Feminists vs. Feminists


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Feminists vs. Feminists

Feminists vs. Feminists
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
FFS

Who’s Co-Opting Feminism?

http://www.alternet.org/rights/41903/

——————-

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

09-26-2006 03:49 PM

Re: Feminists vs. Feminists
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

I checked out the article and here is a follow-up comment that really sums up the modern feminists thinking.

We don’t need feminism to give us “choices.” That’s what we already have. Being forced to “chose” between your arm and your leg, your family or your career, is just about what the patriarchy has already given us.

I’d like to NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE.

Or, to have BETTER OPTIONS from which to chose.

We need shorter work weeks, more vacation time, a national child care system, more male contribution to childcare and housework, paid family leave, school days that go to 5.30pm, less intra-female backbiting and competition, complete child support and paternity payment collection, larger child support awards, bigger alimony settlements, the right to return to work without undue discrimination after taking a short time off for family, credit toward Social Security for time spent raising small children, fair hiring and promotion at work, more women in power — by god, we need BETTER CHOICES!!

I’ll be darned if I’m going to accept a feminism so reduced and gutted that all it is about is abandoning me to “choose” or forcing me to “choose” between the rotten, unfair, split-brain, inadequate, incompatible, half-assed, not-as-good-as-man-has options I have before me today.

MY feminism is about refusing to chose between these bits of broken trash — it’s about working hard, getting political and demanding BETTER OPTIONS.

Jan VanDenBerg

So what “BETTER OPTIONS” does the average man have?

Just work or jail as far as I can see. Some of these women live in a “grass in greener on the other side” type fantasy.

09-27-2006 11:24 AM

Re: Feminists vs. Feminists
ZammoTheWeird
Contributor
ZammoTheWeird

We need shorter work weeks, more vacation time, a national child care system, more male contribution to childcare and housework, paid family leave, school days that go to 5.30pm, less intra-female backbiting and competition, complete child support and paternity payment collection, larger child support awards, bigger alimony settlements, the right to return to work without undue discrimination after taking a short time off for family, credit toward Social Security for time spent raising small children, fair hiring and promotion at work, more women in power — by god, we need BETTER CHOICES!!
This woman is delusional.

Larger child support awards and bigger alimony settlements?!?!?

That’s just brilliant, cupcake. Shoot, accelerate the marriage strike, no skin off my nose. Note to single men – DO NOT GET MARRIED!!!!

More women in power?!?!?!?

Women are proven time and time again that their political agenda is about increasing entitlements for women and shafting men.

I will never, ever vote for a woman, regardless of political party affiliation.

Feminists – no matter what flavor – do NOT want fairness, they simply want a bigger piece of the pie without sacrifice, compromise, or hard work.

09-27-2006 01:21 PM

Re: Feminists vs. Feminists
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Yea, that post was one of the choice ones. But you should see some of the other ones too. Lotsa feminidiots and manginas. iFeminists.com has a few good articles, but they’re not exactly masculist or MRA’s. They’re just women with a different point of view (and many are moms concerned about their sons), but that’s not acceptable in liberal lalaland. They smuggly call themselves “progressives” for trying to defend the status-quo of the one-party system called feminism against scattered criticisms… They can’t reason their way out of a mall parking lot, so naturally they can’t comprehend why their candidates and pet causes keep going down to defeat election after election. It just isn’t fair. But it’s like shootin’ fish in a barrel if you want to stop by for some good clean nastynet fun.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-27-2006 09:38 PM

Re: Feminists vs. Feminists
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
A few months back a “Woman’s Advocate” whose name eludes me suggested that the 50% asset Division in Divorce was not enough to assist Women in their Transition. She was Advocating 75% of Marital Assets. I wrote on a Male Forum hell lets make it 100% and the Ex Husband must donate blood plasma as well. Lets kill Marriage once and for all. That is obviously the intent of this game. A Gent I know has a Sister who has been Married multiple times. To decent Men who she cashes out on.

Her 14 year old Son committed suicide. It did phase her in the least. She is on a round the world trip with her latest Male victim. When the money runs out. He is history. This man has never married. And is a decent Family oriented Man. In this entire board I have yet to read more than one or two postings from Women that attempted to understand Men’s issues. This is Misandry per se. The facts speak for themselves.

You can hear in iVillage.com the interview with Matt Lauer regarding the article by Michael Noer. Matt is a Magina. I have zero respect for him.

09-28-2006 08:38 AM

Re: Feminists vs. Feminists
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
“She was Advocating 75% of Marital Assets. I wrote on a Male Forum hell lets make it 100% and the Ex Husband must donate blood plasma as well.”

That’s the spirit! It’s gotten so absurd that we might as well take it to the extreme, and even a bit beyond. I’ve noticed earnest/serious people don’t get this brand of facetiousness, but I’m a big fan of it myself.

Maybe you missed the howler in comments to an article over on alternet.org, where the serious suggestion was made that henceforth all science should be done in 50/50 boy/girl teams, to eliminate male bias in science. Where do they dream up this nutty stuff? (A: in some committee where men aren’t allowed to pollute the proceedings with actual ideas.)

Isaac Newton was reputed to have been such a disagreeable jerk and *sshole that no one would have wanted to have been part of his team, at least not for very long — and we’d therefore still probably be living in a 3 mile-an-hour world if great ideas for “progress” like the idiocy of paired teams had been in effect back then.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-28-2006 10:24 PM

Re: Feminists vs. Feminists
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen

MartianBachelor wrote: Maybe you missed the howler in comments to an article over on alternet.org, where the serious suggestion was made that henceforth all science should be done in 50/50 boy/girl teams, to eliminate male bias in science. Where do they dream up this nutty stuff?

Is this the article you’re talking about?

http://www.alternet.org/story/42034/

“Recently, a committee of specialists at the University of Miami found that it was not biology, hormones, child-rearing demands, or differences in ability that explained why women were not advancing as fast as they should in scientific and technical fields. It was discrimination, pure and simple. “It is not a lack of talent, but unintended bias that is locking women out,” said Donna Shalala, president of the University of Miami and head of the committee that wrote the report.”

I can’t remember, but didn’t Kate O’Beirne discuss the feminist behavior of Donna Shalala in her ‘Women Who Make the World Worse’ book?

Here we go …

http://tinyurl.com/ekqjw

A feminist Camelot – feminism in the Clinton Administration
Christina Hoff Sommers

ON March 21, 1995, President Clinton told the American public that according to the FBI a woman is battered every 12 seconds. He added further that 700,000 women annually are victims of rape or attempted rape. These alarmingly high but bogus figures are the product of feminist advocacy research. The FBI does not even keep figures on domestic violence; and the 700,000 figure is more than double the number arrived at by the most thorough and methodo-logically rigorous crime survey in the country, the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey. Within hours, the White House press secretary, Michael McCurry, apologized for the President’s use of the unsubstantiated domestic-violence factoid. “We want to take back that statistic.” McCurry did not explain why the President chose to cite advocacy figures on rape instead of relying on the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The truth is that Clinton is surrounded by statistically challenged feminist activists whose numbers he credits. The larger truth is that the Clinton Administration is a feminist Camelot.

Consider the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Academic feminists take it as a tenet of faith that most women, under patriarchy, lead lives of quiet desperation. So when a respected mainstream philanthropic group, the Commonwealth Fund, using the polling firm Louis Harris and Associates, came out in 1993 with the finding that each week 40 per cent of American women are “severely depressed,” feminists around the country were electrified. They felt vindicated. Finally, someone was telling the truth about women’s misery.

But few were more excited than Secretary Donna Shalala. She is a matron saint of the women’s movement. Back in the days when she was president of Hunter College she helped to develop its women’s-studies program into one of the premier centers of feminist theory in the country. She attended the press conference in which the Commonwealth/ Harris poll findings were announced and noted, “For too long, health care [and] health research has been addressed from one point of view, the white male point of view.” The idea that “white male” norms compromise scientific research is commonplace in women’s studies textbooks; but the press conference, July 14, 1993, was probably the first time it had ever been given credence by a high government official.

Of course, the sensational finding that 40 per cent of American women are “severely depressed” turned out to be preposterous. According to the National Institute of Mental Health’s Psychiatric Disorders in America, the yearly prevalence of severe depression is 2.2 per cent for men and 5.0 per cent for women; indeed, the very same Harris poll also found 82 per cent of women “enjoying life most of the time.” I asked an official at Louis Harris and Associates to explain the discrepancy, and she referred me to Lois Hoeffler, the principal researcher, who has since left them. When I inquired of Miss Hoeffler how she had arrived at the 40 per cent depression figure in the face of the finding that women were enjoying life most of the time, she candidly told me she was very concerned that the Harris study not be just another study reflecting “white male norms” of research, adding that in her work for Louis Harris and Associates and the Commonwealth Fund she was doing her best to counter “phallocentric bias.” I was not surprised to find that she had specialized in feminist theory at Hunter College. According to one Washington, D.C., researcher to whom I recently spoke: “Under Secretary Shalala, Health and Human Services has been mobilized as the research and policy arm of the feminist movement.” And, indeed, HHS now has a small army of Lois Hoefflers who are producing advocacy statistics just as misleading as the 40 per cent depression figure.

HHS houses the Office on Women’s Health (OWH), which sends out “Fact Sheets” and brochures on the condition of women. One typical brochure entitled “Women’s Health Issues” opens by treating women’s health problems as due to “bias.”

In recent years, heightened awareness of longstanding biases against women . . . has catalyzed an expanded focus on women’s issues. [HHS] is pursuing a comprehensive and meaningful agenda for women’s health to redress these past inequities.

Once research is liberated from “male norms,” its findings reveal “inequities” to which women in our sexist society are subjected. Among them, OWH cites the following:

— An estimated 30 per cent of emergency-room visits by women each year are the result of injuries from domestic violence.

— Homicide is the leading killer of women in the workplace.

— In 1991, homicide was the second leading cause of death among all women 15 to 24.

— Suicide was the third leading cause of death among 15-to-24-year-old white women in 1991.

The homicide and suicide statistics promote an image of American women as menaced and vulnerable. But from the Bureau of Labor Statistics we learn that in 1994, 887 men were murdered while on the job. The figure for women was 184 (83 per cent men and 17 per cent women). And while it is true that homicide is the second leading cause of death among all women 15 to 24, it is misleading to suggest that women, rather than men, are being targeted. In 1991 1,128 young women 15 to 24 were murdered; but for males in the same age group, the figure was 8,251. The suicide statistic is similarly misleading. In 1991, there were 602 suicides among young white women 15 to 24; for young white men in that age group it was 3,476. The average total annual deaths from all causes for this age group is approximately 8,000 for females and 25,000 for males.

The Office of Women’s Health does not explain why male deaths are ignored or why female deaths are the result of “inequities” or gender bias or why any of these bleak facts are health issues.

Perhaps the closest thing to a statistic that could be relevant to women’s special vulnerability is the claim that “an estimated 30 per cent of emergency-room visits by women each year are the result of injuries from domestic violence.” However, responsible studies show that nationwide the correct figure is closer to 2 per cent. Though it is required practice to do so, the Office on Women’s Health at HHS sees no need to footnote claims. I called the Office on Women’s Health and asked for the source for the 30 per cent figure. I was referred to one Frances Page, a Senior Analyst. She said: “I have no idea where the statistics are from. The person responsible has left. When the fact sheet was done she surely had all the information. You might try the AMA.” When I ventured to ask whether there was an Office of Men’s Health or whether there was an office of HHS that was tracking the health of teen-age boys, she told me that men’s or boys’ offices were not needed: “I am asked that all the time and my answer is always the same: All the other offices deal with men — even NIH studies only male rats.”

Secretary of Labor Robert Reich is another feminist favorite. He describes Susan Faludi’s Backlash as “spellbinding and frightening . . . a wake-up call to the men as well as the women who are struggling to build a gender-respectful society.” That Mr. Reich could be impressed by Miss Faludi’s paranoid screed suggests that his critical judgment fails him when it comes to feminist ideology. The suggestion is borne out when we see how his department favors feminist misinformation over sound information.

On October 14, 1994, Secretary Reich and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton joined Karen Nussbaum — then Director of the Women’s Bureau of the Labor Department — in a White House press conference announcing the results of a study entitled Working Women Count! A Report to the Nation. According to Secretary Reich, “The portrait of American women that has emerged is compelling, vibrant, diverse, but shows us how much work we have to do to remove hurdles from women’s paths.” Mrs. Clinton weighed in with, “This is not the run-of-the-mill survey. This is the experts themselves — working women — telling us what we need to do.”

The message of Working Women Count! was strongly negative and was so reported: “They are underpaid and angry” (Associated Press); “Women not given tools to make it” (Atlanta Constitution); “Many women still feel that they are not getting the pay, benefits, or recognition they deserve, according to a new survey conducted by the Federal Government” (New York Times). According to the Nussbaum “findings” American women are angry at “not getting a fair deal.” Sixty per cent reported having experienced stress. Almost half complained: “I do not get paid what I think my job is worth.”

Although she was neither an economist nor a statistician, Karen Nussbaum, a Clinton appointee, had designed the survey. Her “report to the nation” on working women was based on the responses to a questionnaire devised by her and distributed to an estimated ten million women. The 2 per cent who returned the questionnaire answered questions like, “If you could tell President Clinton one thing about what it is like to be a working woman, what would it be?” and “Do you like your job overall?”

Notwithstanding the confidence displayed by Mrs. Clinton and Reich, Nussbaum’s survey is statistically meaningless. The women who chose to respond are what pollsters call “self-selected.” Polls and surveys using self-selected responses are known as SLOPs (self-selected listener opinion polls). Tom W. Smith, a director at the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, points out that SLOPs are shunned by all responsible researchers because they virtually “insure biased responses.” Mr. Smith was especially surprised to hear that this particular SLOP had been done under the auspices of the Labor Department. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has an enviable reputation among social scientists for producing scientifically rigorous and reliable surveys. Yet, for reasons best known to themselves Karen Nussbaum and her staff chose to do their “Report to the Nation” without availing themselves of its expertise.

Miss Nussbaum did supplement her SLOP with a more standard procedure, querying some 1,200 randomly selected women by telephone. But Mr. Smith pointed out that here too the method was fatally flawed. Had the Bureau of Labor Statistics been given the task of reporting on working women, it would certainly have insisted that minimally meaningful results could be obtained only if most of the same questions were asked of men as well as women. For it was clear that much of the reported worker dissatisfaction (about pay, about stress) was not gender specific.

Who is Karen Nussbaum? Why did President Clinton appoint her as Director of the Women’s Bureau, and why did Secretary Reich and the First Lady have her do this study? Here is what feminist scholar Heidi Hartmann said during a political conference organized by Mother Jones magazine:

Karen Nussbaum, who is Director of the Women’s Bureau, appointed by Clinton, is so progressive I can’t imagine that she could possibly have gotten this job — for those of you who know Karen’s political history. So I asked her about that. And she said, “Fortunately, I never write anything down; I don’t keep any records, and I also have no memory.”

The Mother Jones audience was clearly delighted to hear how a canny leftist activist like Karen Nussbaum managed to finesse her radical “political history” to get her influential government appointment. Miss Hartmann ended her talk on an upbeat note, announcing that Miss Nussbaum had directed and just completed a Department of Labor survey on attitudes and needs of working women.

She [Karen Nussbaum] is coming out tomorrow with the Working Women Count! survey which will describe the things that working women in the U.S. want and what they are looking to the Administration for.

Although Secretary Reich’s endorsement of the Nussbaum study as “compelling” cannot be taken as a judgment of its scientific merits, it can be taken as praise for its political impact. As Dr. William Lyons, a political scientist at the University of Tennessee said about the survey: “It’s a worthless project as far as social science anyway. As some kind of lobbying it may be very effective.” Miss Nussbaum, who has since left the Clinton Administration, said, “The results of this questionnaire can inform policy-making for years to come.” It probably will.

The Department of Education dis-penses much largesse to activists in the rapidly growing gender-bias industry. One program, a special favorite with the network of feminist pedagogues, self- esteem workshoppers, gender-equity trainers, and harassment experts, is the Women’s Educational Equity Act (WEEA). Of the millions of dollars awarded in December of 1995, $139,126 went to Merle Froschl from “Educational Equity Concepts.” Miss Froschl intends to “conduct research on gender-based teasing and bullying in grades kindergarten through 5.” Nan Stein, from the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, is another expert on schoolyard harassment. Miss Stein, who coined the phrase “gendered terrorists” to refer to little boys who flip girls’ skirts, has already done a SLOP harassment study for Seventeen magazine. Now, thanks to a $90,929 grant from WEEA, she can do yet another one. WEEA is also responsible for dozens of programs and guidebooks on how to make textbooks “gender fair” — translation: how can we airbrush white males of genius from the curriculum. These materials are disseminated through an “Equity Resource Center.”

Congress recently defunded WEEA. But intervention from feminist activists, Education Secretary Richard Riley, and others in the Clinton Administration, helped to secure for WEEA an eleventh hour reprieve. Unless stopped in the Senate, it will be funded.

Ironically, the Office of Research Integrity, which is charged with investigating fraudulent research, is a department of HHS. It has recently come into the public eye for its overzealous prosecution of “white male norm” scientists like Nobel Prize – winner David Baltimore and Thereza Imanishi-Kari. Needless to say, it is not about to turn its attention to the dishonest advocacy projects in its own back yard that misuse statistics to show that women are mistreated in our society and in need of the expert help of feminist activists. Secretary Reich’s Working Women Count!, Shalala’s “fact sheets,” and the “research” disseminated by the Department of Education’s Equity Resource Center are typical examples of government misinformation that serves a fashionable political ideology.

When it comes to feminist distortions, Secretaries Shalala, Reich, and Riley, and even President Clinton, seem to lose their critical faculties. This is not a healthy state of affairs. Because the probity and reliability of reports from government agencies are essential to the workings of democracy, preserving the trustworthiness of information that people routinely get from their government is something each Administration is charged to do. Unfortunately, the current Administration is allowing advocacy to override integrity.

——————————————————————

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

09-29-2006 04:36 PM

Re: Feminists vs. Feminists
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Yea, that story.

And that Shalala, who came up in the book Lying in a Room of One’s Own which someone (sorry – forgot who) posted the download link to a couple days back:

The intense focus on women under siege is a key justification for Women’s Studies pedagogy. In this drama, Women’s Studies professors are depicted as the first group to launch a thorough scholarly challenge to these supposedly limited social roles for women. In her forward to the first edition of Women’s Realities, Women’s Choices, a textbook produced by the Hunter College Women’s Studies Collective (and the first introductory Women’s Studies textbook ever published), Donna Shalala, then-president of Hunter College, wrote that the book “symbolizes the coming of age of the Women’s Studies movement. Indeed, the substance of this book represents years of struggle by courageous scholar-teachers, to be taken seriously by their more traditional colleagues”.

Shalala was also instrumental, as a higher up at the Univ. of Wisconsin, in trying to put the thought police in power there:

“…the codes governing students and faculty established in the late 1980s at the University of Wisconsin under then-Chancellor Donna Shalala to promote diversity and to combat race and sex discrimination. Although proponents insisted that these codes governed conduct and not speech, students could be punished “[f]or racist or discriminatory comments, epithets, or other expressive behavior directed at an individual or on separate occasions at different individuals” if such “expressive behavior” was intentional. The code governing faculty turned out to be even broader, not restricting its prohibition to harm intentionally inflicted.

Fortunately, sanity prevailed eventually and these speech codes were overturned – not that they would have applied to the feminists and the thought police themselves. But the message they sent was clear.

So she has a long and sordid past with the Fourth Reich.

But how staggeringly dumb do you have to be to form a committee headed by somebody with her feminazi siege mentality and with only one man on it, and come up with the solid “conclusion” that women are being discriminated against? -dumb enough to still not be taken seriously, I guess. I thought the whole complaint was that the male-dominated sciences couldn’t… forget it. It’s too moronic to even contemplate.

And how could there possibly be anything remotely resembling the mythical but all-powerful “patriarchy” if it allowed someone like this in to be in so many positions of power, to roam free across the land wreaking havoc?

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 09-29-200611:04 PM

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-29-2006 05:08 PM

Re: Feminists vs. Feminists
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
Progressive Feminists vs. Conservative Feminists:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/16/anthony-abortion/

http://pandagon.net/2006/10/13/would-suffragette-city-have-a-planned-parenthood/

—————————–

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

10-16-2006 02:37 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: