Are Feminists always angry?

Post Reply New Topic

it is not normal if it is done in a lift. it is highly untactical - people generally dont talk to other people in a lift, it is considered creepy by everyone. we can try a poll on that. Now I read that story (I think) and he probably had a reason - I think they were in the same conference or something.. so I'll leave this particular case open, but no, generally one does not ask a women out in a lift



Is there any cultural sexism directed towards women at all then? (I dont mean the culture of sexism (whatever that is)- that is true, it is directed at men because historically men are the culprits, but that is NOT my question) I mean the way little girls are treated (even by their mothers), the way women are expected to behave etc, the way we view women as a culture (for instance that bossy thing). Do you think these issues are important or artificially generated and used for shady purposes?

read the book ; The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex by Warren Farrell. which debunk the claim that men were hysterical culprits.

You do realize that there are books on everything. I have not suggested you to read some ultra feminist book now have I?

So women went into slavery for thousands of years by their own free will?

Its called the Bible and the Qouran and some brainwashing.

It isn't just about hatred. If feminists limited their opposition to outright misogyny, they wouldn't have so much to talk about. Even in the "bad old days" most men were genuinely doing the best that they knew how to do. Would you hold up under the same standards that women hold men to?

Take this example: My grandfather arranged for my mother to be born at Maternity Hospital in Minneapolis, in the 1950s. (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_Hospital) It was entirely run and staffed by women, and it was the only hospital in the area that would deliver babies without general anesthesia. My mother thought that the norms at other hospitals were insensitive, and yet I have no reason to doubt that the doctors at those hospitals were doing their best, and no reason to think that they hated women. Penicillin wasn't available until just a few years before she was born, and even now there's a risk of a complicated birth forcing a bigger operation. I'd guess that those doctors were trying to make sure that both the mother and child went home alive.

I've been in hotel elevators at least a dozen times in the last few weeks, and in at least half there were pleasant exchanges. 3-4 times there was friendly joking, including with girls. I wasn't always the one to initiate.



How did you come to that interpretation? It sounds like another variation on the 'Nya, nya. You can't get laid' argument. Are you really insecure enough to let a bunch of 14-year-old Paris Hilton wannabes and drunken frat-girls be the ultimate arbiters of masculinity? By the time you're old enough to date anyone else... Well, you've just sneered at that, haven't you?



Why should you feel embarrassed? I've been asked out to a theater production of the Vagina Monologues as a first date. Every year Minneapolis has at least one breast cancer awareness walk with 1,000 or more women wearing bright pink bras as top-layer clothing parading through some of the busiest parts in town. It's pretty sad if men are so beaten down that we can't even stand up for newborn boys.

The matriarcy sux. They ignore penile cancer, and you never see someone wearing a bracelet that reads "I ♥ pee-pees." Well, almost never.

Are you suggesting that infant male circumcision is, historically and now, done by women at the behest of women, and men haven't dared to complain lest they be physically and verbally assaulted?

Rogue lady mohels, roaming the streets, circumcising any boy that crosses their path. The Mohelet Menace!

What if it was after hours? You alone with a woman in an elevator? Nobody around? Do you still think it's a good idea to ask her out? For a coffee in your hotel room?

You might if you go to the Castro district in San Francisco.

Warren Farrell holds some controversial views on incest. What is your take on this?

I find it ironic that you are intent on making me feel like a victim of circumcision when I have already claimed that I don't feel like a victim.

To parallel this, Warren Farrell says that "recipients" of incest (I'm deliberately not using the word victims even though I think it is a more appropriate word) should be able to choose whether they found the experience enjoyable or not without society telling them it is "bad" I'm paraphrasing. But basically he says that incest is bad only because society says it is bad, when in fact some people enjoy the experience (according to him at least)

Perhaps you can enlighten me. There seems to be some hypocrisy here.

People like you make yourself out to be a victim when you accuse feminists of playing the victim card. People like you are clearly angry and yet get mad at feminists for being angry. Alright, perhaps this is deliberately provocative but you do plenty of the same.

Lorraine Bobbitt. snip snip! talk about circumcision. Ouch

I'll re-post what I said:



A lot of men are uncomfortable self-advocating, and your reply is a good example of the role that feminists play in perpetuating that.

You also imply that circumcision is the fault of guys, since men were the ones administering it. That hasn't been true in my lifetime, and your argument also works both ways:

One of my Somali friends pointed out that 'a lot of the Somali's who think that girls should have their clits sewn shut are women.' She was talking about women in the US, doing it in violation of the law. One of the women who speaks nationally against FGM is a former practitioner of it who spent a few years in prison for performing it here.

I only ask that the law be gender-equal, and that's my prerogative: I pay the same tax-rate as a woman, and policing sex-crimes is expensive; jailing people is expensive. At the very least, the security benefits should be equal.

I also said that feminists pushed circumcision. They do indeed, as a marginally-effective way of protecting African women from AIDS. If you're going to talk about "beneficial" genital mutilation, then you should study both genders. It's possible that clit-snipping would be better at preventing AIDS. I doubt that you'd get an NSF grant to study that, but both male and female human genitalia grow the same fungi. HIV lives in humans but doesn't survive in air, so any skin folds that keep it moist and close to body temperature would increase its chance of survival. Female genitalia stay closer to body temperature than their male counterparts. If they're willing to do it to men, then I expect feminists to support similar procedures on women if they turn out to be effective.

How would my reply stop men from self-advocating? I was asking if you were suggesting that circumcision has historically and presently only ever been performed by women and/or feminists at the behest of women and/or feminists in clear reference to the desires and preferences of women and/or feminists. Because I don't think it has. Not even close. Men should self-advocate. What they shouldn't do is make up BS reasons how they're so oppressed by women and/or feminists they dare not do so, and barely stand a chance even if they do dare to raise their voice.

I don't doubt some women presently perform circumcision - why wouldn't they? If the culture sees it, as I understand it, as a medically sound thing, why wouldn't doctors of either gender perform it? And of course, some mothers allow or even request it - again, why wouldn't they? It's the done thing, and medically recommended. Some might even consider it tantamount to child abuse to not do it. Women are no less susceptible to a culture's norms than men are.

(As I recall, figures for the UK have about 5% of males under 16 circmcised for any reason, and medical professionals wanting to see it reduced. I think the US rate is somewhere around 50% for newborns, and medical professionals encouraging it)

I meant that circumcision is not a feminist conspiracy. It has a long, long history, and has been performed for various reasons. Recently, if at all, has it been in any way because either women or feminists demanded so. Self-advocation is fine, but please don't pretend MGM is down to women.

No, MGM is not taken as seriously as it should be by many people of either gender. It's a shame and a difficulty. But to suggest it would be if it weren't for feminists and/or women, that men are too cowed to speak up because of them, is just stupid.




Non-feminists also push circumcision, and they would be equally unlikely to suggest even the possibility of such a study. There are various reasons for this - one is obviously cultural. Male circumcision is much, much more widespread and normalised than female circumcision - indeed, many in the 'enlightened West' can get all judgey about FGM as a barbaric religious and cultural practise.

But such thinking runs through cultures at large - as happens from this standpoint looking back, there are many, many things we may find abhorrent in the future that we don't, at large, presently even think to question.

How odd: I find myself, in part at least, in agreement with you. I am very much against any non-emergency physical mutilation of a non-consenting human, and I very much consider circumcision such. I think in terms of any circumcision the age of consent should be 16 or 18 years. Pierced ears, I think 8 or 10 would be sufficient. Probably the latter.

Some feminists may push circumcision, some be against it, and some not consider it at all - they think it a male issue, and so consider its being brought up a form of distracting whataboutery. I think male circumcision is so routine and normalised that it can be very hard to see it as a problem - men and women alike will see it as nothing, as the very definition of a non-issue. Again, I don't think it is inherent to the endeavour(s) of feminism that such a state of affairs needs to be perpetuated.

Yes, some women do perform and encourage FGM. I suppose if you're going to always look at something only through a male vs female lens, you'll come unstuck. I have said elsewhere that I think a lot of the MRA/anti-feminist move contains a repressed (legitimate) class anger that's gotten twisted up, and there are many self-described feminists who I disagree with where I don't think their analysis is wide and thorough enough.

Victims often perpetuate abuse. It's very sad, but I don't see why women should be any less likely to than men. I suppose it's a way of normalising a traumatic experience. So as ever, one has to analyse and understand the psychology involved, the cultural dynamics. What is being done to who, by who, why, for whose benefit etc.

I consider anyone, feminist or otherwise, who champions such things really weird.

some of us (female feminists) do care about circumcision--i am personally against it (for males and females). in fact, when my mother was pregnant with me she did a tour of the maternity ward of the hospital and the nurses showed her where they did the circumcision on baby boys. my mother was horrified and asked what paperwork she would need to fill out so that if her baby was born a boy, he would not automatically be circumcised after birth because my mother felt it was wrong and unnecessary. the nurses all looked at her like she was mad and said "it's just what's done."

obviously i avoided the problem by being born a girl--but my mother told me about it when i was older, and i've always remembered. i never planned to have children of my own, but if i had and i'd had boys, i would not have had them circumcised. it is unnecessary mutilation.