Feminist or FemiNazi? Truth and Myth

Originally posted by Infadel


the study results all show the same thing, children raised mostly/solely by their fathers are more oriented towards violent crimes.

Really? Proof please? Ed Gein was raised by his mother........
I highly doubt any of that to be true. That sends us back into the dark ages.
Men = Angry & Violent
Women = Cooking and Pregnant

That kind of thought does damage to both sexes.

Originally posted by Infadel
just for good mesure, women and men cant be "equal", its physicly impossible.......we evolved differently.........women will allways be better than men when it comes to social aspects of life and men will allways be better than women in desolate isolated situations.......

Better in desolate isolated situations?
What in the heck do you mean by that?
We're just here to gossip and be weak?

Women have the same brains as men and therefore we are equal because we have the exact same capacity for learning as men do.

This isn't an arguement about physical health, what about men with no muscle and just a lot of flab? Because they aren't as stong as what you identify a male to be, should they then be categorized as female? Should women bodybuilders be categorized as men simply because of their physical strength?

Originally posted by Infadel
wana go back to the 2~ MILLION years before we got here????/

the men went out to the bush alone (or with 1-3 others) and killed the animal while the women stayed around the "camp" or, with a group (5+ adults with children) when away from the camp gathering food/suplies.

just from this simple peice of human evolution you can tell that.....women hasve more instinctual knowledge towards social aspects (RAISING CHILDREN, political work, social service, ect, ect, ect).

Did they now? To assume all women stayed in the caves or camp is just plain ignorant.

Originally posted by Infadel
and as the PS says.........i'll give up my job to raise the kids, sure....cleaning the house and raising a kid is.........physically........nothing compaired to flipping boards on the green chain at the mill...........and hey, why not raise the kid to not be suseptable to the denial of main stream culture.......

your a woman? want my job? sure, have it!

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Infadel]

You use 'the mill' as an example, what about men with office jobs?
To think men only do hard physical labor is yet again, just plain ignorant.

It demeaning to both sexes.

I apologize if this has been asked/covered. There are 24 pages in this thread and I only read about 4 before I felt the need to post.

While I (and I am female) am all for equality (not uniformity...as individuals aren't). There is one issue I'm having a problem with. There is a marked inequality in reproductive rights. I'm am not for abolishing the option of abortion *however* men have no reproductive rights once a child has been conceived. Legally a man is responsible for any biological child of his regardless of his wishes (with exception of sperm donors and/or at the biological mother's decision). A woman can find out she's pregnant and then decided to terminate. If there is to be equality then there *must* be a provision by which a man can (at least legally) decided to not be a father. I'm not suggesting that a woman should be forced to have an abortion if the man doesn't want to be a father but that he should be able to legally terminate his parental obligation/responsibility without the consent of the woman.
Are there other options in this inequitable situation?

[edit on 22-5-2008 by mysterychicken]

[edit on 22-5-2008 by mysterychicken]

Originally posted by mysterychicken
I'm not suggesting that a woman should be forced to have an abortion if the man doesn't want to be a father

Actually you are as*

but that he should be able to legally terminate his parental obligation/responsibility without the consent of the woman.

*if he refuses to support her financially [and emotionally] and he threatens to walk away and is legally alllowed to do so she may feel like her only choice is to abort. Threatening poverty on a pregnant woman is not something a potential father should be alloud to do. It's bullying her to conform to HIS choice. You are not really suggesting equal rights at all.. you are suggesting the man's rights over-rule the womans. Your idea would basically let all deadbeat dads off the hook.

[edit on 22-5-2008 by riley]

reply to post by mysterychicken


Furthermore, if a man is dead set against a woman having an abortion, and really wants his child to be born and to raise it. He still has no rights. If the woman decides to terminate he has to abide by that with no legal recourse. I see it as a bit unfair. Personally, I'm all for a woman's right t choose, but if I were to impregnate my significant other, I'd be SOL if she wanted it aborted.

Now, as far as the 'threat of poverty' thing goes, while I agree that it is ripe for abuse, I do believe that both parties should have a say in the birth of their child. The same way I see it as unfair that a ready and willing father could lose his chance if the mother decides against it, so would a ready and willing mother. And, once the decision has been made, and both parties vote has been cast, then the one who decides to be the single parent does so whole heartedly and consciously without any forced legal responsibility on the other.

This could be legally binding with some sort of contract.

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by mysterychicken
I'm not suggesting that a woman should be forced to have an abortion if the man doesn't want to be a father

Actually you are as*

but that he should be able to legally terminate his parental obligation/responsibility without the consent of the woman.

*if he refuses to support her financially [and emotionally] and he threatens to walk away and is legally alllowed to do so she may feel like her only choice is to abort. Threatening poverty on a pregnant woman is not something a potential father should be alloud to do. It's bullying her to conform to HIS choice. You are not really suggesting equal rights at all.. you are suggesting the man's rights over-rule the womans. Your idea would basically let all deadbeat dads off the hook.

[edit on 22-5-2008 by riley]

How can it be equal unless *both* parties have equal opportunity to choose to be or not be a parent? Are you suggesting that a woman should (any more than a man) be able to threaten a potential father with poverty to conform to HER choice?

Am I wrong in inferring that the only ways about this issue will be unfair to someone and thusly should default to the woman's choice? I'm not asking out of snarkiness but for clarity.

As it stands I still don't see how it is even remotely fair to sexually active men who have no choice in their reproduction outside of choosing abstaining from sex (no BC method is 100%). As a woman who has spent time as a single mom with child support from the father I know how hard it is (I can't imagine how hard it would be without). However, there surely is some way to make things more balanced.

[edit on 22-5-2008 by mysterychicken]

[edit on 22-5-2008 by mysterychicken]

Originally posted by mysterychicken
How can it be equal unless *both* parties have equal opportunity to choose to be or not be a parent?

It's not equal simply because the fetus gestates in the woman's body. I think thats really unfair.. I hate the thought of having my insides ripped apart and the agony that goes with labour.. I think the father should have to do it but thats not going to change biology.

Are you suggesting that a woman should (any more than a man) be able to threaten a potential father with poverty to conform to HER choice?

Continuing a pregancy is not threatening him with anything. She cannot walk away from the situation.. yet you want him to have the right to. :shk:

Am I wrong in inferring that the only ways about this issue will be unfair to someone and thusly should default to the woman's choice? I'm not asking out of snarkiness but for clarity.

It's the woman's choice by default because it's the woman's body. women have rights now.. the days when her husband/father determined her fate are over.

As it stands I still don't see how it is even remotely fair to sexually active men who have no choice in their reproduction outside of choosing abstaining from sex (no BC method is 100%).

Of course it's not fair. It's not fair that women should be the ones to get unwanted pregnacies, suffer from abortions or childbirth either but thats life.

As a woman who has spent time as a single mom with child support from the father I know how hard it is (I can't imagine how hard it would be without). However, there surely is some way to make things more balanced.

You got child support.. I have no idea what circumtances you got pregnant [one night stand/marriage] but I think it's pretty hypocritical for you to suggest fathers have the right to legally walk away from other pregnant women while you accepted child support for yourself.

[edit on 23-5-2008 by riley]

Either you greatly misunderstand or choose to ignore the point.
I point out the imbalance. Offer one potential way to balance things and ASKED for other options and flaws in what I offered. I'm not rabidly defending any approach or solution. However, for anyone concerned with the equality of ALL (no just women or a race..) any gross imbalance is cause for concern and discussion. If no workable solution is possible it's not for not trying to find a better way.

Also, there is no hypocrisy* as you suggest since a father (in my suggested scenario) would no more be able to terminate his parental rights at will after a certain time-frame (thought that was obvious since a woman can't have an abortion on an 18 month old baby either).
Please remember my concern is equality NOT retribution for the sins any group have committed against another in the past. *I* am talking about what is right HERE and NOW. You can remember the past so you don't repeat it without living in it.

*how am I being hypocritical of accepting support from a man who chooses to be in his childrens' lives? I certainly have no right to terminate his fatherhood.

Also (general question to anyone), if somehow it were possible to gestate outside the human body who would have the right (once the process was started) to pull the plug on the child if one parent decided he/she doesn't want to be a parent? Would either parent or only both?

[edit on 23-5-2008 by mysterychicken]

[edit on 23-5-2008 by mysterychicken]

[edit on 23-5-2008 by mysterychicken]

Originally posted by riley
It's not equal simply because the fetus gestates in the woman's body. I think thats really unfair.. I hate the thought of having my insides ripped apart and the agony that goes with labour.. I think the father should have to do it but thats not going to change biology.

The fetus gestates in the woman's body because of the Man's sperm. Not because it decided the woman's body was more comfortable or she looked better. What is unfair is for the woman to think that just because something is in her temporarily that she has a prerogative over it. Her womb is just a rental. I also hate the fact that a woman can decide what is best just because she has temporary possession. Its like, if a man leaves his car keys in a woman's place, that doesnt give the woman a right to trash his car or sell it off. Its still his car!! Unfortunately, unlike a car one cant register every cell in their body with something equivalent to the DMV.

Originally posted by riley
Continuing a pregancy is not threatening him with anything. She cannot walk away from the situation.. yet you want him to have the right to. :shk:

Yes, not threatening him with anything except legal hell and becoming a child support bank to leech as much money off him as she can just to satisfy her womanhood. She can walk away for it very easily. Just take a pill 24 hours after and she can walk away. But women on the quest to satisfy some primal urge of motherhood decide to drag the man down along with them just to bankroll their fetish.

Originally posted by riley
It's the woman's choice by default because it's the woman's body. women have rights now.. the days when her husband/father determined her fate are over.

Again, biology 101. It takes TWO to tango. The normal woman doesnt immaculately conceive like Mary. If that was the case, that would indeed be 'deliverance' for all mankind. If it a woman's choice then it is also the man's choice to walk away from something he didnt order. The woman cant force feed him. That is nothing short of torture and that is what is going on.

Originally posted by riley
Of course it's not fair. It's not fair that women should be the ones to get unwanted pregnacies, suffer from abortions or childbirth either but thats life.

Unwanted pregnancies ??? Unless it was RAPE. It was definitely WANTED. As for pregnancy, thankfully modern medicine has created many solutions to unwanted pregnancies. Women who 'choose' NOT to take the easy way out and indulge themselves on their own volition are solely to blame. Its not fair for men to have to be financially and emotionally tied to something they never wanted just to satisfy some woman's needs.

Even in something as banal as corporate equity, the minority stake holders also have rights. But apparently in the most basic and important of processes of life, the equal partner is shafted because of some prehistoric notion of 'poor woman!' sympathy . In the equal world there is no 'poor woman'! This is outright extortion and blackmail. When a man's cells are used, he has rights to determine the future of those cells. A woman cannot unilaterally choose to indulge herself. If she does she should accept the consequences like a man; (*that is what they are hoping for with feminism isnt it ? ) unfortunately society has become accustomed to unscrupulous women who extort men and considers this normal behavior from females that why any civil court in the country would rather send the man into penury than discomfort a woman who is pregnant. A state that even a dog can attain! Apparently that is sufficient to destroy a man who has actually worked hard to attain his wealth than a woman who merely spread her legs too often!

You just put it way way better than I did.

You interpretation of it is different than mine is. I don't see it as a good thing, and it is by far from being true. So, sorry... I didn't prove your point, which you think I seemed to do.

simple facts of life....

1.the only type of birth control that is 100%effective is abstinance.

2. some men and some women are always gonna want to evade their responsibilities when they finally learn of the truth held in statement one.

3. the men are gonna continuous present this argument till the end of time...due to that urge to escape the repercussions of their actions...

4. it's not gonna stop till the women start accepting fact number one and taking their responsibility more seriously.

5. but, when they finally get sick of all the griping and complaining, and come to gripes with the facts...well....single women, married women, they might all eventually start taking an assessment of things, do they want children? no?? the only effective birth control is abstinance?? nope, don't want sex either...sorry...

then, the men will stop griping and complaining....

[edit on 27-5-2008 by dawnstar]

reply to post by WolfofWar


I say boycott Law & Order SVU or even CSI.

I tried to ignore this reply last time this got bumped.. it's just filled with contempt for women.

Originally posted by IAF101
Her womb is just a rental. I also hate the fact that a woman can decide what is best just because she has temporary possession. Its like, if a man leaves his car keys in a woman's place, that doesnt give the woman a right to trash his car or sell it off. Its still his car!!

..thats like saying impregnating her was like a dog marking his territory. It [er.. she & uterus] is not HIS property.. getting a woman pregnant is not the same as writing your name on a pencil case.

Yes, not threatening him with anything except legal hell and becoming a child support bank to leech as much money off him as she can just to satisfy her womanhood.

If he feels that way he can try get sole custody so he can support them directly. the 'satisfy her womanhood' remark? most women I know who get pregnant do so unintentionally. there doesn't have to be a grand feminist evil plot behind concieving.. women get sexually aroused too you know.

But women on the quest to satisfy some primal urge of motherhood decide to drag the man down along with them just to bankroll their fetish.

fetish? so a man getting an erection is what then? thats not primal?

Women who 'choose' NOT to take the easy way out and indulge themselves on their own volition are solely to blame. Its not fair for men to have to be financially and emotionally tied to something they never wanted just to satisfy some woman's needs.

:shk:
Soley? Course men wanting sex has nothing to do with the mating instinct. You completely ignore male sexuality in all this.. it's like these evil women flew into their bedroom window and stole their sperm while they were innocently sleeping.

In the equal world there is no 'poor woman'! This is outright extortion and blackmail. When a man's cells are used, he has rights to determine the future of those cells.

Yeah alright. You say she either ex. aborts it if HE says he doesn't want it.. which basically means you think a mans rights should trump the womans as you've already accused her of extortion just for getting pregnant. thats a bizarre way to view women.

Apparently that is sufficient to destroy a man who has actually worked hard to attain his wealth than a woman who merely spread her legs too often!

Oh goodie! ye old "she and her kids deserve no compassion because she's a slut" argument. Deadbeat misoginist dads of the world unite!

..and form a bloody line. the procedure takes only a few minutes.. if you are truly worried about geting a woman pregnant and losing money get the snip.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by riley]

You want unfair? How's this?

If I marry a woman and she cheats on me and gets pregnant, and then leaves me, I'm still legally repsonsible to pay child support -- EVEN IF I CAN PROVE THE BABY IS NOT MINE!!!

My little brother was a good husband. His wife cheated on him, so he divorced her. SHE AUTOMATICALLY GOT CUSTODY OF THEIR DAUGHTER, EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS THE ONE WHO BROKE THE MARRIAGE VOWS!!

This is the result of the feminist movement, which equals "break up the family so the NWO can take over the confused kids who are spawned by such a system."

"Apparently that is sufficient to destroy a man who has actually worked hard to attain his wealth than a woman who merely spread her legs too often!"

so, how do you know how many times she spread her legs? How many times do you consider too many?? and well, did you know this BEFORE you had sex with her? and you did it with her anyways, of course....

so, how many times is too many for a man?

considering that all it take is one time to make a baby, I guess he's saying that all of us women should be virgins, unless of course, we and our mate are in agreement and we both want the responsibility of children. so, how about this one....
we make it mandatory that before any couple has sex, they sign a statement stating that they have discussed the prospect of children and decided yes, they want to have a child with this other person. there won't be any need to go intruding into people's bedrooms, we'll just wait till we can just wait till mom shows up at the social service office wanting help to deliver the baby. if she doesn't have a signed affidate from the father that they both wanted this baby, well, dna tests can be used to track down the father once the baby if born, and well, the baby will have to go into foster care or be aborted if the foster care is too overburdened, since mom and dad will be spending time in jail for producing unwanted offspring.
ya see......that's what the crime here is, not that the girl got pregnant and didn't follow your wishes as to what to do about it. the TWO of you had sex, knowing danged well that such actions COULD produce a baby, now that it has, one or both of yas don't want it. yous just didn't care till it was too late.
now, society has to pay for your mistake, the taxpayer has to pay for your mistake...
this idea that it's now all mom's fault because "she spead her legs on too many times" is outrageously insane. Chance are, there was a man involved with each spreading....obviously the men are committing this same crime!

I'll agree that any kind of policy the government has regarding children has gone off the deep end and needs to be revamped and changed. accountability should be added into the system and all that. but, there's no way in heck that the dads should be let off the hook. I'd go for a national breeding program and automatic sterilization of everybody before they turn of age to create unwanted offspring first!

reply to post by mysterychicken


That is a very valid point. I also agree there should be some kind of agreement or negotiation that should come about it is unfair for a woman to have all the power. Because after all its all about being "equal" right?

reply to post by riley


That is ridiculous that is not equality. The definition of equal doesn't mean "it is the woman's choice because it is the woman's body". Equality is having both sides to have a say in the situation as it stands now that is not the case.

Originally posted by the_one_below
reply to post by riley

 

That is ridiculous that is not equality. The definition of equal doesn't mean "it is the woman's choice because it is the woman's body".

Sorry but making it the "man's choice" over HER body would be defining slavery. You do believe in free will don't you..?

Equality is having both sides to have a say in the situation as it stands now that is not the case.

Both sides can have a say. He can have a say then she can make her choice.. if you want his say to trump hers then she becomes his subordinate.

Your version of equality sounds like he says jump and she says "how high?"

[edit on 8-7-2008 by riley]

To the moderators:

Thank you for this discussion topic!

I have seen some virulently anti-feminist and anti-woman statements elsewhere in this community and beyond, of course. But this one (unlike those others that spread like a bad cold) is responsible, caring, and has integrity.

Elsewhere on ATS someone re-posted a lot of quotes that are from a pro-conspiracy website called "antimisandry.com" which is a notoriously misogynistic and antifeminist website, claiming, somewhat ridiculously, that feminists are out to destroy all men. It would simply be absurd, except I've seen their information making the rounds in many places, including now on ATS, in a thread devoted to promulgating misquotes of feminists, and quotes taken completely out of context, or presented as non-fiction when they are from fictional works.

That community site and a few others are designed to discredit all of feminism, as if a handful of quotes represents "feminism", even "radical feminism. Audre Lorde has a beautiful statement in praise of her son in her book Sister Outsider. Alice Walker has written an extraordinarily compassionate open letter to Tiger Woods, promoting his humanity. Both those women are "second wave radical feminists" but you'd never know it from what many anti-feminist sites state.

I noted on this other thread on ATS that I could pull quotes by the same feminists so often misquoted to demonstrate a great respect for all of humanity, including men. And none of those quotes would be fabricated!

Just so this is noted on this thread, here's one link from a reputable website that shows how erroneous many "quotes by radical feminists" tend to be, that are passed around the internet as exemplary of what radical feminists have been saying and fighting for.

And thank you again, so much, for moderating this discussion. It is like a breath of fresh air compared to what is all across the web that promotes hatred of women and contempt for feminists fighting for human rights.

Here's the link demonstrating how misquotes of some feminists happen, and what the truth is behind the lies:
www.snopes.com...

To the OP:

Glad you brought up this taboo subject.

Whether you believe in equality of the sexes or not, the fact is that the media and US society have engaged in male bashing, double standards, and given women a status of unaccountability so they can get away with anything.

Sitcoms and movies always make men out to be dumb and immature, and women to be sane and rational and women are always right when they are arguing with a man. That's political correctness. But usually the truth is the opposite. Men are more predictable and linear and women are not.

There are tons of double standards against men too. Don't tell me you don't know any?!

Women are unaccountable. You are not allowed to judge them. They don't need social skills. They sit in the judge's chair.

Any time you publicly compare men and women, there is an unspoken rule that you MUST draw conclusions that put women on top, and shown in a better light. We all know that.

Feminism also destroys relationships. If a woman acts tough and doesn't need a man, it makes her less attractive too. The male/female energy is thrown out of whack.

One question for you: Where are the feminists when hostages are released and it's always women and children first? Or when the Titanic is going down and women and children get to get off first? Why do feminists never protest such things?

See these great essays exposing the destructiveness and unnaturalness of feminism with many examples:

US Feminism = female dominance, male bashing, double standards
www.happierabroad.com...

Feminism - The Destruction of Feminine Energy and Harmonious Relationships
www.happierabroad.com...

See this poster:

Perhaps Cato the Censor said it best more then TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO...

"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." - Cato the Censor, Roman Empire