...is arguably the most extreme form of feminist (and I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, so be cool): an academic feminist who researches and teaches women's studies, sociology, sexuality, and so on. I can unequivocally attest that she has never hated men in any general sense.

i am going to have to address each and every one of these stories from you men. so... ok, lol.

thank you mike c, good to hear from you.

My mom was an early feminist not so much because she wanted to be but because she had no choice.

She'd been a housewife until my bastard of a father took off when I was 6 and in the hospital. She HAD to go to work and she had to advocate for herself for any career advance she got. She also had to put up with the BS about being "hot to trot" because she was divorced, she didn't know how to take care of a husband and, of course, the old reliable "her place is in the home" nonsense.

My mom never hated any man, including my father. Any feminist that I've ever known has had the radical notion that women were actually PEOPLE (that stolen from one of my favorite bumper stickers).

My mom, with occasional help from some of my terriffic uncles, taught me more about being a man than my father ever did. My mom kept a warm roof over our head and food on out table when the term for a deadbeat dad was "up & coming go-getter young business executive".

My mom could be a pain in the ass sometimes, but her actions were motivated by LOVE!

Man-hater? HELL NO!

Neither are any of the other feminists I've known.

BTW, K & R!

PEACE!

i love this story about your mom, and i appreciate hearing it from you, in here. thank you

to you mom for doing a bang up job and

for you doing your own.

She always made the mistake of thinking that her lack of education made her stupid.

It made her responsible. She left school during the depression because her family couldn't afford the luxury of many children in school. She had more common sense than most people and she was a thinker.

She died in July of 2006 and my family and I still miss her.

Thank you, seabeyond.

PEACE!

That sums up my POV perfectly.

...I can't take credit for that one. I wish that I could. It's "stolen" from a bumper sticker.

My wife and I supported a woman for president in the 2008 Maine caucases before supporting President Obama in the General. In 2010, we all, my then 10 year old son, worked hard to get a woman electd governor of Maine. We wholeheartedly support our congresswoman, Chellie Pingree.

My wife is the most wonderful person I know!

We have definitely embraced that radical notion.

PEACE!

What weirds me out these days is when I talk to a twenty something who disavows being a feminist for ____________ reason. I grew up in the sixties and seventies so to not be a feminist is unfathomable to me.

I just hope those youngsters know what their mothers and grandmothers (and supportive fathers and grandfathers) sacrificed, so they can feel the freedom to not feel like feminism is necessary.

...of the 1996 Presidential election. I was a supervisor of a day program for chronically mentally ill people. It was an inner city agency in Philadelphia and the clients were overwhelmingly African American. There were several who were terrified at the thought of dole winning and Clinton losing, but they WOULD NOT register to vote.

I reminded them of the number of people who gave up their lives or were severely injured in the Civil Rights days. Many of them stated that those sacrifices gave them the right to not vote. Not incorrect, but it was madening.

Hopefully, an disgraceful exhibition like today's may give some of those young non-feminists that they need to pay bery close attention to this assault on their rights.

PEACE!

Do you think they "hate" men?

What about the much-reviled Andrea Dworkin?

Those are the arguments we've seen presented here as evidence that some feminists are indeed "man-haters".

-- and I think should ask -- did black separatists hate non-black people?

Do Quebec separatists hate The Rest of Canada (as we call it)?

Some might have, and might. Some members of oppressed groups do hate the oppressor group, and sometimes even the larger group that both belong to (not all members of oppressor groups being oppressors themselves, of course).

Are separatist movements usually built on hate, or rather on an analysis that leads to the conclusion that the development and progress of the oppressed group is possible only separately?

Is it possible to be a separatist and harbour no ill feelings at all toward the rest of the group one wants to cease being part of? Absolutely.

So I'm still not seeing anything to support the allegation that feminists, i.e. in general, or any subgroup of feminists, as a group, hate or have ever hated men.

As for what any individual feminist thinks or does, that is no one else's responsibility.

did those groups really hijack the movement?

They seem fringey enough to me (though admittedly I'm no Women's Studies major), but looking at the movement as it exists today, I see none of that, and the idea that they ever dominated the feminist movement at any point in time is just ... odd.

My grandmother was a suffragette in Estonia.
My mother was a member of N.O.W. in the early 1970s.
I always considered myself a feminist, but never liked joining organizations.

Some time after my first child was born, I decided to attend a N.O.W. meeting in the next town. There was a lot of talk about lesbian issues, and I listened to it with interest. Later in the meeting I raised a hand and asked if anyone else was interested in the issue of inadequate child care. Nobody else was, but one woman I knew slightly actually jeered "Breeder, breeder, breeder" at me. I think another woman did too. I left in disgust, knowing I would never go to another N.O.W. meeting.

It's one thing to not be interested in another woman's issues, but it's fucking rude to verbally abuse a woman because she doesn't happen to be coming from the same place.

It didn't stop me from being a feminist and raising daughters who are very conscious of women's rights issues.

As far as I'm concerned, N.O.W. was hijacked by women who hated other women.

I've only heard the pejorative "breeder" used by gays to slur heterosexual people.

So was there any evidence that they had taken over NOW or did you just get that impression from the two people who acted so hatefully at that gathering?

as far as I could tell. I knew some of the women slightly from a large, gay-oriented UU congregation we belonged to.

This WAS a case of a gay person or persons using "breeder" to slur a heterosexual woman.

Very ironic, considering I went to the meeting with a gay woman friend who later became my younger daughter's godmother.

I can't speak for the many other NOW chapters in existence in the early 1980s, but I as a hetero woman was not welcome in this particular group.

I was wondering if the term was used by separatists or something.

I'm sorry your experience was so awful. I can kinda sympathize, having had a not entirely similar experience at a democratic party convention, of all places.

that was one meeting at one chapter. and you let one loudmouth drive you away. too bad.

i never experienced anything like that at NOW meetings.

Some feminists here are under fire because

(a) we hate men

(b) we hate LGBT people

It's interesting that any evidence that can be scraped up to support (a), historically, kind of refutes (b), as you describe in your post.

It's been making my head spin for a few days. Maybe somebody can sort it out for me.

They called themselves feminists?

One of the major problems in our society is child care & it's an issue that falls predominately on women. I've asked on this forum before - how many women work as strippers because it's the highest paying job they can get on the night shift? And they are limited to the night shift, because someone who watches their kids has a day job.

I had an attorney, ask me on a job interview, if I had children. I said, "Counselor, I believe you meant to ask me if I'm available to work overtime?" I didn't get the job. Probably a good thing.

Child care is definitely a feminist issue!

Free child care is one of the things I advocate the government should provide for all citizens.

3 hots & a cot
health care
child care
elderly care
education

I'm sure there are some women who hate all men. That's easily understood. But, whenever I see someone generalizing about women in a negative way, I know that it's not the women who are the problem. People seem to frequently make the logical error of assigning the attributes of a single example to an entire class. In fact, that may well be the most common logical error of all.

I can't say that I always agree with Andrea Dworkin on every issue, but I imagine I share that with many people, men and women alike. I don't equate her with the feminist movement in general, though.

that there are women who hate men, and men who hate women, but they're extremists.

I'm mostly interested in how these things are perceived. As a person who frequents feminist sites, I'm unfortunately quite familiar with the "man-hating feminists" canard.

It's on the song tract of the movie Tank Girl. Anyway, it has a--call it a feminist anger flavor--from the least likely sources imaginable , gangsta rap. A couple of lines from fallible memory:
"she's had enough of men and she's looking for payback"

"she says she's gotta cause a lot of ladies won't, she says she's gotta cause a lot of ladies can't"

"you know you can't fade her son; she walk softly but carries a big gun"

All in all it's pretty awesome, it's not so much about a so called man hater As it is about a woman who is simply not taking any shit and can back it up

"I told you she don't play--NONE--she walk softly but carries a big gun"

I've met few "man haters, and fewer still with any power to do a damn thing.

Coversely, I've met plenty of misogynists With plenty of power to do what the fuck they want

It's the self hating woman I want to reach, the ones I care about, the ones who live through horror and still manage to blame themselves

deep, deep anger or rage at what men (as a class) under patriarchy have done to women (as a class) -- OR, the results of deep wounds suffered at the hand(s) of individual male(s), as discussed in post #8.

When I discovered feminism -- and really, I've been a feminist all my life I just didn't have a word for it or an ideology until I stumbled into it in the early 70s -- I read everything I could get my hands on and at that time there was an enormous proliferation of feminist books and materials. I spent 3 solid months doing nothing but reading one book after another, and I read pretty fast. That's how I got my own consciousness-raising.

But it made me very, very angry -- with an anger that's not fully gone away (and maybe never will). The anger was about my own limited opportunities (up to that point), the actual suffering that I'd witnessed women endure and knew about women enduring for milennia, etc. That anger isn't that difficult to trip even if I don't haul it out and put it on display every day. In fact, I'd really rather not -- it's pretty uncomfortable.

So I don't hate men, but I strongly prefer (and celebrate) what I call "educable men," those wonderful, darlingmen who actually try not to be sexist and who are willing to listen about issues of sexism and misogyny. There are many who are not, most dishearteningly here at DU. Unfortunately -- and I'm not proud of it but also not willing to apologize for it -- they tend to trip triggers and the result is they earn my contempt or probably more accurately disgust.

This is a side of you I'd not seen before, MineralMan. I Iike it.

Does she represent Feminism, or her own off shoot? I have heard both her and Camille Paglia put in as "extreme feminists" though frankly, I find them on opposite sides of the solar system.

I flat out don't consider Paglia a feminist, (judgemental? You bet) and my observation is that those who are into criticizing Dworkin haven't actually read her work
(yes, I've read both)

Just as I have mine, you have yours, but part of what I wanted to bring up is that, like all words, the meaning is more subjective than it appears. Some will love Paglia and Dworkin, some will HATE both, and then some will go "Eh, they are ok, but not as important as (insert name here.)"

Part of the reason I focus on the actual meaning is because, like all humans and all movements, people might bleed themselves to death over subjective detail, while ignoring objective facts that will build a harder consensus than what someone's faavortie author is.

a) Objective, demonstrated fact: Women are shafted into second class positions, by Heterosexual males who think they have a right to do that.
b) Objective, demonstrated fact: LGBT people are shafted into second class positions, by Heterosexual males who think they have a right to do that.
c) Objective, demonstrated fact: The Heterosexual males at the present moment have greater numbers and/or poltical influence.

Logical conseuqence of a, b & c: Whatever the disagreements between those who would defend the interests of Women and LGBT (Henceforth labeled "Feminists" and "LGBT activists", they should be prepared to focus on their true enemy, because, despite arguments, they have common interests.

No, I am not trying to be a "male feminist" (whatever that is supposd to mean.) I speak because frankly, I have common interests that go beyond dworking or anyone else, because those same males that hate women are the same people that hate brown skinned males, for the most part. Yes, sadly some brown skinned males have fallen for the misogynist, heterosexual crap that white executives have sold to them, and I am among the first to tell said brown males that they are being unwitting servants. Still, even though many people do not like me, I still know where myinterests are, and they are not with the vultures that circles over us while we fight. They have grown fate and strong off of us, and by that, I mean ALL OF US, because however different we may think we are, they see us all the same.

Pagila along with Dworkin, but that's just me evidently.
I agree with your ABC points, and I'd like to say they are why I support things like the Gay history legislation in California. Entitled people, well educated, intelligent well-meaning entitled people can be ignorant as hell.
When you are at the level of entitlement of the heterosexual white male, the ignorance reaches a kind of peak. This is why ethnic, gender and cultural education is so important. Entitlement means never having to look at a damn thing, because it isn't actually seen. This is also why I can't stand the backlash whining about, oh, say, affirmative action or Even Black history month by white folk, or the bullshit objection against Gay marriage, or the notion put forward that women have somehow 'arrived' and feminism needs to be regulated to histories dustheap.

As a feminist, I stay focused on feminist issues. Feminists, usually thanklessly, are right in the fight against racism, against heterosexism, against human rights violations around the world. The thing is is I believe that gender inequities and gender injustices are the root causes of these things.

This is a a general feminist discussion board, and while no one is going to present feminism 101 a basic understanding the history of what it is and what it stands and for is a good thing. In that context my comment about Pagila would make more sense as far as it being 'focused' although not everyone would agree

Personally, I don't know you and I rarely bother to like or dislike people I will never meet online, But I suspect you're trying to say you have strong opinions. Good, so do I. Should make for great conversations.

Espially solid is this quote:
"When you are at the level of entitlement of the heterosexual white male, the ignorance reaches a kind of peak"

Save that for three very well meaning person who is ignorant, there is also at least one that is trying to say "screw you, I got mine!" I mple dose of Fox will offer evidence.

But they self-identified as feminists (probably because that was the only way they could express the hatred). Almost every one of the women I knew who were like that had been hurt VERY badly by a male in their life and so, I didn't really blame them. But the feminism was secondary to the pain and rage.

Feminists, as a general rule, do not hate men, though. That is true. Feminism is supposed to be about equality for all. All of us is equal to everyone else. Therein lies my simple definition of feminism

men. They may identify themselves with feminism, but do not define feminism for all feminists. In the end, everyone is an individual and deserves to be treated as one.

One time, back in 1963, I found myself at Esalen, sitting in one of their famous hot tubs with a number of other people, including Joan Baez. As an amateur folk singer, which was why I was at Esalen, I was completely in awe of her talent and successes. As a 19-year-old kid, I realized that no matter what I did, I could never be her equal as a musician. Sitting there in that hot tub, we chatted about Alan Lomax and his influence on folk music in the late 50s and early 60s. She was very gracious and kind to an awe-struck kid. She treated me as an equal, despite the very large gap in our abilities and accomplishments. She was only four years older than I was, but seemed much older to me.

I have known so many women whose intelligence, talents, and wisdom surpassed mine that I could never, ever treat women as a class that is in any way inferior to men.

There are women who have been horribly abused by men, and if they need to be separatist, I support their right to do so. This may be the only way they can survive, given what they have been through.

There are also women who are uncomfortable around men, or who feel they cannot express themselves fully with men present.

And there are women who happen to be married to, or living with men, or mothers of boys.

Feminists come in all sizes, shapes, colors, backgrounds. I just wish we wouldn't dump on one another because our view of feminism differs from another person's.

We really are all in this together

Where simple courtesy could be mistaken as rude condescencion. Those days are gone. Gender is a confusing mishmash of instinct, indoctrination and expectation.

ROLES, have underwent, and still undergo modifications. Some of our directions have proven ill concieved. We learn slowly. We empathize reluctantly. thinking one must lose, so the other can gain.

Men, as well as women, are responsible for harmony. Anything else is going to come up short.

The fact that women are now more educated, live longer, and maintain work reputations, will see womens role expanded. It will also see mens role as more empathetic. We see this in many ways. Metrosexual, gender neutral, egalitarian etc.

As for men trying to define a womens movement, women right now, on this board, are hashing out, how to refer to their movement, it's goals and terms. These are not timeless truths. They are dynamic. And must change, to help persons fit into society.

We, as men cannot help them determine their truths. Yes, there were those that tried to instill chaos, and still do. Just plain vanilla feminism, has gotten a bad rap. Same as liberal, and other concepts.

WE have moved to reclaim the power of the term liberal, and at some point, I think women will reclaim the dignity of the generic term, feminist.

I wholeheartedly support their path of discovery. And applaud those men who work from our end, to awaken mens humanity.

Roles will remain important, and changing roles will always scare those in flux, outside of their control. The best we can do, is to befriend uncritically, women, as they deal with the societal expectations.

We are all in this together.

we really are and the fool that think we are not. i hope to convey this in about every one of my posts. also

"thinking one must lose, so the other can gain."... this is one o my favorite angles of it all. men struggle to hold onto, women also, all of us do, but without the realization that holding on tight creates a heavy cloak of burden. take it off, let it go and the freedom we have. pure joy.

From the animals, to the environment, to other worlds, and certainly throughout the human race, we ARE all in this together.

Wiser words never spoken IMHO

hence the universal truth.

Thank you for expressing it here... I agree with what you say (from the perspective of a woman who isn't sure if she wants to call herself "feminist" or not).

We are all in this together. The divisiveness in this group (and in the whole world) has really been depressing to me lately...

"I'm not a feminist BUT..." or anything like it, you're a feminist.

Now, whether you want to own it or not is another matter.

Love your name, btw. And hope you'll take on the mantle, the joy -- the agony and the ecstasy, one could say, of being a full-fledged feminist.

Thank you.

Ya know, if this influx of supportive men is the result of all that ugly shit being hauled through M&H, maybe that was a good thing?? Whodathunkit?

times ( even on DU ) you still get someone that equates "feminism" to man "hating". It IS inaccurate! Shame, shame.

I love Men, I love my husband! My Dad and my brothers are amazing people to which I am greatful to have in my life!

Thank you for your thread.

seems to me that people who make that error of generalization when it comes to feminism also seem to make similar errors of generalization about other things, as well. It may be a flaw of education or a limitation of the ability to understand. It's still not acceptable and needs to be countered, but it may be explainable, I think, at least sometimes.

A man, for example, who finds many difficulties in his relationships with women, may generalize that as a problem with women in general. I believe we've all met people for whom that is true. Rather than examine and correct the beliefs or whatever that cause the difficulties, they just generalize and assign blame elsewhere. Not an excuse for them, but an explanation, perhaps.

I said I've seen it here on DU. That is not an inaccurate statement.

has come close to driving me away many times. In the 10 years I have been here it has driven many of us to more proactive, aggressively Feminist sites. I have added several to my bookmarks but come back to DU, trying to help make others aware of Feminists' issues and getting educated myself about many other different issues.

we see it as little minds and it really does not hurt, because there is reality.

i am so beyond the name calling. it is so often ad specific and done in a certain part of a conversation, that makes it so obvious. when you sit in your home, surrounded by love, still having great sex and an anonymous nobody yells out prude, man hater.... what? what does that really do to you. smile, chuckle and continue the argument cause they have just conceded defeat.

but she is very ardent in supporting women in the workplace, equal pay and takes no backseat to any man including me. She has pursued many avenues in life where it is male dominated and been quite successful. In addition, one would be hard pressed, no matter how strongly she feels and pursues things, to say she hates men at all. Quite the contrary, lucky for me. My mother was similar I believe, and went out of her way to educate female and male prisoners alike in city and state facilities where we grew up. It was her calling as she held GED classes for those that didn't have degrees, and installed much of the library systems to foster education in the penal systems. Although she dealt with much backward thinking, she never relented in her pursuits. Both very strong, and are not intimidated by what some might call the stereotypical mindset that often sets women back. So I agree with your sentiment here about it being in some ways a male construct because men felt threatened, not to mention the patriarchal construct fostered and approved by various forms of religion that sets women back in so many ways.

Just my opinion, hopefully not taken to task. I am far from an expert, but I relate to the post because I am so proud of my wife's accomplishments. She recently has undergone a new exciting adventure in life and I can't do anything but sit and be overwhelmed in how determined she has been to get to the point she has. Only good things ahead.

Last edited Fri Feb 17, 2012, 11:28 AM - Edit history (1)

i cant label myself a feminist any more than a flaming liberal, but i do.

we have to decontaminate these words so i am willing to, sitting her in the middle of the panhandle of texas, label myself a flaming liberal feminist. oh the fun i have

She had two commendations from two presidents for her work in education. I can't recall decades later if she ever referred to herself as a feminist. I was just thinking about this as I wrote the previous post. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't but I would think she could have called herself one. The point was that she could have been "labeled" that or labeled herself one, but I just don't recall. There are many parts of her life and pursuits that I lost when I left for college and distance became an issue. She wasn't one to pat herself on the back, but OH BOY did she like to argue about things I think might be discussed in this section of DU like glass ceilings, equal rights, and things like that. Misogyny, which defined is hatred of women, I don't know how she felt. I get the word confused because it seems to be used merely with certain expressions. She liked to be charmed and loved the southern "babe", "honey" etc which some would use in conversation. In a way, she liked respect as an equal but liked to be sweet talked like a lady in her mind. If those terms were used in a derogatory fashion to impugn or to belittle in conversation, she would let you know though. I have seen that in meetings wherein someone in a debate at a meeting might say "listen darling, you are wrong" and she would have said don't bother talking to me that way, etc. Not that I ever saw her in a meeting outside of the kitchen table with family but I believe she would have. But I have seen it in meetings when my life was revolving in the corporate world. I always cringed knowing that it would never get taken well. Hard for me to explain in a post I guess.

you did an excellent job. i think what people dont understand and my oldest son did from the youngest of ages. he was very articulate, beyond his time, at such a young age. adults would talk down, or condescending to him and he would "feel" it every time. the adults thought they were getting away with something but he would look at me every time. it is heard. we know when it is happening. i am glad for the men and women that dont let it slide.

on the other hand, i went to louisianna and chatting with an older man about something he says.... cher...

and it tickled me to death. i loved the whole feel of that.

or a honey

or whatever.

we know when we are being talked down to. let me correct this. a lot of people know. and too many dont. that is where i have issues, lol.

As a young man I wore suits and ties everyday to avoid parts of that older male dismissal. And shoes that added to my 5'9" inch frame. Two things. Blue and be as tall as I could for respect. Making me think. Been 20 years. Young and short I fought. Lol

I totally agree with what you state. It's similar to Redqueen's calling to start using feminine pronouns as the default.

Democrats were silent when repubs went on the attack on the word liberal. We've been silent on their misrepresenting policies - clean skies, healthy forests.

WORDS MATTER! And when we sit meekly by & let them diminish words that express our ideals, or use good words to hide hideous policy, it's the same as an attack on our values. No wonder the dem party has swayed so far to the right. Too few of our leaders have defended these values.

But that's another thread. You get my drift. This is the same.

I am a flaming liberal atheist feminist.

I have described it in another thread and posted references.

Pretty much word for word, what I was told when I explored joining the women's group on campus was, "If you are sleeping with men, you are sleeping with the enemy, and you are not welcome." That sentiment is reflected in the references I have posted.

The line between hate and separatism is not always crisp - but describing men as the enemy, which I routinely heard from some very vocal feminists in that era - is certainly bumping into that line.

No - it was not all feminists, or even most, but just like the gay men who were less able to pass helped create Stonewall - a major turning point in the gay movement - we owe it to these separatist feminists who threw themselves wholeheartedly into the movement not to write them out of our history books.

History is not always comfortable, but we do a disservice to deny that some of those who made us uncomfortable also moved us forward in a way that those who had more to lose by taking risks could not.

i think few knew these women. so it is foriegn to us. and the phrase is used to insult and attack, not because it is a reality. so, though i appreciate what you are saying, it is not the reality of the use today.

but i like how you see it. and you are right. "do a disservice to deny that some of those ..."

They were lesbians, and my wife is bi, so she wanted to hangout with them when she was single. She said they told her she wasn't welcome because she was tainted by her previous, male-sexual encounters.

Every open group is going to have some weirdos.

there is still a segment of the feminist that appear to be of the lesbian community that believe this. i did some reading last week and it was an interesting perspective. that is as far as i got, though. i dont know much else about it. i dont know if it is just among a faction of the lesbian community or if it is all inclusive. but i have a couple (more than a couple) good sites i am going to spend some time reading. they had some interesting things to say about feminism and patriarchy as a whole. that is far from their only focus.

i will.

I posted about them in another thread.

Whether they hated men or not, they certainly seemed to dislike men, and also dislike the great majority of women.

a woundedness I can empathize with, as I wrote upthread.

If I were lesbian, I could easily have been or be a separatist, and in fact REALLY prefer having some space in my life where men simply aren't, whether it's a knitting group or some online space. I've not in the past been overly welcoming to men here on the feminist group, and that's why -- I believe strongly in private space which can be for women only, yes, even from men who fully support our goals.

Women-only is clearly not going to happen here at DU, but that doesn't mean I will stop wishing it would. If people want to fault me for having my own parttime "separatist" sensibilities, they are free to. I don't think people can get it about how having men in a space DOES change the energy of a space until they've experienced it until they get it themselves. The presence of men doesn't make it inferior or worse or bad, and it's not about how men are bad or anything else, it's just that the energy is definitely different. Not wanting to have to be in that energy everywhere you are at all times unless you are alone in your house by yourself, LOL, is not a unreasonable goal. I certainly won't press it here, but ... well, I can dream, can't I?

I'll say something more. When I was active in N.O.W., we were glad to have male members, especially if they were willing and interested in participating. But DAMN if they didn't -- ALWAYS and without exception that I know of, not just where I was but in many other places around the country-- try to step in and tell us what to do and how to do it or otherwise try to run things. And if you tried to tell them, gently and sweetly, that they should let US be the leaders and do the organizing in our own group, they were offended and took a lot of time and energy with all those unnecessary and usually divisive dramas (because most of them were there because of wife/mother/girlfriend/sister who loved them and didn't want them hurt). So I got thoroughly over-sensitized to that whole issue early on.

people who post here (on the DU site) are more likely than the general public to support Feminist goals?

women.

political goals. you betcha.

Was that a yes or a no?

As for me, I say emphatically, YES (DUers do agree with Feminist goals more than the general public).

I think there are a lot of men on DU who are silently very supportive of feminism. I also think they do not speak out as often as they should. There are also a number of DU men who are very defensive when feminist issues come up. For some reason I do not understand, some take any mention of women's right as an assault on their own rights. I assume that's an indication of their own personal sense of not being recognized for their own worth. But, I don't know. I do not know anyone on DU beyond what they post, so I try not to make any overall judgment of anyone here. We're a community, but not a community of people who know each other well.

There's been a bit of "confusion" (read: ignorance) about this around these parts.

In ----->ANY<----- group, there are extremists; people who want to write the new story of the world in blood, and either do not care who gets hurt, or are actually excited at the prospect of killing and hurting people. You cannot judge a movement by these types, because they will always flock to whatever banner offers them the revenge they seek. Making THEM the symbol of the movement will reward them with attention and power, which they will use to beat down the people who actually embodied the good of their movement.

Example, we all agree OWS is a great movement..but we also know they attracted Black Bloc, aka the window smashes and car burners. These creeps want to smash OWS too, as it is not radical enough for them.

it is like, all those people, it is a duh, shit is going to happen. it is not indicative of the movement nor the voice of the movement so there is no need to defend, excuse, or dismiss.

Seeing as how Brietbart got mileage out of that, it does fit.

it is hard to hear but a reality.

Exactly, granted, there is opmnly so much we can expect OWS to do, considering it is swimming against not just the GOP tide, but the Centrist tide. I really did not expect people to build cities from trash, or even be half as effective as they were. That being said, when rapes did happen, they needed to put the Kibosh on that, period. Yes, the media would have ignored them still, but enough people would have heard it if they did not act defensive. Yes, the parasites will move in, and yes most people know they are either a**holes or outright plants, but that does not mean you do not need to get on the mike and say "throw these bastards out!"

To give an example of wehat they should have done at the VERY least, I offer this where anonymouse clearly singles out black bloc

that people think they hate the other sex, but are just incredibly confused by them.

But, you are true that men do try to define/control women and every aspect of their being. One of the reasons for the witch burnings. The other of course was to steal their property.

I've always loved your posts, this one being no exeception.

I've said some pretty stupid things at time, and been snarky at times. I don't love those posts. But I appreciate your saying that very much.

I've always loved your posts, this one being no exception