I'm going to start a new category - Book Bytes. I'm one of those people who reads books with a highlighter or pen and I note passages that I find particularly meaningful/moving/well-written/enraging. I'm also one of those people who returns to books over and over, finding some bit of insight in them the 2nd or 3rd time that I missed the first, or reminding myself of a brilliant idea I'd seen the first time and forgotten. Sometimes the book bytes will be just isolated quotes, sometimes longer passages, and they will probably tend to come in groups, as I read or reread a book. Your comments are encouraged, as I hope they provoke as much thought in you as they obviously did in me if I saw fit to quote them.
The first book from which I will share some excerpts is Culture of Complaint, by Robert Hughes. Hughes is an Australian art critic and in this book he takes dead aim at what he calls America's "twin fetishes of victimhood and redemption". He takes equal delight in skewering Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson on the one hand, and Andrea Dworkin and the therapy cult on the other. This passage is from the book's introductory chapter:
What Herod saw (Ed note: he is referring to a fictional Herod in a W.H. Auden piece) was America in the late 80s and early 90s. A polity obsessed with therapies and filled with distrust of formal politics; skeptical of authority and prey to superstition; its political language corroded by fake pity and euphemism. Like late Rome, unlike the early republic, in its long imperial reach, in the corruption and verbosity of its senators, in its reliance on sacred geese (those feathered ancestors of our own pollsters and spin-doctors) and in its submission to senile, deified emperors controlled by astrologers and extravagant wives. A culture which has replaced gladiatorial games, as a means of pacifying the mob, with hi-tech wars on television that cause immense slaughter and yet leave the Mesopotamian satraps in full power over their wretched subjects.
Unlike Caligula, the emperor does not appoint his horse counsul; he puts him in charge of the environment, or appoints him to the Supreme Court. Mainly it is women who object, for due to the prevalance of mystery-religions the men are off in the woods, affirming their manhood by sniffing one another's armpits and listening to third-rate poets rant about the moist, hairy satyr that lives inside each one of them. Those who crave the returns of the Delphic sibyl get Shirley MacLaine, and a 35,000-year-old Cro Magnon warrior named Ramtha takes up residence inside a blonde housewife on the West Coast, generating millions upon millions of cult dollars in seminars, tapes and books.
Meanwhile, artists vacillate between a largely self-indulgent expressiveness and a mainly impotent politicization, and the contest between education and TV - between argument and conviction by spectacle - has been won by television, a medium now more debased in America than ever before. Even its popular arts, once the wonder and delight of the world, have decayed; there was a time, within the memory of some of us, when American popular music was full of exaltation and pain and wit, and appealed to grown-ups. Today, instead of the raw intensity of Muddy Waters or the virile inventiveness of Duke Ellington, we have Michael Jackson, and from George Gershwin and Cole Porter we are down to illiterate spectaculars about cats or the fall of Saigon. The great American form of rock'n'roll has become over-technologized and run through the corporate grinder, until it is 95 percent synthetic...
And then, because the arts confront the sensitive citizen with the difference between good artists, mediocre ones and absolute duffers, and since there are always more of the last two than the first, the arts too must be politicized; so we cobble up critical systems to show that although we know what we meant by the quality of the environment, the idea of "quality" in aesthetic experience is little more than a paternalist fiction designed to make life hard for black, female and homosexual artists, who must henceforth be judged on their ethnicity, gender and medical condition rather than the merits of their work.
As a maudlin reaction against excellence spreads to the arts, the idea of aesthetic discrimination is tarred with the brush of racial or gender discrimination. Few take a stand on this, or point out that in matters of art "elitism" does not mean social injustice or even inaccessibility. The self is now the sacred cow of American culture, self-esteem is sacrosanct, and so we labor to turns arts education into a system in whch no-one can fail. In the same spirit, tennis could be shorn of its elitist overtones: you just get rid of the net.
Since our new-found sensitivity decrees that only the victim shall be the hero, the white American males starts bawling for victim status too. Hence the rise of cult therapies which teach that we are all the victims of our parents: that whatever our folly, venality, or outright thuggishness, we are not to be blamed for it, since we come from "dysfunctional families" - and, as John Bradshaw, Melody Beattie and other gurus of the twelve-step program are quick to point out on no evidence whatsoever, 96 percent of American families are dysfunctional. We have been given improper role models, or starved of affection, or beaten, or perhaps subjected to the goatish lusts of Papa; and if we don't think we have, it is only because we have repressed the memory and are therefore in even more urgent need of the quack's latest book.
The number of Americans who were abused as children and hence absolved from all blame for anything they might now do is more or less equal to the number who, a few years ago, had once been Cleopatra or Henry VIII. Thus the ether is now jammed with confessional shows in which a parade of citizens and their role-models, from Latoya Jackson to Roseanne Barr, rise to denounce the sins of their parents, real or imagined. Not to be aware of a miserable childhood is prima facie evidence, in the eyes of Recovery, of "denial" - the assumption being that everyone had one, and is thus a potential source of revenue.The cult of the abused Inner Child has a very important use in modern America: it tells you that personal grievance transcends political utterance, and that th eupward production curve of maudlin narcissism need not intersect with the descending spiral of cultural triviality. Thus the pursuit of the Inner Child has taken over just at the moment when Americans ought to be figuring out where their Inner Adult is, and how that disregarded oldster got buried under the rubble of pop psychology and specious short-term gratification. We imagine a Tahiti inside ourselves, and seek its prelapsarian inhabitant: everyone his own Noble Savage.
- Log in to post comments
Anyone who takes a shot at Dworkin is alright in my book .
"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership."
Andrea Dworkin
Dworkin is a carnival barker on the feminist midway. I'll probably post another excerpt later from the same book where he takes on some of the sillier excesses of academic feminism. Hughes' position on it is similar to mine and to Camille Paglia, for example, in that we're all sympathetic to the goals of mainstream feminism and generally in agreement, while at the same time repelled by the god-awful nonsense that often emits from the loonier feminists. It also tends to blend perfectly with another subject I've been writing on a lot lately, the debauchery of the language in political contexts.
You want to say that patriarchal culture has negatively affected women in America? I agree completely. You want to say that women have historically been shortchanged by denying them equal opportunity to education and economic self-sufficency? No sane person would deny that. But when you (not you specifically, of course) start writing books about gender bias in the design of freeways (I didn't make that up, there is an entire book devoted to it), or claim that logic and rationality itself is a tool of the patriarchy to control women, and I not only step off the bus here, I say you are the enemy of pretty much anything worth preserving in the world. Thankfully, most of the loonies are locked up in obscure academic positions and talk only to each other, being ignored by any clear thinking person.
I've often wondered about the strange disjunct between women's emancipation (which most rational people have no problem with) and the sheer badness of so much feminist theorizing on the subject. I groan inwardly whenever I see an author described as a feminist and gird myself for a disquisition on my interest, as a male, in the perpetuation of rape; or a bald assertion of the social construction of every male-female difference except that most obvious physical one; or a jeremiad on the deficiencies of heterosexuality, or what have you. (Where, by the way, do they expect little feminists to come from?) I think there must be good books written by feminists . . . Does someone have a list, perhaps?
There are lots of good books by feminists. Feminism is a very, very broad term, including people as wildly diverse as Camille Paglia, Nadine Strossen and Catherine MacKinnon. I would recommend books by Strossen, Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers or Katie Roiphe. These tend to be genuine feminists, as opposed to what some refer to as "victim feminism".
I can't speak for Camille Paglia; haven't read more than a few snippets (which gave me the impression she's probably fun to read, but a little wild and wooly for my taste). I've read McKinnon on pornography, and though she's a vastly better, more lucid writer than Dworkin, I found her distressingly authoritarian. I have read a good bit of Sommers's Who Stole Feminism? and some of Strossen's Defending Pornography. Such books are so different in character from the authoritarian, science-hating, often postmodernist stuff labeled feminist that I've had to slog through that I hesitate to apply the term "feminist" to them. (I'm aware of course that the authors in question call themselves feminists; I just wonder if they should.)
I think that the nature of female emancipation is pertinent here: it's an extraordinary revolution in human affairs, but one that is ideologicallly justified in a fairly simple, straightforward way, not requiring any grandiose new theories: you just endeavor to apply certain liberal principles consistently to men and women. (This is not to say that you don't encounter difficult and even intractable problems in doing so: the status of abortion, whether to use women as combat troops, and so on; just that no very great revolution in thought is required to support women's liberation.) That said, academics (part of whose job is to formulate ideological justifications) don't really have a lot to do in that department, unless they cook up something that, more often than not, is a bunch of junk. Strossen and Sommers don't do that; they are, I would say, liberals, applying traditional liberal conceptions to women. I'll call them whatever they want to be called; but the word "feminism" has (for me and I think many others) connotations quite foreign to what they're proposing.
Sommers book "who stole Feminism " should be read by anyone in the media who espouses the DV Lies .. SO many things presented as facts were disproven in her book (yet they are still presented in facts when we here stats on Domestic violence, rape etc etc
Aaron Baker wrote:
I think that the nature of female emancipation is pertinent here: it's an extraordinary revolution in human affairs, but one that is ideologicallly justified in a fairly simple, straightforward way, not requiring any grandiose new theories: you just endeavor to apply certain liberal principles consistently to men and women. (This is not to say that you don't encounter difficult and even intractable problems in doing so: the status of abortion, whether to use women as combat troops, and so on; just that no very great revolution in thought is required to support women's liberation.) That said, academics (part of whose job is to formulate ideological justifications) don't really have a lot to do in that department, unless they cook up something that, more often than not, is a bunch of junk. Strossen and Sommers don't do that; they are, I would say, liberals, applying traditional liberal conceptions to women. I'll call them whatever they want to be called; but the word "feminism" has (for me and I think many others) connotations quite foreign to what they're proposing.
I have long been astonished by the incredible success that anti-feminists have had in demonizing the word "feminist". This has been done not just through catchphrases like Rush Limbaugh's "feminazi", a term that really gets on my nerves, but through acting as an amplifier for the nuttier views on the fringes of feminism. That amplification gives the impression that the Dworkins and MacKinnons speak for feminism, when in fact they are merely part of a vocal minority.
A good example of this success is the "all heterosexual sex is rape" crap from Dworkin. Rush Limbaugh picks up on that and trumpets it far and wide, leaving the impression that this is standard feminist thinking. Well given that the vast majority of feminists ARE heterosexuals, the statement can't possibly be an accurate reflection of mainstream feminist thought. But since the folks who listen to Limbaugh won't go anywhere near a feminist book and read it for themselves, they only know what they're told. And it filters down through the culture, to the point where even people like you, who like me sees the basic goals of feminism as self-evidently true, get stuck on that word because in your head "feminist" has been grouped with "extremist lesbian whacko", i.e. Dworkin. It's a remarkably successful propaganda campaign.
Let me say two more things about that. First, it should be said that mainstream feminists share some blame for allowing this demonization campaign to be successful in that they haven't stood up often enough or loudly enough to make the distinction between the loonies and the voices of reason within feminism. And second, one of the results of this campaign for demonization is that a lot of feminists have formed a sort of seige mentality where they've closed ranks as a group, the more reasonable people along with the extremists, because they're aligned against a common enemy. That's pretty normal to do, but it's really unfortunate because it's done two things. It's heightened the divide to the point where self-criticism from women themselves, particularly prominent women, is not only frowned upon but instantly attacked as the equivalent of "Uncle Tom". Witness the reaction to Sommers, Paglia and Roiphe whenever they say anything critical of any common viewpoint they disagree with from feminists. They are savaged as traitors to the cause, rather than having their arguments engaged.
The other thing that it has done is alienate many people, like me and like you I suspect, who would otherwise make natural allies. I'm with you, I think that the basic ideas of feminism are self-evident and I think we've made huge strides in taking the basis of human rights and human dignity and finally extending them to the other half of the human race. But the seige mentality that I think has taken over a lot means that anyone who criticizes ANY idea found within feminism, no matter how ridiculous it is, must be attacked as a mysogynist and a woman hater. I wouldn't be surprised if we see that kind of reaction in this thread if word gets around about it, and I won't be surprised to be painted as a mysogynist by someone who doesn't know me simply because I'm willing to say that some of the ideas found within feminism are not only silly, they're downright stupid. And when that happens, it becomes difficult for someone who has long advocated women's issues, and even many times organized fundraisers for women's shelters and such, to continue to fight the good fight and point out these distinctions. When things reach the point that no criticism, from self or others, is allowed, natural allies are alienated. And that's not a healthy thing.
I have a lot more thoughts on the subject. Frankly, I think there isn't a whole lot more than can be done for feminism politically. The political battles are mostly won. The real battle now, I think, is within each individual woman to free herself from the inflated expectations (of self and others) and from the internal self-loathing (even the most beautiful women in the world instantly focus on the tiniest of flaws) caused by being bombarded with unreachable images of feminine perfection. The next step has to come from women and from parents raising the next generation of women. We must find a way to counter the effects of advertising and the saturation of media images, to give young women the basis for a healthy self-image separate from how they look. That's the task of every parent and every person who is in a position to influence the development of young women. I don't have children, but I have nieces who are teenagers and I try to do that in any way I can.
I have 5000 things I want to say at once - I don't know where to start.
Andrea Dworkin is a sex-phobic man-hating maniac who needs serious psychological help, and should never be the leader of any movement, ever. She is an infantile personality, who - seriously - seems just like a damaged woman, projecting her own issues onto the world. Camille Paglia is unforgiving towards Dworkin - especially being a pro-pornography female.
This is a fascinating topic - and I am going to have to read that book, Ed.
As an artist myself - I am also distressed to see how anti-art feminism is. They are fascists, quite frankly, and I want nothing to do with them.
And I used to call myself a feminist. But no more. Those women ruined the word for me, and that's fine. I'm not much for labels anyway.
Oh, and in regards to good books by "feminists" - I prefer to not look at it that way. Perhaps the word feminist is too ruined for me.
However - I love to read memoirs, journals, letters of powerful women, who bucked against the restrictions of their time - and lived free lives.
--All books written by Rebecca West
--Thejournals of Anais Nin
--"Savage Beauty" - the biography of Edna St. Vincent Millay
--The journals of Lucy Maud Montgomery (author of the Anne of Green Gables series)
--Journals and letters of Katherine Mansfield
Usually these women are FAR more eloquent on the struggles women face than modern-day feminists could EVER BE. Feminists nowadays are too in love with their own verbiage of theory and gender studies to even be able to write a readable sentence.
I don't mind calling myself a "feminists" I would be no where in life had it not came to be. I am a feminist in the softest sense of the word. A word I am proud to call myself.
Ed likes me that way LOL
That I do, honey. And I think that's exactly the point I've been making, you can be a feminist in the "soft sense" - I'd say in the real sense - without accepting the radical crap on the fringes of feminism. I say don't let the radicals or the anti-feminists take ownership of that word. It's a perfectly respectable word. Without feminism and the battles that so many brave women fought and won politically, you would not have had the opportunity to go to medical school and become a physician. You would not have had the opportunity to fulfill your potential as your own independent human being.
But then I also understand why someone would say, "I don't need a label anyway". I think everyone in this discussion is saying pretty much the same thing, that mainstream, standard "women should have equal rights" feminism is a good thing, the radical male-hating extreme feminism is not. It's just a question of what label we each choose to apply. Ultimately, the substance is more important than the label, but I also think that allowing the radicals and anti-feminists control the meaning of the term helps drive the substantive agenda. It seeks to discredit even reasonable and necessary feminist ideas by associating them under the same label with ridiculous ideas that virtually no one supports. So I think it's important to take the term back and educate people on what it really means.
In truth women Had made great strides in the 30`s 40`s and 50`s Before the radical Bra burners came on the scene .. The fringe of the movement In my opinion were out to destroy Families since women who were part of Families had a strong base (for the most part) and were not "victims" when Feminism lied to women and told them being a homemaker was unfulfilling a good number believed it might be true . we now see a reverse trend where many professional women (including many partners in places Like pricewaterhouse and cooper working part time so they can again be Honestly fulfilled with their families .. I think this trend will be beneficial to Men,women and especially children ....
The fringe of the movement In my opinion were out to destroy Families since women who were part of Families had a strong base (for the most part) and were not "victims" when Feminism lied to women and told them being a homemaker was unfulfilling a good number believed it might be true
I think this is inflated, nonsensical rhetoric. For some women, being a homemaker is unfulfilling. For some, it's not. That's an individual choice, just like it is for men. There are a wide variety of possible familial arrangements and which is best is not an objective decision but a subjective one, to be decided by each person. It's not a "lie" to say "I'm happier in this situation and I think you will be too", even if you personally disagree with it. There are lots and lots of feminists who have perfectly happy family lives. Obviously someone who has a happy family life is not "out to destroy families". Someone can be wrong without having evil intentions, and trying to make that case only results in demonization, not rational thought.
Ed:you seem to ascribe to the "good cop, bad cop" view of feminism. You say there a lots of nice feminists out there and although the bad feminists are a tiny minority by some fluke they have been the tail waging the dog for many decades.
What have all these wonderful "equity" feminists been doing for the last 40 years ? Its clear that some are now getting uneasy as the backlash builds up and have decided to throw a few of their worst bigots to the wolves, but for the last 40 years its apparent they have been very happy to have these people doing their dirty work.
Certainly some feminists are worse than others. On the whole the more involved in the movement the worse the feminist is.
If you look at what is meant by hate and you look at what feminists are saying about men the conclusions are obvious. The most outspoken voice of feminism on men is the one that says men are inherently subhuman. Violent, criminal, stupid, emotionally stunted, sadistic rapists. Feminists are working away to eliminate men's rights and build up special protections for women. These are NOT extremists. This is the normal view of men within the movement. This view is being propagated and even in some cases made into law. The KKK are probably green with envy at what feminists get away with.
The extremist view is that all men should be killed and women should in the mean time only have sexual relations with other women to avoid the stench of men. Meanwhile "turd" men who support feminism castigate themselves and other men while feeling unworthy to bear the holy name of "feminist" and so call themselves "profeminist men".
Any right minded person in favor of equality should have nothing to do with this hate movement except to condemn it.
Ed:you seem to ascribe to the "good cop, bad cop" view of feminism. You say there a lots of nice feminists out there and although the bad feminists are a tiny minority by some fluke they have been the tail waging the dog for many decades.
I ascribe that view to any large group, as should any reasonable human being. The word "Christian" applies to everything from Jimmy Carter, who spends his time building houses for the poor, to Randall Terry, who wants to put homosexuals to death. So do Christians build houses for the poor or do they want to kill all the gays? Neither, of course. SOME Christians are decent people, some are horrible people. The same is true of any large group. The radical feminists are not the tail wagging the dog, they're just a loud group under the umbrella of the word "feminist", and they are opposed by a great many of their fellow feminists as well. Just like there are disagreements within Christianity, there are disagreements within feminism. This is self-evidently true. Only someone glazed over with fanaticism and seeking to tar an entire group would maintain otherwise.
If you look at what is meant by hate and you look at what feminists are saying about men the conclusions are obvious. The most outspoken voice of feminism on men is the one that says men are inherently subhuman. Violent, criminal, stupid, emotionally stunted, sadistic rapists.
If you look at what is meant by hate and you look at what "christians" are saying about gays and pagans and non-Christians - assuming you look only at what the extremists are saying and using that to define "christian" - the conclusions are obvious. The most outspoken voice of Christianity is the one who says gays are inherently subhuman, violent, criminal, sadistic child molesters. See how easy that is to do when you look ONLY at the most extreme within a group and pretend no one else exists?
The extremist view is that all men should be killed and women should in the mean time only have sexual relations with other women to avoid the stench of men.
And how many feminists believe this? The vast majority of feminists are straight women who are married, for crying out loud. Do they think all men should be killed? Obviously not. Given that somewhere between 90 and 98% of the women in this country are primarily heterosexual (depending on the study), and the vast majority of those are either in relationships, or regularly in and out of them, it's obvious that the number of women who believe that all men should be killed and women should only have sex with other women is infintesimal. Hell, most lesbians wouldn't even believe that, they just know what they like and don't care what anyone else likes. But you've picked out a few ridiculous examples and blown them up into this big monolithic THEM to be feared and hated.
Meanwhile "turd" men who support feminism castigate themselves and other men while feeling unworthy to bear the holy name of "feminist" and so call themselves "profeminist men".
Uh. If there's a way to read that bit of bullshit without being offended, I can't imagine what it is. Fuck you, Vic. I'm not a "turd" man, whatever that is. And I'm not a "pro-feminist man", I'm a feminist. I don't shy away from the word just because some radicals take it too, any more than Lynn should stop calling herself a Christian because Jerry Falwell is a Christian too. And the only men I castigate are those who say moronic crap like this.
The question of how many self-described feminists hold this or that opinion may have a straightforward answer. There may be reliably done surveys of the attitudes of just such people. In the absence of looking into such evidence--and I won't pretend I have--we're relying on our personal experience (the anecdotal fallacy, I suppose you can call it).
Although I have a nagging suspicion (arising only from my anecdotal encounters!) that Mr. Brayton may be a little too optimistic about the relative nos. of genuine vs. victim feminists (liberal vs. illiberal? Pick what terms you prefer), he's right that rational non-authoritarians are perfectly entitled to use the word "feminist" as a self-description, and there's no warrant whatsoever for insulting them because of what this or that crazy who also uses the name happens to believe.
Although I have a nagging suspicion (arising only from my anecdotal encounters!) that Mr. Brayton may be a little too optimistic about the relative nos. of genuine vs. victim feminists (liberal vs. illiberal? Pick what terms you prefer), he's right that rational non-authoritarians are perfectly entitled to use the word "feminist" as a self-description, and there's no warrant whatsoever for insulting them because of what this or that crazy who also uses the name happens to believe.
To pick a nit for a moment, I haven't opined on the number of "genuine" vs victim feminists there are, nor would I use that term. What I was speaking to was the number who believe that all heterosexual sex is rape and all men are rapists, since that is the extreme that Vic seems to think are hiding under every bed. The simple fact that lesbians are a relatively small percentage of all women, and even most lesbians don't believe that to be true, shows that the number who believe that must be very small. One could reasonably be labelled a "victim feminist" and not believe that all heterosexual sex is rape. One could easily be labelled a "victim feminist" and be happily married to a man. My entire point in my responses to Vic is that he is so fanatical in hating anything that might possibly be labelled feminist that he's just painting them all with one single broad brush. Which is, it should be said, exactly the kind of behavior he is criticizing among feminists, portraying all men as one thing. I have little patience for such nonsense.
Golly, Mr. Brayton, how do you respond to people who aren't sticking up for you? :)
While you're picking nits, please remember that in one of your postings above, you described the feminists you like as representing "mainstream feminism," and you referred to the Dworkins and MacKinnons as being "merely part of a vocal minority." Such phrases could reasonably be interpreted as implying you think that the feminists you like are in the majority. You do go on immediately to castigate the "heterosexual sex is rape" notion, but I don't think you make entirely clear that this alone is the position you regard as a minority view (you could be interpreted as mentioning this view as just one example of the irrationalism of the MacKinnon/Dworkin minority.)
And you DO describe the feminists you like as "genuine feminists" (see your second comment); I was using your term as a courtesy to you.
Golly, Mr. Brayton, how do you respond to people who aren't sticking up for you? :)
LOL. See the above response to Vic! Sorry if I came off harshly there, it wasn't intended. Not toward you, at least. And you're right that the terminology has shifted here. If we're just talking about reasonable vs unreasonable or mainstream vs extremist, I think the reasonable ones are in the majority, but it's fairly slight. Of course, that's using my own relatively subjective definition of reasonable and unreasonable, and it's based purely on anecdotal evidence. But if we're talking about the real extreme, the Andrea Dworkin position, I think that's a very, very small minority that even those I would regard as fairly unreasonable would call silly.
Yup, Andrea Dworkin is sui generis, or "sewage generis," as a friend of mine in graduate school used to put it. Uh oh! I've been trying not to be ad hominem.
Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique which was first published in 1963, and Kate Millett's Sexual Politics and Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch, which both appeared on the bookshelves for the first time in 1970. These three books established the platform for the progressive replacement of the original highly individualistic, 'positive' classical feminism with a general critique of men and masculinity and an incessant collective carping which dominated the victim feminism of the 1980s, and continues to dominate the mainstream feminism.
Friedian ,by attacking what she viewed as the 1950s cult of femininity and an excessive idealization of family life and the housewife over career opportunities, Friedan prepared the ground for the radical anti-men victim feminism of Millett, Greer and their successors. It is to Friedan that one can trace the idea that a housewife cannot be a 'liberated' or fulfilled woman.Friedan argued that millions of American housewives were trapped by their femininity ("the feminine mystique") and depressed because they were forced to idealize family life instead of pursuing meaningful professional careers. Friedan did not specifically attack the institution of the family and marriage, but did she describe the home as a "concentration camp". Friedan's tongue-lashing was reserved for the poor housewife who was variously described as non-human and sick or simply depressed. There was in fact little evidence that the vast majority of American housewives were as unhappy with their lot in life as Friedan made out.
Millett saw all modern societies as male conspiracies constructed to ensure male dominance and female oppression in all spheres of society; she wrote that "the military, industry, technology, universities, science, political office, and finance - in short, every avenue of power within the society ... is entirely in male hands"
To convince her readers that a sexual revolution was possible, Millett argued that patriarchy or male power was a social or cultural phenomenon, and that there was no evidence of any biological differences between the sexes which made it inevitable. Heavily influenced by the then dominant anti-biological attitude, Millett argued that endocrinology and genetics afford no definite evidence of determining mental-emotional differences between the sexes. The view that there are no significant and deep-rooted differences between male and female was central to Millett's denunciation of patriarchy - as it remains to modern feminist thought as well.
Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch was the feminist book of the 1970s.
Greer's understanding of the root cause of the sexually castrated woman was masculinity. According to Greer, the essence of masculinity was a split between thought and feeling and a tendency towards violence and the degradation of women. Greer was to later describe her book as an analysis of sex oppression, but generally avoided vitriolic terminology such as this in the book itself. It is nonetheless clear who the sexual oppressors and who the sexually oppressed are in Greer's Eunuch. Adopting the Marxist framework laid down for feminism by Kate Millet, Greer viewed women as 'the true proletariat, the truly oppressed majority" and concluded that "the revolution can only be drawn nearer by their withdrawal of support for the capitalist system".She also wrote: "the castration of women has been carried out in terms of a masculine-feminine polarity, in which men commandeered all the energy and streamlined it into an aggressive conquisatorial power, reducing all heterosexual contact to a sadomasochistic pattern" Greer refers to heterosexual love as a 'mutual fantasy' and to the 'phallic narcissism' of men.
Yeah Vic, I can cut and paste too. Unfortunately, your cut and paste of descriptions of books you've never bothered to read doesn't answer anything I've said, or justify your simplistic and hyperbolic rhetoric. And it sure as hell doesn't provide any rational basis for your "turd man" insults. Go tell it to someone else.
Vic, I am shocked that you would refer to Ed as a "turd" man or as a pro-feminist. He is in every sense of the word a feminist. I have known you a long time Vic, and I feel because of some very personal issues you have had in the past and now, that you have allowed those issues to color your feelings about ALL men and women who call themselves feminist.
You of all people know that without the Woman's Movement (call it what you will), all we women would still be oppressed.
From THIS, stems my adoration and my pride in calling myself a feminist
As found on this website:
http://www.legacy98.org/move-hist.html
The "Declaration of Sentiments." are listed.
I have copied this from that website: (the name Stanton is referring to Elizabeth Cady Stanton)
I quote...
"In this Declaration of Sentiments, Stanton carefully enumerated areas of life where women were treated unjustly. Eighteen was precisely the number of grievances America's revolutionary forefathers had listed in their Declaration of Independence from England.
Stanton's version read, "The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world." Then it went into specifics:
Married women were legally dead in the eyes of the law
Women were not allowed to vote
Women had to submit to laws when they had no voice in their formation
Married women had no property rights
Husbands had legal power over and responsibility for their wives to the extent that they could imprison or beat them with impunity
Divorce and child custody laws favored men, giving no rights to women
Women had to pay property taxes although they had no representation in the levying of these taxes
Most occupations were closed to women and when women did work they were paid only a fraction of what men earned
Women were not allowed to enter professions such as medicine or law
Women had no means to gain an education since no college or university would accept women students
With only a few exceptions,
women were not allowed to participate in the affairs of the church
Women were robbed of their self-confidence and self-respect, and were made totally dependent on men "
Unquote
After the Convention the news started to spread. The Women's Movement was born.
Again I quote from that website:
Quote...
"It's a dramatic tale, filled with remarkable women facing down incredible obstacles to win that most basic American civil right - the vote.
Among these women are several activists whose names and and accomplishments should become as familiar to Americans as those of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, of course. And Susan B. Anthony. Matilda Joslyn Gage. Lucy Stone. They were pioneer theoreticians of the 19th-century women's rights movement.
Esther Morris, the first woman to hold a judicial position, who led the first successful state campaign for woman suffrage, in Wyoming in 1869. Abigail Scott Duniway, the leader of the successful fight in Oregon and Washington in the early 1900s.
Ida B. Wells-Barnett and Mary Church Terrell, organizers of thousands of African-American women who worked for suffrage for all women.
Harriot Stanton Blatch, daughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Stone Blackwell, Lucy Stone's daughter, who carried on their mothers' legacy through the next generation.
Anna Howard Shaw and Carrie Chapman Catt, leaders of the National American Woman Suffrage Association in the early years of the 20th century, who brought the campaign to its final success.
Alice Paul, founder and leader of the National Woman's Party, considered the radical wing of the movement.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now a Supreme Court Justice, learned the story of the Women's Rights Movement. Today she says, "I think about how much we owe to the women who went before us - legions of women, some known but many more unknown. I applaud the bravery and resilience of those who helped all of us - you and me - to be here today." "
Unquote...
Now,
Let me add ..... "Amen"
Lynnie
Lynnie :
Not all the History you have Given is completely accurate . In fact When Elizabeth Cady Staton was giving her address ,Elizabeth Blackwell was completing Her Doctor of medicine On which she recieved Januray 23rd 1849 .And while some states did not allow for women to Own land many states did ....Also Many unmarried people were Not allowed to Vote ...
we have replaced the "historical" with a" social history"
For example in 19th century Indiana single woman had few strictures placed upon her property rights.Where as her married sisters defered such property to their husbands .There was some solace for married women under common law besides charging the husband to support his wife. The law of dower (not to be confused with dowry) was also a part of its tenets. Dower stipulated that one-third of the husband's estate one-half if the couple was childless was reserved for the wife.they also had Equity law which property could be set asideunder the wifes control this certianly afford the wife freedom of action and protection .... Other provisions of the 1843 laws included protections for women. One section provided for restraints against a violent husband while the divorce was pending (a sort of 19th-century restraining order) and the provision for alimony and child support. If the divorce was precipitated by the husband's misconduct, the wife was entitled to immediate possession of her share of her real estate as if widowed, and was to receive the property (dowry) she brought into the marriage. Conversely, if the wife were the adulterer, her husband could hold her personal estate forever. ...
While i agree that changes in our society called for a womans right to vote .... it doesnt change teh Fact that the "first wave "(started in the 60`s) and subsequent waves of feminsim . Had Nothing more than face value to do with Equality ... and in No way can we honestly say that their is a "patriarchy " in our culture ...
BTW . the Turd Comment wasnt directed at anyone By me it was something taken from the S.C.U.M Manifesto by Valerie Solanas (Society for Cutting up Men)SCUM will conduct Turd Sessions, at which every male present will give a speech beginning with the sentence: `I am a turd, a lowly abject turd'. that is were theterm comes from with men who claim to be Profeminist
This, I might add is my last post regarding that subject Vic.
While you are copying that website you should also copy how Timothy Crumrin begins his entry.
Here let me do it for you:
Women and the Law in Early 19th-Century Indiana
Timothy Crumrin (author)
A woman's gender and marital status were the primary determinants of her legal standing in Indiana and much of America from 1800 to 1850. By custom and law she did not enjoy all of the rights of citizenship. In the legal realm women were decidedly dependent, subservient, and unequal. National and state constitutions included little mention of women. Even though Hoosier women were enumerated in the census which paved the way for statehood and had to share the burden of taxation, they were not allowed to vote or hold office. Rights for which a revolution was fomented were denied women-- as they were to slaves, "lunatics," and "idiots."
Further exacerbating the situation, rights normally enjoyed by women were often withdrawn when she married. Indeed, a woman gave up so many civil and property rights upon crossing the threshold that she was said to be entering a state of "civil death." This unhappy circumstance arose partially because American (and Indiana) law was based upon English common law. Predicated on "precedent and fixed principles," common law had dictated a subordinate position for women. Married women generally were not allowed to make contracts, devise wills, take part in other legal transactions, or control any wages they might earn. One of the few legal advantages of marriage for a woman was that her husband was obligated to support her and be responsible for her debts. It is highly doubtful that these latter provisions outweighed the lack of other rights, particularly in the area women faced the most severe restriction, property rights
............Vic, while Timothy Crumrin, Historian
Had added what you just copied, he also mentions that those words you copied are not his.
His exact words were:
These Things Not My Own
Under that ^ is where you got your info.
He doesn't say what his source was.
When you copy you SHOULD copy it all or give the URL
............Here it is:
http://www.connerprairie.org/HistoryOnline/wlaw.html
I have no more to say on this subject.
Lynnie
Taken from Wendy Mcelroys Ifeminist page http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/faq.html#1
First, we must recognize that the alarmism of mainstream feminism often blows problems way out of proportion and reports them out of context. It is true that some men abuse. However, the vast majority of men do not abuse, and most women are not at risk of abuse by the men in their family. Furthermore, studies also show that this is not a problem of male violence as portrayed by mainstream feminism. Rather, women perpetrate violence against their children and spouses at rates that are at least comparable to those of men. This is not to say that abuse is not a significant problem. It just isn't the problem that mainstream feminism portrays it to be.
and
Much of the "research" cited in support of the claims of mainstream feminists is politically rather than factually based. The only way to really judge a scholarly work is to look at it critically.
However, me being ANti feminist I also must point out what i view to be inconsitancies In McElroys views ;
Wendy said "Individualist feminism embraces men as full and valued equals who have the same political interests as women -- that is to say, politically there is no validity to gender/class distinctions." But in her Own FAq she Admits that IFeminism shows some Bias
"Being a feminist is a form of specialization. In fighting for individual rights, some people focus upon injustice to women just as others focus upon injustice to gays or children."
as I Have stated before Nothing in Feminism shows they seek Only equaility .. But special Rights ..
The Platform of N.O.W who is representative of Mainstream Feminism uses Special rights as a platform ... Ranging from ONly reproductive rights for Females ... Domestic Violence laws that only benifit women .Seeking Money for womens health (even though Men Die at earlier ages have a higher risk of heart diesease and stroke) Higher educational STandards for girls (even though young Boys are being left behind) Feminism clearly has nothing to do with Equaility and is Nothing More than PC sexism
BTW . the Turd Comment wasnt directed at anyone By me it was something taken from the S.C.U.M Manifesto by Valerie Solanas (Society for Cutting up Men)SCUM will conduct Turd Sessions, at which every male present will give a speech beginning with the sentence: `I am a turd, a lowly abject turd'. that is were theterm comes from with men who claim to be Profeminist
And I am a man who is pro-feminist. I don't "claim to be". I'm also anti-feminist. It depends entirely on which feminist we're talking about and what brand of feminism. See, rational people make distinctions like that. But on this issue, as has been made clear from many conversations, you are not capable of being rational. Anyone who dares to say any woman anywhere has ever been oppressed gets bombarded with your out of context cut and pastes about books you've never read.
And for the record, this is what you said:
Since the only pro-feminist man in this discussion is me, this could only have been directed at me. You may not have meant it, but you did say it. And the fact that you adopt the language of a certified nut and attempted murderer should give you some pause.
Ed Said "It depends entirely on which feminist we're talking about and what brand of feminism. See, rational people make distinctions like that. But on this issue, as has been made clear from many conversations, you are not capable of being rational. Anyone who dares to say any woman anywhere has ever been oppressed gets bombarded with your out of context cut and pastes about books you've never read."
Ed; Ok show me where i am wrong ....I have never said their are not diffrence In brands of Feminism , However, for it to Actually Be feminism their has to be some common thread ..Nor Have i EVER said No women anywhere was Not oppressed . I simply have point out the Dishonesty from feminist about the levels of oppression . Factually Many women owned farms and ran bussiness in the late 18th early 19th century and these numbers dropped off .
and i have read many more of these books than Given credit for
Ed; Ok show me where i am wrong ....I have never said their are not diffrence In brands of Feminism , However, for it to Actually Be feminism their has to be some common thread
The common thread is that you hate all of them. We get it. Really. It's all a big lie, women have been in charge since the beginning of time and men have been terribly oppressed by the great matriarchal conspiracy. And I'm just one of those turd men who has fallen for it. Your cut and paste has convinced me once and for all.
A wise person once said that it's pointless to try and reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into in the first place. I long ago recognized the futility of trying to engage you in a rational conversation about this issue. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go teach my cat a card trick. That at least has some hope of succeeding.
Ed Said"The common thread is that you hate all of them. We get it. Really. It's all a big lie, women have been in charge since the beginning of time and men have been terribly oppressed by the great matriarchal conspiracy. And I'm just one of those turd men who has fallen for it. Your cut and paste has convinced me once and for all.
A wise person once said that it's pointless to try and reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into in the first place. I long ago recognized the futility of trying to engage you in a rational conversation about this issue. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go teach my cat a card trick. That at least has some hope of succeeding."
And you claim i am being irrational ? Pardon me if i wast up on the net ettiqute of cut and paste (one post and then a few sentences in another).I have given you examples .. you have claimed ,I was irrational yet never stated where i was wrong only to say i was wrong ....Any time the subject has come up you have never offered any evidence .. only Hit and run
For Immediate Release
April 2, 2004
Contact: Kathryn Mazierski, President NOW-NYS ・716.285.5598
NOW New York State joins hands with prominent women's organizations, national child advocacy groups, and Jewish organizations in recognition of April as national child abuse awareness month to publicly demand a federal probe of the American family court system.
All too often, credible charges of child sex abuse made by mothers are flagrantly ignored or suppressed by family court judges, court-appointed law guardians and biased mental health experts says NOW-NYS President, Kathryn Mazierski.
This shocking fact is confirmed by two decades worth of research by academicians, women's legal centers, and child advocacy groups into what happens to mothers who make good-faith reports that their children have been sexually abused by the fathers.
In case after case, the mother who makes the report is the one punished -- "stripped by the court of her custodial rights, sometimes even denied visitation and phone contact with her child" stated Mazierski.
The children forced to live with alleged sexual offenders in such cases have often shown signs of severe clinical depression, delinquency, anorexia and dissociative disorders.
This phenomenon can be observed in so many states, and involves such profound violations of the rights of the mothers and the children concerned, that a federal investigation into the Constitutional and civil rights violations of mothers caught in the family court system is the best way to seek a remedy. Such an investigation could also reveal whether these abuses are part of a pattern of corruption, or even the deliberate exploitation of children. At a minimum, it appears that taxpayer money -- 50% of which is federal - is being misused when the system it finances is being used to victimize the children it is meant to protect. This alleged misuse of federal monies violates both the spirit and the letter of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, under which the federal government financially supports the states in developing, establishing, and operating programs designed to improve the handling of child abuse and neglect cases, particularly cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation in a manner which limits additional trauma to the child victims(42 U.S.C. Ё 5106c(a)-(a)(1)). In fact, all too often, the family court system does the exact opposite.
Among the best-documented sex abuse cover-ups by a family court is the case of Dr. Amy Neustein.* The outrageous circumstances under which her allegedly abused six-year-old daughter was wrenched from her home and delivered to the father she had accused of molesting her have been chronicled repeatedly in the press, most recently in The Forward, which quoted Rabbi Yosef Blau, Spiritual Director of Yeshiva University, who supports a federal level detailed investigation of the Neustein case to shed light on some of the tragic abuses of the system
We strongly encourage an investigation of family court cases, starting with the Neustein case, which has been described by Eileen King, D.C-based Regional Director of Justice for Children, as one of the most meticulously documented cases of child sexual abuse in recent history, as well as one of the most abysmally mishandled
"We believe that an examination of how in so many cases, like Neustien, judges, state agencies and biased "experts" suppress evidence of child sexual abuse will help to reveal a pattern of mistreatment of women and children in the family courts that is reminiscent of the all-too-familiar abuse of rape victims in criminal trials" remarked Mazierski.
Research has revealed such abuses as these in our nation's family courts:
Judges who threaten and insult children who have reported being abused -- calling them liars and pressuring them to recant -- behind closed chamber doors;
Judges who threaten to fine or jail a mother attorney for trying to present valid evidence of sexual abuse;
Judges who remove allegedly abused children from their mothers without a legally required hearing;
Biased "law guardians", supposed to represent an allegedly abused child, who obstruct criminal prosecutions of the alleged abusers and keep evidence of sexual abuse from the family court; and
Biased mental health experts who defend allegedly abusive fathers with such fraudulent theories as Parental alienation syndrome and accuse the mothers of delusions
Vic, I can't follow you. Just yesterday you posted this about N.O.W.
(copied from your previous comment Vic)
as I Have stated before Nothing in Feminism shows they seek Only equaility .. But special Rights ..
The Platform of N.O.W who is representative of Mainstream Feminism uses Special rights as a platform ... Ranging from ONly reproductive rights for Females ... Domestic Violence laws that only benifit women .Seeking Money for womens health (even though Men Die at earlier ages have a higher risk of heart diesease and stroke) Higher educational STandards for girls (even though young Boys are being left behind) Feminism clearly has nothing to do with Equaility and is Nothing More than PC sexism
(Posted by Vic Vanity at April 17, 2004 12:57 PM)
I copied this from the comment you made just above your last comment Vic.
...............
Now you are showing us that NOW-NYS President, Kathryn Mazierski.is actively helping abused children who are given BACK to the very fathers that abused them.
Are you FOR or AGAINST the N.O.W. organization Vic?
Flip flopping seems so popular these days.
Lynnie ;
Sorry if my intention did not come across clearly .... The letters posted from N.O.W (who is considered a mainstream feminist grouP) Shows Just how extreme the group is the claims that the courts show a bias againts mothers goes clearly againts what happens in family courts it isnt even funny ... Women walk out of court with custody in a vast majority of cases (between 85 and 90 percent )I posted the letter to show the extreme nature of claims made by "mainstream feminist groups" which are also evident when domestic Violence stats have been Used in the media and or legislation (as evident In VAWA )which were was pushed by N.O.W ...
And you claim i am being irrational ? Pardon me if i wast up on the net ettiqute of cut and paste (one post and then a few sentences in another).I have given you examples .. you have claimed ,I was irrational yet never stated where i was wrong only to say i was wrong ....Any time the subject has come up you have never offered any evidence .. only Hit and run
Vic, you and I have been here before. For you to claim that I've "never offered any evidence" is either a flat out lie, or you are completely delusional. It has nothing to do with the etiquette of cutting and pasting, Vic, it has to do with the fact that you have to cut and paste because all of your information comes from second hand sources, all from the men's movement. You've never read a book by Betty Friedan or Christina Hoffs Sommers, or any other feminist scholar, in your life and you know it. You only know that it's horrible stuff because other people with a similar chip on their shoulder tell you how evil it is.
In our very first conversation on the subject, if you'll recall, you claimed to me that those big bad feminists are lying about history because they never admit that in some states, some women had the right to vote before the passage of a federal amendment. You ranted at great length about what horrible liars they are. I asked you to provide a single feminist history that lies about that, and you went away and did a google search and came back with 2 webpages. I copied the text directly from both of those webpages not only discussing the fact that in some states (particularly western states, which were fairly new entering the union) women had the right to vote, but celebrating the women who fought to make that happen, AND discussing the fact that those efforts at the state level are what led to the passage of women's suffrage at the national level. So all of your bluster about those big bad lying feminists hiding these facts from people was a crock of shit. You were wrong on the facts AND wrong on the ridiculous conclusion you drew from it. And in both cases, you just cut and pasted links from Google without apparently even bothering to READ what was on the page. Is it unfair to call this irrational behavior? I don't think so. Even if you weren't concerned about intellectual honesty - that is, even if you don't care whether what you were saying was true or not - you would think that you would actually READ the pages before citing them to see if they actually say what you claim they say just to avoid looking foolish if they don't.
So yes, I think you are downright irrational when it comes to this issue. I think you are so fanatically devoted to bashing anyone who dares to say blame any man for anything, or to say that any woman has ever been on the short end of the stick, that you will make shit up out of thin air, make hyperbolic accusations that you can't support, and grab on to any "study" that supports what you want to be true, regardless of whether it IS true.
A perfect example of this is your repeated claim that men get abused by women as much as women get abused by men. You've cited studies ad nauseum, all - again - cribbed from men's movement pages, without bothering to actually read any of them. I've read a couple dozen of them, and they all have the same exact flaw. They all rely on self-reporting, and they all make no distinctions between types of violence. They take a poll of 1000 men and 1000 women and they ask a question like, "Have you ever struck your spouse or lover in anger?", and sure enough, the numbers are about equal. But there is no distinction made between types of violence, which discredits the entire conclusion. Take this scenario:
Husband and wife are having an argument. Husband gets angry and calls his wife a bitch, she slaps him in the face, and he gets even angrier and beats her up.
In every single study you have ever cited, based only upon self-reporting of "incidents of violence", those two "incidents of violence" are treated as equal. 1 "incident of violence" for women, 1 "incident of violence" for men. But only a lunatic would think those are actually equal. 9 times out of 10, the woman has no chance of actually hurting the man, whereas the vast majority of men, if they hit a woman, are going to do serious damage. A woman smacking a man is not abuse; a man beating up a woman IS abuse. But looking through the framework of all those "women abuse men just as often" studies you love so much, that is a 50/50 split, dead even - women "abuse" men as often as men abuse women. It's a bunch of bullshit, Vic. If you think men are as abused by women as women are by men, go tell that to an emergency room nurse. I bet you'll get an earful.
I'm tired of this. You've called me a "turd man" and lied to claim that I'm the one who doesn't discuss the evidence. And now I'm done. Take your bullshit and tell it to someone stupid enough to believe it. I don't care where that is, or to whom, but I've had enough of it on this blog.
Ed ; so you are saying if a man slapped a woman that wouldnt be abuse either ? whe i asked you the criteria YOu required for studies to be valid in your eyes ED you did not reply if you recall ... I offered you a list of 92 seprate studies ..I have NEVER ONCE said that there are not some bad men out there nor have i EVER said that women had been oppressed in some ways ...simply Put Ed you couldnt name in any way ahow a study could be done were the results would suit you if teh conclusion was NOT what you wanted it to be.
ANd in Fact ED I have ALWAYS stated THAT NO ONE has a right to HIt ANYONE else.
And in Fact ED if Feminist Seek Equality I ask you What PRIVLAGES they intend to give up ?
Your memory is as delusional as your opinions on this subject. I'm tired of having these conversations with someone who invents things out of thin air, calls people liars based upon those fantasies, and then just glosses right over that as though it didn't destroy his credibility. And when I told you to take your bullshit somewhere else, that was not a request.