Wow. I'm kind of shocked. This piece literally looks like a cut and paste job from an iwf press release. Wackness.

Ohhh, dear. The Holier-than-thou and Christina Hoff Summers Brigade-

Framing? CHECK!
Talking-points? CHECK!
Hypocrisy? CHECK!
Straw-men? CHECK!

I wrote them too. Don't they know the IWF would take away their anal vibrators (reviewed in the same issue, with a lot more care)?

The sad thing is, it is possible to be both economically conservative and feminist, since while economic policy does affect women, there are also a lot of economic policies that are not particularly gender-specific.

But IWF is not economically conservative and feminist. They are economically and socially conservative, and decidedly anti-feminist. They "independent" part of their name is not about womens' independence, it is about peoples' independence in general from "government programs" and the like. Much like "ifeminists" and to some extent "feminists for life", theyre playing semantics and co-opting the title "independent woman" to mislead people about their agenda. That would be troubling even if I agreed with them because it shows a lack of respect for people who purportedly learn from their organization (i.e., even a conservative who heard their name for the first time would probably think they were a leftish feminist group).

But neither are they simply another conservative group. Because why a special organization for women? I thought conservatives were all against that sort of thing? I think it's clear this is specifically an anti-feminist group. The book they have featured on their front page is an attack on feminism. The entire organization is created on the premise of attacking feminism, specifically using women to attack feminism. This is not new.

So here we have come full circle. A group that calls itself the "Independent Womens Forum" is actually a group for women to attack feminism. How independent of them (/sarc). At least the Eagle Forum of the 1970s respected the public with a name that was not inherently dishonest.

Lastly, it's pathetic. If they really held true to their supposedly anti-feminist, pro-chivalry hearts, they would see no reason to shy away from common parlance and declare themselves "Traditional Women." The fact that they can't indicates a certain pitiful lack of conviction.

your above post (the original) is nonfactual

for example.

"IWF is a group that denies that gender inequality exists"

that is false. can u provide evidence (e.g. a cite) that supports your contention.

IWF does not deny that gender inequality exists.

how about some intellectual honesty.

iow, cite please...

From IWF's site:
"I question the basic premise of the contemporary American feminist movement: that American women are oppressed. I do not believe that women in contemporary American society are oppressed; they do not constitute a subordinate class. I believe American women are among the freest and most liberated in the world. It is no longer reasonable to say that as a group women are worse off than men.� – Christina Hoff Sommers, “Sex, Lies, and Feminism� speech, University of Chicago, January 2003

Well thank you for the article Ann I had been waiting for more detailed info on them, I can’t deny it seems that the iwf is as entrenched in conservative political agendas as the other feminists are in “progressive� liberal agendas.

I don’t like either for these same reasons.

These two sides have to get together and make a baby.
aims to combat the women-as-victim style of feminism. Instead of fighting for programs like welfare and affirmative action to help women get ahead, the IWF encourages women to be self-reliant and independent of big government.

By promoting free-market ideals, countering “the dangerous influence of radical feminism,� and defusing “corrosive feminist ideology� in American universities, IWF hopes to increase women’s political freedom and economic liberty.
Plus how they actually make good on the “feminism is about equality� thing and stick up for men.

If “liberal� feminism could just adopt just these practices, I would heart feminist girls! More people would get behind you.

I do respect the iwf for their damage control, it takes responsibility and fights to maintain it’s image and beliefs. Organizations that denounce the extremists and can admit to the problems within are more productive and credible IMO

I don’t agree with conservative social ideals, but I am no fan of wasting tax dollars on needless unfair programs either.

I set up the correctly that’s weird? sorry.

thanks for the cite.

fwiw, your cite does not say that gender inequality does not exist.

she does that say that, as a group, women are no worse off than men. that is a somewhat different thing. in certain respects, women are worse off. in others, they are better off.

it depends on which factors one concentrates on

men, for example, suffer far more workplace death and injuries, much higher suicide rates, much higher incarceration rates, much higher violent crime victimization rates, lower college matriculation rates, higher high school dropout rates, etc.

women, otoh, suffer much higher rape victimization rates, lower average wage rates, etc.

so, it is not to say that gender inequality does not exist.

it is to say that gender inequality DOES exist, but (and I agree with Ms. Sommers), that women are not the oppressed class, and men the oppressor class. that analysis is overly simplistic and incorrect imo

much higher suicide rates,

Successful suicide rates indeed. Unfortunately, men are taught to be less expressive of their feelings and often are insulted if they do so. There is strong evidence that has rang true over a long period of time that groups of people with less social solidarity are more likely to commit suicide. This is a problem - a serious one, at that - but to chalk it up to “gender inequality�? I don’t know if it can be categorized as such.

suffer far more workplace death and injuries,

Indeed that is a problem. However, who are the ones who don’t want to fix it? The men who run those places.

much higher violent crime victimization rates,

Yes, but they’re usually victims of men. This doesn’t suggest gender inequality, this suggests inequality within the genders.

women, otoh, suffer much higher rape victimization rates, lower average wage rates, etc.

We are more restricted sexually, we have the bigger burden of responsibility when it comes to birth control (which they are even trying to restrict), our work and experience (ie pregnancy) is devalued, we are held to different and higher standards, often times the traditional male experience is treated as default, “whore� “ho� “slut� “bitch� “shrew� “hormonal� and all these are slung at women and there are no corresponding terms for men due to beliefs and negative stereotypes so ingrained into our culture to this day.

it is to say that gender inequality DOES exist, but (and I agree with Ms. Sommers), that women are not the oppressed class, and men the oppressor class. that analysis is overly simplistic and incorrect imo

Men are victimized … but it is overwhelmingly at the hands of more powerful men. Ms. Sommers is the “boys will be boys� type and she doesn’t believe that rigid masculinity can cause social problems.

it sounds like we both agree, as to many of these stats. imo, it is clear that there is not one oppressed gender, and one victim gender. there are all sorts of inequality (of condition) between men and women. inequality of condition does not necessarily = inequality of opportunity. it also needs to take into account innate differences.

for example, (as mentioned in another thread), men are less risk averse than women. this helps explain disparate workplace injury/death rates as well as income inequalities to some extent too.

men are more likely, behavior-wise, to have greater deviation. we see more male geniuses and more male idiots (more men in the very high and very low iq levels) and far more men in mental institutions.

men are far less likely to be granted custody, as another example of inequality.

your last sentence somewhat begs a question. i note your terminology - "men are victimized". my point is that in many respects (cases of inequality), it is not necessarily due to some external force VICTIMIZING men (or women) but to factors intrinsic to the individual, and to the gender, in aggregate.

as to the risk averse thang. personally, i make money as a trader. this is a 100% gender neutral career (screen trading vs. floor trading). there are absolutely no discriminatory factors in my career. it is completely anonymous as to gender. if i press a button to buy or sell a futures contract, my gender is 100% irrelevant.

yet, my career is dominated (as far as i can tell) at least on a 10:1 basis men:women

no sexism accounts for this. it's at least partially a result of different career choices men and women make, as well as risk aversion and personality typing.

nobody can tell you (as a woman or a man) not to be a successful trader, nor does any individual (or institution) make any difference whatsoever to your success. only you succeed or fail. i'd like to see more women enter this field, but i have no illusion that sexism or oppression factors in the fact that women are vastly out#'d by men in this career. there are no gender barriers whatsoever.

just a thought there.

it sounds like we both agree, as to many of these stats. imo, it is clear that there is not one oppressed gender, and one victim gender. there are all sorts of inequality (of condition) between men and women. inequality of condition does not necessarily = inequality of opportunity. it also needs to take into account innate differences.

Well, women do appear to be oppressed to virtue of not falling in line with the experiences of men. Some men, on the other hand, are *consequently* oppressed for not walking a rigid line.

men are far less likely to be granted custody, as another example of inequality.

Women are more likely to be the primary care-givers, though. Further, when contesting custody, men are granted it some 70% of the time. Women in custody and divorce cases are held to a higher standard than the men and can lose either way. For example, a woman can be seen as a “bad mom� for both having a boyfriend (“SLUT! Endangerment!�) and not having one (not providing a “strong, heterosexual environment�).

for example, (as mentioned in another thread), men are less risk averse than women. this helps explain disparate workplace injury/death rates as well as income inequalities to some extent too.

We don’t know that, though. We haven’t been able to identify any innate cognitive difference or male gene that accounts for any of this though they have been trying for years and years. Often completely turning their arguments around to suit new findings. People like Hoff Sommers like to pretend there is some magical gene. We know there is a larger variation within the sexes and we know although we can point to social factors accounting for certain things (often by doing cross-cultural examinations), there hasn’t been genes to identify certain things. I mean, years ago they tried to say innate cognitive differences kept women out of medicine and bar-tending. Now look what time has shown us? Men used to occupy positions such as secretarial work, teachers, and nurses … now they say women make up more of it due to our brains? Come on. Little perspective here.

On the other hand, I want to say, I do enjoy discussing this, pamps, without the likes of a certain few flying off the handle. ;)