerge our unique humanity in care giving and reproducing if we're women, and trade our unique humanity for power if we're men.

So yes, I believe that women have the right to be wrong, with no double standard of criticism. But when we have the power to make a choice, we also have responsibility. Biology isn't destiny, and it isn't a free pass either.

http://www.alternet.org/stories/46621/

[DarkAngel_]

i understand the hurt caused by past men... but men of today may be more inclined to rage because women can cause much worse hurt... my kin in youth, feel quite hurt by the youthful women of today. They deal with hurtful problems that instill rage in men, and can be hard to suppress...

Oh BS, now you're blaimming the victim, and saying it's womens fault they are getting beaten, because they cause much worse hurt.

not at all... i am merely stating that men have had abuse as well, and may be their own reasons for choosing the worst action; abuse. I would never speak BS, because i have no real opinion that’s based on a side, both sides are getting abused and i dislike 'abusers', as for there mental heath needing serious attention, as they are the ones often punished... and should be.

And both men and women are getting a lot more brutal in their actions of spite: women are becoming more clever and destructive with there vengeance, seeking out deceptive means to gather retribution, and men are becoming more violent, less moral, and set on putting bad words well behind others, more so on other men, for retribution, or hell bend actions on causing 'criminal' problems in there lives, like egging there house, sexual jokes toward them, and secret betrayals.

i was just stating an event my freind went through, women can be brutal too, but often have better ways of avoiding violence... and punishment in the long run.

but that does not exclued men, whom, have done the same thing as vengence as well.

[Catchme]

Oh please do tell us how hard done by men are and how women brutalize them?

And you are still blamming the female victims for bringing it down upon themselves.

[DarkAngel_]

Really? doesn't sound like it...

how about this:

women can be instigated to abuse just as well as men, that does not leave any fault for the person blamed to be the cause, the action was made by choice, and abuse cannot be excused by any situational instigation.

men and women have the equal opportunity to instigate unknowingly, then it is of no fault to them, but on any rare case of the instigation being made on purpose, by a sick minded or mentally insane person, with the instigator result of abuse being satisfactory, then both parties should be punished, but the abuser should be punished well beyond the instigator... the same would go if it was 2 men or women on trial for acts of violence and instigation.

though i would fear the abuser using this to their advantage, by claiming the other person is insane or mentally ill, making the court give a test to the victim, and, in their state of trauma, seeming mentally ill and being punished for malicious intent, when in fact, the victim was completely innocent.

am i still wrong?

as well its never a persons fault for being brutally beaten up, i never said that, and never would.

[DarkAngel_]

also in my opinion; why beat up women? are 'girl beaters' really gay and insecure about that? why beat up women if you love women? the most i'd do to hurt a girl is shave! and possably make her a dinner!

both would hurt her even if it wasn't suposed too!