I can’t resist linking to this thread on an “anti-feminism” livejournal community. A member of the community posted this photo with the caption “so damn hot!” This led to a debate between those anti-feminists who objected to the Nazi imagery (because “it gives anti-feminism a bad name” – that Nazis are every kind of bigoted scum didn’t seem to weigh as heavily), and those who feel Nazis should be welcomed as anti-feminist allies.
My favorite quote, from a poster complaining about how Nazis are misunderstood: “It’s so frustrating when people let hatred cloud their vision like that.”
I’ll think of this photo the next time I see some moron call feminists “feminazis.” At least none of our allies are actual Nazis.
Wow…
If I just saw that picture by itself, I would think it was supporting feminism by spoofing the idea of feminazi – it’s kind of crazy and horrible that people would think it’s pro-anti-feminism and defend it!!!
First thought: That blonde is hot.
Second thought: Wait, what is she doing at some Anti-feminist Nazi party when she should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen making dinner? And then I remember, ohhh, yeahhh, this thing called feminism happened so women can go to parties wearing tight little shirts and what I assume are jeans. Kinda biting the hand that feeds them, eh?
I then went to this LJ community and read some stuff. Whether or not these people do their research (which they say they do quite a bit), they really seemed to have missed the part where feminists _don’t_ hate men, feminists _don’t_ invalidate the suffering of other people, feminists _don’t_ think they have a monopoly on suffering (or have it the worst). Feminists are people (omg! human!) who see disadvantages in the way society shapes people of all kinds and try to change that. Yes, the original goal was equal rights for women, and there are still some kinks to work out as far as that goes, but the Civil Rights Movement originally was for people of color, but has now moved on to rally for gays and other disadvantaged folks.
But I guess I’m kind of preaching to the choir about that one. :)
I rather like the anti-feminist who was in the Navy.
Oh come on, the Nazis were merely a party whose central ideology revolved around militant nationalism and insane racialism. Next you’ll start calling the Ku Klux Klan racist just because they favor killing all non-whites.
You and your hate-mongering sickens me.
I expected this since I pasted that link. The major problem I see with the community is that there are basically two kinds of anti-feminists:
1) The kind who is an anti-feminist in a literal sense of the word, that they are opposed to equality and believe women should stay in the kitchen.
2) The kind who is an anti-feminist in the sense of being anti-mainstream-feminism (not a literal opposite), disagreeing with methods, personalities and principles other than just the basic ones of equality. They still believe in equality, but believe the mainstream movements are misguided.
It’s mostly just the Nazis and ultra-conservatives in #1. With respect to feminists complaining about feminazi labels, this demonstrates that the labels can go both ways. Some of the feminist communities will stereotype and mislabel the anti-feminists because of the Nazis and ultra-conservatives supporting it. Even the non-ultra-conservatives (libertarian groups mainly) get blanket [mis]labeled as woman-hating. The point is that in any sort of conflict of political ideology you’re getting mislabels equally from both sides. Considering that the more extreme groups/leaders tend to be very vocal, it also gives that false impression that they are representative of their side.
Gee, one side gets called nazis because it’s fun to call people you don’t like nazis, and the other side actually contains nazis but doesn’t generally get called nazis, and that looks like equal mislabelling to you. What a funny world you live in. Say “Hi” to the red queen for me.
Don’t be so naive, there are a lot more labels than just “Nazi” that can be used. The anti-feminists often get labelled as misogynists/woman-hating by feminists.
Nathan, the 2nd kind certainly claims to exist, but scratch the surface and there’s retro anti-woman ideas lurking.
This is great, I love the people who are surprised that Nazism and anti-feminism are kindred spirits. One of the most important facets of fascism is that everyone has his/her place, and it follows that a woman’s place is silent and in the home.
Now, anti-feminist Communists would be the ones who didn’t get the concept.
The second group you posted about does promote ideas and policies that are against women. They regularly complain about how feminism (read: women’s economic and political progress) has destroyed the family and society. This includes the IWF and those men’s rights groups you hold so dear. Paying lip service to the opportunities and the rights that feminists fought for and took risks for doesn’t mean all that much when you bash those who actually make use of them.
The fact is, feminism has not advocated rounding up people and placing them into concentration camps, exterminating a population, bizzare medical experiments, and torture. So all this bleating about feminazis (especially coming from the likes of the anti-Semetic Christian Party, Rush “Blacks have bones in their noses” Limbaugh and Michael “I hate all minorities” Savage) is laughable.
Amanda and Sheezlebub:
Thank you, you’ve only managed to prove my point about mislabeling anti-feminists especially by citing the extremist groups as representative of all of anti-feminists.
There is a third group (probably many others as well) of “anti-feminists” who take advantage of educational equality and actively enjoy sexual freedom but who blame feminism for the fact that they can’t find a man who wholly and totally loves them enough to take care of their material wants for as long as they both shall love and even after that should it be necessary. You may place in this category the notorious Washingtonienne. There is a strong streak of immaturity at work in this group, that, fortunately, is usually outgrown.
Actually, most of these women are young and have my sympathy as it is not easy to work out a balance between independence, achievement, and social/sexual relationships.
Nathan, coming from a guy who used the anti-semetic, 19th Amendment hating Christian Party as a legitimate source, I find your comment rather ironic.
I’m in a hurry, but I’d like to advise anyone interested to read this 1999 Intelligence Report article (All In The Family):
Be that as it may, there is one thing most movement women are clear about: They are not feminists. One Web site, Women in the White Pride Movement, opens with a declaration: “This is not a feminist page, but rather a page to celebrate and honor ARYAN WOMEN.” Many others denounce feminism as a Marxist-Zionist plot to destroy the white race(…). Petra sounds a similar note in the Stormfront forum: “This new Aryan woman … is most certainly not the strident, sometimes lesbian, often race-mixing Marxist-loving woman, or the career-minded, selfishly aggressive woman that modern ‘feminism’ desires to create… . We must reject the Zionist myth and illusion of ‘sexual equality.'” (excerpt from page 3).
Sheezlebub, you know I had mistakenly cited them not knowing their extremist views, but you continue to pretend that I am somehow anti-woman because of that. Additionally, I am not a representative of all anti-feminists either, so you using me as an example of all of them is still stereotyping especially if you consider me a Nazi/woman-hater/christian party member/whatever. Your further comments continue to prove my point and you are a hypocrite for complaining when feminists get labeled as feminazis then turn around and call all anti-feminists women-haters.
I love your favorite quote. Perhaps someone can get the poster the T-Shirt…
>>2) The kind who is an anti-feminist in the sense of being anti-mainstream-feminism (not a literal opposite), disagreeing with methods, personalities and principles other than just the basic ones of equality. They still believe in equality, but believe the mainstream movements are misguided.
Nathan, could you name some prominent people in this second group? This might help us understand the group you describe.
Do members of this group apply the term “anti-feminist” to themselves? Or do they use a different term?
I ask the final two questions because it seems to me that to say “I am not a feminist” and certainly saying “A am not a member of NOW”, is not the same as thing as saying “I am an anti-feminist”. (Similarly, I could point out, “I am not a Semite.” is not at all the same statement as “I am an anti-Semite”!)
lucia:
I don’t think there is really any formal anti-feminist movement per se, it’s really just a bunch of disjointed politically motivated groups. The ifeminists or equity feminists would be the closest, they have some good points which I agree with, but some other information they spread is very misleading. So I wouldn’t really put them in category #2, but somewhere more inbetween.
There are some authors that I might consider the #2 type of anti-feminist leaders, but I haven’t read their books yet to evaluate their credibility.
>I ask the final two questions because it seems to me that to say “I am not a feminist” and certainly saying “A am not a member of NOW”, is not the same as thing as saying “I am an anti-feminist”.
Saying you’re not a feminist would imply that you disagree with the current movement somehow. I guess this just differing defintions of anti-feminist. I consider them to be anti-feminist if they have a disagrement with a popular principles, methods or something else widely practiced. If they disagreements are basically minor I would consider them to be a feminist, even though they may not consider themselves to be such.
As an example, a common belief (correct me if I’m wrong here) is that gender is a entirely or 99% a societal construct. Disagreeing with it would mean you’re an anti-feminist in my eyes. I suppose you might still consider them a feminist then it just is an issue of differing definitions.
>Do members of this group apply the term “anti-feminist” to themselves? Or do they use a different term?
I’m applying the label to those groups, but I think that most feminists would probably consider them anti-feminists as well. I really don’t like getting bogged down in semantics, so if you have a different definition that’s fine, I’m just saying this is the way I would define it.
For the record, my post certianly didn’t say that the nazi antifeminists are representative of the antifeminist norm, and I don’t think anyone else on this thread said so, either.
Nonetheless, there are without any doubt more nazis on the antifeminist side than on the feminist side, which makes the fact that many typical, non-nazi antifeminists think “feminazi” is a really witty thing to call people they disagree with ironic. (As Charles pointed out.)
Also, that few or none of the non-nazi anti-feminists on the thread I linked to seemed willing to make a principled stand against nazism (rather than just a “it might make our movement look bad” practical objection) is pathetic.
>>As an example, a common belief … is that gender is a entirely or 99% a societal construct. Disagreeing with it would mean you’re an anti-feminist in my eyes. I suppose you might still consider them a feminist then it just is an issue of differing definitions.
How odd. I do not believe gender is 99%-100% a societal construct and I consider myself a feminist. So, right now, as far as I can see, you would lable me, a self identified femiist as an anti-feminist. (I am however, not an *active* feminist . By this I mean, I do not campaign actively– I just pretty much appreciate many of the efforts of others. I know many, many women in this group. )
You also suggest the other feminists would label me anti-feminist for my belief that gender is not 99%-100% a societal construct That has not been my experience . In fact, I have never known someone to lable me anti-feminist for that reason,and I honestly can’t imagine why you would think they would do so.
I guess we can ask Shelzebub, Amp and Bean,all of whom seem to fall in what I consider the active camp. I suspect they do not consider me an “anti-feminist”. Until such time, I will continue to consider myself a feminist.
Like it or not, the truth is right there for the taking. Not all anti-feminists are Nazis, no. But all Nazis are anti-feminist. It’s part of the idealogy.
Why do the facts hate America?
you killed Irony!!! You bastards!!!!!
[/Stan]
It seems like there is confusion about what feminism is. I’d like to help.
Feminism: 1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.
I think it would follow therefore that if someone is anti-feminist, they are against equality between the sexes and/or the movement to achieve equality between the sexes.
Hate to resort to dictionary definitions, but sometimes a little clarity is exactly what’s called for.
I tried really really hard to understand this group’s goals and see if they were really women-haters, or if they were just people who disagreed with the “extremist” portion of feminism. Really, I wanted to understand and I wanted to make sense of it all. I wanted to believe that they weren’t women bashers.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t get past the flashing, obnoxious icons, complete and utter lack of basic grammatical understanding, and really really poor writing.
It struck me as everything on Livejournal strikes me: Utterly and completely immature, childish, psycho-dramatic, self-aggrandizing and … stupid.
That even aside from all of the Nazi sympathizers.
But this thread had me howling with laughter.
Wow, Amamda! The dictionary definition matches what I thought it meant. Who’d a thunk?! LOL!
I must actually BE a feminist!!!!!
Oh wait, I’m STILL howling with laughter. From the journal’s ‘about’ page:
(What Anti-Feminism is NOT):
* In 100% disagreement with feminism; anti-feminism is just a convenient term, it doesn’t not mean 100% disagreement.
Anyone know what a double negative is?
Here you go, Amanda… they even addressed the dictionary term in their Community Info. If you can manage to read this without wanting to claw your eyes out at the grade-school grammar, that is:
Enjoy. :)
Yep, sounds like they have created a strawman (woman?) and now they are tearing at her. Notice that they don’t actually seem to know what the feminism they are attacking actually purports to be…..
Personally, I think it’s kind of sad when you have to build your identity around what you’re against.
I like this part best:
Which basically means: We just want to complain about things the way that they are.
And yeah, it’s pretty sad if you define yourself by what you’re against.
* The methods employed to spread equality are wrong or inadequate; this doesn’t imply that an anti-feminist knows or cares to say what a better method would be.
Now that is funny. “….knows or cares to say…” My sides are hurting.
>>One or more of feminism’s basic principles are wrong; this is referring to basic principles other than those stated in the over-simplified dictionary definition.
I like this. To be an anti-feminist, you disagree with some unidentified basic principle. The only thing we are told is the incorrect basic principle, is not on of the basic principles that define feminism!
So, anti-feminist is a convenient term? What’s the definitiion of convenient? Confusing?
8?´T8???o way to give “anti-feminists” a bad name.
If you’re a woman, unless you enjoy wearing a burka and giving birth to children until you die, or your highest aspiration in life is to be a secretary, you’re an idiot to be “anti feminist”.
Seeing as how there is no single, monolithic feminist movement — or even “feminist belief” (aside from the dictionary definition) and, in fact, are a mulitude of feminist beliefs (Radical feminism, Liberal feminism, Socialist feminism, Marxist feminism, Global feminism, Multicultural feminism, Standpoint feminism, Psychological feminsim, and on and on) which, while have a lot of cross-over of beliefs, are not in complete agreement regarding the source/cause of oppression or the solutions to fixing it, it would seem by Nathan’s logic, that there is no such thing as a feminist at all. Every single feminist, non-feminist, and anti-feminist alike would be, according to Nathan, an anti-feminist. Hmmm…
Just for clarification Webster’s defines feminazi as “an extreme feminist who believes the option of abortion is essential to the political, social, and economic advancement of women”
That is interesting.
It would seem that an anti-feminist is actually an anti-feminazi-nazi.
I think the strive for equality is an excellent goal. It is absurd (aside from lack of consumer support) that women atheletes are lacking opportunity. Not to deflect any of the artillery aimed at Nathan, but I understand his position. There are people who would state that they are anti-feminism. I would venture to say that they actually mean anti-radicalfeminist. I don’t think they disagree with many of the principles of mainstream-feminism, equality in athletics, work, child-care. However, I would say that the disagreement is in the radical side of things. NOW actually does espouse some radical views. It is possible that people are for equality for women socially, politically, and ecomonically, but do not necessarily support “abortion, just because I can” attitude of some radical feminists. There are other positions “radical feminists” espouse that have nothing to do with the advancement of women. It is perfectly understandable to disagree with some of these positions and still be a feminist because they may actually hurt feminism (see the dictionary definition) in the long run.
It may be premature to say this, in that we haven’t reached the end of history yet, but that may just be the greatest picture ever. Raznor’s comment comes close to upstaging it, though.
I’d like to clarify something for readers who clicked to see the LJ thread but may lack some useful information to fully appreciate the discussion:
while defending himself against the one or two members who were so afraid of bad publicity, the guy who posted that picture kept repeating that the point was the shirts, not the flag that happens to hang behind the two young women, and reposted a photo with a neutral background.
In fact, that second and larger image allows to read, below “Anti-feminist”, the words “Sniper Records”. That’s a Swedish NSBM label well-known to European hate-groups monitoring activists (those letters stand for “national socialist black metal”), which means that, Nazi flag or not, the shirts themselves advertise an openly neo-nazi company (hence nazism itself, which is why that musical genre is illegal in EU countries), and so does any person wearing them, no matter if he or she identifies him/herself with that ideology.
(Sniper Records is mentioned in Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002-2003, a report of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Part on Sweden; PDF file).
Threadjack!
It struck me as everything on Livejournal strikes me: Utterly and completely immature, childish, psycho-dramatic, self-aggrandizing and … stupid.
You obviously haven’t read many LiveJournals, Astarte. There are more than enough that are mature, literate, not at all self-aggrandizing, and excellently worthy additions to your daily web trawl. Shame on you, for mistaking a simple choice of content-management software for an overriding worldview and genre (idiom?) of journaling.
Offered in the spirit of clean fun and good will—one takes one’s irony where one can, and it’s dishonest to let pass that which slips a petard into one’s beltloops—but really.
How the hell did Rush Limbaugh get to make up words and get them put in the dictionary?
Anyway, a feminazis are like unicorns. Just because there’s a word for it doesn’t make it real.
*drop the article “a”
Abortion, just because I can? So I guess all the men who willingly have sex with these mythical radical feminists must also be radical feminist femi nazis, or else maybe they’re going to sperm banks to get themselves pregnant just so that they can have abortions. Someone should investigate this…
I would venture to say that they actually mean anti-radicalfeminist.
Sure. With the handy advantage of defining “radical feminist” as any feminist whose beliefs one dislikes–the mythical man-hating, leg-hair-growing, masculine-looking lesbian feminist is a good one for this–and sleazily groping at the ‘nice’ feminists by saying they’re equity feminists, and they shouldn’t worry their pretty little heads about what those bad old “difference feminists” are saying.
NOW = Radical feminists.
Never thought I’d hear that. ROFL.
I don’t know what a radical feminist is, I was just sticking my neck out to cut Nathan some slack. :-)
What is a radical feminist? I don’t know, but perhaps the very definition of feminist is radical. “One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions” American Heritage Dictionary.
So using the dictionary definition of radical, feminism, and feminazi — I guess a radical feminazi is a fundamentalist who believes abortion is the revolutionary change needed to ensure social, politica, and economical equality of women. Therefore, someone who is an anti-feminist is a liberal who believes abortion is needed to ensure social, political, and economical subrogation of women.
“(hence nazism itself, which is why that musical genre is illegal in EU countries)”
Jimmy, no music genre is illegal in the EU, whomever told you that, didn’t know what they were talking about.
What can be illegal, in some EU countries, is the actual songs and lyrics, as they breach the racism laws in the individual countries. Nazi images are illegal in Germany as well, but not in the EU as a whole.
Nazism is actually not illegal in Europe, though Nazi (and facist) parties can be stopped in some countries, especially Germany, but also countries like Denmark and Sweden, depending on how they promote themselves, and what the organizations’ agenda is (it’s often illegal for an organization to promote anti-democratic, racist or violent ideas – the laws regarding this differ from EU-country to EU-country).
Raznor’s comment comes close to upstaging it, though.
Thanks Walt, I try.
My guess is that “equity” feminists believe that they have an equal right to fetch their man’s beer whenever they like, thank you very much.
Good LiveJournals are the exception, not the rule, and in three years of blogging I’ve read a /lot/ of LiveJournals, only one or two of which I thought are quality writing.
And… Amanda, you give Rush more originality points than he deserves! Rush may have brought ‘feminazi’ into the mainstream as a word by repeating it over and over and over again, but he didn’t come up with it. The word is first credited to the author of a commentary in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution in 1990. Two years later, Rush picked it up and started using it.
*shows off the fact that she has useless knowledge*
Nathan, the 2nd kind certainly claims to exist, but scratch the surface and there’s retro anti-woman ideas lurking.
It’s not unlike many, if not most, Holocaust deniers, who typically start off telling everyone how they’re not against Jews, some of their best friends etc… “it’s just that there’s this international banking conspiracy run by certain people blah blah blah”.
Jstevenson: >>It would seem that an anti-feminist is actually an anti-feminazi-nazi.
I have to say… this is a hilareous observation.
On the next comment There are people who would state that they are anti-feminism. I would venture to say that they actually mean anti-radicalfeminist.
It sounds like Jstevenson is trying to give Nathan the benefit of the doubt. Now of course, there may be someone, somewhere, who would call themselves an “anti-feminist” but who would really mean they are “an-anti-radical-feminist” who is actually a “dictionary definition feminist”. (We can all speculate about the circumstances were they might call themselves by this confusing label. )
That said, I will not believe there are significant numbers of dictionary-definition-feminists who do call themselves anti-feminists until someone identifies a few prominent members of this group. Until some are identified, I will assume these dictionary-definition feminists call themselves something else.
If Nathan can identify a few of the anti-feminists feminists, then we will be able read or hear what that person believes. It may be, after reading what they believe, we will all agree the person is a dictionary-definition feminist, who calls themselves an anti-feminist.
For the record, I’ll hold the bar for “prominent” really low. I’ll permit examples of bloggers who have posted a sufficient number of articles for us to tell they believe in equal rights and that they self-identify as “anti-feminist”.
Meanwhile, I think it is sensible to infer the views of anti-feminists from two things:
1) What people who self-identify as anti-feminists actualy say they believe.
2) What the word would seem to imply if you simply heard it. (The prefix “anti” has a specific nuance in English, and people know this.)
To add to what Jimmy Ho wrote about Sniper Records, here’s another mention, from the Jewish Virtual Library:
“On 29 May in the northeastern town of Gävle a man was sentenced to two years prison for running a record company called Sniper Records and releasing racist and anti-Semitic CDs, some of them in German. The man admitted passing the profit on to the National Socialist Front.”
If you search on google, you find numerous sites where they advertise themselves like this:
“Anti-Imperialist Musicians (downloading easy and free) against judaized dominance on culture: http://www.sniper-records.net/torsvrede/e_index.htm”
If your stomach can handle more of this crap, go check out the Sniper record website itself – http://www.sniper-records.net/ – and click on “Flaggor/Flags”, fifth button to the left below the header…
I am wondering why is that site still online at all.
I am impressed by the “useless” knowledge, Astarte. I don’t think it’s all that useless, though, as it shows that ignorant feminist-bashing is much more mainstreamed than most people probably realize.
Amanda — “My guess is that “equity” feminists believe that they have an equal right to fetch their man’s beer whenever they like, thank you very much.”
What is in your opinion an equity feminist? Is it that simple? Are you implying that an “equity” feminist only wants respect for women doing “woman work”?
I also agree with you bean that NOW is more akin to a liberal feminist organization with more emphasis on liberal and less on feminist in the later years. When anyone is extremely liberal they tend to be identified as radical. This is obviously a contradiction in terms.
From my experience on the inside (a man in an exclusive “Men’s Club”) I think “anti-feminists” confuse traditional feminist ideals, goals and tactics with the liberal ideals, goals and tactics. That is probably how they would come to the conclusion that they are “for equality, but anti-feminist”.
That is probably how they would come to the conclusion that they are “for equality, but anti-feminist”.
Note: The term these people chose is equity feminist– not anti-feminist.
The fact that this group exists, and someone somewhere wishes they would call themselves anti-feminist does not mean they are anti-feminist. You can say they “would” call themselves anti-feminist (under some unstated hypothetical circumstance we must all imagine for ourselves)– but in fact, they don’t.
You can’t suddenly claim the fact this groups of self identified feminists exist, somehows defines the range meaning of anti-feminist! Equity feminists consider themselves feminist– not anti-feminist!
Quip: 1. A clever, witty remark often prompted by the occasion. 2. A clever, often sarcastic remark; a gibe.
Now, I’m not vouching for the actual funniness or cleverness of the quip, but the intention was to be funny. Getting a beer for someone doesn’t mean you’re out of the club, or I would have been out a long time ago.
Nowadays, perhaps unfairly, I mainly associate “equity feminist” with anti-feminist writers like Christina Hoff Sommers (who coined the term). In practice, “equity feminist” means a self-identified feminist who is a Republican (or at least a libertarian), while a “gender feminist” means any feminist who’s not a right-winger.
Of course, Sommers wouldn’t put it that way. But that’s the only real distinction I can see – I’ve never seen her, or her idealogical peers like Wendy McElroy, credit anyone with being a “equity feminist” who wasn’t also a right-winger.
My guess is that “equity” feminists believe that they have an equal right to fetch their man’s beer whenever they like, thank you very much.
[snicker] But are these sweet young Nazi things allowed to go out and beat up the enemy unaccompanied ? Are they only allowed to beat up women, leaving the male enemies of the White Race for their own White Manly-Men to attend to ? Or are they kept away from fisticuffs altogether, for fear their invaluable White birthing equipment could be damaged ? And do they have to fetch beer for the men ? Do the men have to subdue a certain quota of deviant enemies before they have earned the right to be presented with beer at the end of a long, hard day on the “job,” as it were ?
So many questions, so few answers… [sigh]
And not enough beers being fetched for anyone….*sigh*
I could use a beer. Amanda?
I used to think I was anti-feminist, because I thought most or all of the people who still campaigned for feminism were of the “mythical” “feminazi” kind (since at first glance, women do have equal rights). Several months’ reading of Amp’s site has put paid to that idea, but I’m still against those who claim to be for women’s rights, and call themselves feminists, but include large amounts of senseless vitriol directed at every man.
PS, I’ll have a beer too, while you’re at the fridge, Amanda.
I need a beer, but I can’t get my equity feminist wife to get me one!
But are these sweet young Nazi things allowed to go out and beat up the enemy unaccompanied ? Are they only allowed to beat up women, leaving the male enemies of the White Race for their own White Manly-Men to attend to ? Or are they kept away from fisticuffs altogether, for fear their invaluable White birthing equipment could be damaged ?
More than likely, they are more than free to fight any woman they deem necessary. As far as men, well, they probably have “their men” walking or standing somewhere nearby, then act as “bait” for any sort of “inapropriate” comment from men, at which time, “their men” will show up and beat the crap out of those guys.
Don’t bother asking me how I know this, let’s just say I know.
Gosh! My husband has never beaten anyone up for me. And I sometime bring him cold beers.
I’d beat up someone for you, Lucia.
I mean, as long as the someone in question was, you know, small. Or weak. Or perhaps tied down. Or dead. I’d beat up a dead person for you.
(Unless it was rotting and gross, that is, because I wouldn’t want to touch something like that.)
How about a small child? I could take a small child. As long as it’s not a really tough small child, I mean.
Come to think of it, I don’t even like beer. Never mind.
Um, yeah, I don’t know anyone in group #1, but thanks for pointing out conservative crack heads of the week. Actually I don’t personally know anyone who calls themselves anti-feminist. Today’s feminists barely resemble early feminists. Now it’s all about telling individuals and groups of minorities that they are victims and can only be saved by “empowering” liberal propaganda. I don’t have the same life as the media queens and shelebrities and I don’t share their political views. Neither do many other women contrary to what they’d have us believe. I’m not anti-feminist. Just anti-smiley-faced-abortion-activists in cuddly pro-choice tees.
“media queens and shelebrities”? Where did you get the impression that this sort of inane, insulting language constituted serious thought?
Look, Jen; this is a blog frequented by feminists. If you want to have a reasonable, polite disagreement, then you should post here in calm, non-insulting language. Such language implies that you’re opening to listening to people who disagree with you, and that you have an interest other than spreading insults.
If you’re only here to spread insults around, on the other hand, then please don’t bother. Just go away.
Aside from the insult slinging, I would tend to agree that the face that is portrayed in the media regarding modern feminist has caused a backlash. The thought that the feminist movement has moved away from feminism is widespread. There are many women who want equality for women and truely believe that the feminist movement as portrayed in the media (Gloria Allred for example — or the champions of Andrea Yates) are actually hurting the advancement of women. I don’t know if the media portrait is the mainstream of feminist thinking. Given the feminists that I know/knew and the one I live with, I would say it is not. Those inaccurate portraits cause prejudice and perpetuate ignorance.
Ampersand — Sometimes it is good just to know they are out there.
Negative media images of feminism speak way more about the sexist media than about feminism, I’d say. That’s why the disconnect–most women support feminism but won’t call themselves feminists.
or the champions of Andrea Yates
Champions of Andrea Yates? In what sense do you mean champions?
I feel sorry for Andrea Yates. She is one of the few multiple murderers who actually seemed to be mentally disordered. Obviously, I could be wrong. I also did not hear the evidence the jury heard and I did not follow the story in detail. But, whether my impression is correct or incorrect, thinking she did seem to be have mental problems that and feeling sorry for her is not “championing” her actions!
The whole incident is just horrible and sad. (BTW: I also feel sorry for Rusty Yates, and I certainly feel sorry for the dead children. )
“Champions of Andrea Yates” — I mean those who came out and said that Ms. Yates was not guilty of killing her kids. “It was the system and her husband that killed her kids. Her husband MADE her a baby factory.” Of course the rape connotation is lost on those who made those accusations. If he made her have those children, then he had to force her to have sex and tie her down to prevent her from having an unwanted pregnancy unless abortion was not legal in that part of Texas (which is entirely plausible).
J, I wouldn’t go there. Andrea Yates and her husband were desperately trying to recreate a “traditional” patriarchal marriage where there is no such thing as marital rape. A woman’s consent is a non-issue in many ways in those circumstances. The psychological beatdown that occurs in those circumstances is beyond most of our experiences.
Anyway, the jury thought that Yates was not sane. But in Texas, the “not guilty by reason of insanity” plea requires more than just mental illness for proof. The major requirement is that the defendent’s mental illness make it impossible for him/her to know the difference between right and wrong. Yates demonstrated repeatedly that she knew it was wrong to kill her children. To begin with, she thought the devil was telling her to kill her children, and as a devout Christian, she would believe that obeying the devil was wrong. For another, the length of time it took to kill all five (drowning takes 4-5 minutes of struggling per victim at minimum) meant that she took a good hour to kill them all, making it all the more difficult for the jury to believe she didn’t take a moment to consider the wrongness of her actions. And finally, when she finished the deed, she phoned the police and turned herself over, making statements that indicated that she knew she was doing wrong.
I have sympathy for her, but under Texas law it was not reasonable to find her not guilty by reason of insanity. That does not invalidate any discussion that arises to address how our society dehumanizes women and turns them over to men as property, and how this will create turmoil not only for women but for their families.
“Champion” = Anyone who doesn’t want Yates burnt alive.
Same old, same old…
Come to think of it, I don’t even like beer. Never mind.
What about sasparilla, Amp ? I understand that it’s poised for an urban-hipster-type comeback any day now ?
Amy — I don’t want Ms. Yates burned at the stake nor do I want her killed for her actions. I do believe that she knew what she was doing and should be punished for it. I do not believe it was her husband who made her do it, nor do I believe it was society. I believe that women have their own minds, and those minds can be exercised equally to the minds of men. Is it your position, Amanda, that Ms. Yates could not take her kids and walk out. As someone who has dealt with a plentitude of victims of abusive men, I know women react to things differently than women. What is hypocritical of NOW . . . don’t get me started on what happens when NOW’s agenda is followed. . .
NOW was once a great organization, now it has seriously lost it’s way. Any woman’s organization which fires a major regional director for not supporting OJ or proceeds to support the President getting a hummer in the Oval Office has severly lost its way. That is good reason for people to question their motives.
NOW has truely become an anti-feminist organization.
“It was the system and her husband that killed her kids. Her husband MADE her a baby factory.”
Is that a direct quote from somewhere?
NOW’s position, and the ACLU’s, was that Yates was insane, not that her hubby made her do it.
Well, js, I don’t know what you’re trying to argue about, then. I don’t recall any woman of my aquaintance, feminist or not, who thought she should be set free to go frolic in a meadow drinking champagne or whatever. But, yes, I do think her husband and her community were of no help to her, exacerbated her depression, and didn’t have any fucking business getting all self-righteous about calling her a monster, etc.
The rest of this sounds like you pulled it out of your ear, and I say this as no friend of NOW myself. But, really, give some links please or quit babbling. The closest thing to truth in your little excursion would be the thing about Clinton, which didn’t impress me much more than it impressed most feminists I know. I’ll wager it didn’t make a lot of rank-and-file members of NOW very proud, either. Much like I’m not really proud of the National AFSCME headquarters for foolishly sucking up to Bush after 911. Thinking the people who run the National stink doesn’t make me hate my Local or decide that all Unions need to be put out with the trash.
How you make the leap from NOW finding it politically expedient to excuse Clinton’s venality to proclaiming that NOW is all over made up of anti-feminists with an anti-feminist agenda –like, what ? Like Phyllis Schlafley or the two future Mommas of Cute Li’l Skinheads in the picture up top are anti-feminist ?
Please… [shakes head]
You’re right, J. I’m a crazy, cracked feminist who doesn’t think that women react to things differently than women, as that doesn’t make a lot of sense. ;)
I know it seems like a walk in the park to turn your back not only on one’s husband, god, home, and family but also the only identity one has ever had to join a world that you have been taught to fear and hate in order to pursue a life you don’t even know about to you, but hey, if a few women like Yates seem hesistant, I can sort of see why that might an issue.
Amy S. — Of course NOW all over is not a problem. My belief is that the local chapters of most organizations are the only one’s who actually speak for their members. I know I got a little fired up and released a shotgun blast. My intention was to stick with the media squeaky wheels who set the National agenda.
Here is a story about a great American hero “Tammy Bruce” written in the Washington Times — http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/bruce.html — a Google search of Tammy Bruce will also provide you with more information about what happened to her out here.
My intention was that the National agenda has become anti-feminist. The basis for my hypothesis cannot be expanded upon with proper regard in this thread. A dissection of the NOW talking points, its illegal one-sided political support, and its policies against men’s rights is not why NOW was founded. I am sure you will find that the National agenda has slowly begun to diverge from its mission. The Washington Times article is a good recitation of how far the National Chapter has diverged from the advancement of Women. The national organization of women was established to fight for the rights of women not everybody.
No Mythago — I made that doosey up myself. Pretty good quote, huh? Anyway, my frustration was with the bad name NOW was making for feminists. Was she insane, yes, just like Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, and a myriad of others. Did she know what she was doing, absolutely. What would happen if she was given medication and released from the hospital. She would have exactly what she wanted, freedom. She said the devil made her do it — the devil was her feeling of confinement.
“women react to things differently than women” Thanks Amanda — as I cannot remember if I meant “men” or “some . . . other women” I will just leave that awful clause alone.
BTW — can you get me a beer? Now, don’t get all CRAZY and emotional on me.
You know, I’m getting pretty darn sick and tired of hearing the myth that feminists are “championing” Andrea Yates.
As a pretty militant feminist (and Rush Limbaugh’s worst nightmare, not that that’s difficult), I’m not out for Yates’ blood. I’m also not comfortable with her getting off scot free. However, I read a lot about the case and it’s far more complicated than “Oh, she killed her kids in cold blood and fell back on post-partum depression as an excuse.”
Yates had post-partum psychosis. She heard Satan talking to her through the television. Yeah, as a devout Christian she knew Satan was evil. However, as a human being, can we all agree that hearing voices and thinking they are real is a sign of psychosis? She had completely lost touch with reality. She was on Haldol, a strong anti-psychotic drug.
Her husband and her family knew things were going horribly wrong. She tried to commit suicide several times. She was practically catatonic at one point, pulling out so much hair that she had bald spots.
Her husband and she were advised to not have children. Post-partum mental problems get worse with each birth, especially when they are so close together. She was barely together enough to know what the hell was going on; she was in a pretty traditional marriage. Rusty wanted another kid, therefore they had another kid.
Now, I’m not going to lay this at the feet of any one person, including her husband. Denial is a strong force; no one wants to admit that anyone they love is that far gone. But if that was my mother, my father would have superglued his pants on before going near her without some good birthcontrol. Her health and well-being would have taken first priority.
There were nothing but red flags flapping in the wind before Yates killed her children. No one, not her family, not her doctors, took them seriously. I mean, come on. Multiple suicide attempts? Catatonia? Hearing Satan’s voice? This goes beyond depression. This was a safety issue, a mental health issue, and a medical issue. I hold them all responsible for this. Your patient is psychotic and you take her off her meds? Your wife is psychotic and you want another kid? Your daughter in law has lost her marbles and you think it’s just dandy that your son wants to have another baby with her? Hellooooo? Was anybody home?
And with all this negligence, this gross denial, we’re supposed to pillory only Andrea.
So if looking at the “whole picture” means I’m championing Yates, then golly, call me a champion. I’d rather we take these things seriously and prevent other needless deaths. But hey, let’s just screech about how evil feminists are and stick with the status quo!
Please — do not misunderstand me. When I said champions of Ms. Yates I speak of are the talking heads on CNN and CourtTv who were screaming religion made her do it.
“http://www.taylormarsh.com/articles_view.php?id=144”
She was sick, but I refuse to believe she was any more sick than your average sick murderer. As for her husband being complicit — he did not tell her to kill her children. Granted he probably should not have slept with her — and I guess, get a divorce, petition for full custody of the kids and request child support. Of course, National Chapter of NOW would say he was just being malicious.
I agree with you completely, Sheelzebub. I guess I was just pointing out that the jury didn’t convict Yates out of meanness–their hands were tied. Mental illness is a complex thing, but from what I understand post-partum psychosis *often* leads to a woman attacking her children. Her husband did what husbands have done in “traditional” marriages since time immemorial–took the authority over his wife but managed to neglect the responsibility that comes with total authority.
Male dominance leads to male desires taking precedence over female *needs*. We can wiggle around that issue as much as we like. But to my mind, when spreading around the blame for the deaths of the Yates children, we have to ask ourselves–if they had been born into a non-patriarchal, non-fundamentalist home, would they have died? I don’t think so. Andrea would have been empowered to stop having children, the church wouldn’t have been struggling with doctors over the ownership of her mental problems, and her husband might have been better able to view her mental health issues as more important than his desire to have more children.
If he did that, then yes, anyone would call him a bad person, J. “Thanks for the kids, Andrea! I hope you enjoy your new life on the street without your family!”
This is well off topic. So in closing, Amanda — I think it is important to point out that he did not abandon his wife and children. He could have abandoned her the first time she was having problems. He did not. As a matter of fact, he visits her every other weekend (other family members visit on his off weekends — Prison regs, only so many people can visit at a time). Is this someone who only cares about his own desires and not the needs of his wife? That is right out of the National N.O.W. talking points and is right in line with their propaganda. That kind of talk by prominent feminists is damaging to the goals of most women, which include strong families and father accountability.
BTW — “her husband might have been better able to view her mental health issues as more important than his desire to have more children.”
Rusty stated that he and his wife asked the doctor if it was ok to have more children. The doctor’s said she was fine now. That was why he was blaming the mental health system and why he sued them. Neither Rusty nor Andrea were doctors and if the doctors said they were ok and they wanted more children, then who were they to argue?
Granted he probably should not have slept with her — and I guess, get a divorce, petition for full custody of the kids and request child support. Of course, National Chapter of NOW would say he was just being malicious.
Or maybe he could have taken her mental illness seriously, decided against having another baby, and make sure she got the care she needed instead of leaving five kids alone with her until she got better. (He may not have asked her to kill the kids, but he should have known that she was not the safest person to have around them.)
Asking for a divorce and for full custody of kids when having those kids caused her mental problems would beyond cruel. Hey, Andrea, thanks for putting your body and mind through hell five times, thanks for living with me in a bus at my request, thanks for staying home and waiting on me and the kids hand and foot, thanks for doing this all at the expense of getting any marketable skills–wham! bam! thank you ma’am!
As for your assertion that NOW is supposed to fight for men’s rights–I don’t see these men’s rights groups rallying for women’s rights. In fact, the original men’s liberation movement was interested in working with feminists. They saw patriarchy as detrimental to men and women, and they worked actively to change it. The men’s rights groups out there now don’t propose any new solutions–they seem spiteful, and more enthusiastic about rolling back civil rights for women than making any real progress.
Finally, I have heard the complaint “Why doesn’t X group also fight for Y” about a thousand times. Let’s get something straight. Black people are under no obligation to fight for the rights of Whites. Women are under no obligation to fight for “men’s rights”. I find it laughable that groups fighting for change are expected to use their energy to fight for the rights of the group in power–especially when those in power meet efforts for change with resistance, hostility, or indifference.
Sigh.
1) The National NOW organization did not support Yates in any significant way, although they used the Yates case as an opportunity to talk about post-partum depression.
2) Although you can argue over if press coverage was fair or not, what initially caused everyone to say that “NOW supports Andrea Yates” was the comments of local Texas NOW leaders like Deborah Bell.
It’s very clear that local Texas NOW folks were far more “supportive” (whatever that means) of Ms. Yates than national NOW was. When Jstevenson claims otherwise, he’s either being ignorant or lying.
* * *
Jstevenson also referred to NOW supporting Clinton during the Monicatastrophie. NOW did no such thing; they were actually highly critical of Clinton, although not so critical that they supported impeachment. Apparently if you take any stand short of saying the president should be thrown out of office altogether, you’re supporting him.
J.
1. I do believe Andrea Yates was more mentally unbalanced than the murderers you listed. In contrast, I believe Marilyn Lemak, a local woman who killed her 3 children was probably about as unbalanced as the murderers you listed. Why do I believe this? They are admittedly the impressions I developed while reading the stories.
2. I’m pretty sure Rusty Yates recently filed for divorce.
Was she insane, yes, just like Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, and a myriad of others. Did she know what she was doing, absolutely.
Actually, Susan Smith was likely insane like Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, etc. They were sociopaths. Andrea Yates was psychotic. There is a very big difference.
Also, you contention about NOW is wrong. (And re: your link to Taylor Marsh–she doesn’t represent the entire women’s movement. Moreover, her article didn’t let Andrea off the hook–she was pretty hard on both Andrea and Rusty Yates.) NOW has objected to the death penalty for Yates–but they are anti-death penalty anyway.
In fact, from NOW’s official statement on the matter, it doesn’t sound like they are letting her off. It sounds more like they are concerned with the bigger picture and preventing more deaths:
The media’s oversimplification of this case, and in some cases their misrepresentation of NOW’s role, are both deplorable and dangerous. NOW has not created a legal defense fund for Andrea Yates. NOW is not raising money for her. The Houston Area NOW chapter leaders have directed concerned people to a fund already set up by Yates’ lawyers. Like any other criminal defendant, Yates is entitled to a fair trial with appropriate legal representation. Just as Andrea Yates’ crime shocked the nation, Texas’ desire to put to death a person who may be mentally ill should shock the nation’s conscience.
We are asking questions that need to be asked: Why was Andrea Yates released from the hospital in a severely depressed state? Was it because her health insurance did not provide coverage adequate to her needs? Why wasn’t she given any help with 5 children after being released in this condition? Did her health care providers sufficiently inform her and/or her family about her condition and the attendant risks? Was she receiving appropriate treatment, and if not why not? And most importantly, why aren’t the Texas authorities asking these questions?
The statement ends: NOW is urging the National Institutes of Health to increase research into postpartum depression and psychosis. And we’re asking the greater medical community to provide women with the information and care we need and deserve.
The Texas chapter of NOW was thinking about helping the Yates Fund, but didn’t. However, if you read this article about NOW’s activites regarding the Yates case, you’ll see that they did not pillory Rusty. In fact, they planned to support him.
Take a look at their statement in response to Yate’s conviction. They were troubled by the spectre of the death penalty–because NOW is anti-death penalty, as I mentioned before. They disagreed that locking her up would take care of the problem, and urged people to look at the cause and work to prevent it, and future tragedies. Nowhere in their statement do they blame Rusty Yates.
[snip]
Who shares in the responsibility for these five deaths and possibly another? What about the hospital that sent a dangerously psychotic woman home? What about the doctor who inexplicably stopped Yates’ anti-psychotic medication 13 days before this tragedy? What about the weak support system that left Andrea Yates, delusional and suicidal, alone with five young children? The health care system and the medical establishment failed all of them.
Will we take action before this story repeats itself?
The general population was another story–in fact, the Harris County DA got a lot of email that blamed Rusty for Andrea’s crime. But it wasn’t from NOW.
But wanting to keep this from happening again must be manhating claptrap if it comes from NOW! How dare they ask that we learn more about this so that kids won’t die in the future?
Sheelzebub — Finally, I have heard the complaint “Why doesn’t X group also fight for Y” about a thousand times. Let’s get something straight. Black people are under no obligation to fight for the rights of Whites. Women are under no obligation to fight for “men’s rights”. I find it laughable that groups fighting for change are expected to use their energy to fight for the rights of the group in power–especially when those in power meet efforts for change with resistance, hostility, or indifference.
I completely agree with you. That was my point. NOW has moved away from its roots. I did not say that they were championing Men’s rights. My point was that they say they are and actually are not. Also, in championing the perceived cause of the black community they came out in favor of OJ and fired one of their, in my opinion, greatest advocates — Tammy Bruce. That was my point in that the National Chapter is moving in a direction that is not positive for women. I don’t say they have to champion men’s rights, but to malign their advocacy as attempting to roll back civil rights for women is entirely propaganda and counter-productive to society.
Asking for a divorce and for full custody of kids when having those kids caused her mental problems would beyond cruel.
I know it is beyond cruel. Rusty Yates, stood by his wife and supported her throughout the whole ordeal. He was attacked as not caring and said that his “desires [took] precedence over female *needs*.” If that were true then he would have left her and found a woman who was genetically more suitable to raise his kids. Everyone ignored the fact that he stayed with his wife and supported her. Not out of any selfishness, but selflessness. To believe otherwise would be to fall prey to the propaganda that “men only care about their sexual desires”, it is bullcrap.
Amp — Although you can argue over if press coverage was fair or not, what initially caused everyone to say that “NOW supports Andrea Yates” was the comments of local Texas NOW leaders like Deborah Bell.
That was my point in the beginning before we went way off topic. Blind, uninformed support, can lead to detrimental effects before those who know it even happened. Without going down that road — look at the blind support of President Bush by the religious right and civil servants or the blind support of Senator Kerry by the uninformed masses. They are all blind to the fact that both have and will continue to work against their interests and the interests of the country.
BTW — I would never lie. I was just ignorant. National NOW supported OJ not Andrea Yates.
Everyone ignored the fact that he stayed with his wife and supported her.
Kind of like the way everyone ignored the fact that Andrea Yates had a documented history of suicide attempts, delusions, and psychosis in their rush to condemn her.
To believe otherwise would be to fall prey to the propaganda that “men only care about their sexual desires”, it is bullcrap.
Well, no. There is birth control. This had nothing to do with sexual desire–it had to do with the unwise choice to be quiverful with a partner who was spiraling out of control. What’s bullcrap is attributing positions to NOW that they haven’t held, and actions they haven’t done. What’s bullcrap is believing that Andrea Yates killed her kids because she was sick of them. It’s falling prey to the propaganda that psychosis is an excuse and feminism is an evil that leads women to murder their children.
BTW, the criticisms I’ve heard of Randy Yates focus more on his leaving five children with a very sick woman. Yeah, he stuck around, but he wanted his wife, who had a documented history of severe and progressive mental illness, keep house (or bus, as the case may be), raise five kids, and homeschool them to boot. People can debate about the “badness” of these choices–as I said before, denial is a strong force–but it sure as hell was negligent.
Also, j., you’re taking Amanda’s quote out of context. Here’s the full quote:
Male dominance leads to male desires taking precedence over female *needs*. We can wiggle around that issue as much as we like. But to my mind, when spreading around the blame for the deaths of the Yates children, we have to ask ourselves–if they had been born into a non-patriarchal, non-fundamentalist home, would they have died? I don’t think so. Andrea would have been empowered to stop having children, the church wouldn’t have been struggling with doctors over the ownership of her mental problems, and her husband might have been better able to view her mental health issues as more important than his desire to have more children.
In other words, the individual man may not be evil, but very misguided. The system that promotes patriarchy (especially the rather nutty religious one the Yates were a part of) is pretty destructive. Had they not been a part of that system/mindset, they and their children would have had a better chance at some kind of life. As Amanda points out, Andrea would have been empowered to not have kids (through birth control, not lack of sex), and Russell may have seen that the problems she had were severe enough to ensure that they got help with the kids until she got treatment, instead of taking authority over her. If they even got to that point at all–if they were not part of such a system, they may have decided to not be quiverful, especially in light of her illness.
Ok, just to set the record straight. It seems as though everyone has confused my statements and I am defending things that I did not state.
Here is what I said. [T]he feminist movement as portrayed in the media (Gloria Allred for example — or the champions of Andrea Yates) are actually hurting the advancement of women.
I also said “NOW was once a great organization, now it has seriously lost it’s way.”
I can see the inference that I spoke of NOW when saying the feminist movement portrayed in the media was a champion of Andrea Yates. NOW! was not a champion of Andrea Yates, however, they did fire Ms. Bruce because she did not support OJ.
As for President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky — I will just post this and say I WAS WRONG AND I AM SORRY. “My first five minutes browsing your website made it clear that your position and attitude towards this case and others have been gravely misrepresented…I pledge that I will never believe another thing that I hear about NOW or Patricia Ireland, until I cross check it against your excellent website.” found at “http://www.now.org/press/04-98/letter-ed.html”
I can’t do that hyperlink thing yet.
Ampersand and Lucia thanks for the italics help.