What can you expect from someone who still has his mom combing his hair?

Sorry, didn't realize you already dissed the 'do. God that's cruel.

I especially like that he wants the "abuse center" punished - because it's their job to kick people out when they come to them for help? Please.

"My message to men and real women on college campuses everywhere: Stay away from feminists and strippers. The last thing you want to date is a girl who studies feminism. Be sure she believes in equal rights for men to be in the family. Make certain she rejects feminism before even asking her out on a date. Get to know her previous boyfriend to find out why they broke up. If she says he is a jerk but he isn’t, you probably have a feminist on your hands."

God - they fear powerful women. What a small man. I will say, if I was a man I would want a intelligent, independent women to spend my time with, rather waste my hours with a girl with no opinions, no brains, and no guts.

did anyone else read the line "equal rights for men in the family" and do a double take? Does that mean Mr. Usher would like to have the same rights in a family that he believes women should have? I'd give him about two days.

What a dweeb! Check out his picture. Also notice how he interchanges women and "girls." How old is he?

To say nothing of women and things: "The last thing you want to date is a girl who studies feminism."

And...make sure to get "real women" on board? Like, what, feminists are actually androids from the planet Pluto? If I were college-aged, I must say I would be relieved that this guy was warning his fellow jerks not to date me. Would save me a whole of trouble.

Duke alum here (grad school, but even so) to laugh heartily at the idea that the Duke campus is ruled by us evil feminists. Why didn't I know that when I went there? I could've used my magic powers to get straight A's or, you know, better parking spaces or something.

Men like sweet, feminine attractive, young women.

Read: submissive and docile.

But even more stupid is this idea that we should cease being "angry ocelots" in order to catch us a man, because, you know, that's what we REALLY need in life.

If she says he is a jerk but he isn’t, you probably have a feminist on your hands.

Because, you know, all the breakups that non-feminists have are perfectly clean and reasonable all the time, and never cause for any confusion whatsoever.

There's much more substantial things I could say about all of this, but it's such an absurd mess that I don't even know where to start.

[Ignoring the troll]

This guy hasn't actually stepped foot on a college campus in years, right? Well, I teach college, and honestly I have to say I really like my students, they're sweet and interesting and intelligent, but very few of them are espousing radical feminist ideals. On the other hand, men and women seem to get along just fine, and I don't think most campuses are the hotbeds of gender fury he characterizes them as.

Also, I don't know many women who would put themselves through a grueling divorce, let alone have kids with a guy, just to come out on top in the settlement. Say I'm a rich guy in my 40s, and I marry one of those sweet, docile, feminine women I like so much. She quits working to be a SAHM (since day care is bad for children, don't you know, and women who choose career over kids hate America). After four or five years, she's looking old and saggy, so I start looking around for a hotter, younger, even more docile woman. She sues for divorce. Since she's been out of the job market, and the only way I've been able to keep working my 80 hour weeks is by having a wife at home, she has very little earning power while I have an enormous amount of earning power. Explain to me why this woman should not be entitled to alimony, exactly?

These arguments aren't logically consistent.

"Men like sweet, feminine attractive, young women.
Read: submissive and docile"

Yep. Now you've got it. Look, I didn't write the rules that genetically programmed men to seek young fertile lovelies to propegate the species, or women to seek reproductive QUALITY over quantity ('cause they can reproduce once every ten months). I'm just tellin' ya the way they play out. Sorry, I take it back, it has nothing to do with god or nature's genetic reproductive strategies...it's the FREAKIN' PATRIARCHY!

"But even more stupid is this idea that we should cease being "angry ocelots" in order to catch us a man, because, you know, that's what we REALLY need in life."
- If you don't, then terrific!

"If she says he is a jerk but he isn’t, you probably have a feminist on your hands.Because, you know, all the breakups that non-feminists have are perfectly clean and reasonable all the time, and never cause for any confusion whatsoever." - That's a logical fallacy - you can figure out which one here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ Hint: just b/c some non-feminists have messy breakups does not invalidate the strategy when applied to feminists. Or anyone else!

"That's a logical fallacy - you can figure out which one here"

Let me clean up my argument for you.

He says: If (says ex is a jerk but you determine him not to be), then (feminist).

I say that there is a counterexample, that situations do exist wherein If (says ex is a jerk but you determine him not to be), then (non-feminist).

Meaning, that his statement is totally ridiculous and unfounded (or, in logical terms, "unsound"). Of course, this should be totally obvious from the get-go, so maybe I'm giving it too much attention by actually putting it through the ringer like this.

Look, I didn't write the rules that genetically programmed men to seek young fertile lovelies

Even if this was most definitely the case, it completely rids us of any kind of choice and morality in the matter, and makes us just subject to whatever genetic material we're stuck with. Nice.

To felix and/or other trolls:

My advice is to get some therapy. (I'm not kidding.) And don't get into a relationship or marry until you've worked out some of your anger and issues with women.

From a happily married feminist.

(oh - and about divorce - Divorce rates did go up in the 19th century, especially around 1850. At that point marriage was a choice and women could survive economically without marriage. Don't blame feminists for divorce; blame the structural changes of the 19th century - the Industrial Revolution, the Transportation Revolution and Urbanization.

But the Industrial Revolution has happened, so if you want to make a relationship work in the 21st century, you're gonna have to have a functional relationship that is based on more then economic survival.
-----

This article is teh funny. It's hilarious that feminists are "in charge" of Duke. Oh - and what's up with that nut job elliding "strippers and feminists." He sounds like somebody from the 19th century saying "stay away from whores and suffragists!"

Actually, he's saying something different. Namely that rape is the natural consequence of organized feminism. Apparently, uppity wimmin unite is the starting point for drunken frat boys not being able to take no for an answer. Or something.

I don't know how one can square those sentiments, but apparently he can.

if i began to date some guy & subsequently found out that he'd been grilling all my ex's about my relationship with them, i would judge him to be incredibly insecure & not at all a good bet for a long term relationship. who wants to date someone who would do that? it's a blatant invasion of privacy, my friends, & it's wrong no matter WHO does it, man or woman.

Suffragists are uppity women? And if women get the vote, divorce rates will skyrocket!!!

Run! Run from the feminists! Run!

Men remarry at higher rates than women. The rate of divorce, which never actually reached 50%, has dropped steadily. For college-educated white folks, it's approaching single-digits. And I suspect that women file more divorces because many men who want out of a marriage simply leave, forcing the wife to cut the legal ties.

Sorry to break it to you, kiddo, there's a study that says everything. Studies are as fallible as those undertaking them, asking certain questions, and correlating things that may not in fact be correlated.

Staying married would allow women access to twice the wealth they'd get by filing for divorce!

This guy is deluded:

"The story did not ring true to begin with. Rapists sneak around and do things as anonymously as possible. They plan their mark and then police spend a lot of time and resources to figure out who did it. Gang-raping women in busy college party bathrooms while hollering racial epithets is not something that happens even at “Animal House�."

Well, how great to hear that! See, girls, gang rapes don't happen because guys like to be anonymous, and then police spend all their time and effort finding the evil, sneaky men who did it who are totally separate and disjunct from normal, god-fearing drunken college boys.

Nothing sexier than a guy who doesn't bother looking up the facts. Sheesh, he's off by a supermajority. I bet he uses that as a pick-up line: "Don't worry, I won't rape you. If I were gonna rape you, I'd sneak around and do things as anonymously as possible."

If this site gave awards, I'd nominate him for Napoli of the day.

God, Felix, do the world a favor and DON'T get married. You will save some poor submissive docile woman from a life of utter hell.

Doesn't anyone know "felix" is just one of the jerks who runs the fake "feministing" site that is slanderous, rude, not to mention totally unproductive? Let's just please ignore the bullshit. This crap gives me a headache.

(And from a well-adjusted feminist who's also in therapy because it's a good thing for EVERYONE, these guys DO have some serious anger issues. I sure hope they *don't* get married. {shudders} )

What is David Usher talking about? Being a "tomboy" and a feminist has been a guy-magnet for me.

And I *really* doubt men are ever going to stay away from strippers.

Oh, and I know I shouldn't say this, but I think it's funny when SAHM's get dumped for younger women. They are always bragging about their superior choices... let's see how it pays the bills.

Felix, you ARE aware that you're just being a totally irrational jackass now, right?

Felix,

Again, my advice is not to marry until you get therapy and talk about your issues with women. People leave marriages if they are unhappy; or they leave marriages if the relaitonship is not functional.

In the American colonial era, for economic reasons, it was much harder to dissolve a marriage. As soon as the Industrial Revolution happened, people started leaving their marriages. See for example President Jackson's wife Rachael. She and her husband split and there was a big scandal because they weren't formally divorced. Before divorce laws liberalized that's what often happened. Couples split -- a man might go to the gold rush and never come home; a woman would leave town and call herself a widow.

Then again, in the Colonial era and in the Antebellum period, a husband could legally force a wife to return to his home. If she ran to her parents, he had the option to get a warrant and have a a Justice of the Peace help him forcibly return his wife to his home.

Be careful about seeing a situation through rose-colored glasses. Do you really want that type of a marriage?

Actually...didn't this happen?? Didn't divorce sky-rocket after the so-called women's liberation? The NAWL was the group that, starting in 1947, pushed for divorce laws to be liberalized (they suceeded in 1969, starting in Reagan's California).

Actually, the divorce rates went up around 1850. Like I said - divorce rates go up when heterosexual marriage becomes a real choice because economic circumstances allow women to choose either lesbian relationships or to remain single. A huge structual shift happened in the US from 1800-1930. The average birth rate of American women went down from 1800 to 1945. People left the farm and moved to urban areas. Women were able to get wage work. People could survive without marrying.

Women's liberation didn't cause divorce. The Industrial Revolution caused both an increase in divorce rates and structual changes in women's role in American society.

Usher/Ussher: Archbishop Usher - and the world began 4,004 before the common era, on the 26th of October, at 9 o'clock in the morning.

1) Divorce rates have gone up for a wide variety of reasons. As has been pointed out, women being able to work outside the home and generate "real" income (since this is a capitalist system which does not support women based upon their domestic labor) meant that women no longer had to stay in unsatisfactory relationships to survive, nor were they as stigmatized should they choose to leave an abusive or non-supportive husband. In addition, Americans aren't staying put like we used to. We change jobs, we change careers, and we change locations. It's not surprising that we change relationships too.

2) Divorce is one of the fastest ways for men to get richer and women to get poorer. Men are typically paid more than women, both because of a lack of equal pay/equal work, the double burden women experience in childcare and domestic labor (triple burden if you count the increasing care of elderly family members), and the interrupted work schedule associated with maternity leave or taking off from work until children are in school. As a result the loss of a male income to the household is seriously detrimental to women financially. A simple google search of "women," "divorce," and "poverty," examination of any sociology textbook, etc, will provide you with information about who suffers after a divorce. Particularly because of lax enforcement of child support.

3) Dude. Ocelots are pretty!

4) "I also find it SO hypocrital that half the posters here have focused on the guy's LOOKS! Does logic or consistency have ANY sway with women?? You have been WHINING forever about not judging women on their looks/bodies, but I guess that all goes out the window when it's someone you don't agree with."

Read any newspaper article detailing a female politician, speaker, candidate, etc. See if they mention her as a mother, and see if they tell you what color her hair is or what she's wearing. Now look at comparable coverage of men. What you're saying here is that you find it hypocritical (or hypocrital in this case, which sounds like a medical oath gone awry) that we are applying a similar standard to this poorly groomed (and rather unprofessional looking in my opinion) gentlemen by the same sorts of standards that any woman in a similar pposition would be placed in. How much is made of Hillary Clinton's weight, hairstyles, or outfits? How often are her forceful attitudes used as justifications to call her a dyke or "mannish."

5) "And I understand the price of breast implants has come way down lately, pls think about it."

Why do you presume that breast implants would be beneficial? My breasts are already large enough that I've considered reduction. Would sliding potentially toxic chemicals into my body improve me somehow? Why is an increase in my breast size necessary for you to hold a conversation with me?

6) "Yes, of course. And he has a small penis, and is gay, and lives with his parents, and doesn't make enough money, or makes too much money"

Who here made any such statement?

7) "You girls will come up with ANY excuse but the truth: Men like sweet, feminine attractive, young women. "

I apparently hold men in higher esteem than you, sir, because I would never presume the entirity of that gender to be the same.

7) "But that's OK - it's what you claim to have wanted all along. A room of your own! Heck, you can have the whole block! It will give you girls much more space to get to know yourself and what is making you unhappy."

Do you know what "A Room of One's Own" was about? It was a declaration that the female condition, placing women on a pedestal, restricting all their actions, and interfering in their lives every step of the way, prevented women from attaining their potential through independence and academic pursuit.

8) "we've all seen our friends or fathers or brothers assraped in divorce court"

Funny. I never got to. But then, they wouldn't let me go to court to discuss the parental neglect on the part of my father ever. Which is why joint custody was maintained until I was in highschool, after I had endured 5 years of living in a rat hole house with fighting, untrained dogs, no food, no supervision, and on many occasions no electricity or water because of my father's "forgetfulness" with bills. He conveniently forgot to send his child support on time every month, forgot to pick me up from school about once a week, forgot to give me a key so I could crawl in through the dog door instead, etc. Bring in anecdotes all you like, felix, believe me, I have better ones.

9) "the way hacidic jews should avoid Bin Laden"

Good G-d man! Learn to spell! If you can spell and capitalize "Bin Laden," you can certainly spell Hassidic and capitalize it and "Jews."

10) "Look, I didn't write the rules that genetically programmed men to seek young fertile lovelies to propegate the species, or women to seek reproductive QUALITY over quantity ('cause they can reproduce once every ten months)."

I've heard this argument done to death, and it's ridiculous. There's an equal number of theories which state that women ought to seek quantity over quality to maximize chances of fertility as well as to maximize the number of available partners to support her and her child of indeterminate paternity.

12) Alimony is decreasing in the system almost to the point of non-existence. It's interesting that often the same men you hear harping that men won't marry or date a woman who makes more than them because it threatens them, so we ought not to earn more, are the same fellows who then say that women are all gold-diggers if they marry a man who makes more and therefore expect contributions to the household (the house, the bills, the kids) to reflect proportions, not raw numbers, of salaries.

I know I ought not to feed trolls, but when you're awake at 6:30am on a day off (my secular school gives us Good Friday off. Aren't they sweet.) there really isn't much else to do.

At the very least, it is my hope that by pointing out our ACTUAL arguments to the likes of felix, we will at least encourage him into independent inquiry which might, at the very least, make him argue against our arguments as opposed to the straw men so politely presented by Phylis Schlafly and her ilk. It's so much more fun to debate someone on actual arguments as opposed to the Bogey man made up by some knee-jerk reactonary experiencing severe backlash.

I love how Felix used the stereotype that feminists are batshit crazy, men-hating, self-serving bitches. We're not. In response to his earlier comment:"Men like sweet, feminine attractive, young women. Not aging angry ocelots."...

1. I am an attractive young woman ( 19 ), with, dare I say it, a damn lot of femininity. But I am not sweet, if that means I laugh at everything a man says to boost his ego or displaying a mild temperament to make sure I do not scare him away. The more fucking fiery - the better. The more confidence - the better.

2. Women who fall under the category of "aging ocelots" have more wisdom and compassion and heart than any other group. And ocelots are damn beautiful creatures.

3. Why must you paint the word feminists with one stroke? Do you not fucking understand: as women it is love and understanding are inherent in us. We bear children, as you cannot, and we raise villages. To cast us as money hungry sluts is too rash. Yes, we come on strong, but that is because you are used to docile women who think no farther than their own self or family. We feminists are also concerned with the world and her progress. It looks like you have had many bad experiences with feminists. Well pick yourself up and try once more with an open mind.

Wow, that article gave me a good laugh. But I gotta say: as a woman who lived in the household under a single father for many years, I find it disturbing this guy is anywhere near dealing with families. He can't see the forest for the trees.

Interesting that this guy cautions men to stay away from feminists. That's kind of funny, as I'm a feminist and NEVER ashamed to say so, and I've been in a great relationship for almost five years with a man who respects me and is proud of my accomplishments. He loves me **because** I am intelligent, independent, ambitious, and have a life outside of him. He wanted someone who he could talk to and debate with, not a decoration. I learn something new almost every time I talk to him, and I get positively turned on by our conversations. What can I say, I think smart people are sexy, and dumb people are, well, not sexy. Our relationship works because we encourage eachother to be our personal best, with the understanding that achieving as much as possible individually will make us even better as a couple. He supports me 100% (even though it means we'll be getting PhDs 500 miles away from eachother) and the idea of discouraging me from going 100% for my dreams would never even occur to him. When he decided halfway through college to change career directions (biomedical engineering to clinical psychology) I was 100% supportive of him, so it works both ways.

So I would never, ever consider dating a man who didn't consider himself to be a feminist, let alone a man who actively avoided feminists, partly because my values are grounded in feminism and I wouldn't want to be with someone who didn't share my values, but also because a relationship with a feminist-hater would be SKULL-CRUSHINGLY BORING. The sex would probably suck too.

A lot of feminists believe men and women are different. Not all, but a significant amount. I'm one of them. Although I think men and women are different in general and there are some women with "men's brains" and vice versa.

But I wonder why you bother coming here. Are you trying to convince us to agree with you? You know, I might agree with some things you say. For example, I don't believe in alimony. I don't think one person should ever have the legal right to another's paycheck. I also don't support affirmative action. So there. We agree on something.

However, I don't agree with your methods or your broad generalizations. Why would you come here and tell a group of twenty-something bloggers that they are "aging angry ocelots" who need boob jobs? That makes us not want to take you seriously, even if you do have a valid point in there somewhere.

I have talked to some nice, sweet MRAs and have defended them to other feminists (which probably makes me look dumb right now, given your behavior).

I am glad you find intelligent and successful women attractive - I am. I will say this though - that successful does not always mean enlighented. A woman who works as a laundrymat can be more of a humanitarian and be more of a part of a social intelligentsia than a stockbroker ( and that's more often the case than not ).

I do agree that men and women are very different, but there are also differences that have been put upon us by society. Men have been long identified with control, strength, competitiveness, toughness, coolness under pressure, logic, and forcefulness. Women are associated with lighter, more sensitive terms like cooperation, mutuality, compassion, caring, and vulnerability.
Terms such as pussy, bitch, and slut are all female and also all derogatory. Phrases such as, "He's/she's got balls" refers to a masculine trait and it is also a positive remark. And that's just a start. That's just the wordplay. There is so much more.

Society does give us roles - you cannot deny that. You cannot say that if we lived in a world without hierarchy and social positions that everyone would act the same as they do now ( and I mean by gender roles ).

And what is bat-shit crazy about saying we love? What is bat-shit crazy about saying that we bear children and you cannot?

I am sorry that you do not value those things and cannot respect those who do.

- Not true. I was married to an MD, I have dated doctors, lawyers, etc. I'm presently over the moon for a successful finance executive. I need to have an intelligent woman who can hold a conversation. But, part of my definition of intelligent includes an understanding of the real world, as it is, not as we wished it would be. And that's what feminism is: a denial that men and women's body chemistry and physiology makes us VERY different people, and instead pretending that the culprit is "socialization".

The above quote is an odd definition of feminism.

Feminism is defined as a political philosophy that advocates the economic, political, and social equality of the sexes.

And what is your point? That gender differences cause women to initiate divorces and demand alimony?

Or That men don't want to be with women because women are actually ocelots? (I suppose that would constitute some pretty serious gender differences.)

And why are you asking people on this thread the question of "why should I risk getting married?"

Your sentances contain a lot of inflamatory remarks, but I cannot identify your thesis sentence.

1) "- Who said I wanted to hold a conversation with you??"

You came to this site, to this comments section which is, really, a delayed conversation between the readers of this blog. You entered into a conversation with all of us and told us we needed breast implants.

2) "Troll = someone who holds a worldview that conflicts with my feminist agitprop view of the world. I HATE that!"

I've had perfectly polite arguments with plenty of men and women who disagree with feminism as they see it. I've changed many minds and expanded my view of what feminism "works" in current social context. But to have a reasoned argument necessitates that one's opponent actually be interested in conversing and debating. Unfortunately, because of the contexts in which I find myself, I am often in the position where I am arguing with someone who behaves like a spoiled brat. They dominate the conversation, interrupting other people, pretending every broad reasoned statement is a person attack, make gross generalizations and inappropriate personal comments about the other person's weight, appearance, intelligence, sexual orientation, and ability to find partners. They also refuse to hear any argument on which they are proven wrong.

Now, let us take a look at your approach to responding to my comments. You culled from a long, reasoned post:
a joking comment I made about ocelots and a reference to my breasts. What do you think it says about you when you only find it necessary to respond to those two statements?

Whoops. I cross-posted with Felix.

So I think Felix's thesis is a two part claim:

1) America should have fault-divorce. and

2) This site has a double standard.

#2 is rather vague. And I haven't been reading this site very long. I have noticed that feminist blogs do sometimes attract a rather particular type of man who has personal issues with women. I have no idea if this parody site is involved in that kind of behavior.

As for #1. What exactly would constitute fault divorce? In the early 19th century it involved the person at fault not being able to re-marry. That person, however, often entered into common law relationships anyways. That seems like a bad idea it created a legal mess for the new non-legal family.

In terms of property division I like the property laws based on Latin law rather then Anglo Saxon law.

Under Roman law the woman's family retained what was hers and the man's family retained their own property. In that way the family lines attempted to maintain their own property. If a woman died without children, her property reverted back to her own family.

Under Anglo-Saxon law the husband had a greater claim to the property of the woman, even if she died without children.

States originally owned by France or Spain are based on Roman property law. (California, LA, ect.)

And now that men are, for the first time, training their sites on the destructive hate movement that feminism has morphed into...all I can say is, MY GOD, wait and see what we achieve in that regard!

ok - I've lost the strain of thought again here. It seems to have degenerated into "men are cool and have accomplished a lot."

You're very angry at an undefined feminist movement. You're not pointing to a specific person or institution or law or organization.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Are you angry at Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony?

I wonder what in the world are you so angry about?

I was not implying that men do not love or that women alone should take credit for civilizations. I was saying while men concentrate on domination over land and other things ( a generalization - before you jump on me for that ) women are more compelled to serve the community rather than go off war-mongering ( also a generalization ).
It is one of those inherent differences you purport - testosterone and estrogen.
But those roles have also been enforced by society.

Please stop saying that feminists hate men. WE LOVE OUR MEN. How could we not? What we dislike is the inferiority that has been placed upon women around the world. Research India, the Middle East, heck even Western countries. Okay - enough about that.

Men have not done all in building the world we live in - but they are in power, so they dictate and control what is written about who made or discovered or won this or that. Or at least that was the case up until about a hundred years ago.
Have you ever heard of what Lise Meitner did to help prove Einstein’s most renowned theory? How about the genius of Emilie du Chatelet? What about the myriad’s of ancient Greek women whose discoveries were repressed or stolen?

Listen, Felix, I actually like having these debates with you. I am beginning to suspect that you are not the jerk that you at first seem to be. But I think it is very sad that you want to destroy an "institution" that you have such a misleading idea about. Because no matter what you believe I would not attack you for it or go on a crusade to topple you from the imaginary hill you sit upon. Why must you feel the need to destroy? Why not attempt to understand or get to know us?

Defined BY WHOM? By you? By other feminists? I'm the sure the KKK, the Communists, and other groups had their own "definition" of what they were. ("The Ku Klux Klan is a peaceful organization seeking solutions to societal disharmony via the promotion of bleached textile products...").

If you'd like a specific: Read the "Declaration of Sentiments" signed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Frederick Douglas in 1848.

There's nothing to talk about if you don't define your terms.

You are welcome to define your terms. I'm just trying to figure out what your argument is.

Wow - I just read Felix's 4:26 post.

The thread just jumped the shark.

Sorry everyone. I shouldn't have engaged.

So, felix wants us to realize that men and women have different physiologies. I don't think anybody would argue that we did not. However, felix needs to realize that physiology is also unique to the individual - genetic variation means that proteins will be expressed at different levels in different individuals, making our physiology ever-so-slightly different. The environment also plays a part in gene expression, adding another variable. So assigning behavior to people based on physiology isn't foolproof.

I honestly believe you do. But I believe most of the leadership of the femmie movement, which has a strong lesbian component, does in fact ***HATE*** men.

and, like a lot of people's beliefs, yours is wrong. i was raised by a feminist and have feminist and non-feminist lesbian friends and all of us have a lot of love for each other. and i'm a man... woopdie-fucking-do! i mean, really. i haven't met a single feminist or lesbian yet who hates men. you appear to be basing your viewpoint on a segregated experience, because feminists and lesbians are people - and people tend to get along with agreeable people, pretty straightforward. even people in leadership positions (in fact, more so of people in leadership positions, because being a leader means being able to make friends and influence people *nod to dale carnegie*)

finally, i don't think anyone's ever argued that men don't average taller heights and larger weights than women. i also don't understand what that has to do with anything.

i mean, what people are most concerned with is the definition of "gender", which is, according to mirriam webster:

the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

i think i remember you posting something about how people, on blogs, redirect conversations by conflating unrelated arguments. well, here's a prime example. no one on feministing is arguing that men and women are physiologically identical. so why are arguing that they aren't?

mind you, physiology doesn't necessarily determine behavior or social involvement or even intelligence. such social interactions are constantly being fought out in the whole nature/nurture argument, but it's indefensible to say that social structure plays no part...

anyways, i don't really understand why i'm arguing with you... or anyone is... i mean, you just called susie b anthony a drunkard cunt and claim that the "leadership" of the very amorphous feminist movement are man-hating lesbians.

that's just silly.

.Also, you said "we raise villages". Which seems to take credit for civilization. And it makes me think back to a quote by Angry Harry:
“It is men who have produced the greatest works in all of the arts - literature, poetry, music, paintings, sculptures, films, plays, architecture etc.

Oh, that bastion of rationality and logic, Angry Harry. The art produced by men is worth the most, but whether it is the “greatest� is up to the individual. In fact, much of the art produced were worth shit at the time; like with many things, art becomes more valuable after people died. You don’t see much produced anymore and when it is, it isn’t as big of a deal. Much of it had to do with the times in which is was. Men were better educated, had more freedom, got more money; they had access to these types of things.

It is men who have progressed our understanding in just about all areas to do with science, engineering and medicine - astronomy, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, geology, cosmology, mathematics, economics, geography, climatology, aeronautics, pharmacology, surgery, computer hardware, software etc.

Yeah, and much of it is/was crock. For every man who came up with this awesome idea, there were many more who were completely off. In a Judeo-Christian society, the men are the head and women stay home, cooking his dinner. That is when most of this stuff (at least in the west, but your ethno-centricism - or, I should say Harry’s - is another matter) came in bloom. Plus, in the 1800s, upper-class women were encouraged to study physics and the like because it was considered “appropriate� (lest she do things like that of a WHORE! Like paint), while men would learn languages such as Greek and Latin. Only after it become about money and men got into (since they had money and didn’t have to spend all their time at home with the kids, and could leave when they wanted) it did it become as important as it is now. Oh, and that is completely ignoring the women who did contribute, or the many men who were given credit for things women did.

Now, it’s basically the same people doing those things, while everybody else - men and women - work away.

It is men who have built the houses, the bridges, the roads, the railways, the dams, the factories, the ships, the canals, the monuments, the airports, the churches, the offices, the tunnels, the engines, the industrial machinery etc.

Actually, much of that actual work was done by slave men because the powerful men didn’t always know what they were doing and wanted somebody else to take the hit when they fucked it up a billion times. This was true of every civilization. It’s about power.

It is men who have, rightly or wrongly, fought the wars, fought the crimes, fought the elements, fought the odds etc.

The men started the wars, kept women out (when they did; women have long fought in wars and still do in the east), committed most of the crimes, everybody fights the elements and the odds, it just isn’t considered as “heroic� when women do it as it usually has to do with her children and surviving bad conditions brought on by powerful men which, of course, they’re supposed to do and don’t get credit for. Its sad when people oriented tasks and achievements (mostly done by women, but men too) is devalued because it is “women’s work�.

And now that men are, for the first time, training their sites on the destructive hate movement that feminism has morphed into...all I can say is, MY GOD, wait and see what we achieve in that regard!

Just like men have been trying to pin down innate differences that justify inequality for years (and came up with idiotic things like eugenics and phrenology), there have been men who consider feminism an “OMG HATE!1!� movement for years. They try to use certain ideas of individuals to account for a whole ideology.

As for innate differences they still can’t; testosterone and estrogen - which both men and women have - respond to stimuli and brain activity is structured throughout life; if you raise men this way, that‘s how they’ll filter things. Same with women. Cross-cultural studies shatter essentialists beliefs. In Iceland, I believe, women are at the highest end of math performances because fishing is what brings in the money (which men do). “Women’s intuition� seems more like “subordinate’s intuition� when men are put in the presence of authority figures; when you have a dominate in a group, you just learn to know more about them. In certain Asian/Pacific Island societies, the men and women are equally as aggressive and/or peace-loving. In Madagascar, there is an isolated tribe of people where, like here, it is male-dominated. Now given how alone they are, there isn’t much news going on so the dominate ones (who are men) speak very indirectly to keep things going. A way that would frustrate people from most places of the world. The women, on the other hand, are taught to speak only very precise, very direct. Because of that, they are considered “irrational� and emotional. Funny, that. Heck, here they used to believe cognitive differences kept women out of things like medicine and even bar-tending.

There are innate differences, but more and more studies show that which actually exist and how/if they are realized in life depends on environment.

I don't mean physical/mental "inferiority." I mean the being considered inferior in a society just because of the difference in sex. Women have minimal rights in many countries overseas. And within the insitutions that have such hold around the world! Take the Bible - incredibly misogynistic. Did you ever hear the one where if "the child who is born is virtuous and good then he is surely his father's child but if the child is foolhardy and sinful then all blame rests upon the mother"? ( Not a direct quote, obviously, but there is a verse pretty damn close in the Bible - if someone knows what I'm referring to... ).

I'm serious - research some of the crimes against women. It's not pretty. We're not asking for pity - people just need to be aware.

Felix,

You never responded to my question of what exactly you meant by re-instituting fault divorce?

2) On Margaret Sanger and eugenics. The feminist movement has criticized the eugenics movement. In the 1920s that movement was quite popular. See, for example, Oliver Wendell Holmes's written decision in Skinner and his quote about sterilization and "three generations" of disabled people are "enough".

However, I am glad that people like Margaret Sanger pushed for the legalization of birth control. Feminists went to jail to suppport the legalization of birth control. Do you have a problem with the legalization of birth control?

Anyways: here's a current statement from NOW:

Since its founding in 1966, NOW's goal has been to take action to bring about equality for all women. NOW works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society; secure abortion, birth control and reproductive rights for all women; end all forms of violence against women; eradicate racism, sexism and homophobia; and promote equality and justice in our society.

(And by the way, - your "lavender threat" reference to lesbians was very Betty Friedan-esk.)

I can't wait! Surely within my lifetime.

ummmm....exactly WHAT can't you wait for?

"'Cause we really want to know." (Dayglo Abortions reference)

Ladies - I think this jig is up. We keep talking about one brand of feminism while Felix is talking about another. We're the fucking fems. - we're telling him about all the false claims to our name and trying to right them - but our words fall upon deaf ears ( or blind eyes ).

A lovely night to all.

Felix,

Go and stir your shit somewhere else. If you have nothing constructive to add, leave this generation to engage in constructive debate.

Although I doubt that you have a life, but if you do please live it elsewhere.

.Was there a trial and error process in achieving all of it? Sure. Does that mean that the successes don't ***GREATLY*** outweigh the failures??

Oh, wow. You’re so hung-up on beating on about men’s achievements that you missed my entire point. Your call.

You can pretend all you like about socialization, but contrary to what you have asserted and despite all the P.C. demogoguery that will occur

Right, and by “PC� you mean “not TC“. As in not traditional correctness, which is a cultural applicant extreme of traditional wisdom: what has been going on is a reflection of essentialism …and all the facts and findings pointing to the contrary is fake/political/wrong by virture of not falling in line with what is “traditionally� believed in a culture.

science is advancing steadily in proving how men's and women's brains work differently, how body chemistry is different, etc.

Erm, no. They’ve been showing that men’s and women’s brains filter things differently pretty well - and that the biggest difference is within the sexes - but they aren’t any closer to showing that differences are innate than they were back in the day.

And the end result will be the one you gals dread the most:
We will eventually conclude "Hmmmm...turns out traditional societies were correct...they are a bunch of tasks women are better suited for then men, and a WHOLE bunch of tasks that, empirically, on average, men are far more likely to succeed at then women". Someday, students will think of this feminist age the way we think of the Church's repression of Galileo. They'll say "I mean, can't you just LOOK at a man and see how he is physically MUCH better suited for some tasks than women?? Why did these IDIOTS in the year 2006 think those differences STOPPED with physiology??"
I can't wait! Surely within my lifetime.

*yawn* Please. It’s been on the table for over 100 years. Cross-cultural studies have already shattered many essentialist beliefs. While you’re getting off over that “great new world� in your head, I don’t suggest you hold your breath.

Felix,

I still don't know what you're looking for - of course men and women have different bodies. That's why women get pregnant and men don't. Who's arguing this with you?
---

Negativeland "I still haven't found what I'm looking for. I'm still looking."
----
On no fault divorce. In the 19th century Indiana was one of the first states to allow a quick no-fault divorce.

I doubt you'll get the courts to go along with that sort of fault-based property settlement. (And it's unconstitutional to dispossess someone of their property that they owned in full prior to marriage.) During marriage both partners take on the responsibilities for the debts and the property acquired together. And the creditors ain't going to let either party off for the debts acquired together. That's not in the interest of the credit card companies.

Like I said - I like the Roman-based law that governed property between husbands and wives.

Of course, the Roman based law originated in ancient Rome, so this sort of property division isn't a new thought. But it does give equal weight to both family lines that are joined in marriage.

-----

On men and women's achievements. Yes, men rock. So do women.

And the slaves built the pyramids. Yea, humanity!

Quite frankly, until very recently the majority of the population, men and women, were involved in agriculture. Most people were peasants and not doing anything special -- aside from farming the land and surviving on a everyday basis. Most people were illiterate. Most people were not in positions of power. Most people did not own property and could not vote.

first off, felix, what i was speaking to was actual people, human beings, real, human contact. yeah. crazy. as opposed to having your entire concept of a huge group of people be mediated (and thus, completely and entirely open to manipulation by that source of mediation) - i mean talking to people.

i have never never met a man-hating feminist or lesbian. and i've spoken/corresponded with angela davis, adrienne rich, sonja sanchez, gloria steinem and several other really inspired and well-known people.

yeah, wow, personal contact. that's what i mean by "segregated". when you don't know people of whom you're speaking, your entire experience is mediated and you (or whomever is mediating the experience for you) can twist things up in whatever way.

for example, your quotes all seem really convincing at first glance; however...

1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" (National NOW Times, January, 1988).

2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" (Sheila Cronan).

3. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" (Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989).

4. "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole...patriarch!" (Gloria Steinem, radical feminist leader, editor of MS magazine).

5. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men.... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism," November, 1971).

in any case, i don't know any of these women and neither do you. further, you haven't even read any of the speeches or books that these quotes have been taken from. how do i know this? because i see the same list repeated in several MRA sites... so, unless you wrote the original list, you're just repeated excerpted information verbatim... which i guess goes to show that the MRA world is a lot more monolithic (or is that paleolithic?) than the feminist world.

seen, feminism contains a lot within it - a lot more than the 1970s white north american variety your list showcases some extreme examples of. it appears that your particular brand of "men's rights" is all about repeating talking points.

which is why, if you go back to this thread, you'll see that one study you kind of cited actually doesn't even say what you were purporting it to say. because the statistics pulled from it were out of context.

just to clarify, that was a study that stated that "out of
roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989,
about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive (usually
insufficient high molecular weight DNA to do
testing), about 2,000 tests have excluded the
primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or
included the primary suspect", which you thought meant that 40% of rape cases are false accusations. however, if you read the entire paragraph, you'll see that those numbers come out of a selection of rape cases which were already considered suspicious.

but, as you hadn't read the actual study because you were just repeating your talking points and not doing any real laborious research, you wouldn't know that, would you?

that's why i think lazy academia is the most threatening thing to the modern world - you take something and just repeat a part of it over and over again and you can create a world founded on delusion. it's absurd. totally friggin absurd.

thanks for being so absurd. i think i'll go put a urinal in a museum now.

geoduck2, great point about the "lavender threat". so wild that felix's view of feminism as one great man-hating lesbian entity doesn't really explain how NOW's leadership, not so long ago, saw lesbians as a huge threat.

yeah, funny... like i said before... funny that kind of makes me want to throw up.

This discussion seems to have come a long way from the original topic...

My question is, that even if you accept the premise that there are innate differences between men and women that influence our psychologies (not saying that I believe this personally), how does it in any way, make what David Usher is saying less odious?

Firstly, since it seems to be at the root of most of the latter part of this discussion, the comment about how women are supposed to be "sweet and feminine" being linked to innate differences which reflect bodily differences is a bit silly, becasue even if those differences were there, women who keep their bodies in a natural state-- ie: not shaving legs/armpits etc, not wearing makeup, not wearing footwear that cripples our feet, letting the saggy bits sag when it's time, etc, are the ones who are likely to be designated as unfeminine, unattractive and unsweet, and quite probably thought to be feminists and/or lesbians regardless of what political beliefs they may hold or their sexual orientation.

Secondly, and more importantly, how would proof of innate differences that mean that men are better at things like maths, and women better at disciplines from the humanities for biological reasons (again, not saying that I believe this), validate what Usher is saying in the least way? He's saying that it's okay (even natural) to assume that a woman is lying when she reports a gang rape, after having shown up at a hospital with injuries consistent with her story? He's saying that any person, but particularly women who do believe her, are feminists who are trying to control the world, and push men out of their own families (because this is relevent to a rape case HOW?)

In spite of these "innate" differences, however, which presumably posit women as being more intuitive than men, no woman's assertion that an ex is a jerk is to be trusted-- even though she is likely to have spent months or years being intimately associated with her ex, this assessment can only be considered valid upon observing the way in which the ex behaves towards casual aquaintences, particularly towards males (because of course the ex is likely to behave exactly the same way towards a casual male acquaintance as he is towards a woman that he's dating).

Finally, just a couple of notes on my personal beliefs-- I don't believe that there are innate psychological or mental differences between men and women, but I acknowledge that physiolgical differences must necessarily result in different cultural practices at times, particularly regarding things like menstruation and pregnancy (though I don't think this means that women are innately more suited to staying at home with the kids then men are-- the physical connection of the umbilical cord is cut at birth after all). When these cultural differenes end up being valued in such a way, however, that women are designated as man-haters because they don't act "sweet" and want to see justice done to a rape victim... that is when you need feminism.

Personally, too, I would love to see more equality in custody agreements. I think that this will come about when there is more equality in the home, particularly regarding the primary care-givers of children. I think you'll find that when there are as many stay-at-home dads as there are stay-at-home mums, there will be as many cases in which the father gets custody as the mother.

"And it's unconstitutional to dispossess someone of their property that they owned in full prior to marriage".

Well, I'm not a lawyer. And none of my friend or family have been divorced, so I don't have any personal experience with it.

I only know a little bit of legal history about constitutional and property law.

I do know that it would take a tricky argument before SCOTUS to argue that marriage could undermine one's property rights.

(Fault divorce would disposess one of property because of non-criminal behavior. That would be a difficult constitutional argument to make. Property rights are a fundamental constitutional liberty which the court would examine with strict scrutiny. In other words, I doubt the court would rationalize the negation of property rights for an entire class of people for non-criminal behavior.)

Just for the record:

David Usher is an insane nut case. But very, very amusing.

(Run! Run boys, run from the feminists and strippers! Run little boys!)

And I think it would be fun to be an ocelot. But if I could shapeshift - my first choice would be a cat. I'd go sleep in a sun beam.

I am pleased you all enjoyed my article about Duke so much. There is a lot more where that came from.

Feminism is a dying cult -- far different from the days when my great grandmother organized the "Wall of Shame" march that brought about the passage of the 19th amendment.

There is no future in a cult that is based on hate of men and fascist class warfare.

When you all get sick and tired of being sick and tired, you will find a much happier future joining the human race and simply enjoying having a decent man in your life.

Of course, this is impossible until you become a recovering feminist -- which I have been working on for about 18 years now.

Under feminism, rules are more important than just having a decent relationship. That is a classic hallmark of a dysfunctional relationship.

Feminists sometimes think that having a doormat around the house constitutes a great relationship. Feminism's idea of patriarchal dominance is disgusting to normal men. That makes it pretty hard for you gals to find somebody you can have an eye level relationship with.

Which brings me to my final point: never argue with a feminist. She will drag you down to her level and beat you with experience.

So was that a parody of David Usher or the REAL David Usher?

I'm going to go tell my husband that our relationship is dysfunctional because we're feminists.

Bummer. I thought we were happy! :)

Run David Run! It's a feminist! And we believe in suffrage! BOO!

And I'm going to have to tell my husband that he is a doormat! Funny, I've always thought of him as a brilliant, wonderful man. Thanks, Mr. Usher, for informing me that I hate my spouse.

So sad that women have to reduce themselves to pretty, whining things to "merit" your respect.

For Dunga:

Jumping Jesus in go-go boots! Lets just step back and give this guy an award. Clearly he deserves one and wins this discussion.

- I recently spoke to an MD who had research in this area and he told me it was pretty much accepted in the scientific community.

Well, I’m convinced! Innuendo always does the job.

because i see the same list repeated in several MRA sites... so, unless you wrote the original list, you're just repeated excerpted information verbatim... which i guess goes to show that the MRA world is a lot more monolithic (or is that paleolithic?) than the feminist world.

If I was actually bothered enough by all that, I’d start pulling up quotes from individual MRAs and masculists.

So was that a parody of David Usher or the REAL David Usher?

I really don't know. The real David Usher at least made me laugh. But ... this Pod-David Usher is bone dry and his picture will probably be next to 'incoherence' if you were to look it up in the dictionary. Plus, I'm in a fine, quite fulfilling relationship. My boyfriend knows I'm a feminist. Maybe I should tell him he'd better run because, you know, David Usher knows better than every other man.

I loved the last bit in the last quote....
"Real women will support you in this. Be sure to include them in your work."
Wow. Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

Wow. Why the hell should men make friends with people that routinly mock them, denigrate thier culture, use racial slurs aganst them, and criminalize them as a whole for the crimes of a few???

Feminism has a good rep. but its modern goals are horribly anti-male.

Instead of taking a look at what feminism has become I guess it is a lot easier to plug your ears go lalala.

Or label every disenter a "whiney white man."

My prediction this kind of literature as ushers wont be limited to consevative sites or orgs for ever, because it is not all bullshit and the truth has a way of comming out.