Anti-feminist mailbag (Now I need a shower edition)

This one is the best. Perhaps my favorite hate mail ever, in fact–just because it’s so telling.
listerine.jpg

Dear Jessica,
There is absolutely no reason for you to have an opinion or talk, because all women are insignificant pieces of meat. The only thing you femme cunts are good for is cooking dinner and remaining quiet while getting fucked in your tight asses.
If you were my wife, I wouldn’t let you out of your cage to do anything other than cooking, cleaning, and blowing me while I watch porn. Really disgusting porn to – the kind that degrades and objectifies women, because women are only put on this earth to clean and get fucked.
To recap: Women are not as smart as men, are not capable of using logic, and therefore must be treated like dirty little whores. Go back to fucking your smelly vagina with plastic dicks, because you can’t get a guy to fuck your femme cunt ass. You and all your girl power sisters can gargle my balls.

Quite the romantic, yes? To recap: Someone is very, very afraid of women. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go gargle. Have a great, anti-feminist free weekend everyone!

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

151 Comments

  1. The14thOpossum
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    dnx-x1- “Cunt ass” is not a common insult. I listen to rap and I think I’d be more familiar with it if it were. Also, it’s misogyny when *women* ask you several times not to infantalize them by referring to them as girls and you keep doing it. No one here is referring to you as a naughty little boy, rather they are referring to you as a confused adult. Also, linking to the other feministing to bother the women here does make you a bit of a troll, but if you didn’t want the title, you wouldn’t be antagonizing people.

  2. annejumps
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    Ha, dnx-x1, if you think women can’t be anti-woman, you really just have no idea what you’re talking about.

  3. dnx-x1
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    the14thoppossum–I listen to rap all the time, from mainstream rap, to underground rap that has never been released. Listen to some of Em’s songs; he does say it in a couple of them. Royce Da 5’9” is another one. So it’s misogyny when I disobey women and still call them girls? LOL! Call me a naughty little boy if you want; I don’t give a shit. Anyway, I’m going to call misandry on everyone who dared comment on my comments. :) I mean, it’s only fair if I can get accused of misogyny for disobeying someone.
    Annejumps–I was thinking of something else. This was not what I meant to say. Anyway, you want to know who’s anti-woman here? All gender feminists. This place is a gender feminist heaven.

  4. Posted December 16, 2007 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    It isn’t just sex toys that these men hate, Amanda. These MRAs hate Playboy and other non-degrading porn. They can’t get their jollies off on underground porn, so they have to resort to the misogynist porn.
    Quite frankly, I don’t even understand how they are even allowed to breed in this world.

  5. Posted December 16, 2007 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    snobographer, just because people find something offensive does not make it so.

    Look up the definition of “offensive.” You’re not the almighty arbiter of what people are allowed to be offended by.

    I find your post offensive.

    Then, by definition, my post was offensive – to you. I’m sorry you’re offended by people pointing out facts like what the word “offensive” means and that the subject of your most recent blog post has been debunked. That sucks for you.

    So it’s misogyny when I disobey women and still call them girls?

    Feminism 101: It’s misogyny when you infantilize women by calling them girls, just like it’s racist to call an adult black man a “boy.” Matter of fact, next black man you meet, go ahead and call him “boy” and see how far you get trying to tell him that that’s not offensive.

  6. Posted December 16, 2007 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    Dear dnx-x1:
    please get a good dictionary and look up the terms you’re using.
    “Anyway, I’m going to call misandry on everyone who dared comment on my comments. :) I mean, it’s only fair if I can get accused of misogyny for disobeying someone.”
    So disagreeing with you is misandry already, but you patronising the other commenters by calling them “girls” is not a manifestation of misogyny? Interesting…
    Furthermore, it’s not disobedience you’re accused of but bad manners. You mention typos and “proper English” a lot and yet you’re completely oblivious to how disrespectful your comments have been so far.
    If you are not a misogynist, as you say, then prove it by a proper tone and level of argumentation.
    You use the word “misandry” very often. Are you sure you know what it means? If you read carefully, you will realize that none of the commenters has expressed any sense of general men-hatred. You will also realize that feminism is absolutely not about that. Perhaps that is what angers you about it so much: that it isn’t male-centered?
    “Gender feminism”? Please… Just look up the meanings of the word “gender.” Is it really hurtful to realize that the societal construction of gender has little to do with biological sex? I’d call it valuable knowledge, but maybe you believe that ignorance is bliss.
    Please know those you want to call your enemies first. That’s just basic homework.

  7. UltraMagnus
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Sarah, I’d logged off the computer for the night.
    I listen to rap all the time, from mainstream rap, to underground rap that has never been released. Listen to some of Em’s songs; he does say it in a couple of them.
    And I think it’s pretty established that “Em” as you so affectionately call him has severe issues with women, which only proves the point further.
    So it’s misogyny when I disobey women and still call them girls? LOL! Call me a naughty little boy if you want; I don’t give a shit.
    No one here is your mother or your “owner” so why the use of “disobey” (oh, wait, nevermind…) You have been asked not to address the women here as girls and yet you do it repeatedly because you’re enjoying it and trying to get a rise out of people. The only thing the other commenters are doing it trying to point out to you that it’s disrespectful and if you show them disrespect then they don’t have to show you any and it makes you a troll.
    Anyway, I’m going to call misandry on everyone who dared comment on my comments. :)
    Look everybody! We had the NERVE, the GALL, to point out to dnx-x1 how he was in the wrong! FOR SHAME!!! FOOOOR SHAAAAAAAAAAAAME!! Don’t you know women should NEVER correct menz? NEVER EVER!!! No stifle those laughs and hang your head in SHAME!! Poor, poor, dnx-x1. He’s so wrong and someone showed him why. [/snark]
    And now, I’m no longer feeding the troll.;)

  8. Persephone
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d say it was dnx-x1 who wrote the letter to Jessica. It would make sense that a troll would send a nasty e-mail and then come back to see how we all reacted to it. Just a thought. Now to feed the troll whatever is in my pantry.
    So what you’re saying is that if we even so much as dare to disagree with a man, it’s automatically misandry? Misandry would be making a general degrading statement about men that is false. An example of misandry would be, “All men want to do is get into your pants.” An obviously false statement, it is nevertheless used commonly to apply to all men. What we are doing by disagreeing with you is not being misandrous. We are simply choosing to disagree with you. There’s a big difference between the two, dude.
    And do not call me a girl, because I am an adult. I live on my own, pay all of my own bills, and am a full time student and employee. By the ethical definition of adulthood, I am an adult because I am entirely self-sufficient. And as an adult female, I am called a WOMAN because that’s what adult females are called. You would not be “disobeying” us to call us girls, you would just be an asshole.

  9. A male
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    dnx-x1, if you are still out there:
    I went to that IWF to see what it is the readers disagree with. Initially I didn’t get it, other than seeing they were whitebread and boring, certainly with no forum for discussion such as this one. Then I went to Wikipedia, and other sites critical of it. It’s quite clear what is wrong with them. They are not too subtly rightwingers who want to maintain traditional gender roles and spit upon the modern woman.
    I’ve also been to your antimisandry website and believe I have made my way around the entire site during the night. The only place I saw them open to exchange was in the Feminist Flipside forum, where they were willing to be polite, but it was clearly hostile for the lone feminist in one thread anyway. As one admin posted once, “How are women treated unfairly?”
    You’re in the wrong place, dude. I suggest you read your way through the resources here. I don’t agree with every single thing, but I won’t attack them for it.

  10. A male
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    I do not believe dnx-x1 wrote that e-mail. That message, despite its grammatical errors and open hostility, is very efficient in length, pretty much hitting all buttons, and fairly well planned out to do so. I wouldn’t be able to write something like that in less than 2 or 3 pages single spaced with numerous anecdotes and cites, in sentences of paragraph length.
    dnx-x1 is openly insecure and even more simple. He’s down to one liners. He sounds like he is in his early 20s or younger, without a steady girlfriend he would be able to communicate with.

  11. Posted December 16, 2007 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    I suggest you read your way through the resources here. I don’t agree with every single thing, but I won’t attack them for it.
    A Male, you grasped one of the crucial points about feminism in these words, one that dnx-x1 and many other opponents keep missing.
    Feminism is about free thought. Feministing and the exchanges on the forum reflect the fact that we’re not here to form some sort of a feminist militia or front but discuss issues that are important to us in a civilized manner (yes, this is to you, dnx-x1). It’s logical that we’re not here simply to nod to each other’s responses or put each other “in place,” and so we won’t agree 100%.
    If you understand and respect this rule then you’re welcome here irrespective of your sex. (So, logically, we’re not here to exercise misandry.)

  12. oenophile
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    I went to that IWF to see what it is the readers disagree with. Initially I didn’t get it, other than seeing they were whitebread and boring, certainly with no forum for discussion such as this one. Then I went to Wikipedia, and other sites critical of it. It’s quite clear what is wrong with them. They are not too subtly rightwingers who want to maintain traditional gender roles and spit upon the modern woman.
    Okay… silly question of the day.
    If you read IWF’s stuff (I moseyed on over and saw that they had policy papers about getting women to financial independence in college so that they can start saving for retirement; and another which talks about the participation of women in politics in the Middle East), then why take second-hand sources as a better exemplar of what they are all about?
    Being right-wing doesn’t mean anti-woman. You can be fiscally conservative and want to see women succeed on their own. You can be for the war in Iraq and want to see women succeed in Afghanistan. (Shrug.) It’s a different way of approaching the same problem.
    So, I guess the question is this: if you looked at their site, their policy papers, and their work, and found them to be unoffensive, why take someone else’s word for it? Presumably, you like Feministing; would you listen to what Bill O’Reilly says about it and then decide that you don’t like it?
    One should not attack another’s grammar if theirs is poor.
    LMAO. You lack subject-pronoun agreement there. Subject: “One” – i.e. singular.
    Pronoun: “theirs,” i.e. plural.
    Re-write as, “People whose grammar is poor should not attack that of other people,” or similar.
    As for “good” feminism: Please. The results or methodologies of certain schools of thought do not render one brand of feminism “better” than another. Should the premise be the same (i.e. women are the equals of men and our society ought to reflect that equality and inherent worth), then it is good feminism.
    /rant

  13. A male
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    ” . . . why take second-hand sources as a better exemplar of what they are all about?”
    Because I do not expect the average organization, including this one, to be critical of themselves or promote such criticism. Why not ask other readers why they would laugh upon simply hearing the name IWF associated with “good” feminism? I trust they know more than I, and I don’t want to get into what I believe “good” feminism to be.
    “Being right-wing doesn’t mean anti-woman.”
    Maybe. But I wonder how Cheney’s wife, her compatriots, and their “conservative” members/supporters vote, despite claiming to be nonpartisan? And no official position on abortion or same-sex marriage? How can they possibly ignore them as an issue? That would be like a men’s rights organization with no official position on legal rights of fathers or traditional family values. Know any without them? They may exist, but I can’t imagine.
    I can see a lot of reason at that site, but I can see why people here may choose not to stand by them.

  14. anomrabbit
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    Whatever happened to “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”?

  15. dnx-x1
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    I would reply to all you dear ”ladies” (is this better than ”girls?”), but you’ve all made such long replies, it’s impossible for me to do so. If you’re really eager for a debate, I guess you could just email me.
    I’ll just reply to ”a male”. I’m not using ”one liners” anymore than anyone else. So what if IWF has no forum? This site doesn’t either.
    P.S. UltraMagnus, you’re an idiot lacking comprehension skills. Please, go to your local doctor, ask for a year’s supply of IGF-1, use it, read some books and go back to English class, then read what I said again.

  16. A male
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    “Whatever happened to ‘if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all’?”
    OK I’ll make it short and sweet: dnx-x1 – You may find it productive to learn why the others disagree with you. You can decide for yourself.
    I did. I was willing to spend an entire night on it. And common sense should suggest why you shouldn’t call them names to their face, so to speak. I won’t do it at that men’s forum, either.
    This is not a “forum,” but it is a forum for discussion.

  17. UCLAbodyimage
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    ULTRAMAGNUS “Wow. Another troll trying to tell us how we should be *good* feminists, which, according to him is to be completely anti-woman. Is it time Jessica broke out the TrollAway? ;)
    Ha, ironically, this is the one thread where trolling actually is appropriate. It further illustrates the main point of the post :-) .
    EG “Heh. I’m kidding. Sort of. I mean, I’m not kidding about owning my Star Wars stuff, but I am kidding about being offended.”
    Niiiiice. Have you seen this? Absolutely hillarious for star wars fans.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP8r8lhuA2Q

  18. A male
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    “Have you seen this? Absolutely hillarious for star wars fans.”
    I like TROOPS.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWr6ec2zEyE&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5blbv4WFriM&feature=related

  19. dnx-x1
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    A male–alright. Not that I really care why they disagree with me, but alright.
    To everyone else: why do you [select appropriate term] disagree with me?

  20. dnx-x1
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

    The Star Wars video games are pretty good for a game based on a movie, eh?

  21. oenophile
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

    A male,
    When you divide the country into rough halves (the conservative/liberal divide is pretty close to that) and have a sizeable amount of both men and women on each side (obviously, there is some skew towards women being left-leaning and men being right-leaning), I find it frankly incredible that you can make that claim.
    You really think that half the country – and at least 1/3d of the women – are anti-woman?
    I’ve dragged up the stats before, but more women than men are pro-life. This begs the question: what on earth is your definition of “anti-woman?” Would you please at least replace it with “anti-third-wave feminism,” because they are entirely different kettles of fish. My pro-woman reasoning does not lead me to the same conclusions as does other pro-woman reasoning, and there are a lot of women who agree with me.
    Final point: as a logical matter, if you go out and say that a movement representing at least 50 million active voters is characterised by TWO people, you need to seriously reconsider your stance. Feministing readers would go crazy if feminists were characterised as all thinking the exact same way as, say, Jessica or Vanessa or Cara. They woudl point out that, as PEOPLE, there is diversity of opinion. Feminism is at least a discrete social issue, unlike the conservative/libertarian divide, which encompasses everything from social security, Medicare, the proper role of the federal government, infrastructure, military spending, state education standards, immigration, environmentalism, drugs… okay, yeah, my fingers are going to fall off listing all of the things that come under the left/right divide in politics.
    50 million people, many disparite issues – I’m sorry, I simply CANNOT buy your argument. Re-think it, because it’s absolutely unsupported by anything remotely resembling evidence.

  22. Posted December 16, 2007 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    It’s pretty pathetic some of you ”ladies” have to gang together to try to ridicule someone.

    I would reply to all you dear ”ladies” (is this better than ”girls?”)

    To everyone else: why do you [select appropriate term] disagree with me?

    (Oh, the poor thing.)
    Loud, slow English: That’s women, dearie.

  23. A male
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    “You really think that half the country – and at least 1/3d of the women – are anti-woman?”
    No, though I can easily imagine people who might think so. Please don’t ask.
    “I’ve dragged up the stats before, but more women than men are pro-life. This begs the question: what on earth is your definition of ‘anti-woman?’”
    I’d really prefer not to answer in present company, because I haven’t studied the issues in-depth and I’m not trolling, but I’d say, to be “anti-woman” [whatever your term means to you] is to restrict choices for women by maintaining tradition and traditional gender roles, for the sake of tradition, much less actual misandry? Is that reasonable?

  24. A male
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, I meant “misogyny.”

  25. Posted December 16, 2007 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    Oenophile:
    The problem with IWF is that it’s antifeminism disguised as feminism. They use terms like “personal choice” in their mission statement, but have a firm stance against reproductive rights (I don’t know if what you say is true that more women are against abortion than are pro-choice but either way, being pro-choice I’d firmly stand by my conviction that no woman who doesn’t want an abortion should ever be forced to have one). One of their greatest fears seems to be the nonexistant “boy crisis.” And they argue with straight faces that anti-sexual harassment policies stifle free speech.
    Other than the MRA stuff, it’s all pro-Republican talking points peppered liberally with “it’s good for women.” Ending the FMLA is good for women. Tax cuts are good for women. Corporate deregulation is good for women. Traditional family values are good for women. Globalization and free trade is good for women… They don’t explain how any of this is good for women, they just assert that it is.
    It’s Splenda to feminism’s real sugar. It’s a dupe to convince women that a vote for – say – Mike Huckabee isn’t a vote for Colonel Sanders.

  26. oenophile
    Posted December 16, 2007 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

    I’d really prefer not to answer in present company, because I haven’t studied the issues in-depth and I’m not trolling, but I’d say, to be “anti-woman” [whatever your term means to you] is to restrict choices for women by maintaining tradition and traditional gender roles, for the sake of tradition, much less actual misandry? Is that reasonable?
    That’s incredibly reasonable.
    I’m not sure, though, how IWF’s recent white paper about teaching college-aged women financial responsibility so they can plan for retirement (HUGE assumption: women are in college to get careers, not an MRS degree, and should rely on their own sense to plan their financial futures) falls within any reasonable definition of “traditional gender roles.”
    You mentioned sexual harassment and chilling effects on First Amendment rights.
    1. The First Amendment isn’t just there to protect speech that you happen to like. It’s there to protect speech that you don’t like.
    2. Here’s the policy brief. They are NOT arguing for the overturning of all sexual harassment laws; they are arguing for reasonable laws that are not so overbraod as to make asking a girl on a date into a freakin campus crime.
    One of their other campus articles discussed the obesity problem in women in regards to Love Your Body Day (i.e. LYBD should address the obesity issue as well as the anorexia issue). Oh, wow, so anti-woman….??

  27. ghettocr42
    Posted December 17, 2007 at 12:18 am | Permalink

    It is blatant on IWF from the statements made in it that they are after “marriage and family values” and that those traditional rolls are what make women happy. You can find it in the books they cover, it is even subtly there in the mission statement.

  28. anomrabbit
    Posted December 17, 2007 at 12:45 am | Permalink

    I agree with snobographer and ghettocr42 — the IWF has a pretty apparent right-ward bias. With a little bit of digging I can see the anti-woman skew. However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, this doesn’t mean that everything that they published is horribly biased, so I don’t think it’s appropriate to make generalizations. So, oenophile, maybe the LYBD article isn’t anti-woman but some of the others are?

  29. oenophile
    Posted December 17, 2007 at 2:38 am | Permalink

    Like which ones?
    Seriously. Your complaints amount to this: They are “right wing” (economically) and some people don’t like them.
    I call b.s. on the anti-woman thing. Total, unfettered b.s. that masquerades in “feminist” clothing. They just don’t follow third-wave feminism (abortion on demand, government subsidies, etc), which is NOT anti-woman.
    So they don’t have the same thoughts on universal health care as y’all. So apparently they aren’t real women, or they hate themselves, or any other number of groundless attacks that you can dream up.

  30. A male
    Posted December 17, 2007 at 3:47 am | Permalink

    oenophile:
    Allegedly, they have “no official position” on abortion or same sex marriage, because the organization considers itself secular. Are those issues only religious? Can’t they be deliberated in terms of human rights? I thought their current president was an attorney.
    Their mission statement states they “[build] support for . . . strong families.” Does that include LGBYQQ relationships and households? Their mission is to “rebuild civil society.” I wish they were a little more explicit. RE-build? Was there a recent breakdown in civil society? What could possibly have caused such a breakdown, prior to their founding in 1992, when they were an offshoot of “‘Women for Judge Thomas,’ that was created to defend Clarence Thomas against allegations of sexual harassment and other improprieties.” (Wikipedia). [Women for what? Feminists for what? zomg. The IWF can withhold judgement on the Duke rape case prior to trial if they want, but to have have their roots in defending Judge Thomas?]
    What could have caused this pre-1992 social breakdown . . . Hmmm. What could it be, let’s see here . . .
    SATAN?
    [No, the IWF challenges "radical feminist positions." (Wikipedia).]
    Do you see anything odd about this? I can tell those are fairly important issues to feminists. Can I call myself a [good] feminist if I am unwilling to even publicly choose a side? [Pro/Pro] And I don’t even consider myself feminist.
    If I dared to make the assumption where the loyalties of self-proclaimed “nonpartisan” but also self-described “conservatives” like the wife of the Vice-President and her compatriots lie, which side would I assume they side with? Sure, most Republican candidates claim to be pro-choice, but they would be perfectly happy to limit access to abortion like Bush.
    I repeat: I do not like the idea of terminating pregnancies for birth control, and I do not like intact dilation and extraction, the “partial birth abortion.” But I wouldn’t restrict reproductive freedoms.

  31. A male
    Posted December 17, 2007 at 3:55 am | Permalink

    Sigh. *LGBTQQ* relationships and households.
    “Splenda” vs. “real sugar.” I love it.

  32. Nightingale
    Posted December 17, 2007 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    It’s obvious these letters are written just for the reaction they can get. They are over-the-top with the stereotypes. Duh. Not worthy of acknowledgment, in my opinion.

  33. SarahMC
    Posted December 17, 2007 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    Nightingale, while the goal of the letter-writers might be to get a reaction, no man who wasn’t a misogynist would write stuff like that as a “joke.” Their goal is to piss off the feminists because they’re anti-feminist woman-haters. Would a person write misogynist letters to a feminist group if he/she was neutral re feminism or pro-feminist? I don’t think so.
    _________
    The IWF is intent on preserving the white male power structure. You can see this in all their positions.

  34. Jessica
    Posted December 17, 2007 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    Jeez, I take a weekend off and all hell breaks lose! ;) Troll-be-gone is back. Sorry for the MRA distraction, folks.

  35. quebeaum
    Posted December 17, 2007 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    I loves me some Jessica.

  36. Posted December 17, 2007 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    As for “good” feminism: Please. The results or methodologies of certain schools of thought do not render one brand of feminism “better” than another. Should the premise be the same (i.e. women are the equals of men and our society ought to reflect that equality and inherent worth), then it is good feminism.
    /rant

    I disagree. The fact that the goals are ostensibly the same does not make them equally good.
    Consider: Two groups have the goal of ending poverty.
    One group believes that the best way to do this is to give a penny to each poor person that asks for money.
    Another group believes that the best way to do this is by focusing on increasing access to education, child care, and health services among other things.
    I have no problem saying that the second group is better than the first. Claiming to believe X doesn’t mean anything if your actions routinely fail to show X, or, worse, if your actions actually seem to work against X.

  37. sojourner
    Posted December 17, 2007 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    “”You really think that half the country – and at least 1/3d of the women – are anti-woman?”
    Is it really inconceivable that 1/3rd of women have patriarchy instilled in them to such a degree that on certain issues their position is anti-woman?
    Also, I have said this before without getting a response form you:
    You posit that abortion is murder. Does that mean you are calling 35% of American women murderers? Because 35% of American women will have at least one abortion in their lifetime.
    Let me give you another example. I am willing to bet that the majority of women in Saudi Arabia are in favor of, let’s say mandatory head to toe covering, or other discriminatory laws in that country.
    Does that make those laws no longer anti-woman? Or does this argument that “if x% of women support it then it can’t be anti-woman� only applies to women in western countries?

  38. tostartarevolution
    Posted December 17, 2007 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    Is it bad that after reading all 130+ comments, I’m still laughing at,
    “What exactly is a ‘cunt ass’? Do all women have one, or only ‘femmes’?”

  39. holly
    Posted December 17, 2007 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    oenophile- really?
    I am having trouble understanding your blindness re: the missions of the IWF. As another poster has said: just looking around at their website, is enough to know that they are (strictly my words) all about keeping women in their place.
    I’m just having trouble understanding how a regular commenter, on here, can possibly be giving the IWF the time of day. All it takes is a cursory glance at their concerns. Actually, their positions on many feminist/women’s issues, make me suspicious that IWF is really a bunch of men trying to make it sound like their misogyny is supported by women. Yes, that ridiculous misandry site had a “women”‘s section, but it was plain to see that it was merely there to bolster their assertion that so many women agree with their positions. Oh, and yes, I did see that many “women” do post on their site. They either really hate being female, or are so indoctrinated into the patriarchy, that they truly believe that they are incapable of making rational decisions. Or, of course, they’re men… posting as women.

  40. oenophile
    Posted December 17, 2007 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

    Holly,
    If a “cursory glance” at IWF would reveal their woman-hating so much, then:
    1) why did the above poster not see it until he googled IWF (i.e went outside their site)? and
    2) why can’t you find a single article by them that is anti-woman?
    Sojourner,
    Oh, Lord, here we go. Um, hon, the abortionists are the murderers. Now, if that isn’t enough to throw you into orbit, consider this: six times as many post-abortive women are part of National Right to Life as are in NARAL. I feel ZERO desire to condemn them for what they did; I’m quite certain that nothing I can say will do anything to ease their grief (or compound it).
    Maybe you just don’t know post-abortive women, or have never held one in your arms as she’s cried about wanting to kill herself because she let someone end her baby’s life.
    Many women feel this years down the road, once they bring a pregnancy to term. They realise that each pregnancy is different, both for their bodies and their children. They see how, even early on, the different experiences and how that shapes their kid.
    If you’re trying to get a “gotcha,” tough luck. I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for women who have been lied to by the likes of you into believing that they can “just” have an abortion, or that the “hardest decision they’ll ever make” is the moral equivalent of a condom.

  41. oenophile
    Posted December 17, 2007 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    [Women for what? Feminists for what? zomg. The IWF can withhold judgement on the Duke rape case prior to trial if they want, but to have have their roots in defending Judge Thomas?]
    THANK YOU!
    You’re revealing your ignorance of what went on during the Senate hearings. Most people who listened to those left believing JUSTICE Thomas to be innocent. Not being the racist that Maureen Dowd is, I don’t believe that all black men are horny little jerks who get “x-rated tingles” at the thought of harming other people.

  42. ghettocr42
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 3:25 am | Permalink

    oenophile -
    I found it in several places on their website, it is there and not hard to see. It is in the books they support as well as the articles the regulars have posted, and I didn’t have to spend much time browsing to see this.

  43. A male
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 5:15 am | Permalink

    Here’s where Eric goes OT again:
    oenophile: “You’re revealing your ignorance of what went on during the Senate hearings.”
    Thank you for what? I admit to ignorance on a great many things including the IWF.
    I do not care about the Senate hearings, or what went on in them. I am only concerned by what really did or did not occur, which is quite irrelevant to whatever is revealed or not through investigation. For example, the vast majority of incidents of sexual harassment or sexual assault goes unreported. Victims suffer. Offenders continue life as usual, perhaps to strike again. BTW, the Senate barely confirmed Thomas, while popular opinion was not in favor, if you care to bring up who believed what. Hill’s accusations are backed by witnesses, including at least one other alleged victim (yes, the fired Angela Wright, who was not heard). I choose Hill’s side.
    So what does Thomas’ being accepted to the Supreme Court, his implied innocence, or the incident’s implied irrelevance to his position mean to you about Hill’s accusations? Is she a liar? Do you side with her detractors? Do you side with the “Conservative Hit Man” and character assassin David Brock who wrote and later recanted a book dedicated to smearing Hill? Do you agree with Justice Thomas that Hill was merely touchy and apt to overreact? * Was it just a conspiracy (racist, feminist, or left wing) using a highly educated, intelligent black woman to keep a black man down? ** To “Bork” him?
    So how many readers came out on the side of Duke lacrosse players in the interests of innocent until proven guilty? Did any major new feminist groups spring into being just to defend their reputations? As far as the law goes, they are innocent, too. Would you suspect the motives of any major women’s organization that was created explicitly to defend Duke lacrosse players? I would. ***
    * I thought the rule of sexual harassment was, if the victim says it’s harassment, it is harassment. Why is Hill’s accusation any different from any other?
    ** What does this have to do with racism, or what I believe the nature of “black men” to be? [e.g., to NOT be horny and get "x-rated tingles" or imagine "harming other people"] I bring up the then Judge Thomas, because apparently defending him is how the IWF got their start, NOT to study women’s issues or assist women in Afghanistan and Iraq. [Since you bring up race, though, it is an interesting coincidence that one male African American Justice be replaced by another.]
    *** I know this is a very unpopular subject, and I wonder if my comments will be posted. I agree with the IWF that the media published too much incriminating information prior to trial, as well as unjustly besmirching the reputation of the accuser.
    However, I do not join in any celebration of “I told you so,” or MRA cries of “false accusation” because all this proves is that the prosecution was incompetent. No matter what, that woman deserves help, whether it be for the rape and injustice suffered, or for any mental condition in general that might lead a person to be less than truthful. She should not be attacked and no action should be taken against her because I agree other victims must not be cowed into silence due to fear of not being believed or having their lives and reputations publicly ruined. Those men, well, they can go back to what is left of their lives, and I do hope they are not unduly burdened during employment searches, et cetera. I look forward to seeing if a civil suit from either side goes forward.
    Oh, about the IWF and “good” feminism. I will not bother to research or discount any of your abortion claims, because I fail to see how any rate of post abortion regret or even threat of suicide should stand in the way of the choice a person freely makes. In the health care field, we can see choices that may cause up to 100% premature death of the patient, like refusal to undergo radiation therapy and chemo, refusal to stop smoking, refusal to treat their HIV, or deciding to go ahead with surgery that has a minimal chance of success like separating conjoined twins, much less knowingly removing a weaker conjoined twin to die (note even already born children lack right to medical consent – are parents of unsuccessful surgical patients and their surgeons murderers as well?).
    I share your distaste of the possibility of termination being used as birth control, I really do. I am pro-choice. I would prefer people choose to have children. However, aside from it not being my business, one cannot generalize abortion as murder. In even introductory nursing classes, we learn just how unlikely it is that a fertilized egg or even successfully implanted embryo will ever be born alive, not lost through natural processes or anomalies. Those missed periods or false alarms followed by resumption of the cycle? Perhaps the woman actually experienced a miscarriage, which is what we in the health care field refer to as “abortion.” I have even seen healthy babies come out of their mothers blue, needing oxygen or resuscitation. The rule of “beyond a reasonable doubt” necessary for any criminal conviction does not apply. Or do you support rough justice to put a halt to abortions [termination of pregnancy]?
    “The hardest choice a woman will ever make” is just that. It is not the moral equivalent of putting on a condom, and I don’t know and don’t care who may say so. It is an invasive medical procedure, with risks, as you well know. I agree with people who comment they would like abortion to be legal, safe, accessible, and rare. I hope you or any organization you may be affiliated with can provide support for the traumatized women you describe, and that they can find peace. If I ever encounter such a woman, I will try to make the proper referrals, as well. It was a choice they had a right to make.

  44. A male
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 5:19 am | Permalink

    OT: Sorry, I was referring to popular opinion siding with Thomas or Hill, not Thomas’ being confirmed.

  45. A male
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 7:19 am | Permalink

    More OT:
    “consider this: six times as many post-abortive women are part of National Right to Life as are in NARAL.”
    How silly of me for not thinking! How very clever of you for neglecting to mention! I do have a question:
    How many (tens of) millions of other women simply wanted to put it behind them, not motivated to join either cause; and suffered no significant lasting trauma? Can you provide me with a pie chart to show me how relevant your figures are? P.S. It still doesn’t matter.
    Because you see, my wife is one of those women – twice over since we’ve been married, as far as she is willing to tell me. If I hadn’t noticed the hospital receipt (woman’s a mad organizer), I would never have known at all.
    Early in our marriage, before our current children, there were some problems. My wife was unsure who the fathers were – twice. She decided not to “burden” me, and went in for her procedures and made her weeks long recovery all alone. How sad for her to feel she lacked my support and needed to keep the secret. I have since sat her up in bed, taken her by the hand, looked her directly in the eye, and made clear to her that any child in my house will be accepted and loved as my own. That was when she cried.
    As a matter of fact, it would have been quite interesting in Japan, if my wife had later given birth to caucasian or dark skinned babies.

  46. SarahMC
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    Nice retorts, A male!! You will see that oenophile has a knack for turning any thread into a thread on “abortion is murder.”

  47. holly
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    um, yeah, oenophile:
    just this year IWF was celebrating the drop of the Duke Larosse case. you know, all of those nasty false rape charges women make./snark
    oh, and, yes- your views on abortion- just stop.

  48. EG
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    I remember the Hill-Thomas hearings. I, like most people I know, watched them. Every single person I know–and not just me, go back and check out the polls–came away believing Hill, as she had nothing to gain and a lot to lose by coming forward.
    I find it interesting to see how accusations of racism are deployed by white conservatives. Apparently, believing and supporting a black woman is racist, but writing off the experiences and testimony of a black female law professor isn’t. Fascinating.

  49. A male
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    For anyone who doesn’t get it: I am not on a victim’s side simply for being a woman, or on a minority’s side simply for being a minority. Accusers deserve to be heard and given full consideration until given reason to believe otherwise, particularly by advocates such as feminist groups. And for the sake of other victims, they should not be penalized if reasonable doubt is cast upon their stories.
    More unpopular viewpoint: I don’t believe Tawana Brawley. Not anymore. However, I won’t elaborate, won’t attack her reputation, and would consider it inappropriate at best to sue her personally for any damage done. The accused can sue her most outspoken advocates and media outlets for millions, if need be. But other victims suffer enough.
    “I remember the Hill-Thomas hearings. I, like most people I know, watched them.”
    As a matter of fact, I watched them myself. I was still job hunting after graduation at the time. Loved CNN and Court TV. I just have a poor memory in my old age. Yes. Professor Hill, PhD, *Justice* Thomas.

  50. ShifterCat
    Posted December 18, 2007 at 11:58 pm | Permalink

    Those were very intelligent, insightful, and civil responses, A Male. Your medical perspective on abortion in particular was quite interesting.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

222 queries. 0.942 seconds