Wow, she learned the word "dichotomy" this semester.

I used to write opinion pieces for my college paper--but they always had a point...and were somewhat informed.

Wondering why some women claim secondary status? It ain't feminism, its patriarchy. She read the intro to the Second Sex, apparently, but read on girlfriend, read on.

I think the party was referring specifically to John Vernon, who played "The Man" in I'm Gonna Get You Sucka; unfortunately, he already got fucked in 2004 by dying. Check your character actor obituaries, ladies!

"Modern women should consciously reject this age-old inferiority complex regarding men and shoulder the responsibility that equality entails."

Gosh, you know, I was just about to do that, but I came up about 33 cents short on my last paycheck...

An old argument. The person or group in power uses the term "equality" in reference to a current state of affairs, as if existing relationships are close enough to equal to warrant a total commitment to the reinforcement of those relationships.

That's fine if the relationships really are equal. If they are not, then fuck them for saying it! Fuck them for the explicit and implicit lies in proposing equality where it does not exist, for trying to prevent change in the direction of social equality, for trying to preserve power in the face of injustice.

I used to never use the word "fuck" in speech or in writing. But I've changed. It's such a wonderful word in so many ways.

I love how he simultaneously gets it, and doesn't get it at all. At one moment he's offended that they want to "fuck the man", but then acknowledges the meaning of the phrase. And then he's all of the sudden offended again. Then he suggests that by ignoring a problem it will go away and ends his masterwork. I swear, the ivy leagues attract twice as many morons as your average state university.

Michael, who's them?

Isn't he a she? Suppose it doesn't really matter.

I have all sorts of opinions about this, but I'm in the middle of an essay that's due tomorrow and all my power of articulation is going into that, I think.

So instead I'll just point out to Jeff that the article is actually written by a woman. Fair enough mistake I suppose since there isn't a lot of difference between "Justin" and "Justine."

Ah, another "feminists, please shut up" article in the popular style of "feminism is no longer needed 'cause we already have equality, silly!
*giggle, head tilt, bat lashes*
written (naturally) by a woman with privilege coming out her ass. Gosh, if it's true for you, it must be true for everyone, huh, sweetheart? Mission accomplished! Guess we can all go home now.

And I suppose there's really no racism anymore either. We totally have equality! Black people aren't slaves anymore and they can vote now, so obviously they just need to get over it and embrace their inherent inferi--er, blackness, right?

Fuckwit. How did you ever get into Harvard? Maybe it was that attitude of entitlement that sold 'em..?

"Michael, who's them?" - HotblackDesiato

"Them" is any person or group who uses narratives of equality as a form of predation.

I kept it generic because I don't want to single out any college student (woman or man) who may actually and honestly just be trying to figure things out.

Sorry...my bitch meter is set to "high" today. ;)

No need to apologize, Vervain. In fact, I suggest you keep the bitch meter set on "high" all the time. Everything you said was dead on.

I agree, Vervain, that was exactly what I was thinking.

*I* myself have never experienced sexism in my entire life, so, clearly, it must never exist!!

For me the highlight of the entire article is this:

a false male-female dichotomy

Yup! Way to "make-up" a dichotomy between the sexes. Clearly just a creation of um ... who, again?

What bullshit.

Oops. Read right past that one. Justine... gotcha. Well, anyways, I would have said the same thing.

"'Them' is any person or group who uses narratives of equality as a form of predation." - Michael Harold

So, people who believe there is discrimination/inequality but who pretend there isn't for some other end?

That's a pretty tightly defined "them". Happy that I am excluded from the fuck you-ing.

Off topic: can I just say that I love that little girl? I've seen her picture around before. Who is she? What's her story? She's totally awesome.

This author makes an excellent point, and it rings true for younger generations. People, such as myself, who were raised in an era where feminism has had a tremendous impact, find it unusual, and hypocritical, to give women special treatment and consideration. We realize that most of the complaints raised by feminists have little to do with individual rights and more to do with socialism. Oddly enough, many feminists do see, and support, a split between the genders. I remember back in the heiress article, EG, Donnadarko, and Cathrine Martell seemed convinced that I'm "privileged" because I have a penis, that this "privilege" disables me from truly understanding the plight of women, and, because the assets in the world are not split 50/50, that we should hold men and women to different standards. This presumption flies in the face of everything this nation stands for (I'm talking about America), and it smells like sexism. The Constitution guarantees the protection of individual rights by the government, not a piece of the pie.

I've noticed how feminists will focus on issues just because they're connected to women. In the weekly feministing reader, there was an article that girls are using inhalants more often. While this is a disturbing trend, as I've known people who got high off gasoline, every measure of current drug use trends show that girls have leveled off, while boys have seen a significant increase in the use of ALL drugs. Here, feminists are looking at women for women's sake. Nothing more. While it is good to make sure that portions of the population are not overlooked, when you spend so much time focusing on only one gender, you will eventually forget to consider the other half of the species.

This is connected to numerous issues in society, from DV to family court, to appropriations of government spending, to scholarships. Social prejudices do favor women in many respects and feminists want more. When men raise their concerns, they're written off as misogynists, "trolls", or agents of the patriarchy. It's assumed that the only reason they'd object to feminist goals is because they're sexist. Such presumptions are, typically, only possible with and us-them mindset. This group solidarity is responsible for the wide-spread mistrust and disgust of feminism.

The key question we must all ask ourselves, a litmus test if you will, is the following. If all the institutions and special protections advocated by feminists were removed today, would society revert to a pre-feminism one? I suspect the answer from many feminists would be yes. I, however, see no reason to believe that it would. Too many minds have been impacted and shaped by the revelations of feminism. Entire generations have be raised to recognize, or at least consider, that women are equal to men. They are just as varied and individual as any man.

I'm sure that there are going to be many angry voices to my post. Just know, EG, Donnadarko, Catherin Martell, or anyone else, if you want to post hateful responses then I will not read them. There are only a few people on this forum I'll listen to because they have proven to be reasonable and non-sexist.

Ivy, you won't hear any "hateful" response from me. I'm too busy laughing my ass off at this gem:

I've noticed how feminists will focus on issues just because they're connected to women.

Shut down the blog! Litmus question vermilion alert!

I was going to post a comment about shirking my second class status but I have to go ask my husband first.

Dontcha just love how whenever member of oppressed group X (with X=women, non-Christians, non-Whites, or what have you) seeks to be treated on par with a white, male, straight Christian, the response, even from some other members of group X, is always "why are you asking for special privaleges for your group?"

Somehow, I guess, to treat a woman equally to a man is granting her a "special privilege": after all, "wimins should be treated like wimins, not like us menfolk". For a gay to want to marry a member of the same sex is a "special privilege": after all "marriage is for one man and one woman, so to let you marry someone of the same sex is breakin' the rules". Etc.

Just even delving into the mindset where equal rights are tantamount to special privileges, though, makes me want to say "fuck the man!". And I'm a white man (although I'm Jewish, so I guess my don't count except for when it comes time for some folks to make assumptions that I'm more pivileged than I am?).

i would think the difference between "fuck the man" and and "fuck men" should be quite clear.

EG, the little girl has also been the masthead for Bitch, Ph.D.'s blog. That may be where you've seen her before.

If all the institutions and special protections advocated by feminists were removed today, would society revert to a pre-feminism one? I suspect the answer from many feminists would be yes. I, however, see no reason to believe that it would.

WOW! WOW! WOW! Considering we live in a "post-feminism" (?) society with a government that, on a daily basis, seems to come up with new and creative ways to fuck us over, then I shudder to think what this country would be like should special protections advocated by feminists be removed.

and yes the irony of members of the highest echelon of privilege co-opting a phrase like "the Man" is not lost on me either.

I'm not that far out of college myself to be particularly judgmental about college students' belief systems from a developmental and cultural perspective, and I realize people have to learn sometime and somewhere, and young people's voices are important, blah, blah, but if you're age 19 or 20 and convinced you have some unique insight about the state of ALL human power relationships, not to mention sociopolitical dynamics extending back to the dawn of time, it's time to "check yourself." My guess is five years from now she'll be at a different stage of identity development and will be embarrassed that she wrote this.

"wimins should be treated like wimins, not like us menfolk".

They are actually saying "not like us people".

Just know, EG, Donnadarko, Catherin Martell, or anyone else, if you want to post hateful responses then I will not read them. There are only a few people on this forum I'll listen to because they have proven to be reasonable and non-sexist.

Oh noes! Ivy won't read my responses--well, that'll put me in my place.

Or something.

Thanks, Charity. I wonder if it's Bitch, Ph.D. as a child?

Ivy: I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that most feminism is somehow about socialism. There are certainly some feminists who advocate policies that may be socialistic in nature, but I don't think that feminism, in general, is particularly socialistic or capitalistic. Equality is equality, regardless of the economic policies you advocate. One of the biggest issues out there is the abortion debate, and that has nothing to do with socialism, and everything to do with individual rights.

I remember back in the heiress article, EG, Donnadarko, and Cathrine Martell seemed convinced that I'm "privileged" because I have a penis, that this "privilege" disables me from truly understanding the plight of women, and, because the assets in the world are not split 50/50, that we should hold men and women to different standards.

I'd have to look back at the thread to see what you mean, but I don't think that it's particularly controversial to suggest that I, as a straight white man, may have different experiences and may not have faced the same hurdles and disadvantages that someone of a different race/gender/sex/sexuality may have faced. In an ideal world, men wouldn't have unearned advantages over women. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world, and I recognize that I do have certain unearned advantages over most women. It does everyone a disservice to pretend that those advantages don't exist. It's only by talking about and dealing with the power disparity in the world that we can move towards equality. The reality is that men and women are treated differently. How we deal with that is something to debate, but "pretend it doesn't happen" isn't a solution at all.

I've noticed how feminists will focus on issues just because they're connected to women.

I'm not sure I understand the criticism. That's kind of the whole point of feminism- dealing with the issues that are connected to women and the challenges that women face. What issues, if not those, should feminists deal with?

While it is good to make sure that portions of the population are not overlooked, when you spend so much time focusing on only one gender, you will eventually forget to consider the other half of the species.

I just don't see this as a serious criticism. Men's issues are looked at as a matter of course. They're the default most of the time. When people study history, science, literature, the overwhelming majority of the things that are taught and studied surround men- male authors, men's acheivements, men's health. We're in absolutely no danger right now of men being lost to the conversation. We're still in a situation where women's voices have to struggle to be heard.

When men raise their concerns, they're written off as misogynists, "trolls", or agents of the patriarchy.

That's not been my experience at all. It's a matter of when and how you raise your voice. When you come to a website called "feministing" and start saying "what about the men? What about our issues?" then you're likely to meet some unfavorable results. This should be neither surprising, nor confusing. This isn't a site about men's issues. There are definitely issues that face men, and I think that there are conversations worth having about men's roles in a changing world. On a feminist website isn't the place for that conversation. I wouldn't think to go to a website for victims of child abuse and start complaining "but what about parent's rights?" Yes, there are parents who are abused by their children, and maybe they have a legitimate concern. On a site devoted to helping the survivors of abuse by parents is not the place to have that conversation.

It's assumed that the only reason they'd object to feminist goals is because they're sexist. Such presumptions are, typically, only possible with and us-them mindset. This group solidarity is responsible for the wide-spread mistrust and disgust of feminism.

The assumption tends to be a safe one because the vast majority of complaints like that tend to come from sexist jerks. The "us versus them" mentality is something that opponents of feminism have been working on for as long as women have been struggling to be heard, and has very little to do with feminist attempts at solidarity. It's a common tactic to marginalize a group that those in power are afraid of letting gain power. Creating the impression that the group wants something unfair, or that they've already made progress and should be happy with what they have? Oldest tactic in the book. It happened during the civil rights movement. It's happening now with feminism. It's happening now with gay rights. It's not a problem with feminism- it's a problem with those who benefit by the currrent inequities.

The key question we must all ask ourselves, a litmus test if you will, is the following. If all the institutions and special protections advocated by feminists were removed today, would society revert to a pre-feminism one? I suspect the answer from many feminists would be yes. I, however, see no reason to believe that it would. Too many minds have been impacted and shaped by the revelations of feminism. Entire generations have be raised to recognize, or at least consider, that women are equal to men. They are just as varied and individual as any man.

And yet, there are so many blatant examples of institutional sexism and inequality out there, still persisting. Women still make less for comparable work. Women still don't have equal access to positions of power. Women are still ridiculously under-represented in politics. Women still don't have equal access to positions in the military. Sexual assualt and domestic abuse are still major problems.

Women might not lose the right to vote, but they're constantly under seige to lose the right to control their bodies. It doesn't matter whether women would revert in position back to pre-suffrage times. It matters whether we've reached a state where women and men are treated as having equal worth. The overwhelming evidence out there shows that we have not reached that state.

I agree with the sadness and frustration expressed over this article. It seems to target feminism as the cause for inequality rather than the actual systems and people who reinforce women's status as "secondary."

That said, I can also sympathize with the author's desire for more women to see themselves as "primary" and even with her implicit desire to see sexism as an artifact of the past.

However, the problem with her argument, IMO, is that she has no basis for it in fact. There is no evidence to support what she argues. There are no studies showing that having Women's Centers or "Fuck the Man" parties actually do hurt women. On the other hand, we have multitudes of studies showing how sexism hurts women.

The one point I think she did make well was how important it is for girls and women to embrace a "primary" state of mind. I agree that this is something we should emphasize more. However, feminism is doing exactly that and ironically, I suspect the "Fuck The Man" party intended to send exactly that message to the campus.

Wow, Ivy. 2 cents.

I'm a man. I have a penis to which I am very attached. I don't apologize for my penis, or any other body part for that matter.

I also have numerous other categories of identity. Some of those categories are minority status categories. For example, my parents were a red-headed Scots-Irish Baptist mother and a hot-headed Mexican Catholic father. (BTW, whatever happened to Desi, Jr.?) Another example: I was raised in Louisiana, a place politically and economically better than Puerto Rico (in my opinion), not better (in my opinion) than California.

It's important not to claim foul when it's fair, but you shouldn't claim fair when it's foul either, especially not where the rights of human beings are concerned. Let's cut the crap. Things are getting better for women in America, but they have a long way to go. Women do not have the same rights and opportunities as men. America is not a sorority. It's a fraternity.

Cent two:

My Dad told me lots of things that have stuck with me like a tattoo. One of them was, "If they legalized slavery on the news today, you could right walk out the front door and see people in our neighborhood putting chains and guns in their trucks to go make themselves a lot of money." Equality is not something that you get and then go, "Good, that's done." For most people in the world and most people in America, equality is something that you have to fight for, day in and day out, forever.

I agree, Michael. A professor of mine said that "Feminism is like brushing your teeth; you have to do it everyday." It greatly annoys the fuck out of me when I hear folks telling historically oppressed groups to "get over it" and enjoy their "equality."

We should all remember that these grand notions of equality and individualism and freedom arose from the minds of wealthy, old, white men in the 18th century. You can bet your underprivileged ass that they didn't have women in mind when they wrote about how "all Men are created equal".

Our nifty liberal democracy is inherently incompatible with the idea of a "person" being anything other than a white, property-owning man.

oh, i thought it was an umber alert...

oh, yeah... ummm... browser just crashed, so, in the meantime, roymac and jason (and now michael and chris) covered most of the bases... you go, guys!

so i wrote something on the crimson's comment section. i suggest others do the same...

peace and blessings and big up to the four guys above me

PUCK!! (Yeah, I've missed your comments just a little)
xoJ

"For most people in the world and most people in America, equality is something that you have to fight for, day in and day out, forever."

WORD!!!!

EG,

Bitch posted about the banner photo just a couple weeks ago. It's a really interesting story. Here ya go:
http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2007/03/that-banner-picture.html

Just the fact "women shouldn't have the right to vote" has migrated from fringe web sites to townhall.com is a sign the beast is still lurking.

But no, Chris, there's nothing incompatible between liberal democracy and equality for all. But liberal democracy doesn't guarantee equality either.

First, I just have to say -- roymac, are you trying to make me fall in love with you, or does it come naturally? ;)

And, Shadow, it's not just at townhall.com. It was at my top-five law school, too. It goes all the way up there and, I'm sure, much, much higher.

Articles like Justine's frustrate me, but I don't think she's beyond hope. The article says she is class of '09, which would make her a sophomore in college. I know from experience that life can teach you a LOT you weren't aware of as a sophomore in college. When I was a sophomore, I'd led a wholly privileged and easy life, and I had views very much like hers. I was upper-middle class, white, and protestant. Yeah, I was female, but I didn't sense any REAL barriers to success well through the end of college (at least, none that couldn't be overcome through raw intelligence and a bit of hard work). It wasn't until law school that I REALLY and TRULY saw sexism at work and realized how wrong I'd been all that time.

It is a sad fact that many of us aren't "big enough," so to speak, to grasp oppression until we experience it. I WISH I had empathy -- but my feminism is wholly selfish. I am a bit ashamed that I did not accept the truth until I was hit over the head with it. But I think it's extremely difficult for some people to see oppression. Some will eventually observe it and realize it exists. Others might never understand where we're coming from. Sadly, some of us don't accept the truth of oppression until we're oppressed ourselves. Justine, if she takes her own advice and tries to succeed on her own merits, will come up against it sooner or later (unless she truly is one of those exceptional and lucky few whose unique combination of genetic gifts, money, and incredible good luck keeps her afloat and she becomes a token).

In a sense, then, I guess our best tack is to encourage all women to take Justine's advice: follow your dreams and chase success. And when you hit the glass ceiling, please come back and join the fight. Experience is often the best teacher.

First, I just have to say -- roymac, are you trying to make me fall in love with you, or does it come naturally? ;)

LF -- I have it on good authority that it just comes naturally to him...

She clearly doesn't understand what "the man" means.

Does anyone else remember that commercial where the older, white-haired, white male executive was talking to a younger white male assistant about his cell phone plan?

He discusses the advantages of his calling plan, and closes with:

Exec.: "It's my way of sticking it to 'the man.'"

Assistant: "But aren't you 'the man?'"

Exec.: "Yes."

Assistant: "So you're sticking it to yourself?"

Exec.: "Yes, I suppose I am."

Oooh I wish that was on youtube.

Ismone, that commercial cracks me up!

Seriously, she's taking it way too literally, even though she seems to at least be aware of what it actually means.

Does anyone have a link for "women shouldn't have the right to vote" on townhall.com? There's so much on that site I can't find the post.

I think she gets the fact that oppression is involved, but not the fact that it has more to do with race than sex. Also, I don't think she gets the fact that "The Man" is a sort of straight-laced, fun-sucking, corporate/government/authoritarian drone who has a lot of money and power but would not be much fun at a party. Unless, of course, it is used positively as in "You the man."

Law Fairy, your earlier comment (the longer one) sums up why I made the "bitch meter" comment after my initial comment. I felt guilty for loosing my venom on poor Justine, eager OP-ed writer and Harvard sophomore. We were all young and stupid once, and even us older types have stupid moments from time to time.

I'm sure she'll learn better in time. Once she graduates college, she'll find life has a whole new set of lessons to teach her.

First, I just have to say -- roymac, are you trying to make me fall in love with you, or does it come naturally? ;)

LF -- I have it on good authority that it just comes naturally to him...

It's true.
Excepting, of course, when I'm busy co-opting political views for easy sex- then it takes a little extra work. =P

Seriously, though- I don't think that it's that unusual not to be aware of oppression without experiencing it or seeing it firsthand. Our society makes it really easy not to believe that oppression is out there- it's like the myth of upward mobility- that idea that "if you try hard enough, you're bound to succeed." Hard work shouldn't be dismissed, obviously, but it's just not true that everyone could make it big, if only they tried hard enough. Even so, that's what we're taught, from a really young age. That makes it really easy to dismiss other people's experiences as isolated or exceptions- "Well, maybe you experienced that, but that's not what I've seen. It's probably got more to do with you than it does society."

I don't know. It's certainly not something to be proud of, but I don't know that it's very unusual or unexpected. It sort of makes sense to me.

For most people in the world and most people in America, equality is something that you have to fight for, day in and day out, forever.

Outstanding, and completely true.

"I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that most feminism is somehow about socialism. There are certainly some feminists who advocate policies that may be socialistic in nature, but I don't think that feminism, in general, is particularly socialistic or capitalistic."-RoymacIII

It is well known the earliest feminist writers favored socialism to capitalism. This is also reflected in the legislative desires expressed on this website. Many feminists would love national day care centers, paid sick and maternity leave, etc.. Some even endorse a bill which would put us under the authority of the U.N.! I forget the actual name of the law, but it was introduced during the Carter administration and, thankfully, has never been ratified. While individuals may vary, the majority of feminist lobby groups push socialistic legislation.

"'I've noticed how feminists will focus on issues just because they're connected to women.'

I'm not sure I understand the criticism."-RoymacIII

"Men's issues are looked at as a matter of course. They're the default most of the time."-RoymacIII

I've placed these two comments together because they're related, but I'll address each individually. My first comment, I know, perplexed many here. However, feminists frequently insist that they are fighting for gender equality. However, they are biased in this area, as demonstrated by your second comment. If you'll remember from my first post, I mentioned the disparity between the sexes with regard to drug use trends. The comment I've made, if kept in context, does make perfect, logical sense. Men's issues are not the "default" issues in our society, and they haven't been for many decades.

"It does everyone a disservice to pretend that those advantages don't exist. It's only by talking about and dealing with the power disparity in the world that we can move towards equality."-RoymacIII

I agree with you here, Roymac. We need to discuss power disparities, but our society has spent many decades discussing how men are powerful and women are weak. We need to discuss how women are powerful and men are weak as well. These power disparities do need to be addressed but in a way that does not infringe upon the individual rights of others. "The path to hell is paved with good intentions."

"...the overwhelming majority of the things that are taught and studied surround men- male authors, men's achievements, men's health."-RoymacIII

What is taught and studied in school are IDEAS, not genders. Have the ideas of women been historically censored? Yes. However, this does not mean that contemporary schooling has not caught up with the times. If anything, I've noticed that schools, from middle into college, always have special segments which FOCUS on the historical oppression of women. I've always been offended by this approach because there was an invisible finger pointing at me accusingly. I've mentioned this before on this blog, but I've only recently encountered a textbook that takes a fresh approach to this issue. The author did not put emphasis on the historical oppression of women; rather it was mentioned and the contributions of women were elegantly woven in among those of men. Ideas were praised and emphasized, not genders. It was very refreshing and that finger was gone.

"There are definitely issues that face men, and I think that there are conversations worth having about men's roles in a changing world. On a feminist website isn't the place for that conversation"-RoymacIII

Actually, Roymac, there is no better place to have these conversations. Without them, group-think sets in along side group solidarity. As everyone knows, the group is capable of atrocities that the individual is not. Take abortion for instance. This is a legitimate area of concern that feminists should focus on. People are in charge of their bodies, they are their property, and they should be free to do with it as they wish. However, I've seen feminists on this very blog insist that the individual rights of these women should supercede the individual rights of doctors. They object to the conscience clause of bills. We cannot compel doctors, or any individual, to do things which are against their conscience, so long as their original actions did not interfere with the practice of another's individual rights. It is true that doctors are required by the Hippocratic Oath to aid those in need of emergent care. However, in all the clamor, what entails emergent care has been shouted out. An emergency are those situations where the life of an individual is at risk. While a victim should be treated for any life-threatening conditions after a rape, her probable pregnancy is not life-threatening. However, if a doctor lies about the availability of EC, then that doctor is violating that patient's rights. If the doctor has conscience qualms about delivering EC, they can pass that responsibility on to a nurse or other doctor (however the law mandates). As with everything, the individual rights of EVERYONE must be protected. Controversy and objection are necessary to ensure that "the group" does not enable individuals to violate the rights of others.

"The assumption tends to be a safe one because the vast majority of complaints like that tend to come from sexist jerks. The "us versus them" mentality is something that opponents of feminism have been working on for as long as women have been struggling to be heard, and has very little to do with feminist attempts at solidarity. It's a common tactic to marginalize a group that those in power are afraid of letting gain power. Creating the impression that the group wants something unfair, or that they've already made progress and should be happy with what they have? Oldest tactic in the book. It happened during the civil rights movement. It's happening now with feminism. It's happening now with gay rights. It's not a problem with feminism- it's a problem with those who benefit by the current inequities."-RoymacIII

No offense, Roymac, but this sounds like a marginalizing tactic. As Chris Rock said, "Anyone who makes up their mind before they learn about the issue is a fucking fool!" Not that I'm calling you a fool, but just because sexist jerks have used this argument in the past does not mean that everyone who uses it is a sexist jerk. The "us versus them" complaint is a valid one. They are the rules of the social world. Ask any social psychologist. If you think I mentioned this fact to undermine the pursuit and protection of individual rights for women, then you've missed my point. I raise this issue because it is perfectly possible, perfectly reasonable, to assume that feminists are human beings and will behave like human beings. One of those dangers is sexism and racism. The unreasonable reliance upon prejudices. I believe that anyone should feel pride in the pursuit of individual rights and freedoms, especially if they're being undermined. There will always exist people who wish to undermine the rights of their fellow man, regardless of sex, race, or creed. And we should be happy once we achieve those rights. One of those rights is the right of association. We have the right to hang around only those people we want to. There are many women only colleges in the U.S.A., many women only clubs and golf courses, even women only gyms. However, the minute a man only ANYTHING opens up, feminists are up in arms shouting "DISCRIMINATION!!!" Should those women only clubs and colleges be allowed to exist? Absolutely! But we must preserve the SAME rights for all citizens. As I've stated earlier, we need to discuss the ways men are powerful and the ways women are powerful. We need to discuss the ways men are powerless and the ways women are powerless. Without dissenting views, self-serving and negativity bias will naturally set in and enable the creation of illogical, harmful conclusions. This can be predominantly seen in the religious community. Let's face it, it may be men who occupy the seats of power in governments trying to infringe upon the individual rights of women, but it is not misogyny that drives them. It's the religious conviction that any conception is an act of god, that to destroy a created human life is a sin. The same principle is true for gay rights. Let's not unduly place blame here. It is the idea which must be fought, not the sex or "disparity of power". A female religious zealot will pass the same laws and verdicts.

"The overwhelming evidence out there shows that we have not reached that state."-RoymacIII

What evidence? The majority of "evidence" I've seen feminists present has either been anecdotal, inconclusive, or biased. The only way it's convincing is if you're a feminist or feminist sympathizer. Are we talking about the whole Wage Gap Myth? This one has been debunked many times. Perhaps those faulty archival studies about DV? This data has been horrible misconstrued over the decades. Or the "missing" female CEOs? Those studies don't analyze why there are less women. They just show census data. The same applies to the Wage Gap Myth. How many women actually apply for these positions compared to men? How do their qualifications measure up? It's perfectly possible that bias might play a role in the selection process. However, when was the last time NOW had a male president? If they ever did I'd be shocked.

As I mentioned in the PMS thread, logic, reason, and a healthy respect for the truth are what's needed, especially when the subject of individual rights infringement is the issue. Honestly, Roymac, I don't know what you're so worked up about my comments, or anyone else here for that matter. I am concerned that feminists spend too much time focusing on women. Not because I'm afraid of losing some mysterious power I'm entitled to, but because feminists are PEOPLE. They are not immune to the human condition, even when it comes to coercive prejudice and sexism. Understanding human nature does not make me a misogynist. After all, do you not become a little concerned when you see someone type 'women' as 'womyn'? Does this not illustrate a contempt for 'men'? So much so that they'd eliminate the record of their existence?

Does this apply to all feminists? Certainly not. Does sitting around in isolated groups without dissenting voices enable the rise of such contempt? You betcha.

"After all, do you not become a little concerned when you see someone type 'women' as 'womyn'? Does this not illustrate a contempt for 'men'? So much so that they'd eliminate the record of their existence?"

Good Lord, I may have to quit humor-blogging after this one. Can't compete!

Ivy,

Your thoughts on equality and rights would certainly apply if the two groups in question (in this case, women and men) began from equal social, economic, and political positions. However, this clearly has not been the case. So your examples of reverse-sexism are not valid, because for men, the whole world is a "men's-only" club. I'm speaking generally, of course; as you pointed out, there are women's-only institutions--but these should not be seen as examples of discrimination against men. Rather, they offer women a space in which men are not the dominant social group.

To use an extremely crude analogy, it's like the slaveowner claiming the slaves are prejudiced against him. The power relations between the two groups renders such a claim meaningless, if not absurd.

Ivy, that's a big comment so I'm going to miss a lot but I feel compelled to respond in part.

First, I noticed nothing in Roymac's comment that looked like he was getting "worked up." On the contrary, he responded very rationally and logically.

Second, it's hardly the case that there are no dissenting voices here. Feminists disagree on a LOT of things, which is why it's particularly annoying when people come in here and say "feminists do X and therefore feminists are bad" (I'm not accusing you of doing this, but it happens quite a lot). Bringing up "dissent" as though allowing for reasonable disagreement on issues means opening up the floor to just anything misconstrues the purpose of this blog. Feminism, yes, strives for equality. That's an accurate assessment of its very broad end-game goals. However, obviously, its focus is on women's issues. Feminism's focus is on the oppression and inequalities historically perpetrated against WOMEN. These inequalities have NOT been eradicated yet. Obviously you can disagree with this, but you don't run this blog, so you don't get to tell the authors what to focus on.

When you come on here and say things like "feminists spend too much time focusing on women," do you understand how fucking OFFENSIVE that is? Roymac is correct that the default for most things is male -- most likely the reason you don't notice it is precisely because it is a DEFAULT. When people talk about women, it's CLEAR they're talking about women because they MAKE it clear they're talking about women. When people are talking about men, they'll just say they're talking about people.

Thus, we have attorneys and female attorneys. Rarely do you hear "male attorney" or "man attorney" but you'll frequently hear "female attorney" or "woman attorney." Same thing with doctors. Same thing with pilots. Same thing with CEOs. Same thing with engineers. Same thing with scientists. The BASELINE, the DEFAULT for all these things is male (exceptions: nurse, secretary, and teacher, all considered to be subservient to , respectively, doctor, businessman, and principal -- all default male). Indeed, the ONLY reason anyone focuses on women ever, at all, is thanks to the work of feminists to demonstrate our exclusion from the public sphere for so long. The problem is that, instead of exposing invisible bias, we've simply visibly compensated. Thus people say ridiculous things like "women are adequately represented or overrepresented" today when this is untrue. Women are more VISIBLE because we are not the DEFAULT. If you put a black person in a sea of white people, suddenly everyone notices the black person. S/he is more VISIBLE. But the default is still white.

(And speaking of Chris Rock, I'm officially no longer a fan of his after his gauche, unprovoked assault on white women and feminism on SNL last weekend. Next thing you know he'll be throwing around "f****t" and saying, "black people have it worse, so I get to do that!")

You seem to think women have some sort of power we hold over men. Okay, I'll bite. What power do we have that makes men powerless? And please don't say "sex" -- that's heteronormative, based entirely on anecdotal evidence, and cliched.

I think one of your last throwaway statements really captures a lot of what you're missing about feminism. You say that spelling women as "womyn" somehow illustrates contempt for men.

And, please, Ivy, I need you to understand that I find a lot of what you said EXTREMELY offensive, but out of courtesy for you (i.e., not contempt) I'm not blowing up right now, even though it's very tempting to do so.

"Womyn" is not contempt for men. It is, rather, an assertion of female identity that does not rely on men and otherness. It is a way of asserting feminine individuality and independence. Imagine if men were called, not "men," but "hewomen." In other words, the very DEFINITION of what a man is depends on women. Men are linguistically "like women, but __." In other words, WOMEN would set the default, and men could meet it or not -- but make no mistake: it all rests on women. Yes, we can reclaim language, but that's a fuckload of work. There's nothing anti-man about "womyn," unless there is something anti-man about female individuality and self-assertion.

Law Fairy, I truly applaud you patience.

Hasn't Justine heard of lesbian feminist separatists? Our slogan is more along the lines of "DON'T fuck the man."

"...as you pointed out, there are women's-only institutions--but these should not be seen as examples of discrimination against men."-Chris

What do you mean they shouldn't, Chris? Is discrimination bad or not? If it is, why do you insist on a double standard? If you are not willing to commit to a moral standard then you have no reason to proclaim ANY allegiance to equality or protection of individual rights.

I'm very late to these comments, but...

"I've noticed how feminists will focus on issues just because they're connected to women."
--Ivy

Well, what else would feminists focus on? Not much would get accomplished if the entire movement was concerned with the flight patterns of unladen European swallows.

"What do you mean they shouldn't, Chris? Is discrimination bad or not? If it is, why do you insist on a double standard? If you are not willing to commit to a moral standard then you have no reason to proclaim ANY allegiance to equality or protection of individual rights."
--Ivy

It's called CONTEXT. Ivy, you appear (imo) to adhere to something like Platonic ideals, where the pure idea is important. If there are female-only institutions then they are just as discriminatory as male-only institutions. The abstract idea of discrimination is what applies.

However, getting away from abstracted moral codes--which are obviously useful but not always so great when applied to gritty reality--one might see that women are systematically taken advantage of by men. They are paid less, subject to more abuse and violence, and generally looked down upon in our culture ("women's work," "stop being a pussy," "you throw like a girl," etc. to just name a few choice phrases that men share). So, perhaps female-only institutions are not so much a mirror-image form of discrimination but instead a refuge for women to develop on their own, outside the often corrossive effects of mainstream culture.

To repeat: CONTEXT.

Bolo,

But what is your favorite color?

You had me at "unladen European swallow"...

Another comment on the equality/discrimination issue. I think it's important to distinguish two different kinds of equality: there's formal equality (e.g., "all men (lol) are equal" before the law) and there's substantive equality. Formal equality seems to be what Ivy is talking about. Formal equality, put very simplistically and imperfectly, means that an alien (um, who spoke English) could peek in at our laws and rules and institutions and see, these laws, etc. don't make any distinctions among people based on X. Therefore, there is no discrimination/inequality based on X.

Substantive equality is different. Substantive equality takes into account socio-cultural background and approaches a society with the understanding that it may be that not everyone in a heretofore rule-less society is equal. Thus, in creating laws, someone concerned about substantive equality would evaluate the laws based on how well they account for pre-existing inequalities.

Neither of these perfectly explains our system, as we have elements of each. There are also some forms of inequality that are accepted largely without question -- e.g., "qualification" as approximated by educational background, intelligence as approximated by IQ and/or educational background, socio-economic status, etc.

Bolo and EG, just make sure you stay away from Camelot. It's a silly place.

This website is not the end-all be-all of feminism. This site tends to have a particular leaning, but I've not seen anywhere where the authors here claim to be the Arbiters of Feminism- they're not the sole dictators of what Real Feminism is, and it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that this site, or the people on it, represent the Real Feminism, or that the handful of broad social issues you cherry-picked represent the sum-total, or even the majority of, feminist concerns. You deliberately ignored several of the rather high-profile issues that feminists tend to concern themselves with: abortion/reproductive rights, domestic violence, rape/sexual assault. All three of those are major issues, and all three of them involve serious consideration of personal rights.

Men's issues are the default in most cases. There are very few areas where men's issues take a back seat. Our entire society tends to be structured around a male perspective. More specifically, around a straight, white, male perspective. Look at, say, advertising. Sex sells, right?
Oh, no... wait... what that really means is "The object of straight white male's sexual desires sells."

As men, we have the benefit of not being made aware of our sex nearly as often as women are. When a male politician takes office, his sex isn't generally the first thing people notice about him.

Men still hold the majority of the power. When women are routinely denying men access to positions of power... when men make less than women for the same work... when men's reproductive health is constantly in danger because of women politicians actions... when men overwhelmingly face the dangers of domestic violence and sexual assault at the hands of women... maybe then we can start discussing how women have all the power.

Further: I don't think that I've seen even one place where the authors of this website have advocated infringing upon the rights of men. I've never seen evidence on here that the feministing group are trying to or advocate infringing on the rights of men. I've seen plenty of evidence that they want to bring women up where they belong, and that they're angry about injustices performed by men towards women... but I've never seen them suggest that men shouldn't have equal rights.

What evidence? The majority of "evidence" I've seen feminists present has either been anecdotal, inconclusive, or biased.

I'm not about to reinvent the wheel for you. If you've only seen anecdotal, inconclusive, or biased evidence, then it's because that's what you want to see. Rape rates, demestic violence rates, the wage gap, the continued efforts to remove women's right to choose, the continued commodification of women's bodies, the ridiculously low percentage of women holding positions of power and prestige relative to men... all that information is out there- and that's just touching on a handful of the issues facing women in the United States- let's not even get too into talking about the issues facing women around the world.

The only way it's convincing is if you're a feminist or feminist sympathizer.

Or a minimally decent human being. But, what do I know, I'm a sympathizer and socialist.

Are we talking about the whole Wage Gap Myth? This one has been debunked many times. Perhaps those faulty archival studies about DV? This data has been horrible misconstrued over the decades. Or the "missing" female CEOs? Those studies don't analyze why there are less women. They just show census data. The same applies to the Wage Gap Myth. How many women actually apply for these positions compared to men? How do their qualifications measure up? It's perfectly possible that bias might play a role in the selection process.

That clears that up. You're going to see what you're going to see- it's clear to me that nothing I can say is going to influence you a bit. The studies are out there, the evidence is overwhelming. If it were just one issue or another, you might have a point, but it's issue after issue. We're talking about a pattern- the systematic oppression of women. But, sure, maybe you're right- maybe the disparity is just because women aren't trying hard enough. That's probably it.

Not because I'm afraid of losing some mysterious power I'm entitled to, but because feminists are PEOPLE.

If only more people treated women like people, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. How nice would that be?

Does sitting around in isolated groups without dissenting voices enable the rise of such contempt? You betcha.

It occurs to me that maybe the issue is with you not with feminists. See, I'm a man. I've made no secret of that fact, and I'm pretty sure that most of the regulars on here are aware of that. I've never once felt anything but welcome here. I'm respectful of the fact that this is a feminist website devoted to feminist issues. I've never felt any contempt directed towards me because I have a penis. In fact, I've been sort of uncomfortable at times with how welcoming people have been.

So, if you're feeling a lot of contempt directed towards you, I'd say maybe that's something you need to work out. By and large, I notice plenty of dissenting voice and plenty of discussion on issues even without someone bringing up a "what about the men?!" comment.

From the Crimson page's comments:

I am appalled by the number of readers who cannot seem to disagree with your position on effective feminism without resorting to name-calling and attacking your writing style.

Appalled? Number? Total comments was 17 when I visited. Some of the responses were stupid personal attacks, but you're going to get a little of that in any Internet forum. They were balanced by a larger number of well articulated and intelligent rebuttals to the piece.

Contrast this with the comments in an op-ed piece at a nearby university where dozens of Fark gentlemen openly advocated raping the author of a (admittedly youthful and extremely outraged) feminist observation piece: link via Twisty Now that's appalling.

This "privilege" disables me from truly understanding the plight of women and because the assets in the world are not split 50/50, that we should hold men and women to different standards.

No time to read the usual BS from Ivy plus the usual wonderful comments from my friends but I'd like to reiterate what I said in this thread

Women own 1% of the wealth in the world.

So conservatives should not tell women to take "personal responsibility" for women's issues, men should not expect women to support them or pay for dates. One more thing...

Women own 1% of the wealth in the world.

So the word "golddigger" should be struck from the lexicon until we approach 50/50 at which point we can reenter the word into our lexicon to describe both men and women.

What evidence? The majority of "evidence" I've seen feminists present has either been anecdotal, inconclusive, or biased.

Sure, it's "anecdotal" that women own 1% of the wealth in the world because I overheard my "friend", Barber Conable, President of the World Bank, 1986-1981, at a cocktail party for the glitterati in NYC circa 1986 tell a fellow banker that women owned 1% of the wealth in the world, earned 10% of the income and did 2/3 of the world mostly unpaid and the women were among the poorest of the poor. Anecdotal, my ass.

Or the "missing" female CEOs? Those studies don't analyze why there are less women.

"Missing CEOs?" I never heard that particular story. Women make up 2% of Fortune 500 CEOs. What else do you need to know besides this hard data? Women want to be captains of business but aren't because of inflexible corporate work-family policies and the Old Boys Network which mostly hires other white men.

Ivy,

Again, the discourse of discrimination simply doesn't apply to unequal power relations. Men have had (and currently have) plenty of institutions all to themselves--officially and unofficially. "Women's-only" institutions have been established to correct the gross, preexisting disparity between men and women, about which others here have already commented.

I read Ivy's comments. Conclusion: Ivy is an idiot. Ivy, context. Platonic ideas alone = echo chamber, vacuum. I look forward to reading the PMS thread he mentionned to laugh some more.

Law Fairy, I appreciate your patience.

Of course, I'm going to disagree with you that the default of everything is male. I have never recognized this a something to be true and no one I've ever talked with has. And I haven't had as special exposure to anything. I was raised of TV for Christ's sake! Rarely have I heard someone say something like "female doctor". The couple of times I have I've raise my eyebrow and had to suppresses a snicker. How often do we actually hear these insulting word-plays? Not often I assume. I bet if everyone here spent the next month just counting the number of times they heard such comments the number would be less than ten. I am, of course, talking about ordinary life affairs. No cheating by going to any sexist locals.

As for telling the administrators of this blog what to write about, I was doing nothing of the sort. What you have to know about me is I'm a psychologist (or at least a psychology major). I LOVE to know why people behave the way they behave. I've noticed a trend and I want to understand why that trend exists. I've also put forth my own views about the subject.

After you explained why some feminists spell women 'womyn', I'm not so offended by those remarks. I did not understand the reasoning behind the act. That said, it is rather eccentric. To read a "reliance upon men and otherness" into the spelling of a word is just silly.

Onto something more pertinent, you asked me in what ways are women powerful. Fair enough, but first we must identify what power is. In most conversations, power is identified with wealth and decision-making positions. If this is all one examines, then of course you are going to see men as being more powerful than women. I'm not going to raise the whole "who are they serving argument". It's been done before. However, society is much more complex than simply wealth and positions within hierarchies. There are also prevailing attitudes which influence decisions made by everyone within society. It is this sector where women are more powerful than men and they benefit from them.

*WARNING*WARNING*WARNING*

What I'm about to say will sound A LOT like MRA banter!

Let us begin with the law. As I'm sure you know, Law Fairy, men serve longer prison sentences, on average, compared to women. This does not mean women committed less severe crimes. These are for the same crimes. Whether we're talking about murder, robbery, or pedophilia, a woman will serve a shorter sentence. My memory might be fuzzy, but last I heard a man serves an average of 17 years for spousal murder. Women serve an average of 6 YEARS. Why the disparity? Present cultural attitudes are favoring women.

This extends into the formative years as well. Boys in school are punished more harshly, more often, and more publicly for disruptive behaviors compared to girls. I remember this one incident in the eighth grade. My friend's girl-friend sat with us at lunch. We had never met before. For some forgotten reason, she slapped me! Naturally, I slapped her back. We continued this back-and-forth until a supervisor came along and separated us. I was told to go to the office while the supervisor comforted the girl. I tired to explain that she initiated the violence, but the supervisor would hear none of it. This same kind of default judgment permeates our entire society. Have you ever been falsely accused of rape or DV? Have you ever talked with a man who has? There many men in this country, and throughout the Western world, who are afraid to call the cops if they're being assaulted by their wives or girlfriends. They know that they'll probably be arrested if the police show up. Look to the Duke Rape Hoax if you want an excellent example of default judgment. Read the conclusions of the Duke 88 about the matter.

Let's look at restraining orders. Are they a good thing? Predominantly they are good and serve a good purpose. However, they go on your record even if it's later proven that they were invoked with a false allegation. It will appear on every background check for the rest of that person's life. They will have to explain to their prospective employers why it shouldn't be counted against them. This is a GREAT power that women have.

Now let's touch on divorce courts. The divorce rate is 50%, women initiate divorce 70% of the time, and they win custody of the children 80% of the time. Frequently sole custody is arbitrarily assigned. We cannot logically conclude that, 80% of the time, the mother is the better care giver, or that she's leaving an abusive man. With no fault divorce, women are rewarded for having children and divorcing men. Father's have reduced status in this country and their contributions to the well being of their children are not recognized. This marginalization, fueled by attitudes within society, give women an advantage. It gives women power.

Misandry is another force in our society that gives women power. The worse trait of this force is that it's barely even recognized as important. Contempt of men, writing off men, and not even being aware of it is a silent weapon all work in women's favor. Wasn't misogyny once a silent weapon, largely unrecognized? Didn't it give men more power within society? I find it particularly disturbing that violence against men, particularly when it's perpetrated by women, is seen as humorous.

After reviewing my post, I realize it might not be very effective at explaining my position or my fears. Let me show you instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qodygTkTUYM

Are these women representative of all feminists? No. They would, however, agree with virtually everything you have to say about society. Understanding the worst of what we can become is not an insult. It is only a warning. If we understand what lead those women in that film to be so inhumane, so uncompassionate, then we can prevent ourselves from going down the same path. One behavior they exhibited was an unwillingness to listen. They had already concluded that there was nothing worth discussing, that there was nothing of value in what those panelists had to say.

You cannot listen to what you do not hear. You cannot discover what you do not look for. If you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our society is sexist and that men have all the power, then you enable sex discrimination against men by default. You cannot fight for gender equality when you do not focus on both genders.

I have appreciated your intelligence, Law Fairy. I have enjoyed our conversations immensely, even though they were confrontational at times. Like I have said before, I value reason, logic, and the truth. I can be persuaded but only by coherent, logical, evidence based arguments. These observations I have had about feminism, these concerns, are legitimate. I want to understand them; but I will not swallow any lines of rhetoric or inference.

"I've noticed how feminists will focus on issues just because they're connected to women."

Now that I've stopped laughing, I want to point out that I've noticed how advocates for father's rights will focus on issues just because they're connected to fathers (who are or appear to be getting unfair treatment from the legal system).

I could go to a father's rights advocacy blog and repeatedly ask questions which are intended not to seek information or discourse but rather to put members on the defensive regarding issues that largely don't have relevance to the particular topic at hand. Oh, and I could also ignore most of the answers and come up with the same tired arguments, worded slightly differently in each repetition, in an attempt to get my points across. Because that's totally what blogs are all about, as opposed to having meaningful discourse about a somewhat relevant topic.

I could do those things, but that would be , you know, really freakin' lame.

This has been an interesting thread.

I'll start by stating the obvious. There are 6.6 billion people in the world with an estimated 1.01 male(s) to each female, so about half of the people in the world are female.

In the US, about half of the student population is female. That's a good thing. But then this: in the US, women make about 75% of what men make for the same jobs and women account for about 44% of administrative and managerial employees. Those numbers are better than they were a hundred years ago, but they still suck.

And that's America. We don't even want to talk about what it's like for the billions of women in who live in developing nations, the majority of whom have few rights, little education, no money and in general are treated like children or property on a good day and worse than a piece of shit on a bad day.

I have some assumptions of my own, by the way.

One, that human beings are born relatively equal in the sum of their intellectual and physical capabilities and in their potential for happy and productive lives. Two, that it is the social inequality associated with the arbitrary circumstances of one's birth, circumstances such as race, gender and location, location, location, that can result in one person becoming President of the United States and another person being raped, shot and set on fire as an indirect result of the first person's actions.

Again, equality means equal. The amount of money a group of people makes relative to other groups is a key measure of its standing in society. It's Sociology 101. I'm sorry, but I can't and won't agree with any reverse-discrimination argument given the type of disparities that continue to exist between the sexes, both in America and in the world. Nobody likes a rigged game and this game is rigged to hell and back.

But, Michael, what about the poor menz?!!?!?!?

Facts and reality have such a liberal feminist bias, don't they?

Ivy, first, as to the default point -- the "female" modifier thing was just an example. I can offer more. Until perhaps the past couple of decades, which sex benefitted from the vast bulk of "neutral" medical research? Which sex are houses, cars, exercise equipment, hell, CABINETS, designed for (hint: not for the shorter one)? Which sex is advertising aimed at? Which sex is most PORN aimed at?

You do have to look for evidence of male bias to find it, because we are raised to consider it "normal." I suspect you don't see it because you haven't looked for it. You look for bias against men, and you find it -- would it surprise you to learn that a lot of the biases against men that you listed are ALSO the result of biases against women?

For example: you complain that women are almost always awarded custody. Well... don't you think that maybe, POSSIBLY this could have something to do with society assigning the role of childrearing to women? To the extent society sees women as essentially and only mothers (not that there is anything wrong with being a mother -- but not all of us wish to be defined this way), this is a major, if not THE major, cause of the problem you've pointed out. Thus, yes, sexism hurts men and women. Pointing out it hurts men is all well and good -- but, again, we're FEMINISTS here. In the aggregate, there's been more harm done (and is more harm being done) to women in society. To the extent there's harm being done to men, too, that's helpful to know -- but it isn't the point of our inquiry here. Not because men don't matter; but because, again, our particular interest here is women's rights. And for most of us -- specifically, women's rights in America. Yes, there are lots and lots and lots of other valid problems all over the world that need addressing. Those problems are addressed by others (and sometimes by us). But our primary concern here is women's rights, and that doesn't make us bad or hateful or short-sighted. It just makes us focused and keeps us from becoming psychically overwhelmed.

Anyway, some of the other things you mentioned. DV against men -- first, statistically speaking DV is committed disproportionately against women. We're generally against DV, and obviously no one here is in favor of DV against men. But it isn't the broad social problem for men that it is for women. We don't live in a society that grooms men primarily for marriage, and then leaves those men trapped in those marriages no matter how abusive his spouse may become. However, this IS done quite often to women. This is why our focus is on DV committed against women.

I don't really know how to take your "false rape accusation" straw man. It almost never happens, and being raped is worse than being falsely accused of rape. Given the extreme extreme difficulty of successfully prosecuting a rape charge, the chances of a false conviction are almost nil. I'd venture they're much smaller than in any other felony. To posit that "the fear of false rape accusations" anywhere APPROACHES the fear of being RAPED is, frankly, insulting to the scores of women suffering from rape-caused PTSD, pregnancy, and STDs (including, in the particularly horrific cases, HIV). Women don't just live in fear of rape -- we're all but told that if we ARE raped, it was our fault. Rape, no matter how you slice it, most definitely disproportionately harms women.

As for the disparate prison sentences, there's a lot of missing information. I imagine a fair chunk of the reason is that more men than women have prior convictions, which would result in an increased sentence. The severity of the crime would affect this as well, and I imagine that, on average, men are able to inflict more physical damage on their partners than women. I'm not discounting the possibility of bias -- another feminist issue is that women are considered to be sweet/demure/kind/passive/angelic/whatever and this sort of bias could most definitely lead to a reluctance to imprison women as long as men. Similarly, the social bias insisting that an unmarried woman is incomplete, and every woman wants to be married and live happily ever after, could easily cause people to think that a woman would not kill her husband except under the most desperate of circumstances. But the answer to this is -- again -- to value women equally. To not view aggressive women as "unfeminine" or "outliers." To not perpetuate stereotypes like "you fight like a girl" or "catfights." To admit that women can be macho, and this doesn't have to threaten any social structures. THIS is where the bias you complain of comes from.

I'm not sure about your TRO point. Anyone can get a TRO. If men are reluctant to get them, AGAIN, this is a problem feminists consistently address. We are AGAINST portrayals of men as independent, rugged, macho, as opposed to women being gentle, sweet, needy. We are AGAINST men being shamed out of seeking much-needed help because they think it will make them look "girly."

So, you see, feminists DO take on these issues. That we don't always in every single case explicitly address the men's side of the coin doesn't make us anti-male. Again, our primary FOCUS is women. But we're totally happy to agree that our activism helps men as well.

(I'm sorry, but I wasn't able to view the youtube video right now... I'm at work and don't have speakers on my computer here. I'm sure there were some awful things said, and that's wrong, and it's horrible. But, again, as you note, this isn't feminism. This is a few angry women who call themselves feminists. As others have noted, just visit an everyday board like Fark or Digg -- or AutoAdmit, as we recently discussed -- and you'll see that horrific and hateful vitriol is unleashed against women, not just as an outlier circumstance, but CONSTANTLY, DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY, IN THE MAINSTREAM).

I'm getting disjointed here, but I did want to address this:

To read a "reliance upon men and otherness" into the spelling of a word is just silly.

This is awfully dismissive. Do you disagree that the words that we speak and use everyday have power, and have an impact on our society? As a psychologist/psych major, surely you understand that the old adage about sticks and stones is not only untrue, but in fact probably reversed.

Jeez, talk about apropos. I was just reading a piece from Gwendolyn Mink's Welfare's End that seems eerily germane to the current discussion. Allow me to quote a line:

"To universalize rights is to vest everyone with the same rights, to erase categorical distinctions. Even as political distinctions disappear, however, social inequalities differentiate citizen capacities to exercise rights."

As we all remember, in the beginning the white, property-owning man was the only person who qualified for citizenship. After a long time, poor folks, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and women all were determined by the Supreme Court to, in fact, be citizens. But suddenly conferring rights upon these historically oppressed groups does not equalize their relationships to that white, property-owning man. As it turns out, all those years of subordination have placed said groups in a substantially lower position than said man. Generally. Sure, you can throw out all the examples of black men in Congress and women CEOs, but generally speaking, these groups have tons of obstacles in front of them.

Ivy, you need to examine your assumptions and the ideas that inform them. Scratch beneath the glossy, equality-for-all surface and look at all that grit.

I just counted up in my head the number of times *within the last 7 days* I have heard my colleagues in the law firm where I work, which is widely considered to be politically and socially liberal compared to other law firms, say the words "woman lawyer," "female lawyer" and my personal favorite "young lady lawyer" and the same phrases but with the words "attorney" or "judge" substituted for lawyer.

9. That's more than once a day, folks, especially considering I didn't work on Saturday. And as a percentage of the time they were referring to a legal professional who happens to be female, more than 75% of the time. I know that's anecdotal evidence, Ivy, but it contradicts your equally anecdotal evidence that the phrases are not in frequent use.

I would venture to say that the legal profession is more unabashedly sexist (or at least sex- and gender-aware) than many others, but it ain't far out of the norm, and there are many professions that are more exclusively male-oriented and sexist.

I echo the comments above about how white, heterosexual males appear to be invisible only because they are the default. And I heartily disagree that words, including their spelling, are unimportant in how we define ourselves. Even in my own head, I conceptualize myself, others, and my relationship to the world in terms of the English language. I happen to like etymology and therefore know the incredibly sexist and patriarchal roots of much of the way I am able to understand the world. Whether or not you are academically aware of it, the words available to you define the ways in which you can imagine the world. Imagining "womyn" independent from "men"--not in the sense of getting rid of men but in the sense of existing as something other than "men plus ___" or "men minus ___"--is an important exercise, even if the spelling never enters common parlance.

Ivy, I want to believe that you are here to learn, but the last several times I've seen you take an interest in a post it has been in a very similar manner and bringing up similar, if not identical, arguments. That makes it difficult to continue responding in a positive manner. It's like you weren't listening the first 20 times someone said it nicely.

You seem extremely committed to formal equality (see definition above for why it doesn't make sense right now) and the idea that people can (and should) pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I don't think anyone here is advocating an identity for women solely defined by victimhood or for infantilization through government handouts in lieu of personal effort. That said, it is somewhat incredible to me that anyone would deny that interim measures are necessary to replace a legacy of inequality and hate with respect and acceptance of women's personhood. And that's a project of social change that will take many generations, not barely a century of agitation for equality, mostly happening in fits and starts with many a backlash to counteract it.

As far as other "socialist" political views of the feministing readership, I think those views are under constant debate and are not universally held among people commenting here, much less among feminists more generally. There are people who believe that patriarchy and capitalism are so intertwined as to be the same thing, and I am sometimes among them at least with respect to our bastardized American version, but it's not something you have to agree to in order to call yourself a feminist.

Rather late to this one, but I'm just dropping in to admit that I'm terribly flattered to be seen as an oppressor of poor old put-upon Ivy. Though rather confused that I am seen as wishing to preserve gender inequality. Is pointing out that gender inequality exists now the same thing as approving of it? How extraordinary. You know, I've often pointed out that the Holocaust happened, but so far no one has ever accused me of wanting another one.

"I value reason, logic, and the truth. I can be persuaded but only by coherent, logical, evidence based arguments. These observations I have had about feminism, these concerns, are legitimate. I want to understand them; but I will not swallow any lines of rhetoric or inference."

Brave boy. You just keep fighting the power. Which, obviously, is overwhelmingly held by women these days. I doubt there's anything I can say that would make this troll change his tune, but I can give you a picture of what his world looks like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtuJJclce-Q

Roymac, marry me. I'm sure my fiance would understand.

I have no idea where Ivy is coming from, but I can only hope that he's here to learn. I know that these issues can be difficult to grasp given particular perspectives (took me a while to fully comprehend the "we're not equal yet" even though I'm a girl)I see these types of pervasive misunderstanding of core issues while trying to explain certain concepts to my admittedly receptive fiance - see above for exactly just how receptive he can be.

One of my favourite ways to illustrate the "male default" to people I don't want to have long conversations with is the brain teaser we've all come upon at some point in our lives:

"A man and his son get in a car accident. The man dies and his son is brought to the hospital. The attending doctor says, "Oh my god! This is my son!" - How is this possible?"

Ahhh feck. I apologize for the lack of punctuation and the run on sentences. Hopefully I was able to express that it can be difficult to understand what us feminazi wimmin are fighting for if the arguments are approached from a position of relative privilege.

Not excusing the fact though, Ivy seems to spend enough time here that surely he's learnt *something*

Y'all, there's little likelihood that Ivy is a "psychologist." Maybe a self-appointed professor of Objectivism or something, while studying some version of psychology in his spare time, but no, I'm not seeing doctorate-level analysis in his arguments.

But since you do profess an interest in psychology, Ivy, I'd like to call attention to two rather poignant things you said that actually led me to feel some empathy for you. First was the slapping back and forth incident. Second was this:

"I've always been offended by this approach because there was an invisible finger pointing at me accusingly."

You really couldn't have made it clearer that your objections to feminism are based on your emotional reaction, your feeling "accused" and feeling treated unfairly. Yes, it does hurt to feel that invisible finger pointing at you, as you're trying to figure out everything else about the world and your place in it, and I don't doubt you were pained by your experiences. But let's not continue the facade that your issues with feminists are all based on logic and reason and were derived from an unbiased review of the empirical evidence. They're sure as hell based on that feeling that you didn't like and that you associate with feminists "blaming" you for things, as a man. We are all vulnerable to this, you're not unique in that way, but be honest about it at least.

I work in a hospital.

Heck, I work in a Children's hospital.

"Woman doctor", "Lady Social Worker", and "male nurse" are pretty regularly bandied about. If you'd like, Ivy, I can count them up tomorrow.

Thanks, jenn!

Can we make it a fivesome?

I told y'all not to tussle with trolls a couple weeks ago. ;)

This is not a feminism 101 blog. Feminist blogs are an alternative to the dominant discourse. Most of us read feminist or anti-racism blogs after we've rejected the dominant discourse that marginalized our experiences. Trolls rehash the dominant discourse which we've already rejected.

it is not misogyny that drives them. It's the religious conviction that any conception is an act of god, that to destroy a created human life is a sin. The same principle is true for gay rights.

Because it's in the Bible! It has nothing to do with oppressing women or homosexuals. Which is why they're also proposing legislation to reinstitute slavery, decriminalize wifebeating, and make it illegal for anyone to eat shellfish. Yup, because the Bible says so.

A female religious zealot will pass the same laws and verdicts.

Not all women are feminists. Not all feminists are female. As this statement assumes the opposite, it is irrelevant.

I've noticed that schools, from middle into college, always have special segments which FOCUS on the historical oppression of women. I've always been offended by this approach because there was an invisible finger pointing at me accusingly.

do you not become a little concerned when you see someone type 'women' as 'womyn'? Does this not illustrate a contempt for 'men'?

Do you know the difference between an implied insult and an insult that's inferred? No accusation, hostility or contempt toward men is implied in any of these things. You choose infer it. Your argument is therefore about as reasonable as the guy who bumps into you in a bar and then insists you should watch where the hell you're going. In short, it's all you, Ivy.

Does this apply to all feminists? Certainly not. Does sitting around in isolated groups without dissenting voices enable the rise of such contempt? You betcha.

Funny, I've yet to visit any feminist blog in which the comments consisted entirely of a unanimous chorus of, "Yeah! And btw, men SUCK!" Maybe I've just been lucky?

What you have to know about me is I'm a psychologist (or at least a psychology major). I LOVE to know why people behave the way they behave.

I minored in psych for the same reason. To be honest, I find myself wondering how you could have failed to grasp the pervasiveness of things like sexism and racism if you've actually studied how the mind works. I also don't see how you could miss how our perceptions are shaped by how we are raised and the environment we grew up in, and thus understand exactly what some of the others have been talking about regarding men being blind to their "default" status because they are the default. Maybe next year's psych courses will cover that? Look forward to it, it's fascinating stuff.

As for the general argument of feminism and this blog focusing "too much" on women--let me draw you a word picture. Imagine a scale. On one side we place weights to represent the advantages men enjoy in our society. On the other, the advantages women enjoy. Naturally, they don't balance. The women's side isn't empty (no one is suggesting that), but it is still outweighed by the men's, primarily in terms of wealth and power. What would be the best way to balance the scale? To distribute the weight more evenly, of course. But how and where to start? Do we begin by adding some weights to the women's side (representing the advantages men have that women do not), causing the scale to tilt closer to the neutral center? Or do we (as you propose) start by addressing the men's side, and adding weights (the advantages women have that men do not) to the men's side, causing the scale that was already unbalanced to become even more so? Doesn't that strike you as a rather silly approach?

Forget it, Jake, it's Trollatown.

Did anyone actually watch the youtube link Ivy put up?

It blurry and hard to understand, but a couple times one woman can be heard shouting "Are you protecting this man who beat this woman?"

Maybe you can argue with their methods of protest, but seems to me that they are addressing a serious issue which enrages me just sitting here thinking about it...

*snarl*

Joie:

I'm surprised that I tried thinking through your teaser on the default setting first, given the conversation. A few years ago, a similar teaser would have made me think on it for a much longer time. GJ and thanks for making me think :)

"'To universalize rights is to vest everyone with the same rights, to erase categorical distinctions. Even as political distinctions disappear, however, social inequalities differentiate citizen capacities to exercise rights.'

As we all remember, in the beginning the white, property-owning man was the only person who qualified for citizenship. After a long time, poor folks, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and women all were determined by the Supreme Court to, in fact, be citizens. But suddenly conferring rights upon these historically oppressed groups does not equalize their relationships to that white, property-owning man....Ivy, you need to examine your assumptions and the ideas that inform them. Scratch beneath the glossy, equality-for-all surface and look at all that grit."-Chris

Chris, let's examine a hypothetical for a second. Let's say, tomorrow, all the money in the world is evenly divided between all persons. This would effectively erase the power disparity everyone's talking about. Now, let us assume that everyone goes about their lives and engages in commerce. How long do you think this "equality" would last? How long before the creative, innovative, and productive invent products, provide services, which would make them more valuable? How long before supply and demand creates more "power disparities"?

Your argument that power disparities can be artificially corrected is unjust and misleading. The notion that they will every be maintainable is delusional. There will always be power disparities, Chris. There will always be discrimination and bias. The only realistic cure for the two are capitalism and reason, respectively. The former ensures the possibility of upward mobility. Not a guaranteed piece of the pie, but opportunity. The later undermines biases, which are a purely emotional decision. You cannot realistically claim to value freedoms and rights only to turn around and selectively protect them. Claiming that it's o.k. for women to have exclusive colleges, clubs, and gyms, but not so for men, is hypocritical.

Law Fairy, I'd like to address the valid points you've made in your recent post.

"Until perhaps the past couple of decades, which sex benefited from the vast bulk of "neutral" medical research? "-Law Fairy

Just a minor point, and I'm not trying to be a smartass, but how did women not benefit from this research? If by the lack of focus upon breast and ovarian cancer, and other ailments specific to the female anatomy, then I agree with you. However, one of the arguments frequently made is the omission of women from heart disease research. Can you tell me how this negatively impacted women?

"Well... don't you think that maybe, POSSIBLY this could have something to do with society assigning the role of childrearing to women?"-Law Fairy

It's certainly possible, but what have feminists done to combat it? I recall reading an article by Glenn Sacks (sorry, I've lost the link and don't feel like rummaging through his archives) that outlined the opposition of shared parenting bills by feminist organizations. (!) Furthermore, there's the whole dead-beat-dad slander campaign. If you're interested in learning a bit more about this I'd be happy to share with you what I know. For know, let me just post a link to yet another youtube video. It doesn't focus on feminists, just the anti-father bias in our country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4XrPjmHJZc

"DV against men -- first, statistically speaking DV is committed disproportionately against women."-Law Fairy

This really depends on what study you look at. If we examine NCVS data, we see that the rates of violence have remained steady at 15% male victims to 85% female. However, when the sample number of victims is extrapolated to the female population, only .75% of women are victims of DV annually. Nation wide! Does this justify the $1 billion dollars appropriated by VAWA every year? Now let's look at the Violence Against Women Survey carried out in 1995. Here, 40% of victims are men compared to 60% women, or 1.5 million women annually. Again, significant disparities, but much higher than one would expect. It should be noted that the authors of this study originally did not intend to include a sample of men. It was only after pressure from many sociologists, including Murray Straus, that a second sample of men was included. Now let's look at Straus's research. He launched the NFVS in 1975 and again in 1985. Both times he discovered that men and women assault each other at equal rates, and that women initiated the violence more often than men. The NFVS found that roughly 6 million men and women, each, are assaulted each year within the confines of intimate partner relationships. Straus also conducted a massive international study which spanned 32 countries, including the U.S.A., Canada, Australia, and the U.K.. In 19 of those countries, women were more violent than men. (Point: the most accurate rate data, for all of Straus's research, was reported by women themselves). Similar results were found in Australia's Personal Safety Survey findings published in 2006.

One of the reason's the data is so different is the NCVS and VAWS lack of control for cultural confounding variables. These were introduced as "crime surveys" and frequently used the phrase "personal safety" as qualifiers for abuse. The NFVS and PSS both lacked any emotional qualifiers in the operational definitions of behavior. That being said, 40% of men in the VAWS reported that their "personal safety" was threatened. I'm confident you can imagine how cultural stereotypes and traditional gender roles can skew these results.

We could say that violence in relationships is not as great a problem for men as it is for women. Or we could say our picture is skewed because, like female rape victims a few decades ago, men do not believe others will take them seriously. Or they will be blamed for the violence.

"We are AGAINST portrayals of men as independent, rugged, macho, as opposed to women being gentle, sweet, needy."-Law Fairy

How are these personality traits bad? Certainly being rugged and macho are useful traits for certain professions. The sexist belief that only men can possess them certainly needs to be challenged. No offense but...independence? Later on in your post, and in previous posts, you were praising the misspelling of 'women' because it encourages independence. There's nothing inherently bad about these traits; yet men do face bias when they display them. I agree with Sandra Bem that it's more important to focus on character traits, and see when and where they'll be most useful and beneficial, than to use such arbitrary categories as "masculine" and "feminine".

As for the whole "womyn" thing, it is eccentric and silly. Let me explain fully. Words do have meaning, but only the meaning we assign them. They have no intrinsic value. You asked me to consider how being historically called a "hewoman" could have an effect on me. I've thought about it, and we really don't have to make up words to address this. All we have to do is pretend that the roles have been historically switched. We can easily imagine that 'man', being the negative, in an "incomplete" 'woman'. However, this does not change the fact that words have no inherent value. I can certainly imagine men in that culture changing the spelling of 'man'; but it'd still be just as silly. It is far more useful, in my opinion, to recognize 'woman' as a complete and independent word and entity.

I'm not going to touch the whole rape issue. I've already said my piece and I will just have to wait for additional research before I solidify my opinion.

Legallyblondeez:

"Ivy, I want to believe that you are here to learn, but the last several times I've seen you take an interest in a post it has been in a very similar manner and bringing up similar, if not identical, arguments."

This is true, Legal, but I only do so because I don't believe I have discovered what I came here to learn. I want to understand the philosophical roots of feminists in contemporary America. So far, no one has adequately refuted my arguments, by my standards at least.

I have been told that this blog is not the place to do such things; but honestly, what better place?

However, one of the arguments frequently made is the omission of women from heart disease research. Can you tell me how this negatively impacted women?

Yes, I can. Check out this article from the Winter 2006 issue of Ms. Magazine: http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2006/heart.asp A quote from the article: "Each year, six times as many women die from heart attacks as from breast cancer. But women’s No. 1 killer disease is often missed - not just by patients but by physicians." The article discusses how heart disease was learned about from men's symptoms, and thus we are only recently discovering that women often present very different symptoms.

Ivy,

If you want someone to be your personal feminist philosophy tutor, I suggest you take some classes in women's studies and/or feminist jurisprudence (since you seem particularly interested in law) and ask the professor for extra help or reading lists. That is glib, but as others have said, this is not Feminism 101.

If you really want to understand the philosophical roots of contemporary American feminism, that is a long project that will require you to let go of a lot of your assumptions about reason and equality. This is not because feminist theories (and there are many of them--you're not just looking at two or three) are illogical or based on a desire for inequality. Instead, it is because your ideas about reason and equality appear (to me) to be deeply rooted in Enlightenment-era philosophies that have no application to or logical relation with most feminisms. I understand that this type of philosophy informed the debates of America's founding fathers and that it is still held up as the pinnacle of logical thought in most political science and introductory Western philosophy classes. However, it is also flawed in that it assumes an ideal "man" who is not prejudiced, holds no malice, and makes no mistakes in judgment. It also either ignores or assumes the correctness of patriarchy, depending upon whom you ask.

Beyond any question of whether your beliefs about logic or reason are valid (I don't know) or appropriately put to use in criticizing feminism (I don't think so), the simple fact is that Feministing is not primarily a feminist theory website. Feministing bloggers post their commentary on news items, events, and other media portrayals of various topics that interest them as feminists. Commenters also give their views on the topics at hand. Few of us are feminist scholars, and even those who are relatively familiar with the feminist academic canon probably don't fully subscribe to one singular feminist theory. Therefore our comments as a whole, and even segregated as to the individual, cannot be taken as representative of a particular, internally consistent body of logic or philosophy. They are personal reactions and contemplations on real-world events.

I hope you are able to find what you are looking for, and I hope that you continue to read and comment here. However, I don't think that you will ever find anything coherent, comprehensive, or objective enough to satisfy your need for "reason" here. Right now, you are asking people to change your mind using your own cherry-picked logic and statistics. That's just not what this website is about.

Legallyblondeez = Eloquent
Your post says everything I've been trying to phrase.

I'm also interested in your assertion, Ivy that words only have the meanings we ascribe to them.
How very postmodern!

I know, through my ability to speak another language, that (as Saussure said) "Language orlds the World", meaning, the language you use or think in affects how you see and interpret the world around you.
Some concepts are untranslatable, and therefore directly effect what the world IS, and how is can be conceptualised.

Language does not exist in a vacuum, but reflects the history and culture of its speakers.

Understanding the Self/Other distinction as it occurs in the English language, whereby maleness is the "unmarked" Self, and femaleness is the "marked" Other, is a useful step in educating oneself about the omnipresence of sexism in language, even today.
Language that reflects the world English-speakers live in, even today.

This is not a cry of victimhood, rather an understanding of the World that English creates.

If you really are interested in the relationships between gender, language and power try reading Simone De Beauvoir, Luce Iriguray's "This Sex that is not One", and even Lacan.

Although I think you are very misguided in many of your beliefs, this is my attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt; that you really are interested in learning and exploring an area you are obviously rather new to.

I hope I am not being naive.

"Language worlds the world".

Sorry, Saussure!

Let's say, tomorrow, all the money in the world is evenly divided between all persons. This would effectively erase the power disparity everyone's talking about.

No, actually, it wouldn't. This is a major assumption on your part, and it's completely flawed. The issue of power goes far, far beyond money. Money and wealth are certainly one way that there are power disparities, but they're hardly the only way. Economic capital is only one aspect of power- there's social and political capital as well. Men have the bulk of the social, political, and economic wealth of the world.

Further: Where has anyone suggested that the solution to the problem was just redistributing wealth? This goes back to the belief you have that socialism and feminism are somehow the same, or that all feminists are big advocates of extreme socialism- they're not, and it's intellectually dishonest to continue suggesting that they are, or to even imply that feminists have said that solution to gender inequality is a simple redistribution of wealth.

Now, let us assume that everyone goes about their lives and engages in commerce. How long do you think this "equality" would last? How long before the creative, innovative, and productive invent products, provide services, which would make them more valuable? How long before supply and demand creates more "power disparities"?

I suspect that I'm not particularly abnormal when I say: so what? Personally, I don't have a problem with some power disparities- I've never suggested that everyone should be exactly the same. I'm opposed to unearned power disparities, particularly great unearned power disparities.

I'm opposed to sexism, not because I think that every woman should be paid exactly the same as every man, but because I don't believe that a person's sexual identity should be a determining factor in how successful that person is, or whether that person's needs are taken seriously, etc.

There will always be discrimination and bias. The only realistic cure for the two are capitalism and reason, respectively.

Can we please get off this "capitalism is so much better than socialism!" bent you've got going? I don't know about anybody else, but I find your hang-up on economic policy really boring and pointless. There are plenty of very successful nations that have many, many socialist programs- universal health-care, public education, public transportation, welfare, manditory family leave, etc. It's entirely possible- and, data would suggest, beneficial- to have some kind of mixture of capitalism and socialism. That's a really boring conversation better suited to an econ class or a poli-sci class than a feminism board, though.

I'd like to say thanks to Law Fairy and Legallyblondeez. You two have been very helpful. I will look into those books you mentioned, Legal.

While you're compiling that reading list, Ivy, definitely check out Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature by Greg Nyquist, Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality: A Critique of Ayn Rand's Epistemology by Scott Ryan, and The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker.

You're welcome, Ivy, though anorak gave you the reading list. My recommended reading tends to veer off into the legal territory more than the philosphical, so you're better off with the more general stuff anyway.

Everyone listen to Thom "The Hitman" Hartmann rant about sexism, racism and Ayn Rand. I woke up to the stream this morning madly in love (second link with your audio files set on itunes).