I had the pleasure of hearing this story right as I headed out the door this morning. Apparently her husband was in a lower caste, and he didn't approve of him from the beginning of the relationship. Nice way to start out '08.

Yeah it's not like she's an adult who can make her own decisions or anything.

This is off-topic, but unless it's already been done, I think it would be interesting to examine the Presidential Candidates in terms of who supports equality for women the most, if that's somehow possible?

A few items: Can we safely say now, then, that certain cultures are more sexist and misogynistic than others?

I was discussing this on my facebook blog, and it seems the conversation has turned into transnational feminism and how we can preserve and respect a culture, while at the same time, standing up for what we consider misogynistic. Like it or not, a crime against women is a crime against women, regardless of "culture."

Sometimes, and I caution to even say it, global feminism (though I realize this man is from Chicago), is best done via IGOs rather than grassroot NGO levels. Want to curb misogynistic practices? Put pressure on national governments to do something about it ...or they lose certain privileges.

No matter where you're from, this is wrong. This is a fine example of how the patriarchy and the objectification of women can lead to violence to women. After all, if you see a woman not as a complete person with her own autonomy, but something of an object, to be bought, sold and bartered for, then you can treat them however you want.

This is my favorite line:
She said that relatives approved of the marriage and that the caste system was not a consideration for her family in India, nor is it a consideration now in the United States.
"There was no family problem. There was nothing going on. Absolutely nothing," Devi said.

Nice one, auntie.

I don't see how this specifically have to do with the patriarchy, but whatever. The man would still have done it had we lived in a matriarchy.

Like it or not, a crime against women is a crime against women, regardless of "culture."

It was a crime against A woman, not against women. A crime against A woman is a crime against an individual.

This is a fine example of how the patriarchy and the objectification of women can lead to violence to women.

Err...he killed her husband, too. Trust ProFeministMale to ignore violence against men, even when it's right in front of his face.

DNX - but the reason this falls under the patriarchy is his motivation for killing, you idiot ...

If this were a completely random crime for no reason, it's one thing. But this is a crime based on the fact that the father saw himself as OWNING his daughter, and that no man should marry her without his permission. That, in itself, is patriarchal.

If this were a crime based not on gender and marriage, then that's a different story.

If you're so concerned for men's rights and well-being, you should be speaking out against this, too, because patriarchy is clearly hurting men (as in the guy he killed in the fire), as well as this man himself, who has decided that a patriarchal culture and practice is more important than his daughter and the relationship with his family.

I suspect this man also would have killed a son (and incidentally the son's wife) if the son had married "beneath" his caste. Even in cultures widely regarded as more enlightened, certain segments of society frown upon, and in subtle (and at times not so subtle) ways prevent the marriage of a child beneath his or her "station" -- whether "station" is defined by wealth or education or otherwise.

Of course, citizens of the more enlightened nations do not resort to murder in protest of such a marriage.

Tim, I am not so sure that'd be the case ...as in women's caste systems are often based on dowry - and in the cases in which the dowry are not sufficient, women are the ones being harmed for it, either via burning or having acids thrown on them ...

We've seen repeated cases of this over and over again ...and whether we want to political correct and culturally sensitive or not, the practice is misogynistic and unacceptable.

" A few items: Can we safely say now, then, that certain cultures are more sexist and misogynistic than others? "

Not when you compare it to good old-fashioned American Christian Patriarchy.

(Robin Phillips has written a decent summary of their views on marriage here, in case no one here has heard of it before.
http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2006/08/my-book-on-courtship-and-betrothal_30.html )

I knew we'd get some folks wagging their fingers at "less enlightened" cultures. Whatever. Like violence against women isn't an issue in developed nations.

Dnx, nobody is advocating matriarchy. But what makes you think he would have done the same thing in a female-supremacist culture?
In a matriarchy, women would not be considered their father's property, to be handed over to another man upon marriage. So there'd be no conflict about that.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that feminists don't advocate matriarchy? That the absence of patriarchy does not necessarily mean matriarchy?
One sex does not have to "rule" over the other.
Why are relations between the sexes all about the dominant/submissive paradigm to you?

"Of course, citizens of the more enlightened nations do not resort to murder in protest of such a marriage."

See, this is the kind of bullshit that makes my blood boil. More enlightened nations? Like who, the US of A, where a woman is battered every 15 seconds and raped every 6 minutes? In Europe, domestic violence is the main cause of death for women ages 16-44. (See Amnesty International for the figures.)

Enlightened nations my ass. It's times like these when I'm ashamed to call myself a feminist and a female of color at the same time. With racism like this so rampant, who needs sexism?

You know what bugs me? I don't think this would have been a headline story if this woman wasn't pregnant.

After all, honor killings and the like have been happening in the U.S. for awhile now. And women are murdered by male family members every day...

But when I saw this on CNN.com the headline was "Father murders pregnant daughter."

If this girl hadn't been pregnant, would we ever even hear about this?

This incident happened a few miles from me, in a neighborhood where I used to live. The man accused of the arson is actually an immigrant from India.

It is a sad, sad story all around. In addition to the horror of the deaths of this man's family, many people have been displaced from their homes and lost everything they had due to his actions. The local papers have shown pictures of these people and they were of all races, ethnicities, and were men and women. The one thing they all had in common was they were all relatively lower class economically. And now they share being homeless.

And all the friends and relatives of this man say the same thing - no problems with the family, everybody was happy, blah, blah, blah. Well, obviously somebody is lying, or just not paying attention.

SarahMC - I think I love you! ;)

You just said exactly what I was trying to think of saying, but I wasn't able to put it into words the way you did. I mean, WHY is there always this power struggle? Why do a lot of men believe that we are trying to "dominate" them just because we want the same rights and freedoms they enjoy? At the risk of sounding cliche - can't we all just get along?? :)

Anyhoo - I just wanted to let you know how much I think you ROCK! Out of all the comments on all the blog posts I read on this site, your comments are always very intelligent and they hit home & ring true with me the most. Thanks for being... Well, just thanks for being! :)

I suspect this man also would have killed a son (and incidentally the son's wife) if the son had married "beneath" his caste.

I doubt that. Certainly, the father wouldn't have been pleased with a son who married beneath him, but I'll bet that the reaction would have been more along the lines of disowning his son, not murdering him.

Good observation, Tobes. Had she not been pregnant, this would not even be on CNN's radar. It's only tragic when a fetus is involved. /sarcasm

JunieB, those comments from the family infuriate me. What is the point of even playing "happy family?" Clearly, the situation was *not* butterflies and rainbows, or else the community would not be in this situation right now.

Aw, thanks MzStiletto! I'm glad you've stuck around. :)

Tobes, I think part of the reason this is such a big story in the Chicago area is it is the third fairly recent local news story involving fire and Indian immigrants. This link goes to the Chicago Tribune story that may not stay up for more than a week:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/39ftv6

Well, I _thought_ it was a good thing until reading this story.

radhika, THANK YOU.

In an off topic response to Spiknard's off topic question, I suggest you read this article and decide for yourself: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/02/whillary102.xml

Tobes, I'm right with you. I'm not sure this would be on CNN if the woman wasn't pregnant. And one of the charges against the father is 'intentional homicide of an unborn child'. It's horrible that this woman and her family were killed, but I'm a little scared of where the legal precedence of that charge is going.

I'll admit to being ignorant as to how the caste system works, but I'm willing to bet the reaction would have been different if it was a son who married below his caste. Somehow it seems like it is more acceptable for a man to marry a lower class woman than the other way around.

And SarahMC, you are spot on in the fact that a lack of patriarchy does not necesarrily mean matriachy. This is way off topic, but I've been noticing a trend in fantasy fiction that really bugs me. In every world where woman are in charge, for some reason the men are always enslaved.

The next time someone tells me they aren't a feminist, or that feminism is over or outdated or has done all it needs to, I will hand them a copy of this story and knock them in the head "should've had a V8" style.

It's terrifying that this level of woman-hate goes on and (as many ahve pointed out) goes largely ignored.

VT - I HATE separate charges for murdering a fetus. I think there should be a charge for murdering a pregnant woman. I mean, it makes me uncomfortable to make the differentiation between pregnant and non-pregnant women, but seeing as the #1 cause of death of pregnant women is homicide, it seems that they need extra protection. And murdering someone who is pregnant is just so heinous.

OK, I know I've bitched people out for racism and xenophobia, but this act is despicable. Let me make that clear. Everyone should condemn actions like this, including the South Asian American community. (which they have)

But I've said it once and I'll say it again. Condemning this man's actions does NOT give someone the right to unnecessarily bash Indian culture and imply that it is barbaric or entirely misogynistic. Yes, there are misogynistic elements in it, just like Western culture. However, Indian culture is far too diverse and far too vast to reduce to one form.

I wonder why feminism isn't so popular among women of color.

That, in itself, is patriarchal.

No it's not. It would have happened in a matriarchy. It makes no difference whatsoever. None. One of the reasons I don't fight against the patriarchy, is that I am not a blind ideologue.

SarahMC says: ''nobody is advocating matriarchy.''
Please, feel free to point out to me where exactly I stated someone was advocating matriarchy.

In a matriarchy, women would not be considered their father's property
People will kill regardless. She might not have been considered his property, but he might still have gotten angry at marrying the man (whom he had issues with), and killed him and her.

I'm not going to address the rest of your rant, because I never said feminists advocated matriarchy and whatnot.

Thanks for playing!

Oh...and I wouldn't fight a matriarchy either.

"It would have happened in a matriarchy."

...and I bet you have a bunch of "actual' examples, huh? why use the silly/ purely hypothetical matriarchy argument, when someone just told you that feminism isn't about advocating one-sex rule? There isn't a connection between feminism and matriarchy, geddit? So your ranting about it is a red herring.

Your argument that murder would exist in non-patriarchal societies: maybe it would, but getting rid of the myth of ownership of women's bodies by men would surely reduce the number of murders.

There's actually never been a proven archaeological example of "matriarchy". There have been, however, matrilineal societies.

This is because women were INCLUSIVE and didn't rule over men through oligarchy -- even when bloodlines passed along their names instead of men's.

________________
religious or not, we're all affected...
http://www.religiarchy.com

I was about to respond to the claim that this case has nothing to do with the patriarchy (haw HAW), but I thought better of what would surely be a pointless argument.

Otherwise, this story is sickening and, sadly, not all that surprising. Although the family's culture is, I guess, relevant to a comprehensive understanding of the situation, it is wholly unnecessary in order for a rational being to feel (at the least) horror at such behavior.

You are the one who brought matriarchy up, Dnx. And to me and a bunch of other people, it came off like you were suggesting that's what we (feminists) prefer as opposed to patriarchy.

How is "he killed them because the SIL didn't ask for his permission to marry the daughter" NOT indicative of patriarchy? It's about the murder's belief that he owns his daughter and has a right to make life decisions for her.

dnx: One of the reasons I don't fight against the patriarchy, is that I am not a blind ideologue.

No, but apparently you're a psychic:

It would have happened in a matriarchy.

Oh, and you might as well wear a sign around your neck that reads "Male Supremacist," Dnx.
You acknowledge the existance of patriarchy but don't fight against it? You recognize that you have unearned privilege, and that women as a class are oppressed by men as a class, but don't want to change it. How can you be anything BUT a misogynist?

I don't fight against patriarchy, but that does not mean I support it. I fight to change laws; things that can be changed. I'm not like feminists in the way that I don't say: ''OMG! Women are beaten and raped! Evil patriarchy! We must stop it.'' I'm not an ideologue, and don't seek to change people's attitudes or things that are beyond our control, as humans, such as stopping crimes. As I said previously, I would not fight a matriarchy either for the very same reasons.

I have unearned privileges? Women are oppressed in North America & Europe? Tell me about it.

Theaetetus, if a kid beats up another kid and steals his candy, is it because we live in a patriarchy? No. Same thing here. In a matriarchy, the husband most likely would have gotten mad at the daughter for marrying a man he did not like, and murdered her (and the man).

Changing attitudes is beyond our control? Stopping crime is beyond our control?
So re-education has never worked to change people's attitudes towards slavery, or child-abuse, or women's roles? All our attitudes are constant, and have been with us since the dawn of time?

It must be nice to be so comfortable with your position in society. Your view might change if the majority of our culture's double-standards worked against you. Or if you faced the same threat of sexualized violence that women do.

Certain things won't change with legislation. Attitudes must change first.

Your kids/candy example doesn't include anything re sex roles or gender dominance, while the example in this news story does! How can this be so difficult?
Why, under matriarchy, would the husband (father?) feel he had the right to murder his daughter and SIL because the SIL didn't ask his permission to marry the daughter? Are you missing that part or something? About how marriage is looked at as a transfer of property (the woman) from one man (dad) to another (the new man)?

dnx:
I'm not like feminists in the way that I don't say: ''OMG! Women are beaten and raped! Evil patriarchy! We must stop it.''

And that is what makes you a misogynistic asshole. You don't give a shit that women are beaten and raped. Wow. Well at least you're honest. Most assholes at least pretend to care.

I have unearned privileges? Women are oppressed in North America & Europe? Tell me about it.

Ding ding ding! And now I know you're simply a troll and worth no more of my time.

Caste, if a child comes from a mixed marriage, comes from the child's father. So the kid, in this case, was a lower caste than the grandfather, probably adding to the ways the patriarchy was responsible for these murders.

And I second radhika's comment. Well spotted.

"A few items: Can we safely say now, then, that certain cultures are more sexist and misogynistic than others?"

Yeah, we can definitely say that certain *customs* are more sexist and mysoginistic than others, no matter how culturally authentic they may be. As for *cultures,* those contradict themselves and overlap with each other too much to pin down and rank as accurately.

"If this were a completely random crime for no reason, it's one thing. But this is a crime based on the fact that the father saw himself as OWNING his daughter, and that no man should marry her without his permission. That, in itself, is patriarchal."

Indeed.

As for the what-if-it-was-matriarchy-instead-of-patriarchy topic, I guess the only difference it would have made would be more mothers and fewer fathers committing these kinds of murders.

"This is way off topic, but I've been noticing a trend in fantasy fiction that really bugs me. In every world where woman are in charge, for some reason the men are always enslaved."

What about _Ammonite_ by Nicola Griffith and _Y_ by Brian Vaughan and Pia Guerra? OTOH, those are kinda more SF than fantasy.

"OK, I know I've bitched people out for racism and xenophobia, but this act is despicable. Let me make that clear. Everyone should condemn actions like this, including the South Asian American community. (which they have)"

Right on! I'm also reminded of Imam Zaid Shakir's reaction to the murder of Aqsa Parvez: http://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2007/12/30/4745399-sun.html

"But I've said it once and I'll say it again. Condemning this man's actions does NOT give someone the right to unnecessarily bash Indian culture and imply that it is barbaric or entirely misogynistic. Yes, there are misogynistic elements in it, just like Western culture. However, Indian culture is far too diverse and far too vast to reduce to one form."

I totally agree!

(Well, apart from nitpicking that "Indian culture" isn't even one culture and "Western culture" isn't one culture either)

Thank you Mina. :)

On another related note, we need more multiracial/multicultural feminists up in this joint. Not just to dispel myths about other cultures, but to fight racism and xenophobia within American feminism. (Which is prevalent, as I have seen myself in this thread.)

The thing that struck me was the assistant state attorney describing what they believed happened. That the father poured $3 in gasoline outside the couple's front door and then lit it while they slept.

radhika: THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. As a South Asian (though not American), I was somewhat scared to read these boards in fear of the "OMG their cultures are backward" comments. Lo and behold, they are here.

No problem, Tiara. I've already emailed Deministing about this particular problem and I expect something to be done. (Right, Jessica?)

whoops, Feministing. teehee.

Dear Sarah, please take a biology class. This is not ''pop-psychology'' here. Anyway, it would have happened regardless because some people think they ''own'' others. Why do you think slavery existed? Flesh-control will always exist.

Dear Luna, nice try, but I don't try to stop violence against men either. Back to the drawing board for you, kiddo!

Parents always think they ''own'' their kids.

I find the use of the term ''patriarchy'', ''privilege'', and ''misogyny'' is way overused in here. Don't you boys and girls know how to say anything else? Like ''science'', for example?

***rolls eyes***
DNX= Troll

Tim= lone asshole who does not speak for regular feministing readers.

Of course, citizens of the more enlightened nations do not resort to murder in protest of such a marriage.

You were being sarcastic, right? I really really hope so. Either way though, the problem with calling one group of people more "enlightened" than another--and this should be obvious--is who makes that decision. And clearly no one is going to decide that they are less enlightened. Radhika's pointed it out, but feminists already have enough to deal with that we don't need to toss racism into the mix.

This is the kind of story that makes me, if not quite retract my opposition to capital punishment, not as ardent in said opposition. I can't say that I'll be picketing the prison the night he gets his lethal injection or whatever.

Alan

***rolls eyes***
holly the contrarian=Troll

Actually- dnx= dnx-1.
here's his website: http://iblognews.wordpress.com/
he links to (or was up until two weeks ago) antimisandry.com- where he also reprinted 2 emails from me.
Oh, and you know, dnx, I
ve always posted under the name "holly", so try again.
(oh, and it was cute in the e-mail where you derided me for using the word "fucking", and then employed the word antimisandry.com- in response to an e-mail directed solely to you)
You're a real class act!

I guess that word just shouldn't come out of the mouths of ladies.

GO HOME. NOW.

Take a biology class? What? I don't see what biology has to do with this topic. We use the words "patriarchy," "privilege," and "misogyny" because this is a feminist website and we talk about feminist issues.
When something is anti-woman, or supports the male power structure, we identify it and name it.
You've already admitted that you don't oppose misogyny, so what is your purpose?
And it's a lie that you don't fight against violence against men. Are you not from the antimisandry site? Clearly you think men's rights are important but don't give a shit about women because you're not a woman and don't relate to or empathize with them.

Oh, Dnx. Biology does not equal destiny. Human being are complicated... that's what that whole civilization thing we've been working on is all about. And some people want civilization -or at least our own society -to be as equitable as possible for all participants. It's that kind of thing that leads to things like progress and a better life, but if you don't like the advances that civilization has brought I suggest that you go live in a cave and leave reasonable people alone.

relating to the fantasy - matriarchy topic I was thinking over the drow in forgotten realms, last I read in War of the Spider Queen the Eilistraee groups seemed to give off a matriarchal vibe which would be comparable to current western patriarchy. The male, Ryld, didn't really feel included or welcomed in the society but they weren't hostile, just more concerned with Halistra then with him. But I haven't read a lot of other books concerning Eilistraee settlements.... I may need to pick up the Lyriel stories to find out more.

In a matriarchy, or even a matrilineal society, the status of the couple, as a couple, would come from the woman, so the woman could not possibly "marry down." The woman might have to consult her mother for permission to marry, but since there are no cultures where women kill their adult children, only cultures where women sell out their adult children to their husbands who *then* do the killing, there's no good reason to believe that a matriarchy would have the cultural belief that it's okay to kill a child for marrying down or marrying without permission. Even if so, it would be the mother who grants or doesn't grant permission, not the father, and very likely it would be the sons who would be required to marry someone of higher status... except they wouldn't, because in a matrilineal society what would matter much more than the children of sons is that sons support their sisters' children. Every matrilineal society there has ever been works by creating clans headed by women, women take care of the kids, men outbreed and then have kind of not so much to do with their own children, but they heavily participate in raising and providing for their clan's children, who are the children of their sisters. So actually in a matriarchy marriage probably would not exist, or not as we know it, and a mother would not be so concerned about who her son marries as to kill him over it.

So no, this crime would not have happened under a matriarchy. Or a matrilineal society. On the other hand, women murdering their kids because God told them to *might* still happen, because that isn't caused by patriarchy, it's caused by men totally ignoring what goes on with women caring for kids until the women go insane. A matrilineal society would probably still have the women care for the kids, it's just that the importance of that task would be greatly increased in society. (And perhaps the women wouldn't be allowed to go insane and kill their kids because their mothers, sisters and female cousins would notice a problem first.)

"The woman might have to consult her mother for permission to marry, but since there are no cultures where women kill their adult children, only cultures where women sell out their adult children to their husbands who *then* do the killing, there's no good reason to believe that a matriarchy would have the cultural belief that it's okay to kill a child for marrying down or marrying without permission."

OTOH, according to the Latin roots of the words "patriarchy" just means rule by fathers and "matriarchy" just means rule by mothers. This doesn't specify *how* the fathers or mothers would rule.

Therefore, if it's possible for some varieties of patriarchy to allow fathers to kill their adult daughters and sons, then that is a good reason to believe it would also be possible for some varieties of matriarchy to allow mothers to kill their adult daughters and sons.

"Even if so, it would be the mother who grants or doesn't grant permission, not the father, and very likely it would be the sons who would be required to marry someone of higher status... except they wouldn't, because in a matrilineal society what would matter much more than the children of sons is that sons support their sisters' children."

OTOH, would that apply to every possible matriarchy? I heard that some patriarchies out there don't have patrilineality.

And it's a lie that you don't fight against violence against men. Are you not from the antimisandry site? Clearly you think men's rights are important but don't give a shit about women because you're not a woman and don't relate to or empathize with them.

Your logic is incredible...NOT! Just because I go on antimisandry doesn't mean I try to end violence against men. Learn to read. Here's a great site for you: http://www.starfall.com

I only care about some stuff. I go on there because sometimes it gives me ideas on what to write about. I've only made around 20 posts in 4-6 months, so I don't go on there much. Furthermore, I do care about women's rights, but most of the ''rights'' you claim women not to have are lies, myth, or not rights at all. I've asked some of my feminists friends, and they don't know what I can write about for women. Tell me, and I'll make a post about it. It's gotta be an issue affecting many women, and not individual incidents such as this one.

Anyway, my next post on my blog will be ''20 Examples of Feminist & Masculist Nonsense.''

Mina, it's true that matrilinearity is found in some male-dominated societies. This is because it makes more sense with human biology. The idea that the people responsible for caring for the young, who suffer physical harm during labor and need a lot of care at the time that their babies are also most helpless, should be sequestered with their *own* family rather than people they're not related to... that makes a lot of sense. And it also makes sense that given that we always know a woman's child but not a man's child, that focusing on who the mother is for inheritance purposes makes sense even if inheritance is male to male. (Thus, some male dominated societies -- I hesitate to call them "patriarchies" because they were all about uncles, not fathers -- transmitted power and goods from man to sister's son.)

However, the idea that a society that venerates mothers and grants them power over their families rather than granting the power to the fathers should then have the girls go off to their husbands' homes makes no sense. I can't imagine how you could have a matriarchy without matrilinearity. The societies that are male-dominated but matrilineal are actually much more egalitarian than a traditional patriarchy, and part of the male domination may have been observer bias from the people studying those societies; women usually had separate but valuable power structures of their own. For an actual matriarchy to send women away to live with strangers seems absurd given how human biology works; the only reason to have patrilinearity is if you want to have patriarchy and therefore sons must inherit from fathers, so women must be sequestered *away* from family so that they can be controlled better and their reproduction can be governed by their husbands. Otherwise patrilinearity makes very little sense with human biology.

As for how matriarchy and patriarchy *should* work vs. how they actually do... we've never seen a matriarchy, but in all societies we have seen that have honor killings, it's never women who do the killing. This implies that honor killing serves a specifically male agenda and women wouldn't feel the need to do it. (Women might well do something else that is rather unpleasant; we don't know, because we've never seen a truly female-dominated society.) So yeah, in theory you could have a matriarchy where honor killings are committed, but I can't see why. Given what we actually do see women do across cultures, given what we actually see female animals do, and given the motivations for honor killings, it seems hard to imagine why a matriarch would kill her daughter (or her son) for marrying an inappropriate person. Unless maybe there was warfare involved.

Some commenters have expressed some discomfort with the charge of homicide of an unborn child. It appears that, under Illinois law, that is an offense distinct from murder, and the fetal homicide statute specifically exempts acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion to which the pregnant woman has consented.

If the statute were a back door attempt to restrict abortion rights, I could more easily understand the concern, but under the present circumstances, why should the state not punish intentional fetal homicide? Certainly a woman who has lost her potential offspring at the hands of an assailant or another who intended to do serious harm to her or to the fetus has suffered a grievous loss. Why should the criminal law not recognize that loss and punish accordingly?

Given India's gender ratios I wouldn't be so quick to claim India is all wonderful regarding women's rights.

...'Cause anybody said anything resembling that, Farhat.

"I HATE separate charges for murdering a fetus. I think there should be a charge for murdering a pregnant woman."

I like your approach. Promotion of "murder of/harming a fetus" which can be seen in some criminal charges, can only be used against the pro-choice movement.

Would murder of a pregnant woman be a kind of hate crime, then?

"I've asked some of my feminists friends, and they don't know what I can write about for women. Tell me, and I'll make a post about it. It's gotta be an issue affecting many women, and not individual incidents such as this one."

Aside from the fact "honor killing" is a recognized phenomenon, how about . . . rape? Your women friends heard of that one?

"but in all societies we have seen that have honor killings, it's never women who do the killing."

I've heard of women ordering such hits, though:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/10/05/mom_gave_long_distance_order_for_honor_killing_police_say/

"This implies that honor killing serves a specifically male agenda and women wouldn't feel the need to do it."

I guess that depends on whether "my daughter eloped, I must kill her to restore my reputation" and "my neighbor dissed me, I must kill him to restore my reputation" (yes, I've seen gang shootings described as honor killings) count as one specific agenda or two different agendas.

"Given what we actually do see women do across cultures,"

Yeah, I was thinking of what women and men do in patriarchies, and wondering how much of what men do in patriarchies would be done by women in matriarchies.

"given what we actually see female animals do, and given the motivations for honor killings, it seems hard to imagine why a matriarch would kill her daughter (or her son) for marrying an inappropriate person. Unless maybe there was warfare involved."

And/or racism and/or religious fundamentalism and/or paranoia about having a dissed rep, I guess.

"If the statute were a back door attempt to restrict abortion rights, I could more easily understand the concern, but under the present circumstances, why should the state not punish intentional fetal homicide? Certainly a woman who has lost her potential offspring at the hands of an assailant or another who intended to do serious harm to her or to the fetus has suffered a grievous loss. Why should the criminal law not recognize that loss and punish accordingly?"

It should recognize that loss by recognizing that *she* is the victim, not by counting the fetus itself as a separate victim.

"Would murder of a pregnant woman be a kind of hate crime, then?"

That sounds workable. You know how race-based murders are hate crimes whether one's killed for being black or killed for being white? A reproductive status-based murder should count as a hate crime whether one's killed for being pregnant or killed for not being pregnant...

For the love of all that is good, could we please all agree that this DNX is a troll-- we boot trolls do we not? He is dragging the discussion into his own stupidity and it's driving me mad having to skip all his crap to get to relevant discussions.

A quick view of his "website" should tell you all you need to know. This guy has no interest in advancing the discussion here. -- He posts "hilarious" stuff from feministing.ORG -- real gems like,

"A feminist must say “Patriarchy� at least ninety-seven times per hour. The ten millionth time you say “Patriarchy� you will trigger a shower of confetti and receive a fabulous prize."

Time for this guy to go... anyone who feels so entitled to come here and waste time and call other bloggers "kiddo" should lose privileges. The topic is just too important.

Sorry I haven't had my morning cup of coffee yet, short fuse and all. But seriously, why is this guy still here??

Thank you, Tobes. That and the "other jerk". It's painfully obvious that all they're doing is trying to get our goat. Both- waste of space. I made the initial (I think) mistake of engaging dnx.
Yes, please stop feeding the trolls! It's irritating. I know *some* commenters love to debate... but stop.
I'll also be the ass and go ahead and say one of the debaters is really getting on my last nerve. Having to skip her comments, now.
"I are so smart. I are so smart. S-M-R-T"- or, however that Simpson saying goes.

Tell me again how patriarchy is a good thing?

Sorry, no.

I can't say that I'll be picketing the prison the night he gets his lethal injection or whatever.

Illinois suspended its capital punishment program after it was discovered innocent people were being executed. Little consolation, but Chander (already 59) will die slowly of old age in a cell.

I find the use of the term ''patriarchy'', ''privilege'', and ''misogyny'' is way overused in here.

Poor dear. Perhaps you should go elsewhere where your views and poor grammar are appreciated.

''Aside from the fact "honor killing" is a recognized phenomenon, how about . . . rape? Your women friends heard of that one?''

I focus on English-speaking countries. Rape? That is kind of broad... What about rape do you want me to write about?

Holly, all you did was call me a troll before anything else.

''He posts "hilarious" stuff''
I've posted ONE post from feministing.org and that's IT. You have to be one of those dumb feminists; just love to twist things to suit you, don't you? No wonder average Joe & Jane don't take you seriously!

and seriously, ladies, if the average Jane and Joe don't take you seriously, you might as well pack up the site, stop arguing passionately and with conviction, quit your day jobs and start making your boyfriends or husbands sandwiches.
after all, feminists are so dumb.

if you have so much disdain feminists in general and this site in particular so much, dnx, why do you come here?
can you at least see why folks are calling you a troll? maybe a little? just tad?

and seriously, ladies, if the average Jane and Joe don't take you seriously, you might as well pack up the site, stop arguing passionately and with conviction, quit your day jobs and start making your boyfriends or husbands sandwiches.
after all, feminists are so dumb.

if you have so much disdain feminists in general and this site in particular so much, dnx, why do you come here?
can you at least see why folks are calling you a troll? maybe a little? just a tad?

and seriously, ladies, if the average Jane and Joe don't take you seriously, you might as well pack up the site, stop arguing passionately and with conviction, quit your day jobs and start making your boyfriends or husbands sandwiches.
after all, feminists are so dumb.

if you have so much disdain feminists in general and this site in particular much, dnx, why do you come here?
can you at least see why folks are calling you a troll? maybe a little? just a tad?

sorry for the triple post, trigger finger got all itchy.

I am from Menarebetterthanwomen.com.

I have no wish to make a false pretense that I come here in peace - I have not.

I just find the discourse between "SarahMc" and Dnx" laughable.

Sarah, how old are you? Sorry, how old are the feminists here? Why is "Dnx" a troll simply because he disagrees with you?

He asked a simple question.

How are women being oppressed in North American and Europe?

Really?

Oppressed?

HAHAHAHAH.

Please, don't make excuses for women's inability or find an outlet to apportion blame(men ie. patriarchy).

Its getting old.

Read the fucking article. The man killed a man and a woman. Suddenly, it has transmuted to *gosh*, a crime against women?!? Misogynist??

Feel free to plant tags or labels on me. Call me misogynist, sexist, chauvinist blah blah, I don't care. One thing for sure - I don't blame women for my problems. I stand up and solve them. Pronto. I get things done, can't say the same about the bunch of womymn on this site.

Women oppressed? Don't fucking kid me. Who pays alimoney 99% of the time? Who gets conscripted for the draft? Who gets treated harsher in the judicial system? Yeah... men.

Tell me about a time women were oppressed and I be glad to hear it. I will be first in line to defend her but tell me about a time when men are getting oppressed in today's world, I can write a book.

I will be defending the patriarchy - If that pisses you off, shoot me. Undeserved privileges? HAHAHHAHA, you got to be fucking kidding me. That is what I would call AFFIRMATIVE ACTION which is in place.. *wait*... for WOMEN.

HAHAHAHA.

Call me a troll all you want, I am leaving.

Btw, do check out the site. With every feminist that goes on to harm men, there will now be an increasing number of male rights activists who will fight for men.

~ Sayonara.

When something is anti-woman, or supports the male power structure, we identify it and name it.
What is wrong with the male power structure? It has led to the progression of society into today's world world. If men wanted to enslave you, you would never have the chance to be here.

You've already admitted that you don't oppose misogyny, so what is your purpose?
Non-sequitur. Really not funny. Again, feel free to attach these little "labels" all you want. Boohoo, I care - Not.

Clearly you think men's rights are important but don't give a shit about women because you're not a woman and don't relate to or empathize with them.

So going by your logic, you have to be A) a woman or B) an unequivocal supporter of everything feminism stands for?

How fucktarded is that.

Feminism is about oppression, hegemony and censorship.

My posts will disappear in a couple of days. Just watch it happen. Why? Because feminists like you and the site's owner are afraid of the truth. You are afraid of debate, you are afraid of rational discourse. So the course of action that is being undertaken is ... you hide under the sophistry and guise of language using words like "troll" to oust MRAs or silence all opposition.

C'mon, get real. I have been posting on both male rights sites and feminists sites. Never once has a male rights site deleted comments that are pro-feminism. Infact, most of the guy, the men were engaging, forthcoming and responsive. In comparison, feminist sites(like these) just shut you off the minute you go against their doctrine.

I've posted ONE post from feministing.org and that's IT. You have to be one of those dumb feminists; just love to twist things to suit you, don't you? No wonder average Joe & Jane don't take you seriously!

^ So true.

But really, since you women are obviously masochists who relish the joy of being oppressed and subjected to abuse:

Please, make me a sandwich as I am feeling hungry. It will be such a fine show of oppression.

Anyhow, men are better than women. I guess that explains why you are all feeling grumpy. Grow out of your penis envy, ladies(HAHA!). Blow me.

oh, you poor tiny little man.
what did your mommy do to you?

Men are better than women, but no misogyny there, right?
There are numerous thread on this site consisting of feminists explaining feminism calmly and politely to men who ask questions, pose challenges, and act civilly.

Patriarchy hurts men too, babe. Blame patriarchy for that list of problems men face.

Feminism benefits everyone. Even assholes.

This site, among others, discusses the myriad ways in which women in the West are oppressed/marginalized (in addition to women in other parts of the world).

It's not our job to walk you through each thread.

i've always thought that womb envy was a more reasonable way of explaining misogyny.
every person is, at some point in his/her life, dependent on a woman for his/her survival.
i think there are quite a few men who bitterly resent women for this simple fact.

"i've always thought that womb envy was a more reasonable way of explaining misogyny.
every person is, at some point in his/her life, dependent on a woman for his/her survival."

Dependent on a woman or a girl at some point.

For example: a 12-year-old isn't an adult, even if her father and father-in-law said so 9 months ago and she's dying in childbirth today.

"Men are better than women, but no misogyny there, right?"

What does he want, a cookie? He seems to want praise for not enslaving women, as if he's not just supposed to not enslave people.

*headdesk*

Well, it probably won't do any good, but it can't hurt. Here ya go, mansvoice (we've got several of those here, by the way -- just maybe not one quite as irrational and overexcited as yours):

Play nice with others, now.

What a bunch of idiots. Is there anyone here who made it pass college without a major in Women's studies or Political Science? Buying your major doesn't count, really. There is a clear distinction between a chauvinist and a misogynist but if you wish to place a tag on me as a misogynist, go ahead. I am *sooo* bothered.

Like I said, the whole issue why men are afraid to speak up against sites like these are because of stupid tags that feminists place like "misogynists", "sexist" blah. I don't care. Put what you want on me. Your opinion counts for nuts in the real world.
Why the fuck should I blame the Patriarchy? I have never blamed anyone for anything. Can you women read or do you wish to spend some time in 3rd grade taking english classes before you come back to post? I am tired of the inane, vapid diatribe that is coming off feminists. And you proclaim yourself as "intelligent", "enlightened" women. HAHA, yeah right.

Feminism benefits everyone?
How the fuck does it benefit men? I am sure affirmative actions benefits men huh? What about child support, child custody, alimoney and the draft? Holy fucking shit, they cater to women only. How fucking hypocritical.

And haha @ the mother's insults. Can any of you women actually grow out of these insults and get something new? OMG! I was molested as a child by a woman!! *Next...*

There are numerous thread on this site consisting of feminists explaining feminism calmly and politely to men who ask questions, pose challenges, and act civilly.

Bull fucking shit. It is obvious from the way that you have been treating Dnx that you are a hypocrite. Please read through your past posts and shove this bullshit up your ass.

Don't you womymn want to be treated equally as men? Then handle the tough talk.

Men created this entire world. Patriarchy or not, men built this world brick from brick, house from house. Women were only here to carry on the species. Even contemporary, men come up with 90% of the inventions, scientific discoveries and breakthroughs. Really... men must give up the world that we have built to a bunch of whiney old cows because they said so? LMFAO. I will be defending the patriarchy, Sarah. I don't know what you think of me, how you judge me - whatever. In the near future, I will do my best to strengthen the patriarchy unit. I don't see how it is "oppressive" or "destructive". You work your way to the top, its as simple as that. Losers complain about the ladder, winners climb and subsequently OWN the ladder.

Goodbye ladies, I mean losers. Oops.

The fuckwit wrote: "What a bunch of idiots. Is there anyone here who made it pass [sic] college...Can you women read or do you wish to spend some time in 3rd grade taking english classes before you come back to post?"

It's always amusing when a troll tries to denigrate the intelligence and/or educstion of others, and in the process makes a fundamental error himself.

Whatta maroon.

This post is a whole clusterfuck of stupid. I'm gonna leave now before my head explodes.

Hey, SlackerInc:

did you visit the site mansvoice linked under his name?

I suspect some poor, wee, mensies can't get laid. so, so, angry with the women.

Well, holly, I was once linked to menarebetterthanwomen.com (motto: "Nyah nyah nyah-nyah nyah") by a gentleman who told me that as he was making $50,000-plus a year -- wiping his ass with $20 bills and lighting cigars with singles, I'm pretty sure was what he added later -- he was "knee-deep in virgin pussy" and thus too busy to talk to me, so... yeah, I'd have to say your guess is a safe one!

A lot of work went into that site, which is pretty fucking terrifying.

Now... weren't we talking about the guy who burned his pregnant daughter, her husband, and their child to death? There were some interesting points being made about how this fits into the idea of patriarchy, and how feminism, by undoing patriarchy, would have benefited every person in this case.

Including the perpetrator.

There was some disagreement as to whether this was an example of patriarchy or individual sociopathy, but I really think it is both. It is a sociopathy fed by patriarchy. I'm not sure whether this man would never have murdered in a more equitable system, but he certainly exploited patriarchal values to justify his actions.

It's complicated. I don't believe that this is the inevitable conclusion for every family existing in a patriarchal system, but I certainly think that systems that devalue and disempower one group of people in favor of another are in need of a major overhaul.

point taken, Mina.
what i should say is that all men, at some point in their lives, have been dependent on a woman or a girl in order to survive.
in the case of mansvoice, he belittles the fact that women "are only here to carry on the species," while men do all of the hard labor of society-building. i think we all know that's not true and most of us would agree that the stuff that is considered "woman's work" has long been belittled by mansvoice and his ilk, while "man's work" has long been culturally glorified.
but all that's changing which is pretty awesome as women and men are both re-evaluating, prioritizing their roles in the family, workplace, community and life in general.
really, though, i tend to think that mansvoice's mama might have taken the nipple away from him a little too soon.
hence, the antipathy towards women and the need to show his "superiority" over them by posting on feminist sites.

I suspect some poor, wee, mensies can't get laid. so, so, angry with the women

^ You do realize that the same argument can be made about the women on this site? I'm sure ranting about men and blaming the patriarchy makes you all saints. (Don't make me laugh...)

Is anyone here actually able to address my points? Women in Northern America/Europe OPPRESSED??

@ 13lesslee: So, this is about my mother now eh? Oooo, so its a woman's fault, no? Please try to formulate an argument which makes sense but then again, you are a woman(ouch!)

Every man on MABTW.com is there because the site stands tall and true. Can't handle the cold, hard facts? Tough.

but all that's changing which is pretty awesome as women and men are both re-evaluating, prioritizing their roles in the family, workplace, community and life in general.
Then why the fuck are you here? To fight for [insert] cause? Give me a fucking break, you selfish hypocrite.

I noticed a point made which I would like to address: I'm not sure whether this man would never have murdered in a more equitable system, but he certainly exploited patriarchal values to justify his actions.

Let me throw a ball here. IF it was such an equitable society, why don't feminists like yourself lobby for women to take up the dangerous jobs as well? Men are the ones who are doing some of the world's most dangerous and life-threatening jobs. I don't see feminism doing anything about it. Talk about double standards. Why aren't women eligible for the draft if we are so equal? Why must the men pay alimoney? Can't the man just walk off since it is an EQUAL society? Why is there affirmative action in place to cater to the useless?

Wanting preferential treatment is different from equality. Go eat a bag of dicks to make up for your lack of a penis. OR, go join the men(beta turds) on this site in some online sex. That will probably be the closest to an orgasm you ladies(haha!) will get.

Congratulations women, you really EARNED those rights(privileges).

"i think we all know that's not true and most of us would agree that the stuff that is considered 'woman's work' has long been belittled by mansvoice and his ilk, while 'man's work' has long been culturally glorified."

It's the other way around: women have long been belittled by having a narrow range of the less enriching work labelled "women's work," while a wider range of job opportunities (including more rewarding ones) were labelled "men's work."

Suppose a teen girl with high science class grades in the 1950s said "I really want to be a physicist!" and her teachers told her "that's men's work, you can be a secretary instead." Was the problem that the teachers thought of physics research as "men's work" and typing as "women's work," or that the girl thought of physicist as a better job than secretary?

BTW, ever noticed how whenever you talk about anti-Semitism someone accuses you of ignoring Palestine, whenever you talk about conditions in Palestine someone accuses you of ignoring Jewish history, whenever you talk about Hindu sexists someone accuses you of ignoring Christianity, whenever you talk about Christian sexists someone accuses you of ignoring the Third World, and so on?

The same "don't talk about something unless you talk about absolutely everything!!!" dynamic seems to be happening here as well...

BTW, ever noticed how whenever you talk about anti-Semitism someone accuses you of ignoring Palestine, whenever you talk about conditions in Palestine someone accuses you of ignoring Jewish history, whenever you talk about Hindu sexists someone accuses you of ignoring Christianity, whenever you talk about Christian sexists someone accuses you of ignoring the Third World, and so on?

^ What a way to escape the hypocritical nature of this site. Bravo.

"It's the other way around: women have long been belittled by having a narrow range of the less enriching work labelled "women's work," while a wider range of job opportunities (including more rewarding ones) were labelled "men's work."

^ This was to ensure that the real work won't be unencumbered by female incompetence.

"Suppose a teen girl with high science class grades in the 1950s said 'I really want to be a physicist!' and her teachers told her 'that's men's work, you can be a secretary instead.'"

That would be my mother. She was always near the top of the class and paid her own way into university where she majored in Engineering. She worked as a live in nanny and in the school cafeteria, and in a cannery during breaks. She also paid for her two younger sisters to be in college. Somewhere along the way, my grandfather, who was born in Japan in 1899 and started having kids at 40, expressed the idea that the only paid work for women was teaching. My grandparents were also teachers in our community. My grandfather was the schoolmaster.

So my mother became a high school science teacher, and the two sisters became elementary school teachers. My mother was well aware of the limitations put on her by gender and family. I was born two weeks before finals when she was getting her Master's degree. She was offered administration positions, but she considered her family (us) more important than her career. She never forgot that lost opportunity, though. She finally retired as a department chair after we grew up.

As a government employee with seniority, my mother did not experience a gender wage gap or advancement gap with her peers. If she had someone to take care of the house and children, she might have been a principal or gone to the state office, however.

What mansvoice or MRAs are referring to, is what they call the "glass basement." According to Census figures, only about one fifth of job categories nationwide are fairly representative (within 10%) in gender breakdown. I can see why men would be uncomfortable becoming kindergarten teachers or nurses, but am not sure why women would be against entering the approximately 20% of jobs defined as "predominantly male" (at least 90% male) by the Census. They are usually unglamorous, but may pay quite well. I would love to see more diversity in the workplace (also see racial breakdowns in the Census figures).

http://www.bizjournals.com/edit_special/12.html

[start quote]

The study defined 106 occupations as predominantly male, with men holding at least 90 percent of the jobs in each.

Topping that list is a group officially labeled as "heavy vehicle and mobile equipment service technicians and mechanics," better known as the mechanics for construction, industrial and farm machinery mentioned above. The Census Bureau says there are 183,960 men in that field -- and only 1,780 women. (All statistics are from 2000, the latest year for which figures are available.)

Other groups with heavily male workforces include aerospace engineers, drywall installers, machinists, roofers, locksmiths and pest-control workers.

Men hold an overall edge of 21-to-1 in the 106 occupations they dominate. The employment totals: 20.9 million males, 992,000 females.

The number of professions under female control is considerably smaller. Women hold at least 90 percent of the jobs in just 14 occupations. Their biggest margin occurs in preschools and kindergartens, where 431,965 teachers are women and 9,865 are men.

Among the other female-dominated employment groups are child-care workers, dental hygienists, registered nurses, secretaries and speech-language pathologists.

[end quote]

If mansvoice is "Dick Masterson," I hope you are enjoying yourself. Posters believe your comments are serious. I love the clip of you on Dr. Phil. The "treadmill" line was killer.

Oh, my mistake. Through high school, my mother WAS the top of the class - valedictorian. It was in university studying Engineering that she was near the top of the class.

" Grow out of your penis envy, ladies(HAHA!). Blow me."

If I had a penis I'd have surgery to have the horrid thing removed. In fact - I already did.... :-)

sgzax:

in the case of mansvoice, he belittles the fact that women "are only here to carry on the species," while men do all of the hard labor of society-building. i think we all know that's not true and most of us would agree that the stuff that is considered "woman's work" has long been belittled by mansvoice and his ilk, while "man's work" has long been culturally glorified.
but all that's changing which is pretty awesome as women and men are both re-evaluating, prioritizing their roles in the family, workplace, community and life in general.

I so agree with what you are saying. This is the kind of feminism I very strongly support. I can get frustrated with, and get into heated arguments with, another brand of feminist that seems to buy into that traditional value system in terms of what social rules are most respected and which are most devalued. These are the feminists whose greatest concern seems to be "breaking the glass ceiling" so that women (often white and born of privilege) can join their brothers and fathers in the halls of capitalist power.

"[S]ystems that devalue and disempower one group of people in favor of another are in need of a major overhaul."

Couldn't agree more. Nicely put! On that political two-dimensional test, I score most strongly to the left on the economic sphere, so this resonates with me.

Alan

From http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1580 :

Oh I thought this one was good too: (Turn the tables on them and point out their sexism)

SarahMC, please do not call me honey. That is a sexist term a woman uses on a man she considers to be a simpleton and an idiot. Also, calling me an asshole and other derogatory names does not make you any more right or more persuasive in your arguments. You can state your opinion without hate speech. I have not called any of you names so please don't do that to me.

I agree SarahMC about Victims who are unsure or don't get rape kits. False allegations means the police found direct physical evidence or the "victim" said she lied about her accusation. I am not talking about cases that could not be prosecuted, I am talking about cases where the allegation is flat-out false.

And "Honey" I also addressed the other points of the denialist definition. Ignoring them doesn't make that fact go away.

Posted by: Nathan | December 20, 2007 10:05 PM

&

Nathan, you have just illustrated the moral bankruptcy of the radical feminist movement.

Every rational man on this board acknowledges the horrors of rape and wants the rapists put away. Men are every bit as affected as the women who speak out and who have never been raped -- frankly, our stereotypical male protectiveness is even more enraged when our sisters, daughters, wives and girlfriends are raped.

But the radical feminists REFUSE to acknowledge false accusations as a problem. They will twist and pound and contort facts to render false accusations a de minimis problem not worthy of discussion. Or worse, they do NOT agree with the legal maxim that it is better to allow 100 guilty go free than to send one innocent man to prison. They would rather have seen three innocent Duke lacrosse players imprisoned than have their cause set back with a high profile false accusation.

Please, lick my balls and shove that bullshit up your ass. Everyone on this site is a sexist, myself included. I don't fucking deny it, thats all. Aren't feminits for the abolishment of gender roles? Well, here is one you can abolish straight off - Woman = Angel because frankly, none of you are angels. And let's add another, Woman = Victims - What.. are you an empowered woman or a victim? Pray decide.

@ A man: No, I am not Dick Masterson but a supporter of the MRA network and the MABTW.com site. Do hop over to the site and check it out - It beats arguing around in circles with illogical and emotional feminists. yayydaydayyadya, PENIS envy. Lick, lick.

The funniest thing is how mansvoice says in his first post that men are more oppressed (as if it's a contest?), and then immediately after, in his second post, says men are responsible for all of society and civilization. So men have come up with a society in which they oppress themselves horribly? And we should thank him (and lick his balls, as he writes above) for this? I think he's a very confused individual...

"So men have come up with a society in which they oppress themselves horribly?"

I won't call men oppressed, but yes, men have historically placed limits on women and themselves. Isn't this what feminists are fighting against? Why would women come up with a society like that? By taking those types of "society building" jobs, and leaving or pushing the women into the home for most of history, men denied women the opportunity to do those types of jobs, and build their own history of participating in that kind of work, resulting in this abundance of male dominated and female dominated jobs. Please take a look at the Census breakdowns of occupational fields by gender, as quoted in my January 6, 2008 02:44 AM post above. Use any source you wish, if you do not like the source I used:

Where the men, and women, work
American City Business Journals - April 19, 2004 by G. Scott Thomas
http://www.bizjournals.com/edit_special/12.html

The 106 job categories in which men are represented 90% or more, are probably technical, manual labor, maintenance, building occupations like mechanic or construction. The 14 job categories in which women are represented 90% or more, appear to be nurturing or work built around language skills, like child care and speech pathologist or secretary. And most unpaid domestic labor, of course. (Nursing is a technical field, however.) I am not going to claim that "men's work" is better or more important, but these skewed labor figures are a result of a traditional mindset where men worked, and women were usually left with the domestic duties, and furthermore women were denied education or higher education for much of history, and denied opportunities to work outside the home.

Even with greater opportunities, the effects of this mindset remain today. Few men train for "women's work," e.g., only 10% of students in nursing are male, few go into childcare, and a limited number of women train to be mechanics or go into construction fields or the military. [Part of the reason for the chronic nationwide shortage of nurses, soon to be a deficit in the hundreds of thousands, is because women are finding more opportunities outside "women's work," and the limited number of men willing to take up nursing fails to make up the difference.]

And yes, women face discrimination, further limiting opportunities and advancement into male dominated fields. MRAs ask why more women do not do "dirty" or dangerous work like coal mining or working on oil rigs, claiming it is unfair that men represent 94% of all deaths on the job doing such work. They call this "the glass basement": women are not doing "low status" work, and will not seek equal representation. With greater educational and career opportunities (at least 57% of college students are women), why should women do that kind of work unless they want to? Even educated men would be reluctant. I didn't go to university to get a BBA, and later, a nursing license, to work in a coal mine or be a trash collector. I am not qualified (even physically) for most of "men's work," I would like to keep my health, and I have better opportunities doing more mainstream white collar work.

Isn't choice and opportunity what feminism is working for? For the good of all? Freed from a traditional mindset, men could take a more active role in the home, even be stay at home dads if they wished (like my brother with the baby), relieved of the traditional "breadwinner" role, and their female partners could take advantage of greater career opportunities to make up the difference in household income (like his wife, a mother who could work cross country and take days long business trips with confidence). [This is the traditional hetero family model, of course. Single women and female households could also support themselves more easily without the support of men.]

A male, I'm not sure if you're trying to educate me or ask me questions, but I was merely pointing out the dissonance in what mansvoice was saying and how I found it funny. Don't read too much more into it :)

Men are absolutely oppressed by patriarchy. Patriarchy is oppressive. It's about status and stratification, at the expense of real opportunity for people born without status. And that includes men.

Let me throw a ball here. IF it was such an equitable society, why don't feminists like yourself lobby for women to take up the dangerous jobs as well? Men are the ones who are doing some of the world's most dangerous and life-threatening jobs. I don't see feminism doing anything about it. Talk about double standards.

This is how I know you don't know much about feminism. We do advocate for women in all occupations. We also advocate for men in occupations traditionally filled by women. We advocate that there be no stigma against a woman or man entering a field for which he or she is qualified but is not traditionally filled by a person of that sex. It's actually a major goal. It's part of what the Equal Rights Amendment was all about.

Why aren't women eligible for the draft if we are so equal?

I think this is a gray area because most feminists are liberals and don't support the draft for anyone. It is difficult to advocate for the expansion of a thing that you don't support, but to the extent that it is necessary in an equal society, I do support that women be included in the draft. It's worked out just fine for Israel.

Of course, our military is going to need to work on making it clear to our forces (as Israel has done successfully) that they are team-members and should not exploit each other. That will probably take a major overhaul in American military philosophy, but nothing is impossible.

Why must the men pay alimoney? Can't the man just walk off since it is an EQUAL society?

More like, why aren't women in similar situations to such men (primary breadwinners with dependent spouses who spent years devoting themselves to that spouse's professional enhancement) also responsible for alimony? And they are, increasingly. You'll just find that situation less often.

Married couples are a team. There's a reason marital assets are community property. And when one spouse has sacrificed years of potential professional advancement in order to make the professional advancement of the other spouse possible, then the courts have decided that some compensation is in order in the event of the dissolution of that union.

Feminism, in advocating for women who work professionally, actually (potentially) makes the alimony system obsolete. It's pretty rare nowadays anyway, because of the availability of no-fault divorce.

When my parents divorced in the early '70s my mother did not get alimony. In fact, my father (who abandoned the family) refused to pay child support as well, and came up with a series of false identities in order to avoid doing so. My mother was working, and was able to struggle to support us. She was successful, but everything was set up against her. In spite of the fact that my parents had joint credit that my mother had been paying (out of her wages) for years, for instance, she was not allowed to open her own credit card account at Sears when the house needed new plumbing. They needed a man to co-sign for her.

I think that was the event that really made her a feminist. She came out of a divorce absolutely abandoned and struggling to support three children alone, and everywhere she went she was expected to have a man taking care of her.

She expected to be able to succeed on her own, and she did. Feminism helped with that project quite a bit, and it continues to address issues like that to this day.

Men's Rights folk talk a lot about men exploited by the court system in divorce/custody situations, and I'm sure it happens. But since my only experience of divorce involved my mother spending years miserably struggling while my father laughed and sent home nasty, mocking letters (which he made me read... they had the same tone as that site linked earlier) I have trouble engaging with the arguments.

Please believe that feminism is about equality. I think we already see the effect in a world in which alimony is necessary far less often than it was when women truly had no opportunity to go into the world and make their own way.

Why is there affirmative action in place to cater to the useless?

This question is so vague I don't think anyone could address it for you. And I don't think the premises are true.

Now, given that this thread is about a man who burned his pregnant daughter, her husband, and their child to death, does it seem surprising that feminists should want to explore the tricky way that ingrained, institutionalized misogyny plays into the decision that he made? He used his understanding of his patriarchal privilege as his defense. Luckily, that isn't a valid defense in the United States, but you're going to have to live with feminists pointing out such statements every time they are made, in order to keep the fact that they are a horrifying and unacceptable in the general consciousness.

So... about the crime (which is the subject of thisd thread). It's horrifying, yes? I would think that would be an uncontroversial position to take. Is there any wonder that women stand up in the face of such crime and say that this is not acceptable? No, not at all. And is it clear that this man's assumption of privilege has destroyed the lives of every person involved in the story, including his own? That's what 'patriarchy hurts everybody' refers to. If he had liberated himself from the expectation that he could control the life of his daughter he would not be spending the rest of his life in jail.

At least mansvoice admits that he supports the male power structure, and that that's what the men's rights movement is all about.

Instead of just calling us hypocrites and bouncing (when hypocricy doesn't apply), he *could* point out specific examples. But that's not an option since there's no actual hypocricy here.

How the fuck does it benefit men? I am sure affirmative actions benefits men huh? What about child support, child custody, alimoney and the draft? Holy fucking shit, they cater to women only.

How can you not get it? Affirmative action DOES benefit men - in fact, colleges and universities are lowering the admission requirements for men now that women outnumber them in academia.

Child support? How is it unequal to require both men and women to financially support their children? Women must provide child support to their children when fathers have custody too.
Instead of throwing out a list of catch-phrases, explain the inequality.

I love that you consider alimony a feminist thing. First of all, alimony is mostly a thing of the past. It's a product of PATRIARCHY (i.e. women being financially dependent on their husbands). Don't like it? Don't support a system in which women are necessarily financially dependent on their husbands.

And child custody favors primary caregivers. Women are the primary caregivers to their children much more often than men. If you want to help make things equal, support stay-at-home-fathers.

[Though I find it hard to believe you actually give a shit about dads getting custody, as according to you, it's the woman's role to care for children.]

Finally, should someone who's main argument is "Go eat a bag of dicks" be accusing us of poor reasoning and/or hate speech?

on a side note, i don't buy the whole penis envy theory.
especially since now you can buy a realistic-looking facsimile (at the exact size you want) and go to town without having to worry about fooling around with someone who thinks your lesser than him because you have a different set of genitals.
yannow?
i think womb envy makes more sense since a lot of MRAs are hung up on the fact that their bitch ex-wives had the audacity to have a child and then to expect them to support it.

Forgot to mention the draft.

Feminists fought to get the military to accept women.
Since feminists advocate equality, they do believe that women should be drafted along with men if the draft is reinstated.
It's primarily an anti-feminist belief that women should not be permitted to serve alongside men.

But since there is currently no draft in the US, isn't this point moot?

SarahMC, kid, go play with your dolls. Feminism does not benefit men. It has never done a single thing for men.

''And child custody favors primary caregivers.''
Yes, and that's HIGHLY unfair to men, who are the primary breadwinners in order to support their KID(S) and WIFE.

''that's what the men's rights movement is all about.''
That's also what feminism is all about. Gosh, you're so biased. It's annoying I have to show you little feminists and MRAs kiddies your own hypocrisy and lack of logic.

''If I had a penis I'd have surgery to have the horrid thing removed. In fact - I already did.... :-)''
Wow...and I got accused of misogyny for less than that. You feminists are such biased, illogical, ignorant hypocrites.

Mansvoice, you're delusional, but at least, you're doing a good job at making fools out of them.

Dnx, if you don't think it's fair that men are often the primary breadwinners in their families, why do you oppose feminism?

You can't have it both ways.

Why would you men want to have custody of children when you ALSO insist that child-rearing is for women?

''And child custody favors primary caregivers.''
Yes, and that's HIGHLY unfair to men, who are the primary breadwinners in order to support their KID(S) and WIFE.

You talk about men as though they are a monolith. The statement you have just made is not true of my husband, who provides more than 50% of the primary care for our infant. In the unlikely event of divorce he would probably get primary custody (because he would be better able to provide care on his own) and I would pay support.

I would never be sociopathic enough to deny my child support though, and that's where I fail to understand the arguments of MRA's. If you are the parent of a child you are responsible for that child's physical/financial support, along with the other parent, until that child is an adult. If one parent leaves the household they are still responsible and will be expected to provide support. Why is this such an offensive concept?

Grow up or don't have children.

Yeah, it's *feminists* who are coming out of this discussion looking foolish.

Stop feeding the trolls, please!

After all, it's impossible to have a reasoned discussion with people who post "*grunt* *snort* ME THINK WOMAN SERVE MAN LOL *grunt* *scratch*"

I know, ForbiddenComma, but I was operating on the assumption that Jessica will come along and delete the offenders when she's done with her powwow and, as someone said on another thread, at least these responses allow newbies to see the diversity of feminist logic in action.

I don't expect to convince the trolls, I'm just using them.

When it comes right down to it, our anti-feminist friends here don't want women to have any options in life or have any protections in society.

Women should stay-at-home with the children (that's their purpose in life!) while their husbands work, but in the case of divorce, the men should be awarded custody and the women should simply be kicked out into the cold without economic support.

When women DO get custody of the children, they should be 100% responsible for the financial support of the children.

The moral of the story is that men own their children while women are merely vessels who bring them into the world and care for them afterwards. Since men own their children, they should always get custody (of their property) when the parents split up. If the women somehow manage to "steal" the children away, they should be punished with economic instability.
________________

Women should not be permitted to serve alongside men in the military, but they *should* be drafted along with men when there's a draft. Women are weak and not suited for military service, but it's unfair that men are the only ones on the front lines.

*headdesk*

You can't have it both ways.

I don't get a lot of these points (from MRAs). I mean, they are so easily rebuked. The Equal Rights Ammendment that feminists tried to get passed and are still working towards passing would make women eligible for the draft, just like men. And in this day and age, alimony doesn't happen very often, and even women pay alimony.
http://www.forbes.com/leadership/2007/03/13/women-paying-alimony-lead_cx_pink_0313alimony.html

That article was kind of lame now that I've read the whole thing.

I've been lurking here for a few weeks but this quote:

"Aren't feminits for the abolishment of gender roles? Well, here is one you can abolish straight off - Woman = Angel because frankly, none of you are angels."

finally brought me out of the woodwork. Bwah! Because you all on this site are always talking about how you're pure, virginal angels and would NEVER stand up for what you believe in or argue with anyone else! Seriously, this guys thinks he's insulting us by debunking the myth that we're angels?! Seriously?

"A male, I'm not sure if you're trying to educate me or ask me questions,"

Just responding.

I have never read anything from the writers of this site that claims or suggests that women are angels while men are devils, or that "Women are better than men" (like the anti-feminist site).

Can anyone direct me to the threads or posts I may have overlooked?

I think anti-feminists assume that feminists *must* espouse these beliefs because they espouse the reverse.

The same way they believe rights and opportunities are a zero-sum game. It is not necessary to be anti-man to be pro-woman, just as it's not necessary to be anti-white to be anti-racist.

"Feminism, in advocating for women who work professionally, actually (potentially) makes the alimony system obsolete."

I do not agree that is how it should be. Even with equal opportunity for women and men, there will still be inequitable economics in many households (like my SAHD brother and his big shot accountant wife who made the mutual decision for him to be at home), and the one in the weaker financial position, or the one with primary custody of children, should receive some sort of support. For example, my brother took himself out of a highly technical field for at least seven years, while his wife has worked uninterrupted (except maternity leave) as an capable and ambitious accountant for a major nationwide firm. His income was zero while he raised their daughter, and he really shot himself in the foot by not keeping up his training and practical skills as a computer programmer. Now that his wife wants a divorce (as sole breadwinner and a mother, why does she "need" him for anything other than companionship, and now that that has soured, she needs him for nothing), she wants sole custody. She is a very, very nice lady. I like her just for who she is. Let's make that clear. She also says she still loves my mother and is sorry to want a divorce. But she has demonstrated that does not have the same parenting skills as my brother (she does not know what to do when the baby cries, and expresses frustration, for example; she also does not know how to play with the baby), so for her to demand sole custody is questionable at best. Now that my brother is working again, he will not require "alimony" despite the large difference in income or career opportunity with his wife, but he should be allowed some access to their daughter, and not have to pay so much (yet to be decided) to support the daughter, because the wife, who lives doors away from her parents in a condo they provided, who also provide her "free" childcare while she works, is perfectly capable of living without his support. And I mean that in the MOST complimentary way. She really does not need his support, financially least of all. Her parents are independently wealthy, btw, as retired business owners. She can certainly make her demands, but I do not know why she needs what she is asking for.

Of course, I mean mainly women when I talk about inequitable households. One of the most famous examples (outside of Anna Nicole Smith) was former host of the Tonight Show, Johnny Carson, in his time the highest paid figure on TV. He had a practice of taking young blonde trophy wives. His sixth wife, Joanna, asked for $150 million and $250,000 per month in alimony in divorce court, citing the fact that she had "grown accustomed" to their lifestyle. (She "only" got $20 million.) That is the price someone as successful as Johnny Carson pays for getting married (without a prenuptual agreement). Billionaire Oprah Winfrey would also do well to protect her assets in any marriage and divorce, and I am very sorry Britney Spears is undergoing her personal trials.

In the case a draft is ever necessary (for the forseeable future, it is not), I also support women being included. There is no need for women to be equally represented on the front lines if they do not want to be. Women, like men, are free to choose other qualified positions. I would hate to be on the front lines myself, frankly afraid of getting killed. I had a very nice discussion with a male Army nurse with combat experience, while caring for his mother. He encouraged me to join (I would be eligible until 42). Unfortunately, I would need at least a BSN to be accepted as a nurse. And if I did qualify (I do not), I wish I could have been a Marine, like my uncle and two of his sons, officers and combat pilots all, with exciting stories to tell. Unfortunately, I should have joined by 27. And I never would have met my wife, the mother of my children.

Holly, I hadn't seen the site until just now. Pretty ridiculous, and not even internally consistent. One article states that women would vote for Hitler because they run their marriages like a fascist. Another one says that women don't really have the right to vote because their husbands tell them whom to vote for. Uhhh...okay...

Mina wrote:

Suppose a teen girl with high science class grades in the 1950s said "I really want to be a physicist!" and her teachers told her "that's men's work, you can be a secretary instead." Was the problem that the teachers thought of physics research as "men's work" and typing as "women's work," or that the girl thought of physicist as a better job than secretary?

Mina, I think what we were talking about in terms of traditional women's work was more along the lines of childcare, running a household, etc. And my belief is that those are certainly more important in the grand scheme of things than, say, being a bond trader or ad exec. See what I mean?

Your perspective sounds like the one with which I often clash, as when I wrote this "open letter" to Linda Hirshman:

http://www.imperfectparent.com/articles/articles256_2.php

Alan

"I think what we were talking about in terms of traditional women's work was more along the lines of childcare, running a household, etc. And my belief is that those are certainly more important in the grand scheme of things than, say, being a bond trader or ad exec. See what I mean?"

Damned straight. Without health care providers like nurses, or child care providers and teachers, most of modern society (never mind the economy) would grind to a halt. Men and women who survive (who would perform the large scale agriculture to support the entire nation?) would be too busy with childcare and homeschooling to accomplish much else. Are you qualified to teach your children to become doctors, pilots, engineers, mechanics, or construction workers? My wife and I are not. We wouldn't even know how to work at McDonald's or Wal-Mart (except for "Welcome to Wal-Mart. Return? Do you need a shopping cart? Would you like a smily sticker?).

[In the decades or centuries after peak oil, I believe most residents of developed nations will settle into an idealized Amish like, kibbutzim or Luddite state, not that there is anything wrong with it if they do it by choice. Perhaps we will return to being like a developing nation. I would sorely miss modern conveniences.]

Someone, maybe me, pointed out in the SAHM thread that men are free to do "men's work" [such as developing infrastructure, modern technology, and the economy] only through the support of women, beginning with mothers.

"Damned straight. Without health care providers like nurses, or child care providers and teachers, most of modern society (never mind the economy) would grind to a halt. Men and women who survive (who would perform the large scale agriculture to support the entire nation?) would be too busy with childcare and homeschooling to accomplish much else."

If they did that, they and the children would starve pretty quickly. Either that or cannibalism (if everyone's raising children and nobody's raising crops...).

IRL, when people didn't have modern infrastructure and division of labor, often they were too busy with getting food to accomplish much else and directly or indirectly trade the fruits of those accomplishments for food. Hence babies strapped to mothers' backs instead of in cribs away from the farms, children watching and helping their fathers instead of in classrooms away from the farms, etc.

"If they did that, they and the children would starve pretty quickly. Either that or cannibalism (if everyone's raising children and nobody's raising crops...)."

Well, we in Hawaii who are dependent on 40 or 60% "foreign" input for our food supply, would not do without prompt, frequent shipments of food with cooling technology. Americans could return to subsistence farming, as seen in many developing nations, though it will not sustain a nation of meat eaters which is most of the US. Even in regions of extreme poverty or hunger today such as North Korea, some areas of Central Africa, or even Iraq, I do not believe cannibalism is a major concern.

[Approximately 10-15% of the *entire* population of North Korea (2-3 million out of 23 million) is believed to have died of simple malnutrition over the course of just five years during approximately seven years of drought and crop failures (staple food being maize corn, not rice, interestingly enough). This has far reaching influences on public health, such as a marked lack of physical development in children, with nine year olds appearing to be five year olds, and even adults with severely stunted growth. The contrast between South Korean and North Korean society is striking, and sad, considering they were the same kind of people until about 50 or 60 years ago. Even sympathetic South Koreans are largely reluctant to see a peaceful reunification in the near future akin to East and West Germany's, for fear of the effect on their own standard of living or national security. These changes in North Korea occurred without a breakdown in society. Unfortunately, it also occurred without a revolution to overthrow the despotic dynastic rule of the near deified Kim family.]

Eh, what was this thread about?

A male, thank you for mentioning the fact that without women's work and support, infrastructure, modern technology, and the economy would never have developed or taken off.

*Some* men think it says something about the alleged "superiority" of men that men supposedly made all the "important" discoveries in history and invented all the "important" technologies. [And of course, superiority is always measured in terms of men's choosing.]

Thank dog for modern, reliable contraception, no?
Women's brains are not feebler or less capable than men. But until fairly recently, women have been saddled down with children from a relatively young age.
And while they did carry babies on their backs while performing manual labor right along with the men, it's pretty hard to invent the lightbulb when you're gestating babies constantly, caring for children, and cleaning and cooking for the family.

For most of human history, women did not have the same freedom men did to explore and learn and roam the world. But thanks to contraception, women can now decide when to become pregnant on their own terms (to an extent, of course).

That's a simplification, of course.

Thank God for the input and historical sacrifices of women, though it is regrettable it was forced on them. I will not claim that women would not have accomplished as much as the men, or more, given comparable education or opportunity (otherwise known as male privilege or white privilege). Men as a rule remain reluctant to turn to nursing, but witness the recent and rapid upsurge of women into the medical field, and higher education in general. (It is amusing to see institutional claims that even women are reluctant to enter universities when the female/male breakdown approaches 60/40, citing among other things, lack of dating opportunities; as if single gender schooling or large scale institutions such as the military did not exist.) In any case, a society wide reduction in ambition or consumerism by men and women would certainly be kinder on the environment, and leave more limited resources for future generations (e.g., petroleum products are also vital for production of plastics and other synthetic materials - are people going to carve recordable media, computers and cell phones out of wood?).

"it's pretty hard to invent the lightbulb when you're gestating babies constantly, caring for children, and cleaning and cooking for the family."

I love female pioneers, trendsetters. and other positive role models.

"Well, we in Hawaii who are dependent on 40 or 60% 'foreign' input for our food supply, would not do without prompt, frequent shipments of food with cooling technology."

Now I'm curious - Hawaii did produce 100% of its food in part of the past, right? Or did I get that wrong? I got the impression that it's no longer the case now because of environmental damage.

"Even in regions of extreme poverty or hunger today such as North Korea, some areas of Central Africa, or even Iraq, I do not believe cannibalism is a major concern."

Exactly. Cannibalism isn't a concern there because some of the adults there work on getting food too (farming, ranching, fishing, hunting, gathering, etc. all count!) instead of working on nothing but childcare and homeschooling.

"A male, thank you for mentioning the fact that without women's work and support, infrastructure, modern technology, and the economy would never have developed or taken off."

Yup. More accurately, it was division of labor that enabled societies to get past everyone subsistence farming/gathering/etc. and enabled some other activities (including so-called "women's work") to become full-time jobs instead of chores farmers/gatherers/etc. squeezed into their spare time.

"For most of human history, women did not have the same freedom men did to explore and learn and roam the world. But thanks to contraception, women can now decide when to become pregnant on their own terms (to an extent, of course)."

So true. It's also thanks to abstinence (like when a girl can choose to not have sex instead of being married off and raped ASAP) and abortion (like when a woman who is pregnant can choose whether or not to give birth) as well as thanks to contraception.

A male, notice that "man" is often defined as "not woman."
Now that women have flocked to academia, in addition to occupations that were traditionally exclusively male, men are more reluctant to do so - because doing so would be acting "like a woman." Women outnumber men in higher education. Whenever women take up a particular hobby, or field of study, or whatever, men are more reluctant to do so.

Holy cow. No, my mistake, Joanna Carson demanded only $25,000 a month of Johnny in addition to half the $300 million estate, not $250,000 a month. That's in 1983 dollars, of course.

"A male, notice that 'man' is often defined as 'not woman.'
Now that women have flocked to academia, in addition to occupations that were traditionally exclusively male, men are more reluctant to do so - because doing so would be acting 'like a woman.' Women outnumber men in higher education. Whenever women take up a particular hobby, or field of study, or whatever, men are more reluctant to do so."

Good points. It's like the way secretary jobs were "men's work" back when and where few people were literate then became "women's work" when literacy rates (and the supply of potential secretaries) went up, secretarial wages went down, etc.

In both cases, what gets labelled "women's work" and what gets labelled "men's work" can change over time. That's one of the reasons work gets labelled "women's work" because it's lower-paid instead of being paid less because it's somehow feminine.

Meanwhile, women don't outnumber men in just some US schools:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5359672.stm

"...Twenty postgraduate students are sitting in a plush modern classroom listening to a lecture on environmental management at the Islamic Azad University - a private institution with 1.6 million students across Iran.

"The room is darkened so the students can watch the lecturer's slide show comparing energy consumption around the world.

"Three quarters of the students in this class are women - the five men in the class are huddled together in a corner.

"As Professor Majid Abbaspour explains, this is a far cry from the past:

"'When I was doing my bachelor's degree in Iran we had a class of 60 in mechanical engineering with only four women.

'Now the number has changed a lot - I think this may be because the attitudes of families have changed.'

"Well over half of university students in Iran are now women. In the applied physics department of Azad University 70% of the graduates are women - a statistic which would make many universities in the West proud..."

Men are absolutely oppressed by patriarchy. Patriarchy is oppressive. It's about status and stratification, at the expense of real opportunity for people born without status. And that includes men.
And you are going to replace it with what...? A matriarchy? How the fuck is patriarchy oppressive? If it was, women would never have had rights. A matriarchy is akin to handing over my balls over to women. I will not do that - I will be defending the Male Power structure. And aww, I don't give a fuck.

This is how I know you don't know much about feminism. We do advocate for women in all occupations. We also advocate for men in occupations traditionally filled by women. We advocate that there be no stigma against a woman or man entering a field for which he or she is qualified but is not traditionally filled by a person of that sex. It's actually a major goal. It's part of what the Equal Rights Amendment was all about.
Fuck you. You read that right, FUCK you. Please don't use sophistry to guise the bullshit that feminism has unleashed upon men. Remove all female privileges before you demand for more "rights"(Yeah, right.. my ass). Don't talk so much assshit about patriarchy instituting these laws - If you havent realized, half the voters are women and feminists like those on this site are biased as hell. Go lobby to remove female rights and THEN maybe I will start hearing you. If not, shut the fuck up and make me a sandwich.

I think this is a gray area because most feminists are liberals and don't support the draft for anyone. It is difficult to advocate for the expansion of a thing that you don't support, but to the extent that it is necessary in an equal society, I do support that women be included in the draft. It's worked out just fine for Israel.
Of course, our military is going to need to work on making it clear to our forces (as Israel has done successfully) that they are team-members and should not exploit each other. That will probably take a major overhaul in American military philosophy, but nothing is impossible.

Again, what the fuck are you talking about? Some mumbo jumbo? Get to the point - Women don't serve the army, men do. FACT. Equal? I think fucking not. Please try to see THE point and REAL life instead of living in some fairyland of a feminized utopia.

More like, why aren't women in similar situations to such men (primary breadwinners with dependent spouses who spent years devoting themselves to that spouse's professional enhancement) also responsible for alimony? And they are, increasingly. You'll just find that situation less often.
In most countries, alimoney is ONLY for women. If you don't know that, you are really deluded. Again, unfair and unbiased concept - Why the fuck do you think I buy your sophistry?

Men's Rights folk talk a lot about men exploited by the court system in divorce/custody situations, and I'm sure it happens. But since my only experience of divorce involved my mother spending years miserably struggling while my father laughed and sent home nasty, mocking letters (which he made me read... they had the same tone as that site linked earlier) I have trouble engaging with the arguments.
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? Judicial sentencing are harsher for men. WAY harsher. Men are raped at the courts both in custody rights and financial wealth(alimoney, child support blah). God, wake up dear.

Please believe that feminism is about equality.
No, feminism is about ENSLAVEMENT and hegemony over men. And that is why I am willing to put my life on the line to protect the rights of my gender. Please don't think this as some sort of radical terrorist manner - It isnt. I am just saying that I will defend Male Righst and the Patriarchy, to the death. I am 17! Just think about it - 17! 17 and an MRA, it says ALOT about how feminism has troddened over men for the past 5 decades. This is THE backlash.

Instead of just calling us hypocrites and bouncing (when hypocricy doesn't apply), he *could* point out specific examples. But that's not an option since there's no actual hypocricy here.
You didn't notice my points? God, you need some fucking spectacles then.

How can you not get it? Affirmative action DOES benefit men - in fact, colleges and universities are lowering the admission requirements for men now that women outnumber them in academia.
Facts please. The facts show that there are WOMEN STUDIES GROUPS, WOMENS HEALTHCARE, WOMEN RIGHTS all on campus - What about men? Hmm? Aren't we FOR equality? Then shouldn't university admissions be relooked at? Shouldn't male rights be looked into as to how men should be given more attention to improve their education etc? Fuck you, hypocrite.

Child support? How is it unequal to require both men and women to financially support their children? Women must provide child support to their children when fathers have custody too.
Instead of throwing out a list of catch-phrases, explain the inequality.
Again, if women were so "equal" and "strong", they should be raising the child with their own financial means. If not, the child should be put into the hands of his father. FACT: 85% of the most hardened criminals come from SINGLE MOTHERS families.

I love that you consider alimony a feminist thing. First of all, alimony is mostly a thing of the past. It's a product of PATRIARCHY (i.e. women being financially dependent on their husbands). Don't like it? Don't support a system in which women are necessarily financially dependent on their husbands.
*yawns*, everything is about removing the male power structure? Sorry, I am not going to have that. Lobby for change to remove alimoney and I will see how genuine your intentions are about supporting equality - If not, bugger off.

And child custody favors primary caregivers. Women are the primary caregivers to their children much more often than men. If you want to help make things equal, support stay-at-home-fathers.
[Though I find it hard to believe you actually give a shit about dads getting custody, as according to you, it's the woman's role to care for children.]
Women should be the ones responsible for taking care of children. Apparently, they have neglected that role since feminism came to task - single mothers led to the abundance of criminals and feminism SUPPORTS single mothers. Why? Single mothers are "empowered" women. Golly, well done! Kick the man out!! If women cant deal with responsibilities(taking care of their kids), then please, dont talk shit.

Finally, should someone who's main argument is "Go eat a bag of dicks" be accusing us of poor reasoning and/or hate speech
Can't handle tough talk? AWWW, are you hurt PRINCESS?

Forgot to mention the draft.
Feminists fought to get the military to accept women.
Since feminists advocate equality, they do believe that women should be drafted along with men if the draft is reinstated.
It's primarily an anti-feminist belief that women should not be permitted to serve alongside men.
But since there is currently no draft in the US, isn't this point moot?
I serve in a country whereby men are conscriptd... surely you get my point about the unfairness of the whole issue? Or have I overestimated YOUR ability to think and comprehend?

I will not claim that women would not have accomplished as much as the men, or more, given comparable education or opportunity (otherwise known as male privilege or white privilege)

LMFAO. Even contemporary, men are outsmarting and outkicking women's asses in the REAL world. Get past your college "stats". The real world isnt made by of books - its about teamwork, the ability to take risks and decisiveness ie a man's world. I may be the Valedictorian of my high school but I know I am not remotely in the league of someone who is street-smart and business savvy. Those are traits which LEAD to success, not some booksmart hocus pocus junkie. That is why men suceed and women fail.

Men > Women. Oops, I had to rub it in!

I am not the nicest or friendliest guy but I am one of the fairest. Believe it or not, I dont care.

My stint here was never to sway opinions - It was simply to kick all you feminists in the ass. Get that smug off your face. You are not above anyone of us with your "holier than thou" attitude. All of you here are a bunch of fucking hypocrites. I admit it readily, I am sexist - Can any of you say the same? I also admit it readily that I am selfish and am inherently interested in protecting the male power structure. Can any of you readily admit the same - that you wish to instal a female matriarchy to subdue men? Heh, the hypocrisy. One of the stereotypes that you should be wiping clean is WOMEN are not angels, victims blah. Stop harping on the "oppressive bullshit" - Men EARNED their fucking rights with BLOOD, SWEAT and SOUL. Women? Don't make me laugh, these privileges were introduced to 'protect' women thanks to men being inherently chivalrous by nature. If we wish to enslave women, we could have. For every barbarian that raped a women, there was a knight who fought and died to save her. But go on, continue spilling these stereotypes. In conclusion, if you want a gender war, so be it. tata, ladies(harpies!).

I am not the nicest or friendliest guy but I am one of the fairest. Believe it or not, I dont care.

My stint here was never to sway opinions - It was simply to kick all you feminists in the ass. Get that smug off your face. You are not above anyone of us with your "holier than thou" attitude. All of you here are a bunch of fucking hypocrites. I admit it readily, I am sexist - Can any of you say the same? I also admit it readily that I am selfish and am inherently interested in protecting the male power structure. Can any of you readily admit the same - that you wish to instal a female matriarchy to subdue men? Heh, the hypocrisy. One of the stereotypes that you should be wiping clean is WOMEN are not angels, victims blah. Stop harping on the "oppressive bullshit" - Men EARNED their fucking rights with BLOOD, SWEAT and SOUL. Women? Don't make me laugh, these privileges were introduced to 'protect' women thanks to men being inherently chivalrous by nature. If we wish to enslave women, we could have. For every barbarian that raped a women, there was a knight who fought and died to save her. But go on, continue spilling these stereotypes. In conclusion, if you want a gender war, so be it. tata, ladies(harpies!).

P.S: Before you comment about how I am not showing any of you feminists respect, you are damn right I am not. Why? You disrespect my gender, you disrespect ME. You wish to get all ego-bashy and insensitive, you are going to get the same fucking shit back. Newton's law said it so "For every action, there is a reaction" and men dont hit back lightly. The real men arent going to be cowered by the feminists labels of "chauvinists", "misogynists" blah any longer. They were used to cower the beta turds into submission - For me, I wear those stickers with pride. If you truly believe I hate women, I dont care. At least I am not a hypocrite about who I am - I am a chauvinist. So please, POTS on this site, stop calling the kettle black - It is really amusing.

whoa... WEIRD! i can't believe people like mansvoice exist. do you ever just wonder if you are like, sitting next to one on a bus or something? i'm going to be looking at people suspiciously all day.

also: shouldn't you be boyvoice if you are 17? heh heh.

"Now I'm curious - Hawaii did produce 100% of its food in part of the past, right? Or did I get that wrong? I got the impression that it's no longer the case now because of environmental damage."

Ethnic Hawaiians brought their own crop plants and domesticated animals with them to Hawaii from the islands of the South Pacific. Once established, they were of course, self sufficient. At the time Kamehameha the Great unified his Hawaiian island kingdom, when first contact was made with British explorers (Capt. James Cook), estimates of the population ranged from 400,000 to one million. There are considerably more people now, with much of the former agricultural land lost to modern development. Also, Hawaii has taken advantage of lower prices, better quality, and/or more consistent supply on many food products from the outside. This is also true of many other communities or states. Do California or New York State feed themselves? California and some other states don't even have sufficient water of their own. Hawaii would be in a sorry state if forced to depend on its resources for food or most of anything else. We are a service economy, not an industrial, manufacturing economy. And we have nothing but the elements to provide energy.

"Exactly. Cannibalism isn't a concern there because some of the adults there work on getting food too (farming, ranching, fishing, hunting, gathering, etc. all count!) instead of working on nothing but childcare and homeschooling."

No, I mean millions of people around the world have died of hunger and are threatened or dying right now, but they have not resorted to cannibalism. The millions of displaced in parts of Africa certainly have more immediate concerns than returning to their homes to resume producing or procuring their own food. I have no long term solutions for the problems of hunger or the displaced in Africa. I know nothing but to throw money at the problem and let people who know more than I, do their work.

"Yup. More accurately, it was division of labor that enabled societies to get past everyone subsistence farming/gathering/etc. and enabled some other activities (including so-called "women's work") to become full-time jobs instead of chores farmers/gatherers/etc. squeezed into their spare time."

BTW, hunter/gathering societies like early in human history also had division of labor along gender lines: men were supposed to have hunted, and women gathered. There have been findings that the gathering of women was more consistent and productive than males on the hunt, and comprised most of the diet. I have no reason, including on the gut level, to disagree. So men didn't want the clan to go vegan for some reason.

"Now that women have flocked to academia, in addition to occupations that were traditionally exclusively male, men are more reluctant to do so - because doing so would be acting "like a woman." Women outnumber men in higher education. Whenever women take up a particular hobby, or field of study, or whatever, men are more reluctant to do so."

That trend is true, and lame. (Same with this claim institutes of higher learning are becoming less desirable to men and women, if there are "too many" women. (Also if there are "too many" people of color, like in the UC system. People shouldn't let people of color or foreigners get in the way of their own achievement or desire to get a quality education.)) It is true that many female dominant occupational fields are not well paying, but otherwise, there should be nothing to prevent a man from doing that kind of work. What's wrong with a man utilizing his nurturing or mentoring side to be a teacher, or become a nurse or care worker? What's wrong with a man staying at home, if that is what he and his partner agree to? Also, scribes and secretaries in earlier history until the end of the 19th century if I am not mistaken, were educated men. In Japan, secretaries of big shots such as economic bigwigs and politicians, are still commonly male. There is nothing to prevent men in the US from "returning" to these lines of work. Oh, Mina said that already.

"Meanwhile, women don't outnumber men in just some US schools:"

Oh, yeah, it is nationwide and international. It is of particular concern to media in the UK, where girls outperform boys in general in regular schooling. I am not sure if it was UK or US media which foresaw that women would not be able to find enough desirable male mates, if the trend of "outsmarting" men continues. Like it or not, and gender wage gap aside, many women still prefer their men to make (or have) more money than themselves.

[BTW, my mother had a master's degree and taught public high school. My father had a federal job and twice dropped out of college. My mother consistently outearned him and was the smarter of the two. I learned to love my father, and he was big and manly in the practical sense (did almost all of his own building, yard maintenance or repair work around the house and with the car) but he was pretty 'whipped in today's terminology. He couldn't win a single argument I witnessed, and my mother clearly wore the pants in the family. My dad rebelled by being less than responsible with their money. In the 1970s, he would come home unannounced with a brand new car (e.g. 1978 diesel VW Rabbit (Golf) with a claimed 50 mpg) or expensive gadgets like one of those new fangled coin operated Pong video game tables, an LED digital watch or home computers. Things from mail order or TV shopping that cluttered the house, yard and garage. Stuff like that. My mother has not had the opportunity or the means to buy the car of her choice for herself, since the early 70s, if at all. My father's been gone for 12 years, but she is still ticked. Not that they had regrets, but why did she marry a man like that? Well, they grew up and went to church and school together since 13, so one day when my mother returned from school and her first teaching job elsewhere, they just naturally began talking about when to get married. Despite my dad having a '50s mindset and personal issues*, my mother** (70s mindset?) makes it clear that he never abused her.]

* e.g., my psychiatric conditions, especially the ADHD and hypomania (I sure as hell spend like him) which my father displayed signs of in retrospect, may be hereditary. In addition, he was well liked, but like me also kept a small circle of close friends - my mother plus two male coworkers that I knew of for sure, through the decades.
** Source of my alleged depression, OCD, or Bipolar Disorder?

I know I am on real dangerous ground, but I wonder what the effects of increasingly educated, and I hope, liberated women, will be in more traditional or male dominant countries and cultures? How will men react to an ever increasing number of women who by western standards, may be more educated, better trained, more successful, or more liberal, progressive or "modern" thinking than themselves?

Not surprised mansvoice/boysvoice is 17. Someone should do a gender reversal on his huge rant about how horrible women are, that'd be hilarious. And how he thinks feminism is arguing for a matriarchy after people here have said it's not, continuously-LOL, reading comprehension is not this boy's friend.

God, how fucking stupid and vapid are the women on this site are? So what if I am 17? I will be conscripted when I reach 18 to serve my country and doing a far more noble job than all you fat bitches lying around on this site.

And how he thinks feminism is arguing for a matriarchy after people here have said it's not, continuously-LOL, reading comprehension is not this boy's friend.

That is what FEMINISM says it WONT do. Women and feminism are almost interlinked - What women say and what they do are virtually polar opposites. If you dont know that, you are really fucking retarded. I dont care what the fuck women(and feminism) says they are fighting for - Simply put, I will be in your fucking way.

Reading comprehension is not my strong point? Haha, what cheap thrills do you have making snide remarks at someone who is juggling two languages? English was not my mother tongue to begin with.

Please do the "gender reversal" rant - I love to see the IQ level on this site drop further.

Thank God for the input and historical sacrifices of women, though it is regrettable it was forced on them

It was never forced on them. Women in the past were perfectly contented to live their lives as housewives, homemakers etc. Contrary to popular belief, there wasnt much of an "education" for everyone to begin with in ancient times. Most of the jobs required physical strength.

Did you watch 300? When the spartan king pointed to the greek soldiers and asked them "What was their profession?", the replies were "blacksmith", "sculptor", "cobbler" etc. All of these were male dominated jobs for a reason - Women just didnt have the physical might to carry out these tasks thus much headway was achieved.

The ones who created this world own this fucking planet. Men did so we own it. It is to our absolutely discretion how we should share it - Women need to learn their place. Until you are worthy to 'speak', shut the fuck up and make men sandwiches.

Oh, yeah, it is nationwide and international. It is of particular concern to media in the UK, where girls outperform boys in general in regular schooling. I am not sure if it was UK or US media which foresaw that women would not be able to find enough desirable male mates, if the trend of "outsmarting" men continues. Like it or not, and gender wage gap aside, many women still prefer their men to make (or have) more money than themselves.

Then what the fuck are feminists doing about it? Isnt this equality? Don't we have enough women's studies groups, women's healthcare, women's education blah blah on campus? Hmm? Where the fuck are the male interests being take care of by feminism?

I know I am on real dangerous ground, but I wonder what the effects of increasingly educated, and I hope, liberated women, will be in more traditional or male dominant countries and cultures? How will men react to an ever increasing number of women who by western standards, may be more educated, better trained, more successful, or more liberal, progressive or "modern" thinking than themselves?

Logical fallacy - More educated doesn't equate to "more successful". Need I remind you of men like Bill Gates, Steve jobs and Michael Dell?

But I shall handle your question - If women are seen as the enemy and should one day men feel that they have been betrayed coupled with the fact that cloning is made plausible, women [can] potentially be wiped off this planet. I am in no way advocating misogynist sentiments but I am just pointing out the obvious reality - If women wish to enslave men, they will be exterminated. Go on with your feminist jargon and what not. Men wont take feminism horseshit any longer. If you havent noticed, there have been sharp increases number of MRAs and Male Related Organisations. I am glad, we are finally going to take back our planet.

Ok, I've changed my mind-the funniest part about mansvoice is that he thinks I care what he thinks about me :D and that he thinks the draft will be reinstated and he will be conscripted immediately when he turns 18. Immediately! They hunt you down!

"I am 17! Just think about it - 17! 17 and an MRA"

I am impressed that you are so young, yet so driven, and have absorbed a lot to say what you do. I also had extreme views about women until college (Eddie Murphy was a savage in Raw - about 30 consecutive minutes of tales of nasty women who wanted to take rich and successful men like himself for half of all they had), and never actually believed I would be willing to give up half my assets and much of my future income to any woman or children, until I actually met two different women that I suddenly wanted to spend the rest of my life with (the first one left before things got too serious). I do not regret the second. I do not know how long it will last, or what would really happen after it was over, but I try not to worry about it for now.

So you are a sexist. I admit it. I have much to learn. I have my prejudices, biases and stereotypes, positive or negative, about any number of people, entire cultures or nations, even, based on any number of criteria strictly forbidden under anti-discrimination policy or law, and keep them under control for the purpose of civility or a professional demeanor at work. Theoretically, I can get along with anyone who does not represent an immediate threat to myself, including those who may hate me for anything about me, unless I lose my temper. I was cool to the stranger who abducted and molested me, or the people I know who abused or raped my wife, despite my prior plans to kill them in secret. What do I fear about women? I fear possible repercussions from the disapproval of women - possible scorn, gossip, finger pointing or lies. I fear public and private humiliation. I fear people online finding my real name and identity to judge or harm me. I fear my Japanese wife leaving me unannounced for the home country with our children in tow. They love her more. I would quit my job, pull up roots once again, and follow her back to Japan just to be near her and them. I fear never finding another woman as good as she is, and not being able to afford to start another family even if I did. I fear the hold my frail, elderly mother continues to have on me at the age of 39. I and my family are not homeless on welfare, by her grace alone - we live in a separate house she owns. She is my mother, but she cannot afford to make the sacrifices for us that she already has. I can say nothing, and do little against her. (Last year, I got two cats which I keep indoors, without asking her permission, and informed her by e-mail. She never set foot inside since. I got rid of 13 chickens I personally bought or captured, and put out the rabbits and guinea pigs, simply because she did not approve.) My wife resents me for "respecting" my mother more than I respect her. No, I am also afraid of my own mother. Funny stuff coming from a man, huh?

I do not agree with everything I see here. I also see some things I can agree with at the most extreme of men's rights websites. So men made most of the advancements throughout history, while women were mainly at home producing children. So men do a lot of dangerous "dirty" work, and suffer about 94% of on the job deaths as a result. This system is unfair to men for making them do that work. Yes, but it was a history of men deciding it would be this way by keeping women out that made the differences so extreme. You want women to be more than 1% of coal miners? I wouldn't mind. But how many male coal miners would accept working with women without complaint or harassment?

And I am proud of and grateful for any number of things that came to me by simple accident of birth, and my lifetime of relative ease, with few factors beyond my control. I am willing to help others "up" where I can, but am also reluctant to bring myself "down." There is a special place in my heart for the underprivileged such as the local homeless. (In Hawaii, 70% of the homeless are employed, but simply cannot afford housing. In one Honolulu community, over 40% of the students in one elementary school are homeless, living in a city of tents and plastic tarp shelters on a 16 mile stretch of white sand beach. I have been there and seen it. Other adults have chronic health or psychiatric problems. Some are elderly.) They need food, clothing, shelter, running water, sanitation, security, health care, economic opportunity and respect. In my current situation, am I willing to do more (I am proud of what I did in Japan), or to open my home or yard to a single one of them (I have room)? Hell, no.

I'm ready for boyvoice to disappear. Jessica?

Sorry folks, sometimes with these older threads, I don't realize the craziness until the shit has hit the fan. Troll. Gone.

I seriously feel like I'm going to hurl.

Boyvoice is exhibit A why feminism is still necessary.

I should take it as an object lesson in why I shouldn't feed trolls. You start by rolling a little snowball and pretty soon you're engulfed in an avalanche of bullshit.

Maybe he'll come back when he learns how to think.

Aw, I'm almost sad he's gone. That was some funny shit.

"For every barbarian that raped a women, there was a knight who fought and died to save her."

What storybook world is this guy living in? The King Arthur stories are NOT history books. Also, there's this gem:

"Did you watch 300?"

LOL. Yeah, kid, that was a fantastic documentary about the Spartans, wasn't it? Heh. I don't care if his comment was historically accurate or not, but the fact that he's presenting 300 as factual evidence for his argument made me fall out of my chair I laughed so hard.

i just have this vision of boysvoice typing out all of mysogynist vitroil and hatred in his smelly little boy room, at his desk surrounded by all of his 300 movie action figures and he's really thinking that he was kicking these feminist bitches right in the ass.
then his mom opens the door and pops her head in calling, "are you about ready for school now, honey?" and boysvoice is all, "awwww...mom, i'm telling these bitches what's up." and his mom is like, "of course you are, dear. you're mommy's strong little man."
i dunno. that's just how i like to see it.

"Aw, I'm almost sad he's gone. That was some funny shit."

If anyone visited the "Dick Masterson" men are better than women site, or seen the clip of him appearing on Dr. Phil, one would realize that "Dick" is for some reason, playing a character, not unlike Maddox of "The Best Page in the Universe," "Maddox" being a corporate tech worker and adult college student with a personal cubicle. After establishing some popularity, both have branched out into merchandising, including apparel, mugs, stickers and books. Dick proclaims "no women allowed!" on his site, yet allows men and women to battle it out in his comments and forums. He must really enjoy it.

What makes mansvoice (apparently a separate individual) dangerous, is he says he is only 17, yet seems so sincere. He believes Dick and what he says are for real. It is regrettable that his drive may not be applied to something that could make him feel better, as opposed to considering the conditions under which women would be exterminated. Reportedly, what could be eating him, would be difficult to treat.

Apparently, a NY psychologist and internet personality in his own right, spoke to the real "Dick Masterson":

http://www.shrinktalk.net/archives/the_mind_of_male_chauvinism.phtml

Also an interesting site, in its own right. Dr. Rob says:

The Mind of Male Chauvinism - December 13, 2007

Many readers ask about psychological problems that are intractable to psychotherapy. Conditions such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, and Antisocial Personality Disorder do not have great treatment records via therapy in and of itself. And, while chauvinism is not a DSM-IV disorder per se, it remains a social problem that is not easily ameliorated.

Fresh off his appearance on the Dr. Phil show, internet celebrity and author Dick Masterson of MenAreBetterThanWomen.Com joins Dr. Rob to give us insight into the mind of what many consider misogyny. Fools and myopic readers of Dick's site erroneously label him an "actor" or a "fictional character" used to simply get a rise out of women and sell his book in what many believe is a satirical hate-speech format. Rob Dobrenski, Ph.D., however, will not fall prey to such hoodwinking.

Dick is a man with true disdain for the female form, one who is incapable of a loving and meaningful relationship with a woman. Read on as Dr. Rob uncovers the mechanisms behind Dick's views and demonstrates the limits of a psychologist's abilities against such unwavering conviction. Bear in mind that I might also use this interview as the basis for a research grant on Dick, the Hannibal Lechter of women-bashing:

[story continues at link]

Interesting that the doctor would label a man like that "incapable" of having relationships with women. Will they be angry lone wolves for life, then? . . . Or could these angry manly men be concealing something deeper with their "hate" for women? Not that there's anything wrong with it*. Seriously, mansvoice, if men are "better than women" for you, that's ok. It's normal for young people to have these feelings or doubts. You don't need to justify it by bashing women or imagining them exterminated, while watching the bared, buff men of The 300.

*Part of my youthful "hate" for women (I did not make clear that I actually used to believe stuff like Eddie Murphy: Raw was putting out) was for my apparent lack of appeal to the opposite sex, and wondering if something was wrong with me, for not being manly enough. As soon as I unexpectedly encountered women who were willing to marry me, the doubts pretty much went away.

"I don't care if his comment was historically accurate or not, but the fact that he's presenting 300 as factual evidence for his argument made me fall out of my chair I laughed so hard."

Speaking of 300, did you see the trailer for the PG version?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gNqiSkd1M6k

Perhaps a waste of time, but I read this entire thread including teen boy voice's posts. Talk about disturbing.

What gets me the most is the cognitive dissonance-- he says that FEMINISM (but not patriarchy) is about hegemony and enslavement of men, while ignoring the obvious male dominance and hegemony in the actual patriarchal societies he claims to embrace.

He seems to have no knowledge of how (some) feminists in the past fought for both for women's rights and against slavery (and continue to today).

I think of brave feminist women who WERE ACTUALLY ENSLAVED by the patriarchy, like Sojourner Truth, and it makes me sick to think this kid could be so blind.

Why do ignorant anti-feminists like him assume that feminists want to dominate men through the same tactics that men have used against women (deny them rights, etc)?

It is the same issue with the feministing.ORG guys-- I think someone mentioned on this thread earlier:

To represent feminists' beliefs they just use their own beliefs but swap the terms "men" and "women."

Ex. Teen boy voice believes that "men are superior to women" and assumes that feminists believe the opposite, that "women are superior to men."

It is so infuriating! Is there any hope of winning these guys over on democracy and equality or is it hopeless?

It is so depressing to me when they come on this site spewing such illogical, ignorant bullshit.

Sometimes (like now) I doubt they'll ever deconstruct their male privledge or see past the patriarchal brainwashing the have constantly received since birth.