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.
Again, sigh.
After the third or forth time in this thread that you “ignorantly” repeat obvious anti-feminist distortions and lies, I begin to find your credibility lacking. If this continues, I might just decide you’re a troll.
Tammy Bruce, among other things, made the following statements (quoted from this webpage):
This is, by the way, part of a pattern Bruce has shown of attacking Black folks, including the Cosbys (whom she attacked shortly after their son was murdered), Rosa Parks, and MLK Jr.
NOW then called on Bruce to apologize for her racially insensitive (at best) statements. That’s not defending OJ; that’s objecting to a local NOW leader who seems to have been determined to alienate NOW from important allies, as well as alienating NOW’s many black members.
Sheelzebub — What’s bullcrap is attributing positions to NOW that they haven’t held, and actions they haven’t done.
See my last post on this.
Jstevenson – Thanks for withdrawing the comment about NOW supporting Clinton.
Regarding making embedded links, here are some instructions I wrote to help a fellow blogger. Maybe you’ll find them helpful.
Also, I want to point out that NOW canned Tammy Bruce for the racist statements she made in regards to the OJ case. NOW did not support OJ, they did not contribute to any legal defense fund or do anything else that would bespeak of any sympathy. (Oddly enough, I’ve also heard the opposite–that NOW was out to get this innocent man as part of a broader man-hating agenda.)
Patricia Ireland (and I am no fan of hers) nailed it when she said: While some people continue to obsess about O.J. Simpson, Congress is slashing more than $50 million that would fund programs that would train police and judges and support shelters where battered, abused women seek refuge.
Bruce was canned for the insensitive and racist statements she made, not for condemning OJ’s actions or the misogyny surrounding the case.
By the way, you claimed on this thread that Tammy Bruce was “fired” by NOW. According to the Washington Times article you linked to, however, Bruce wasn’t fired – she quit. “Seven months later, she quit as president of the Los Angeles NOW chapter.”
j–saw your last post on NOW after I posted. Thanks for the withdrawal WRT NOW/Yates, and I apologize for my snippy tone.
Amp, you’re right, and I have to admit I was wrong. She wasn’t canned–national NOW called on her to apologize. She resigned in response.
I cower in defeat. After reading Patricia Ireland’s post letter to the press (posted earlier), I too have fallen victim to propaganda aginst NOW! During the last few years I have not been able to keep up with much. Perhaps NOW has not gone so far astray. One thing I am not happy with is the vitrol espoused against “men’s rights” groups. I think some men’s rights groups are akin to LiveJournal and Ifeminist. I do think most are advocating a good cause and are sometimes shot down unnecessarily by the uninformed. I am not a PromiseKeeper — my moral upbringing allowed me to see the problems with organized religion — but the group does have a noble goal. That goal is not to make men the “master” of the household, but to ensure they take their rightful place in the household. NOW has equated this rightful place as better than women. Any man and any good PromiseKeeper knows who is in charge of their house. For the record, my wife is one of the first six female combat pilots in her service and the first mother to go through flight school. She also graduated number one in her class as essentially a single mom (I was 1000 miles away not by choice, but necessity). I just don’t want my daughters growing up having lost the gains women made because of media portayals of the modern feminist movement, which in my opinion has been portrayed as anti-feminist.
Getting back to the original question in the title of this post…..
Yes. They’ve got to start on tolerance somewhere.
I just don’t want my daughters growing up having lost the gains women made because of media portayals of the modern feminist movement, which in my opinion has been portrayed as anti-feminist.
That’s a worthy goal. But why are you so intent on blaming this on feminists, rather than placing the blame where it belongs — on the anti-feminist media that’s doing the manipulating and lying? In this thread alone you’ve been shown several instances where the mainstream media has outright manipulated (if not lied) about what feminists are saying and/or doing. Whose fault is this?
Bean — I am not blaming feminists at all. I am a feminist. My original post that started the shotgun blasts to the face, regarded the media portrait of feminists and its damage to the feminist movement. I also stated that I did not believe it was the mainstream of feminist thought.
An example of how feminism is portrayed in the media is a 1996 Morning Edition segment on NPR — ELAINE KORRY a Law Professor made this statement: “[Deborah Matson and her husband John]. . . split up . . . Deborah Matson was awarded custody of the boys until she moved from the Bay Area to San Diego. Then John sued for, and won, custody. . . Deborah suspects he had [a] motivation [than allowing his children to remain close to their father and where they grew up].” Ms. Korry stated he did it for control. How about doing it because he did not want his kids flying from San Diego to the Bay area once during the week and every other weekend because he he thought it was good that they had a relationship with their father? I don’t think true feminists want to keep their children from spending quality time with their fathers. These talking heads speaking about what the men’s TRUE intentions is like the Pope talking about what women should do, no basis to say so. These talking heads perpetuate the mantra “feminists are man-hating”. Feminists are not man-hating and to perpetuate this myth is hurtful to the true cause of feminism — equal opportunity/rights. It is a much better for the goals of feminism to encourage fathers to be a part of their children’s lives than make baseless inflammatory accusations. Being an advocate for lessening father’s roles in the upbringing of children and perpetuating the man-hating myth is anti-feminist. As I said earlier — “Those inaccurate portraits cause prejudice and perpetuate ignorance.”
The text of the whole interview is interesting, unfortunately I got it from Nexis. The title was “Divorce in America – Part 4” on NPR.
Pardon my insensitivity. I didn’t realize “media queens” would be offensive. I didn’t coin the expression but it refers to Katie, Diane, Barbara and other women in media who influence women in America. There are media kings as well – Peter, Dan and so forth but they do not have the same influence on women. I will not use such harsh language in the future. Shelebrities was a tongue and cheek expression. Sometimes I’m creative (especially when I think it saves space). Won’t happen again here. The point that was being made when topic went south was that most feminist news is broadcasted with great bias. Acceptable journalism tends to promote smart feminist women as ladder-climbing, sexually “empowered” (by chosen promiscuity), and victims of everything from motherhood to cheesecakes. Responsibility is out the window, far, far away from any woman. This does no woman justice. But what’s a girl to do when the only other alternative is to be a psychotic traditional family woman or a Nazi? Yes, pro-choice rallies look better already. See?
“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!”
When did pregnancy become hell? Women used to do way more than us without modern conveniences and whine a lot less. When did motherhood and family life become a death sentence…for the mother, I mean?
When did pregnancy become hell? Women used to do way more than us without modern conveniences and whine a lot less. When did motherhood and family life become a death sentence…for the mother, I mean?
Oh, good lord. When did I say pregnancy was a death sentence? Did you even comprehend the sentence? Did you read the thread of which it was a part?
Pregnancy certainly carries risk to it, and it affects the body of the woman who’s pregnant–sometimes adversely. Do you have any idea how much of a toll a pregnancy can take on a woman’s body? Let alone five pregnancies? Especially when the woman in question has had serious mental health complications with each successive pregnancy, has been left to care for five children, homeschool them, and keep house? (And for several years, keep house in a bus?) That was part of the context of the original conversation. I suggest you read through it if you are going to criticize the point. At least base it on accurate information.
Yeah, women used to do with fewer modern conveniences–they also coped with fistula, maternal deaths, going septic from miscarriages, etc. They didn’t live long enough to “whine” about it. And by the way, discussing the Andrea Yates case and setting someone right on the actual facts of the case (such as NOW’s position, etc.) isn’t whining.
Acceptable journalism tends to promote smart feminist women as ladder-climbing,
Men are “ambitious” while women are “ladder-climbing”. And apparently, it’s a very bad thing when women are ambitious.
sexually “empowered” (by chosen promiscuity),
Again, why get in a lather over this? I hear no criticism of the acceptance of male promiscuity.
and victims of everything from motherhood to cheesecakes.
Gosh, I certainly didn’t get that memo.
Feminists (not the media, which blathers on ad nauseum about how women can’t have it all, but accept that men can) question the assumptions about women, motherhood, and family. You might not agree with a feminists’ analysis, but that hardly means they are making women victims. In fact, this whole victim hysteria reeks of mothballs, and betrays ignorance on your part regarding the movement.
Responsibility is out the window, far, far away from any woman. This does no woman justice.
No, what “does no woman justice” is dismissing her opinions as “whining” when they don’t agree with the status quo.
But what’s a girl to do when the only other alternative is to be a psychotic traditional family woman or a Nazi? Yes, pro-choice rallies look better already. See?
No, I don’t see. That was, er, unclear. Pro-choice rallies look better because I’m not thrilled with the idea of someone else telling me what I can do with my body. Abortion is portrayed as this horrible thing in the popular media, when there are surveys out there that show most women who have had them feel relief. So much for that feminist-dominating media.
Sheelzebub — I don’t mean to pick on one or two things here, but — “women can’t have it all, but accept that men can”
Just for the record. Men can’t have it all. This is a popular MYTH. Just like women could shirk their responsibilities to the family men can also and do sometimes. Most responsible men toil 50-60 hours a week in a job they can’t stand, longing to spend time with their family and raise their kids.
Scandinavian countries are decent models for working parents. The military is probably the best American model. Maternity is 12 weeks full pay, plus up to 30 annual days. Paternity is 10 plus their 30 days. In my wife’s Scandianvian country maternity leave is up to two years depending on pay. Paternity is six months to a year depending on pay. Why the disparity? I have my opinion, nevertheless all men get is a paripheral role in the initial 12 weeks then it is back to toiling in a job they can’t stand while the mother continues the initial cruicial development period. Are their father’s who stay home with their kids, of course there are (yours truely). However, in most circumstances, mom home during the initial three months is the best model for raising good quality citizens. We could stay home, but if we want the very best for our children, we make it so the mother of our children can be home during the first 12 weeks. So men do not get to get it all. We all sacrafice. As my wife, mother of three, routinely says — work sucks! You don’t waste your life building quality citizens. If that were the case then that is true for teachers, daycare workers, professional nannies, and coaches who all waste their lives raising our children because we want to be “fulfilled”. Is a garbage worker, janitor, customer care rep., factory worker, Police Officer, actually being fulfilled or doing what HE can to ensure his family can survive.
Your statments seem elitist and geared to those rich people who are able to get a job that fulfills them and quit if it doesn’t. What if a bus was the best thing they could afford at the time. I know people that live in trailers and even though they would like to have more are happy to have what they have. I believe most women who had a child would have a serious problem if they had to go back to work ten days after having their child. While their husband, fully capable of working, just decided he wanted to stay home to bond with their child. And their girlfriends say — Lazy Bum.
Just for the record. Men can’t have it all. This is a popular MYTH. Just like women could shirk their responsibilities to the family men can also and do sometimes. Most responsible men toil 50-60 hours a week in a job they can’t stand, longing to spend time with their family and raise their kids.
Uh, hellooo, I was talking about media potrayals of feminism. And frankly, I don’t hear or read the comment that “men can’t have it all” when it comes to working, having aspirations, or anything else. Pundits, columnists, and talking heads don’t criticize men for working outside of the home. That was my point.
Scandinavian countries are decent models for working parents. The military is probably the best American model. Maternity is 12 weeks full pay, plus up to 30 annual days. Paternity is 10 plus their 30 days. In my wife’s Scandianvian country maternity leave is up to two years depending on pay. Paternity is six months to a year depending on pay. Why the disparity? I have my opinion, nevertheless all men get is a paripheral [sic] role in the initial 12 weeks then it is back to toiling in a job they can’t stand while the mother continues the initial cruicial development period. Are their [sic] father’s who stay home with their kids, of course there are (yours truely [sic]). However, in most circumstances, mom home during the initial three months is the best model for raising good quality citizens.
Again, I was talking about media portrayals of mothers who work outside of the home, but really, I’m not against working for change so that men have equal time with their kids. You seem to think that I’m not for that.
We could stay home, but if we want the very best for our children, we make it so the mother of our children can be home during the first 12 weeks. So men do not get to get it all. We all sacrafice.
Men are not questioned and judged in the media (as I was answering Jen’s assertion that the media is pro-feminism) for working outside the home the way women are. Men are praised for “helping out” in the home, wheras it’s taken for granted WRT women.
Also, I never said that men don’t sacrifice–that wasn’t the point. Read what I wrote. I did say that women who work outside of the home are judged more harshly in the media.
As my wife, mother of three, routinely says — work sucks!
I’ve heard housewives say the same thing about their lives. Different strokes. But really, what’s your point? I rather like working. I’m sick to death of hearing (via TV, movies, the press, etc.) that there must be something wrong with me because of it, that I’m selfish, that I’m to blame for the downfall of society because I want it all. I see and hear no such widespread criticisms lobbed against men who do these things.
You don’t waste your life building quality citizens. If that were the case then that is true for teachers, daycare workers, professional nannies, and coaches who all waste their lives raising our children because we want to be “fulfilled”.
Did I ever say that someone who did those things is wasting their lives? No. Had you actually read the post, you’d see that I didn’t. I was (for the fourth or fifth time) answering Jen’s assertion that the media has a pro-feminist bias.
Is a garbage worker, janitor, customer care rep., factory worker, Police Officer, actually being fulfilled or doing what HE can to ensure his family can survive.
Well, HE certainly isn’t criticized for working outside of the home. However, I’ve seen pundits and talking heads lay the ills of society at the feet of WOHM’s and working women in general.
Your statments seem elitist and geared to those rich people who are able to get a job that fulfills them and quit if it doesn’t.
Considering the fact that I was (now for–what?–the sixth time I’m telling you?) answering Jen’s assertions that the media is pro-feminist when in fact it isn’t, and that I pointed out a double standard, I don’t see where the supposed elitism fits in. You, like Jen, are attributing sentiments to me that I never expressed.
What if a bus was the best thing they could afford at the time. I know people that live in trailers and even though they would like to have more are happy to have what they have.
It wasn’t. It was a choice they made according to the numerous articles about the case. Regardless, I had mentioned that because Jen took my comments out of context (as are you). I mentioned it to remind her that we had been discussing the Yates case, and that is where my comment came from. And my point still stands, regardless of whether or not it was a choice of the Yates’: raising kids and homeschooling them in a bus is hardly an easy thing to do–especially when you are dealing with a mental illness that gets progressively worse with each kid you have. That was my original point, although you’d have to actually read what I wrote and refrain from putting words into my mouth to get it.
I believe most women who had a child would have a serious problem if they had to go back to work ten days after having their child.
Now who’s being elitist? Some women have to go back to work right after having their children–ten days would be quite a luxury. The poor, the working class, etc. are condemned for not working, while middle-class women are condemned for not staying home.
While their husband, fully capable of working, just decided he wanted to stay home to bond with their child. And their girlfriends say — Lazy Bum.
Since I was addressing the media portrayal of women who work outside of the home, I’m not sure where this comes from. Certainly not in the media, where men who do so much as change a diaper are nominated for sainthood. I’ve seen most pundits trip all over themselves to praise men who take out the garbage. As for your assertion that men who stay home to bond with their kids are regarded as lazy bums by women–well, we didn’t regard my boss that way. Or my male relatives who did it. Or my male friends who did it. Or anyone else who did it, for that matter. The women I know, on the other hand, was pilloried for actually wanting to go back to work after having a child.
I suggest that you actually read what I write if you are going to take issue with it.
Sheelzebub,
Other than inferring that being in hell means death, I don’t believe I put words in your mouth. And I wouldn’t be throwing those kinds of accusations around and then proceed to misrepresent the thoughts expressed by others. I don’t condemn all whining. Just constant whining over any and everything. Just constant excuses.
And as far as men vs. women in the media. You are right in that men typically don’t get the coverage you described. They are not victimized in the media too often. Know why? It doesn’t pay the bills. (Guys don’t usually want to listen to other guys “whine”.) Neither does showing the conservative women’s points of view so I have to disagree with you about abortion and other liberal issues being shown as horrific in the media. If you don’t get enough left wing news I’ll be happy to point you in all directions. Tip: Women in the media are more liberal than men.
Other than inferring that being in hell means death, I don’t believe I put words in your mouth.
This is what you said:
When did pregnancy become hell? Women used to do way more than us without modern conveniences and whine a lot less. When did motherhood and family life become a death sentence…for the mother, I mean?
You took my quote out of context (which was in regards to comments about the Andrea Yates case). You have yet to discuss it WRT to its original context. You inferred that I thought pregnancy was death. You also inferred that anyone who questions the status quo is a whiner. If that’s not the case, kindly clarify.
And I wouldn’t be throwing those kinds of accusations around and then proceed to misrepresent the thoughts expressed by others.
Actually, you did just that. Maybe you could read what we wrote in the actual thread before um, whining about shelebrities and the big, bad, naughty lefty media. And while you’re at it, kindly don’t take my quotes out of context.
I don’t condemn all whining. Just constant whining over any and everything. Just constant excuses.
Such as? I gather from your previous posts that any feminist analysis or criticism equals whining in your eyes. If not, feel free to clarify. I disputed your rather fuzzy examples–if you have more, feel free to provide them.
And as far as men vs. women in the media. You are right in that men typically don’t get the coverage you described. They are not victimized in the media too often.
You see, I never said that women were portrayed as victims in the media (I’m assuming that’s what you mean, since that was your assertion in your previous post). I did say that the media is not pro-feminist, and that the bias was quite the opposite.
Know why? It doesn’t pay the bills. (Guys don’t usually want to listen to other guys “whine”.) Neither does showing the conservative women’s points of view so I have to disagree with you about abortion and other liberal issues being shown as horrific in the media.
Oh, yes, why Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, “Dr.” Laura, et. al don’t have a platform in the supposedly left-wing media. Are you saying that anyone who espouses the “liberal” point of view is whining?
If you don’t get enough left wing news I’ll be happy to point you in all directions. Tip: Women in the media are more liberal than men.
Tip: The idea that the news media is left-wing has been shown to be bunk. You can check out FAIR for documentation of this.
Are you talking about Special Report with Bret Hume leaning to the right or something else?
Read through the articles in the link that I posted. Read “What Liberal Media?” by Eric Alterman.
This conversation demonstrates how effectively the mainstream media has demonized and distorted feminism. Things that ‘everybody knows feminists say’ are false. Like everybody ‘knows’ that NOW does nothing for women who stay at home, whereas in fact NOW fought for the rights of these women to have their own IRA accounts, just to mention one thing. Rush Limbaugh has indeed been very effective. What is it about this country that it prefers to get its ‘news’ from someone like Limbaugh? Or from ‘feminists’ like McElroy whose Fox News website column in a period of ten months had as its most frequent subject the lack of rights for men and as its second most frequent subject the horrible things the so-called ‘gender feminists’ do?
Of course, this stuff sells. I leave it to everyone to figure out why it sells so well.
I’m sure there are a lot of people who consider Andrea Yates the most important emblem of feminism in the world. I think those people are mostly crackpots. I don’t think this is where most of the hostility men have towards feminism comes from.
I’m fairly certain that this hostility comes from, perhaps, women we’ve actually known who profess feminism and use it mostly as an excuse to vent their own gender bias. None of these people are famous, and I can’t think of any of them as being influential. But things like Andrea Yates just allow us to get a psychological pay-off from having to hear some girl go on and on about about how men would all rape women if we were allowed. About how women are somehow morally and ethically superior to men. The every day people you know, or knew when you were younger, will influence your view of the world a lot more than anything some idiot on television says. There ARE women I’ve heard defend Andrea Yates, and I’ve known ALL of them personally. A lot of men probably assume that women’s activists thinks like the random nutball in the office does.
The “anger” I have about feminism doesn’t come from andrea yates. most of us are really capable of understanding that this woman was just psychotic. We do get angry when people make excuses for ANYONE who’s done this sort of thing. If this was some rich white guy who slaughtered his family, nobody would would to hear how he was abused either. To most of us, it just doesn’t matter why people do what they did, it just matters that they did it and they must be punished. It looks more like bigotry to us when women just run to defend one of their own. I don’t think this is anti-feminism. I think it’s normal outrage, even if unjustifiable, directed at feminists. They’re just the ones percieved as making excuses for this woman.
This is really one small part. If you listen to normal men who have hostility to feminism you’ll realize that FEAR drives most of it. We’re afrraid that we’ll be FORCED to take care of someone elses child because some woman lied to us and the state doesn’t give a damn. We’re scared we’ll be accused of rape because some some bar girl went home with us slept with us when she might not have had she not been drunk, and tells herself it was rape to absolve herself from guilt. We’re hostile because we’re afraid of being branded a scumbag just because we only date women we’re attracted to.
Well, since they don’t put very many books on the internet these days I won’t be reading your suggestion for awhile, but I don’t mind reading it. I like to live outside of my bubble. The majority of the news and entertainment I get comes via a liberal majority. The only thing that offsets that is Fox News (for me — I dont’ listen to Dr. Laura et al). Fox News’ fairness and balance isn’t self-contained (some would disagree but I’m not a complete idiot). However, they as a network and as individuals get news to me that liberal networks are afraid to reveal. I think of them as balancing the news in general. Of course, that is only if you watch them too and most people don’t.
I use the term “media” rather liberally. I’m not just talking serious news. I’m talking about newsmagazines, tv shows (incorrect representation of the PATRIOT Act was used on last season’s Without a Trace and Line of Fire, for example), fashion magazines, morning talk shows, and comedy shows. Sadly, this is where many people get their views on politics. An easy read that does contain a good bit of research on this is called Spin Sisters: How Women in the Media sell Unhappiness and Liberalism to Women of America (or something to that effect). Some of its points are obvious (i.e., Katie Couric is extremely biased). I quit watching her four years ago after coming to from my own brainwashed coma. Other research results surprised me. Even if you don’t buy into it all, it offers food for thought.
Although I don’t have time to respond to everything right now, I do appreciate the info and the fact that you passionate and well-informed, Sheelzebub.
I know this was a number of posts ago, but WTF? Yates visits his wife that he wouldn’t help because helping her fucked up his perception of proper marriage and he deserves a fucking cookie? Jesus. And people don’t see that men are congratulated for what women do automatically.
Guys don’t usually want to listen to other guys “whine”
Are you serious? Of course they do.
Pingback: Long story; short pier
Pingback: Long story; short pier
Pingback: debgpi
Pingback: Rox Populi
Pingback: Utopian Hell
Pingback: Ex Cathedra
Pingback: Ex Cathedra
Pingback: Ex Cathedra
Pingback: Ex Cathedra
Pingback: Ex Cathedra
Pingback: Ex Cathedra
Pingback: Ex Cathedra
Pingback: Ex Cathedra
Pingback: Ex Cathedra
Pingback: Ex Cathedra
Pingback: Ex Cathedra
Pingback: Ex Cathedra
Pingback: BlogBites
The inherent misogyny in anti-feminist discourse makes anti-feminists just as bad as if not worse than any anti-semite so I think you’re being a little bit precious trying to distance yourself from “hate”.