I think the problem is that people don't know what a feminism is. I was raised in a progressive california town, yet at the age of 10 when asked if I was a feminist I said, "no". My mother was horrified! She explained to me that feminism was the desire for women to have equal rights, pay etc. Basically, I think if people could be educated about other aspects of feminism than bra burning the world would be a much nicer palce.

"A feminist is a woman who believes in women's rights."

"But you wouldn't call yourself a feminist."

"No."

Sheesh. There is so much wrong with that exchange.

AHHHHHHHHHH!

I was only able to watch the first minute or so. This video, sadly, does not surprise me. I participate in a forum consisting of people I used to video game with. It is a male-dominated hobby and forum. When issues related to feminism, sexism or any related topic comes up, the men almost universally respond negatively, ranging from sarcasm to downright hostile. The usual stereotypes are brought up (hairy-legged lesbian man-haters, of course!).

Almost all of the women who post assert that they are not feminists, which surprises and disappoints me.

Wow. I'm not SURPRISED, but still...wow.

I had no idea my boyfriend and I were a furry legged militant man-hating lesbian couple. Someone should probably tell his penis about that....

Being as fulltime feminist activist - this is not the way to start the day. Egads - Batgirl!

Fortunately those loser guys most likely don't vote either.

The fact that "lesbian" is still used effectively as an insult makes me very sad.

The inane comments about anti-male lesbians, etc. is sad. But, it's no secret that feminism faces a hugely negative public opinion problem. I don’t believe the cause is a lack of support for equity among the general public. I think only the most intellectually backwater portion of Americans wouldn’t want a gender neutral system of law and opportunity based on merit. Why the resistance to the label feminism then? I think a large part of the problem was accurately identified by Christina Sommers in her book Who Stole Feminism? Gender feminism is bankrupt on too many levels to count; the most egregious in my world of academics being the near total denial/rejection of evolutionary biology. Today "feminism" is seemingly synonymous with hogwash theories like "gender as a cultural construct"—one of many dogmatic beliefs that at least turns educated people (including many/most of my female colleagues and students) away from accepting the label of feminist. I'm a secular humanist, and favor equity for all. But gender theory is so empty that I find myself embarrassed by the feminist label too. And this is coming from a man who self-identified as a feminist (and was raised by one) up until I got into some serious primatology study about 1990. Sarah Hrdy showed me the light out of the cultural-determinist darkness—hallelujah for biological anthropology.

I really hate the part where the woman points out that you can silence a woman by caling her a lesbian, and that essentially feminism and lesbian are bad words. Yuk. The expression on the one woman's face when her husband declared a man is the head of the household makes me think there's bad shit going down at their house aside from him just generally being an asshole.

But the creepy dude at the end who said he can be found in NY every day made me laugh.

Go Anthony, you're a feminist!

And darwin66, I very much dissagree that you think gender as a cultural construct isa dogmatic belief. I find gender as purely shaped by biology to be absolutely dogmatic. I'll just start with the basic point that as soon as a baby is born, the first thing asked is whether or not the baby is a boy or a girl. This question is more important then the second question: is both the mother and baby healthy and ok? And from here its all about gender indocrination. Boys are told not to cry, girls are comforted when they cry. Reactions to boy and girl children vary extensivly. It is litterally impossible to buy non-gendered toys. And it just goes on from there. To say these actions have no effect on gender is a huge problem for me and that gender is purely biological is terrible dogmatism in my mind.

I study gender theory and I find it anything BUT empty. But I also have to point out that feminism is very diverse and gender theory is not the only kind of feminism.

The questions should have been :"DO you believe in equal rights?" if yes, then you are a feminist...
the guy at the nd made me laugh..
for he rest, they are ignorant.

Totally--women have all of the same things men have! Such as equal pay and complete control over our bodies! Oh, wait...

What sickens me is the fact that some women are so afraid/reluctant/whatever to call themselves "feminists". Maybe it's because I spent four years in an all-girls school that stressed, y'know, the idea that women are--gasp--equal to men, but I just don't see why "feminist" is all of a sudden the "F-word". I'm guessing part of it is the whole "guys don't like feminists" thing (trust me, I've heard that explanation before), but really, would women really want to end up with douches who talk about "militant, angry women" or "lesbians" with such disgust?

It's so easy to say what not to do. Now what do we do? Whose going to make the video to counter this one?

Pretty depressing, but lol @ Anthony.

Little help for those of us without access to sound or a high speed internet connection?

Wow to the woman who doesn't support women's rights.

I can't tell you how many times I've been called a lesbian by someone who thinks that they're clever/funny. I just look at them blankly, say ". . . okay" and keep staring silently at them like they've grown a second head until they get REALLY uncomfortable and walk away. Or sometimes I say "okay . . . is that meant to be an insult?" and then they usually get flustered and confused.

But they're always astonished that I'm not UPSET at being called a lesbian. Or that it's proof that I am a lesbian. It's a horrible thing to use as an insult, because it's not an insult. Allowing it to silence you or protesting against being called a lesbian only gives it power as an insult.

"...hogwash theories like "gender as a cultural construct"—one of many dogmatic beliefs"

So you're saying gender ISN'T a social construct?

*stifled laughter*

Ooookay...well, I'd love to hear more about how gendered behavior is dictated by biology. You could start with your theory on why female humans "evolved" a fascination with the color pink, and explain how it increases their chances of survival.
Wait, let me get some popcorn. This should be good....

AHHHH, is right. what the hell!?!

I loved how that guy was stuttering when he was trying to explain how there are so many top women officials out there. oh, really???? well i guess i will stop wasting my time with silly pointless feminism then...since YOU seem to know all of the facts.

oh, and that woman who just passively stood my her husband when he explained that god made men better than women.

dammit. i think i will just have to spend the rest of the day talking about women's issues in order to counteract that shit.

I Was A Teenage Feminist! I remember that documentary! I saw it last year, as part of something my college put on.

Okay, glee aside, I can understand how this clip, taken out of context, can induce eyerolls. Hell, it even induced eyerolls in context. It might be the group of ignorant boys, but the man standing there speaking for himself (and, according to him, his wife) still gives me the creeps, more than a year after I first saw the doc.

Seriously, though, check out the rest of the film, rather than judging it on the one clip.

That one woman's husband seriously needs to be checked out by a mental health professional. And given a new bedtime story. Obviously, the Bible is giving him nightmares, and he needs to have something with less genocide, less misogyny and less slavery, hopefully before he discovers it has other chapters.

I've found the most effective response to being called a lesbian to be "Yeah, and?" Rarely do they honestly consider the possibility that you are, you're practically a unicorn to them after that.

Wow. I guess it's time to break out the "This is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt.

Hell, maybe we should organize a national "This is what a feminist looks like" day. At least it would get people talking about it. Hopefully, in more positive terms.

"Fortunately those loser guys most likely don't vote either."

Perhaps, but they do influence public opinion. I never understood why Feminist was not considered "cool" to the main stream, but actually it is. Lesbians are highly coveted these day in entertainment and in advertising, most men want their wives to work, college educated women are encouraged to keep their family names after marriage if they are only-childs or have no brothers, and most men say they want low-maintenance women.

However feminism remains political poison. Why? because people prefer comfortable traditions to radical changes. So to kill the popular pro-women movement, they (a big group, but mainly consisting of and led by the Christian Right) make the "pro-women" slogan inter-changeable with the myths propagated about the feminism past.

Has there ever actually been a militant feminism? Are lesbians really anti-Christian? Do feminists really want to literally emasculate men? Do single women raise their sons to be fruity? Is the empowerment of women a danger to traditions?

The answer to those questions are all "no," but you won't convince people of the reality of feminism on election day. Or can we?

I'd be up for that Trey!

But honestly, you just can't get depressed about these things. Of course there are people who still believe this way, that's why our work isn't done yet!

The only one I found really disheartening was the woman who said she didn't believe in women's rights. That's just sort of "wtf" inducing. I did like the look on her face when her husband started going on about the Bible.

Over all though, that was chuckle inducing. You just have to laugh at that sort of thing. And I liked that Anthony guy at the end.

Well Itazura, to be fair, yes there actually have been militant feminists. The Suffragettes would be described as militant.

And Lesbians can be viewed as anti-Christianity because to be an unashamed lesbian is anti-Christian as some view it.

It's the assumption though that to believe in feminism that you have to be a militant lesbian separatist that's the problem, not that there actually have been some militant lesbian separatists.

In terms of the question "why are people afraid of the term feminism?" I agree with Naomi Wolf's Beaty Myth. She argues it has a great deal to do with body image. Many of the backlashes against feminism call feminists ugly, man-like, unshaven, no bras, lesbian (again implying a manish "ugliness" in this context, etc.. And when you consider that against the fact that women are valued primarily for their appearances, no woman living under this society's rules and influences wants to be ugly. The backlash was created, of course, to silence women and keep them in their supposed place. "You want whatever rights and to undermine a white male power structure, well you're ugly." Which it wouldn't be phrased exactly like that, but that's the general gist of it - the fact that feminism is silenced by refocusing the backlash onto physical appearance.

As for feminists being militant, that draws from the idea that a woman in ANY kind of role of power or empowerment is seen as militant because its contrary to an expected role. Women like Hilary Clinton have been called a bitch because of where she is. (Not that I totally agree with her politics.) Women in powerful positions in the workplace are called bitches. Assertiveness is expected of men, but its considered bitchy when a woman does it.

Anti-Christian implies that you want to attack or abolish Christianity. Never in my life have I heard of a lesbian who wanted to put an end to the Christian faith, in fact I personally know a lot of lesbians who consider themselves Christians. However the Christian right is definitely ant-lesbian (for no good reason at all).

I have never heard of a feminist that took up arms. Wanting suffrage is not the same thing as grabbing a weapon and going on the violent offensive. To the best of my knowledge, violence has never been associated with feminism, unless it was to encourage self defense training for women to discourage rapist.

"there actually have been some militant lesbian separatists."

Who? And what do they want to separate from?

It really is depressing that lesbian is used as an insult and that it can be powerful enough to keep many women "in their places". It is as though they feel that it puts their status as woman in jeopardy, how fucked up is that?

I can't believe how many strong women I know who refuse to identify themselves as feminist, it is so sad. It usually turns into an interesting conversation when I start asking them if they think that women deserve the same rights as men.

A friend of mine at school told me that one of her "professors" told the class that feminism has killed romance!

That guy who says that the man is head of household is an asshole!

Lesbian separatists want to, and sometimes do, create women-only communities. They also sometimes make the choice to live a lesbian lifestyle as a political statement. They also generally would not agree that men can be feminists.

They certainly exist (I do believe that there was one separatist would post on here. If she's still around, she can give a better definition than I, and correct me where I'm wrong). They are the minority, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_separatist

Itazura, Valerie Solanis was a mitilant feminist. I don't support her viewpoint, because I happen to love me some men, but her manifesto for the Society for Cutting Up Men (aka the S.C.U.M. manifesto) is pretty darn militant.
She was the woman who shot Andy Warhol...
Also, the woman (whose name escapes me) who founded Womentown was pretty militant.
And yeah, suffragettes who starved themselves and commited suicide seem pretty militant to me.
I know personally of one women's community (commune)that used to exist here that didn't allow men on it's property, and actually evicted women with male children too.
Have you heard of the Greenham Common protests in England? While not every woman there was a militant feminist, the idea of a woman-only anti-nuclear peace camp outside a U.S. military base is pretty revolutionary.
I can give you further reading lists if you are interested, but I reckon that's a good start.

Oops, should be "Valerie Solanas"

Just another random point on the discussion of supposed "militance."

Militant woman = against nature

Militant man = necessary trait for presidency

"And yeah, suffragettes who starved themselves and commited suicide seem pretty militant to me."

No, extreme forms of protest are not militancy, unless they are harmful to someone else.

Thanks for the update on militant feminists/lesbians of the past, but like you say, they are an extreme minority.

Is it fair to say that militancy, violence, anti-Christianity, and separatism are not part of the main stream feminism agenda?

That was the point I was trying to make.

I'm trying to make feminism more appealing here guys. At heart I think most non-cavemen men actually prefer feminist women, but they just don't know it.

"And yeah, suffragettes who starved themselves and commited suicide seem pretty militant to me."

No, extreme forms of protest are not militancy, unless they are harmful to someone else.

Thanks for the update on militant feminists/lesbians of the past, but like you say, they are an extreme minority.

Is it fair to say that militancy, violence, anti-Christianity, and separatism are not part of the main stream feminism agenda?

That was the point I was trying to make.

I'm trying to make feminism more appealing here guys. At heart I think most non-cavemen men actually prefer feminist women, but they just don't know it.

That depends on how you define "anti-Christianity."

"That depends on how you define "anti-Christianity.""

Define how feminism might be anti-Christian please, and remember that at this moment I am only an initiate, not full fledged member of the club.

Well a lot (though certainly not all) of feminists fight against organized religion as a tool of the patriarchy. Some are atheists and want to see religion's power over society reduced, and see Christianity's (along with some other religions) misogyny and patriarchy as inseparable from the faith itself. Some simply want religious texts to be reinterpreted in a non-misogynist manner and for patriarchal church structures to be reorganized. But in either case, a lot of feminists undoubtedly have a resentment towards Christianity as an institution, if not as a personal belief system.

Militant: vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers. (dictionary.com)

Throwing yourself under a horse race = being vigorously active and aggressive, in support of a cause.

I think you are correct that for many feminists, militancy, violence
and separatism are not part of the agenda.

The Christianity thing?
I dunno, I'm not a Christian.
I do support people's right to their own religions.

You should think of feminism as a pair of sunglasses that you wear all the time.
When you have the glasses on, you see things from a feminist perspective.
So you don't set out to be "anti-Christian', but if the glasses reveal to you great sexism, rascism, and misogyny in Christianity, it's hard to un-know it.

To me, feminism is already pretty appealing.
Seeing how it accepts me as a fully formed, fully functioning human and all...

Oh, and homophobia. (in Christianity I mean).

I know some really on-to-it Christians though, even homersexual ones and all.

"Militant man = necessary trait for presidency"

You are confusing militant with someone who has actual military experience.

The only female 3 star general in US history was actual the person Kerry had pegged to be his Sec of Defense, if he had won in 2004, and She (Claudia J. Kennedy) has already endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Nobody had better call her militant, because she is a highly qualified former professional soldier.

Militants are dangerous individuals who do not understand the professional aspect of being a soldier.

"Well a lot (though certainly not all) of feminists fight against organized religion as a tool of the patriarchy. Some are atheists and want to see religion's power over society reduced, and see Christianity's (along with some other religions) misogyny and patriarchy as inseparable from the faith itself."

Why don't "we" just simplify that, and say we are in favor of the separation of church and state, and are firmly against theocracy.

"Oh, and homophobia. (in Christianity I mean)."

Maybe we can simplify that, and just say that "we" think that homophobia is against true Christian beliefs.

"Militant: vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers. (dictionary.com)"

Yeah but to the unintellectual that means; dangerous to society.

"We" Are against the use of violence to assert our movement.

Sorry, that was just my anti-miliatary side shining through.

What I am trying to say is that the term "militant feminism" appears to me to be a backlash against strong, empowered women. A man can be aggressive, but a woman who does the same is seen as "militant," which is considered a gross distortion of the natural order.

As for "Militant" suffragists, damn, they were up against some tough shit! I don't know about anyone else but I am DAMNED thankful they starved themselves, got imprisoned, and whatever else it took to stand up for their rights. They did what they had to to get the attention of society.

Marissa, Word!
Over here (N.Z.), our suffragettes got the vote first in the world (1893),[not bragging, promise! ;p] and every year on the anniversary, i like to pay my respects big time!
Although, they were all staunch christians who sold women's suffrage as being a civilising influence on the nasty world of politics, but hey, I like the end result!

Marissa, Word!
Over here (N.Z.), our suffragettes got the vote first in the world (1893),[not bragging, promise! ;p] and every year on the anniversary, i like to pay my respects big time!
Although, they were all staunch christians who sold women's suffrage as being a civilising influence on the nasty world of politics, but hey, I like the end result!

Well I did say that it depends on how you define anti-Christianity. Obviously what I have outlined doesn't fit your definition. So there you go.

"A friend of mine at school told me that one of her "professors" told the class that feminism has killed romance!"

I know I'm commenting on this a little late, but I just have to say that were I in your position, I would have told that friend that the professor was wrong. Actually, I'd probably have said something like:

Of course feminism didn't kill Romance. In fact, one of the most famous Romantics, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, was the daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft, who wrote "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman". Wollstonecraft may not have been a feminist as we define it today, but she did have feminist ideas.

Not trying to get the whole thread off on a tangent, though.

"Although, they were all staunch christians who sold women's suffrage as being a civilising influence on the nasty world of politics, but hey, I like the end result!"

The suffragists lived in something of a different world than we do. They often had to do a few things I don't agree with. In France they supported an additional tax on single women because they felt paying these taxes would show that these women counted as citizens and therefor they should vote. In the U.S. some suffragists were against some women working because it would supposedly distract them for their more important duty of working towards the suffrage cause (which sounds just like the argument that working distracts women from their domestic duties.) But yeah, totally support the suffragists, and to label them militant seems like a way of silencing what they did.. hey, just like labeling feminists lesbians as a way to insult and silence them! Good times....

"Well I did say that it depends on how you define anti-Christianity. Obviously what I have outlined doesn't fit your definition. So there you go."

Actually I thought our definitions were the same, and that I was just simplify what you wrote.

We are not anti-Christian in the sense that we want to abolish Christainity. We don't have a problem with Christianity, just with the power structure within Christianity, the bad interprutation of Christianity, and the desire to make America (or any nation) an Official Christian state.

"As for "Militant" suffragists, damn, they were up against some tough shit! I don't know about anyone else but I am DAMNED thankful they starved themselves, got imprisoned, and whatever else it took to stand up for their rights. They did what they had to to get the attention of society."

The point is that they weren't militant anymore than MLK was militant. Which is to say that they weren't militant at all, just very good at sarcifices and protests that eventually made a difference.

"The point is that they weren't militant anymore than MLK was militant. Which is to say that they weren't militant at all, just very good at sarcifices and protests that eventually made a difference."

I agree. That's exactly what I was saying.

I disagree, Itazura, I think they sometimes were militant. Their actions were sometimes shocking and violent, to themselves and occasionally to others.

Marissa, you're right about the "different times" thing; our suffragettes were known as the Women's Christian Temperence Movement, and they wanted to bring about prohibition of alcohol, something they could only do if they had the vote. Needless to say, they got the vote, but not the prohibition.
Turns out the ladies like a tipple too!

We could argue forever about whether feminists of the past were militant or not, but I still feel that modern feminist are intelligent, not violent, and a source of hope, not abrasiveness.

anorak, I think Itazura has a point, which is about the same point I was making. Itazura said that like, MLK, suffragists were not militant, but just working towards a cause. I was saying I find the very term "militant" to be a backlash against working towards a cause. And yes they were definitely shocking and SELF-violent, but this was because they were up against tough shit and this was the last resort to get society's attention. Militant seems to be a word used in this context to silence their work. I think revolutionary is a much more positive term.

We could argue forever about whether feminists of the past were militant or not, but I still feel that modern feminist are intelligent, not violent, and a source of hope, not abrasiveness.

More correctly "militant" is a term used to make feminists look distasteful to voter. It's equivalent to calling progressives "communist."

We may support a higher minimum wage, affordable health care, and cheaper access to education, but we still support free enterprise, market economy, and completive consumerism.

I guess I like to acknowledge the "militancy" of militant feminists because it is part of the movement.
It's good to remember how revolutionary our foremothers were, and I don't think the word militant always has a negative connotation. Maybe that's just me.
MLK was always about non-violent action. Suffragettes weren't ALWAYS non-violent.
There are militant feminists today who don't always practise non-violence.
I'm not necessarily condoning them, but just acknowledging that as an aspect of the wider feminist community.

Because feminists come in all shapes, sizes, personalities, colours, religions etc,
I don't think one can assert that all femininsts are intelligent or not violent, always hopeful and not abrasive (whatever that means).
I have met stupid people who identify as feminists.
Some of the coolest feminists I know are pretty abrasive.

Sorry I meant to write competitive consumerism.

Yeah it fun to think of the first feminists in the same way that the Founding Fathers of America are remembered.

Not all feminists support a free market or competative consumerism and not all progressives are non-communists.....

Did the first feminists support genocide? I didn't know that... (snark, sorry, couldn't help it).
I live in New Zealand, Itazura, and I don't often think about the Founding Fathers of America.
But I see your point.

"Not all feminists support a free market or competative consumerism and not all progressives are non-communists....."

Yeah but communist and militant aren't going to win on election day. Or at least not in America.

Haha, anorak!

Thanks Cara, after I posted it, I realised it might come off a little harsh, what with me being a foreigner critising you all's heritage...but I did mean it as a joke...here's one on me: Hey, did the european settlers in N.Z. rip off Maori big time? You bet!
Ha Ha Ha!
See how much fun it is to
laugh at our shameful histories!!!

"Militant seems to be a word used in this context to silence their work. I think revolutionary is a much more positive term."

I don't care much for the term “revolutionary� either. What are we, guerillas?
I prefer to make is simple, and just say that we have intelligent solutions that offer hope.

To me (and I am not certain that actually am a feminist) feminism is the delightful alternative to the patriarchal status quo.

"'A feminist is a woman who believes in women's rights.'

"'But you wouldn't call yourself a feminist.'

"'No.'

Sheesh. There is so much wrong with that exchange."

Now I wonder what would happen if an exchange like that went more like

"A feminist is a woman who believes in women's rights."

"But you wouldn't call yourself a feminist."

"No."

"OK, bitch."

"Don't call me that!"

"Why not? You wouldn't call youself a woman who believes in women's rights, and having people talk to you politely is a right, so..."

Although I can understand the temptation to feel "depressed," I see a group of beefy, pear-shaped, khaki and armpit-sweatied button down shirt attired frat boys who hang out in 3rd Av Irish bars seeking pussy and finally stumbling home alone to their crappy parquet-floor studios in Murray Hill. Wait, maybe I'm making the wrong generalization...I meant pissing themselves on the 1:30am PATH train to Hoboken (sorry, nothing against Jersey). The other characters are equally unsavory, and Times Square unfortunately is filled with them.

On the other hand, there are people who aren't too far off who can still be saved. This is why I still advocate a "kindler, gentler" approach in educatin' these folks as opposed to blasting them with extremes.

"On the other hand, there are people who aren't too far off who can still be saved. This is why I still advocate a "kindler, gentler" approach in educatin' these folks as opposed to blasting them with extremes."

You're right they can be saved. I think you affirmed me as a feminist.

Oh, and on a somewhat related note, tonight's "48 Hours" covered a husband who murdered his ex-wife evidently was a member of the "fathers' rights" movement. One of the friends was interviewed, and while not overtly asymmetrically-featured, he evoked an extreme "yuckola" aura that chilled me to the bone. My point? These men, as well as the offensive ones in the above clip, are definitely not the owners of any "erect" penises we would allow to be inserted in our vaginas. Ignore them.

You're right they can be saved. I think you affirmed me as a feminist.

my last goal of the day. :)

Minty

What you wrote was brilliant. Yes a kinder gentler approach in educatin' is going to save the world, of course sometimes we might have to take a stun gun to those who just won't listen (which was what I wanted to do to a lot of those cavemen who appeared in that clip).

Actually what I just wrote might have been very offensive to cavemen, but I don't know what else to call those kind of men.

Itazura, I wasn't under the impression that we needed to "make feminism sound more appealing." Aren't we generally amongst friends here?

Lesbian separatists, as already covered, certainly had what I would consider a militant perspective. If you don't, that's fine.

But the Suffragettes and suffragists are not the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragettes The Suffragettes were inarguably militant. "Chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to the contents of mailboxes, smashing windows and on occasions setting off bombs" and throwing yourself under horse carts is militant. That was why Carrie Chapman Catt distrusted Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, because they wanted to infuse the American suffragist movement with Suffragette tactics.

Regardless, simply put, the reason I was pointing that out is because I don't really care for blanket statements in general (as they're so commonly wrong in some point), and especially not ones which deny such an important part of Feminism's history. Particularly, without the excuse of "I'm talking to noobs so I'm over simplifying things," which I can at least sometimes swallow in certain situations.

My approach has always been changing one mind at a time. If it's a guy I know and he is afraid of the word feminism, I go into deep discussions with him until we get to a level where he begins to understand what is feminism and why it's important. I do the same with women. This approach doesn't always work, though. Some people will stick to their points of view no matter what. And those just need to be left alone. And that's ok...I guess, but very frustrating.

I've also found people are WAY more receptive when you get them one-on-one as well. Egads though, how long is this going to take for us to make real progress if that's what it requires?

The only blanket statement I made were:

The answer to those questions are all "no," but you won't convince people of the reality of feminism on election day. Or can we?

I should have said "I think are all no," because that was what I thought at the time (I'll admit I didn't really know what I was writing about at the time). And the other blanket statement I made was:

However the Christian right is definitely ant-lesbian (for no good reason at all).

That one I am going to stick with.

Basically my argument was that people have nothing to fear from modern feminism, because the modern movement is not militant, radical, or abrasive, which is another blanket statement that I intend to stick with (until people prove me wrong).

"Has there ever actually been a militant feminism? Are lesbians really anti-Christian? Do feminists really want to literally emasculate men? Do single women raise their sons to be fruity? Is the empowerment of women a danger to traditions?

The answer to those questions are all "no,""

That was what I was referring to. :)

However, Mara my love, is it fair to say that the answers to these questions is no?

"Are lesbians really anti-Christian? Do feminists really want to literally emasculate men? Do single women raise their sons to be fruity? Is the empowerment of women a danger to traditions?"

I think it's quite perfectly fair to say that, yes. Even when you rephrased it a couple posts back, I wouldn't have objected to that version either.

Though you could still argue that homosexuality is by it's very nature anti-Christian, depending on your point of view, as it opposes fundamental Christian doctrine. Now personally I think being anti-homosexual is totally anti-Jesus' actual teachings, but *shrug*

Anti means you want to abolish, ban, disband, or condemn. I know a lot of homosexuals, and I have never heard them be seriously hateful toward Christianity or any religion. I really don't think there is anything anti-Christian about homosexuality either, except that most homosexual men would prefer not to be stuck in long "marriage like" relationships. However the lesbians I know are probably less opposed to long term relationships then most of the straight people I know.

But I think Jesus was probably gay. Why did he not have a girlfriend or wife, and how do we know that Judas didn't betray him over a lover's spat?

"But I think Jesus was probably gay. Why did he not have a girlfriend or wife, and how do we know that Judas didn't betray him over a lover's spat?"

Interesting points. As for why he didn't have a girlfriend, how many cultures in the Middle East ~2000 years ago even allowed women to be girlfriends?

"Interesting points. As for why he didn't have a girlfriend, how many cultures in the Middle East ~2000 years ago even allowed women to be girlfriends?"

I have no idea.

I was trying to make a joke not points.

However Jesus did live in a time and a place in history where male homosexuality was widely and unashamedly experimented with. Also what was with the kiss by Judas to identify Jesus?

darwin66-

Ah, the tired old feminist/social science 'biophobia' argument. First of all, we *are* engaging with biology/evolution (or else I've somehow missed the entire point of my PhD thesis...) - have you never heard of the sociology of science? Check out some of the 'classic' texts in feminist soc/anthropology of science, like those of Emily Martin and Nelly Oudshoorn, and then read some of the newer stuff by people like Lisa Jean Moore (her latest book on sperm science is due out in July, I believe), if you wanna see exactly how we're dealing with you all.

And if anything, what Hrdy's work should have revealed to you is that science is as much a product of its surrounding cultures as men and women are...

Methinks evolutionists suffer from 'sociophobia'... gender theory is hogwash - humph!

"Of course feminism didn't kill Romance. In fact, one of the most famous Romantics, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, was the daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft, who wrote "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman". Wollstonecraft may not have been a feminist as we define it today, but she did have feminist ideas."

I was too dumbfounded to say anything other than to point out that feminism may have been the end of date rape and how some men may consider that an end to romance, but that romance is alive and well in my home ;)

Not sure if anyone's mentionned it but...actually some suffragettes were pretty militant. They set fire to houses and shit. It caused great rifts in the movement, but they only resorted to it when they realised that sitting pretty and peacefully agitating for the vote wasn't working.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh GEEZ. seriously? tell me this was edited to exclude anyone who had heard more than feminists=lesbians, ever?? part of me says, "why do we bother then" and wants to go back to bed (with a bottle of tequila), and the other part of me says, "DAMN, this is why everything I do and everything I stand for is so important, and why I have to be louder". I just hope the second part of me (and that corresponding part in each of you) wins the battle of the selves as you react to this.

Hi, I've been lurking for a while so time to stop dipping my toe and just jump into the pool.

What makes me sad about this video (besides what people have already mentioned) is that the kid who was in a group and stated that women were already in positions of authority is wearing a sweatshirt from my college. *smacks head* I can't promise that if I see him at Alumni weekend, because it's a small school and I think he'd be hard to miss, I might have to set him straight.

Long time reader, first-time poster.

Anyway, do yourselves a favor and do NOT read the Youtube comments on that video.

I "love" how the word lesbian is considered the ultimate insult from the guys and even the woman saying "but I'm okay, bc I'm not a lesbian, and I do have kids".

"I'm a feminist, but I'm not one of THOSE feminists....those feminists are bad. I am sexually attractive, non-hairy and I love me some dick"

that's a-ok and liberating. riggggght.

More correctly "militant" is a term used to make feminists look distasteful to voter. It's equivalent to calling progressives "communist."

Another non-insult insult developed to keep people struggling for freedom and dignity in their place. One of the fun parts of interacting with various right-wingers for me is that when they intimate that I am one and/or the other, I am able to say "Yes, next question?" and leave them trying to get their jaws off the pavement.

Hi everyone!

I wanted to jump and let you all know that the clip you are discussing is from my hour-long documentary "I Was A Teenage Feminist." It is indeed designed to get the eyes rolling, but lives in the context of a very feminist film.

I wish there had been a little more context with the posting, because it seems like some people got the idea that it was a slam on feminism, when in fact it's the opposite. In some part, it's a response to people who think we don't need feminism any more because everything is so darn great.

The woman commenting in the middle of the clip is Letty Cottin Pogrebin, one of the founding editors of Ms. Magazine and part of the team that brought you "Free To Be...You And Me." She's an amazing person.

By the way, I had to stop accepting comments on the You Tube site because there were so many vicious anti-feminist rants it was getting to hard to police. And frankly, it just started to depress the hell out of me.

There's more info on the film at www.trixiefilms.com, including upcoming screenings, so I really hope you check it out.

I know that I'm commenting on this rather late (I got bored and started looking through the old archives) but I've heard my Dad say similar things on the subject of feminism. In fact, I can recall a conversation that went something like this:

Dad: Danielle is my feminist daughter... my little feminazi--

Me: Wait, Dad, why do you equate the feminist movement with the third reich? The Nazis killed 6 million people, the feminists promote gender equality. There's an obvious difference there.

Dad: Dr. Love says that feminists hate men. He calls them feminazis.

Me: No, we don't hate men. We hate the patriarchal rules that govern our society, but we are not anti-men.

Dad: But men created the patriarchy, so that implies that you hate men.

Me: No, it doesn't. I might have a teacher who establishes a rule that says all kids need to be slapped with a ruler when they do something wrong, and I may hate the rule, but just because one teacher made a messed-up rule doesn't mean that I hate all teachers.

Dad: Well, the feminist movement is an angry movement. I think that's why a lot of people hate them.

What? And other activists movements AREN'T angry? He's a libratarian and firmly opposes the war, so I assume that he also hates the anti-war movement, because *gasp* most activists movement probably are stemmed from outrage? I just stopped talking to him about it after that. It became clear to me that my Dad is not going to change his mind. I think he's honestly convinced that the empowerment of women will result in the emasculization of men. He's been listening to this guy called "Dr. Love" and to me it sounds like this guy promotes misogyny. He fits women into 5 different categories, and I don't remember what they are, but they're pretty sickening. All of them basically imply that women will screw you up, ick. I should find the book and e-mail the title to feministing...hmmm...