Sunday, October 28, 2007

Your Patience Is Requested...

I am in the process of re-inventing this blog. If its disappearance alarmed anyone, I do apologize for that. I have removed "Against Feminism" from the name. Don't worry, I haven't become feminist. I just think we'll have a better chance of reaching equality if we can find a way to work together. I have a lot of thoughts on this, actually, which I will post later. I am working on finding copies of my posts so I can put them back up, either here or at another location; I haven't decided yet. I will keep you posted.

27 comments:

literarycritic said...

I for one applaud your choice, KellyMac. Keep fighting the good fight!

Yohan said...

KellyMac,

I am not sure, if a blog-name-change makes sense, as the URL remains the same.
http://awomanagainstfeminism.blogspot.com/

To receive a 'Thank you' comment from radical feminists around Jeff Fecke (...MRA are promoting rape and assault) like from this 'literarycritic' for removing the words of 'against feminism' sounds like scorn and making fun out of you.

The decision of changing the name is up to you of course, it's your blog.

literarycritic said...

I am not a radical feminist. If I were, I wouldn't be here. My comment was sincere. I realize that KellyMac cannot change the URL without losing the name-recognition that she already has, and I respect that. I left a comment on this site even before the name-change, not that it showed up before she took down the post it was on, and I take her at her word when she says that the focus of the blog is changing a bit along with the change of title. All I was saying was that I support what she said in her post. I am not saying "thank you." I am saying that I support her choice. I am not being scornful, or making fun of her.

It is amazing, the amount of negativity that some people can read into a simple comment from someone they don't like.

Yohan said...

literarycritic said...
I am not a radical feminist.


Every person, who cheers all these baseless and derogatory accusations and comments of Jeff Fecke and Jack Goff is a radical feminist.

It is amazing, the amount of negativity that some people can read into a simple comment from someone they don't like.

You reap what you sow. Therefore you should not complain.

literarycritic said...

Yohan, you do not get to restrict the definition of "radical feminism" to "people who agree with comments I don't like." Radical feminism is not about the MRM in any way. Radical feminists believe, in general, that the nuclear family should be disbanded for the good of society; I don't. Radical feminists, when talking about violence, often refuse to exit the paradigm of women-as-victims; the wrongness of that viewpoint is actually one of the points that I agree with KellyMac on (though we have our differences of opinion, I'm sure). In terms of whether I am a radical feminist, those opinions do matter. I don't suddenly become a radical feminist just because you say I am.

As for "cheering on all Jeff Fecke's/JackGoff's comments," I haven't done that. I don't agree with everything Fecke said, even now, about MRAs. I even said initially that I thought he was completely wrong to say those things about your movement and not listen to you and others when you came there to defend yourselves. After my experience with some of the less-desirable elements of the MRM, I said that I thought he had more of a point than I had originally thought. (I still think he went too far.) As for JackGoff, I may have supported a comment or two of his, but that's far from "cheering on all his comments." I don't agree with all feminists all the time -- not by a long shot, actually.

We're not going to agree on anything; we just don't like each other (though I think you dislike me a lot more than I'm capable of disliking you). I don't really think we should continue this discussion any further, although I'm sure you'll want to respond now that I've said my piece, in which case, fair enough.

Yohan said...

I know, we are talking about feminism, but you mean, it is a different feminism...not that one, another one...your feminism...

This is the usual 'deeply insulted crybaby' policy, however this does not work with me.

I do not believe what you say, your opinion turns around in all directions like the wind, changing all time like the weather forecast.

You are right, there is nothing to agree with you - really nothing.

literarycritic said...

I know, we are talking about feminism, but you mean, it is a different feminism...not that one, another one...your feminism...

This is the usual 'deeply insulted crybaby' policy, however this does not work with me.


That's not what I did. I'm not crying, I'm not a baby, and I'm not insulted at the label of "radical feminist." I just explained to you why the label doesn't apply to me. There's no need to say I'm going into histrionics and paint me as overemotional when I'm not.

I do not believe what you say, your opinion turns around in all directions like the wind, changing all time like the weather forecast.

I never claimed to be an expert on how I would feel at all times about the MRM. I am new to this, I am exploring new ideas and there are going to be changes along the way. I made a mistake at EF's blog, I got overemotional and I can see now the role I played in things getting ridiculously out-of-hand. I would explain more how I believe that I screwed up and made myself look bad, but I don't think it would be taken well at this point. I think it would only result in people accusing me of being fickle, when really, I'm just trying to learn about some new perspectives -- there's a learning curve associated with that. I don't think there should be any shame in admitting that, but it seems that some MRAs are rather impatient and take a clear "You're either with us or against us!" attitude very early on in the discussion. I'm trying to ignore that, and push forward regardless, but am prepared to admit that there is no room for me to discuss anything with MRAs, should that turn out to be the case for whatever reason. If that were to happen, I would not blame them for shutting me out, but myself for handling things badly in the beginning.

literarycritic said...

KellyMac & Yohan, I decided to go ahead and go for it. So a better explanation of the position I mentioned in my last post is now posted on Davout's blog, and can be found here:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27778028&postID=2975786148824024566&isPopup=true

I didn't mean to hijack the thread, KellyMac. Sorry about that. I'll shut up for awhile now. :)

dad4justice said...

KellyMac,
Cheers from downunder - in solidarity - d4j

Anonymous said...

At 51 I have been married twice. My Current wife works in the Legal Industry. We have been together 10 years as a Married couple. I have seen Feminism morph into a Hate Movement. And seen it hijacked to facilitate a Money Transfer scheme. That benefits vested interests to the harm of Children, Men and ultimately Women as well.

Marriage is dying in the US. Our 6 year old Girls are dressing like Prostitots and Slut Feminism is promoting this. Any form of Feminism is like saying a kindler Gentler Nazi. When you have been on the receiving end for 4 decades and are seen as sub human you lose trust in Women.

Feminism is a trojan horse. It is a repackaged form of Communism. With Gender replacing Class or Castes. Pitting Men against Women. Its leaders declared their intentions decades ago. I have not changed my opinion about the Movement.

Khankrumthebulgar

Anonymous said...

test comment

gwallan said...

literarycritic said...
...Radical feminists believe, in general, that the nuclear family should be disbanded for the good of society; I don't. Radical feminists, when talking about violence, often refuse to exit the paradigm of women-as-victims; the wrongness of that viewpoint is actually one of the points that I agree with KellyMac on...


Those things and many more. You have certainly identified some of the character of "radical" feminism or, as I have seen it described, "progressive" feminism.

Alternatively it could be suggested that what you are describing is the status quo, the mainstream of our culture as created by modern feminism. By differentiating yourself from it you become...the radical.

Clearly, from your posts both here and elsewhere, you are beginning to question some of your own feminist beliefs. This is a road I trod some five years ago. It pays to be sceptical of ideologies - particularly those things that appear to confirm what we already "know". This applies not just to feminism.

Anonymous said...

I am a feminist and I read this blog to try to understand the other point of view.

I have often struggled to understand why being for men's rights necessitates being against feminism. While I disagree with a number of aspects of what is called "men's rights," there are a lot of other areas stick. For example, I feel VERY strongly that old-fashioned gender prejudice among jurors and jurors I think men get the short end of the ges results in harsher sentencing for male offenders, and the unwarranted automatic assumption in custody cases that the woman is always the better caretaker. I believe that my views about anti-male gender prejudce in the courts are a logical result of my feminism, but whatever, we do agree at least on some things. And I think it is great that KellyMac recognizes that fact. Very few people do.

-- Margaret

Anonymous said...

Oops that should have been:

"While I disagree with a number of aspects of what is called "men's rights," there are a lot of other areas where I agree with MRAs (although I tend to blame anti-feminists rather than feminists for the poor views of men in our culture)."

-- Margaret

Yohan said...

@ Margaret

http://masculistadvice.blogspot.com/2007/09/women-lenient-prison-sentences.html

Yes, correct, women are sentenced at average to 25 months less than men. - It is a fact, proven by serious studies.
Just see the link above and download for free the full text of the newest study.

For feminists however, this is still not enough. They demand to shut down all prisons for females.

Women's prisons 'should all close within a decade'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6444961.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=442113&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1209749.ece

Feminist Scum said...

99% of femcunts are radical. Just because they aren't screaming to have men lined up and shot, doesn't mean they aren't radical. If you want some sane feminists, then ifeminists are the way to go, but they are a rare minority.

Anonymous said...

...are a logical result of my feminism.

That's the standard feminist disclaimer - everytime you corner them, they use the same excuse - 'But... but... I'm not like those radical feminists... I support rights for men too... Egalitarian. Waa. Blah. Blaaah.' Enough of such 'egalitarian feminists'(oxymoron) like LC and Margaret.

Feminist bloggers all over the web pronounced guilt without any evidence in the Duke case, many even refused to admit their mistake when the verdict was 'not-guilty', each time a wife kills/hurts her husband/children, feminists jump to her side claiming that she was abused, depressed or 'insane', and N.O.W., the foremost feminist group has always stood against shared-parenting because 'all men are abusers'...

So you see, Margaret, that while you will claim that your feminism is better than others'(all feminists say the same) - it is no wonder that feminism has a bad name - feminism is simply a set of double standards - women want equality, only when it benefits them.

P.S. There is no patriarchal conspiracy against women. Stop demanding special treatment. This message goes out to all women - feminist or not.

-x-

KellyMac : This could be a great experiment - trying to negotiate with feminists - one which has been tried before, and one which has never succeeded; at least you will learn more about how feminists 'think'. It will be like taking a Wymyn's Studies course via the blogs - Keep us updated.

Feminist Scum said...

Well said, Anon, well bloody said!!!

literarycritic said...

That's the standard feminist disclaimer - everytime you corner them, they use the same excuse - 'But... but... I'm not like those radical feminists... I support rights for men too... Egalitarian. Waa. Blah. Blaaah.' Enough of such 'egalitarian feminists'(oxymoron) like LC and Margaret.

I never claimed the label of "egalitarian feminist." Your personal definition of feminism doesn't negate my personal definition of feminism, which also doesn't negate anybody else's definition of feminism. Every person is different, and believes different things -- is that so hard for you to grasp? The personalization of feminism is not out of line or false just because it doesn't conform to your worldview, or what you would like to see happen. Like I said to Yohan above, neither you nor anybody else gets to redefine "radical feminism" to whatever you want, based only on your say-so, and then argue that your definition is the one that has objective validity.

Feminist bloggers all over the web pronounced guilt without any evidence in the Duke case, many even refused to admit their mistake when the verdict was 'not-guilty', each time a wife kills/hurts her husband/children, feminists jump to her side claiming that she was abused, depressed or 'insane', and N.O.W., the foremost feminist group has always stood against shared-parenting because 'all men are abusers'...

Um, okay. Sure. Even if I conceded all those points, though, it wouldn't change your view, because you would find another issue that you believe, despite any/all evidence to the contrary, that you can "corner" me on. You search for points of disagreement, and when you find them, you celebrate, because it conforms to your worldview. I really think that your insistence upon "all feminists being radical"/"all feminists who are not radical being egalitarian (and egalitarianism does not fit with feminism, therefore HA!") just serves the purpose for you of cutting off interacting on a personal level. You would rather reduce particular feminists to their ideology than actually talk about any points, and points of agreement matter not a whit to any of you.

I will wait until KellyMac comes back and dialogue with her, primarily because I believe that I can actually talk to her without being accused of misandry or told that my beliefs about gender, etc. don't matter because no matter what I say, I hold certain opinions that I don't, or that my claiming of the label of "feminist" means I want special privileges. I actually want to discuss things, but you guys don't. You'd just prefer to attack and dismiss. Okay -- fine by me... have at it, guys!

literarycritic said...

Though this should go without saying, the above comment does not apply to gwallan.

Anonymous said...

I never claimed my feminism was better than others. Indeed, I think my beliefs are mostly in line with mainstream American feminism. I also agree with so-called "radical" feminists on many, but not all, issues.

I use the term "my" feminism, because I recognize that there ARE disagreements among feminists on a variety of issues. Feminism is not a monolith, but we do all share in common a commitment to ensuring the equal rights and dignity of women in society.

That commitment does not exclude an a commitment to justice for men as well. Indeed, 1960s era feminists spoke out against the draft (an issue that affected only men) and against racism in the South as well as a whole host of societal issues, and today's feminists are often concerned about lots of things in addition to those issues that affect women.

It seems to me that it fills some psychological need for you guys to blame all the things you don't like about society on a unified cast of characters, i.e. "the feminists." It may make you feel better to have an "enemy" at whom to direct your rage, but it doesn't seem very adult or productive.

P.S. Patriarchy does not imply a conspiracy. Feminists aren't the conpiracy theorists here.

-- Margaret

Yohan said...

Feminism is not a monolith, but we do all share in common a commitment to ensuring the equal rights and dignity of women in society. Margaret

Nowadays feminism has nothing to do with equal rights anymore.

Or do you think, it can be called 'equal rights' if feminists promote to shut down all prisons for females (UK)?

Or is it an 'equal right', if women promote gender-specific commercial laws to enter big companies as CEO, regardless their missing qualification (fishery, off-shore-drilling, construction) (Norway)?
Where are these 'equal rights', if a woman might offer illegal prostitution services unpunished, but only the man gets punished, if he accepts such an offer(Sweden)?

It is not an 'equal right', if women retire 53-55 y.o. and men 65-67 y.o. (Austria, Europe)?

Where are these 'equal rights' for a 5 y.o. boy, who was accused for sexual harassment (USA)?

'Equal rights' for a father, who was forced to pay child-support for his DEAD wife, despite the child was living with him?

I can show you a LONG list, where you will miss 'equal rights' between men and women.

Feminism is about taking advantages solely because the concerned person is a female.
This does not necessarily mean, feminism is considering 'equal rights' for men.

Generally, feminism is NOT about 'equal rights'.

Anonymous said...

LC: Your personal definition of feminism doesn't negate my personal definition of feminism, which also doesn't negate anybody else's definition of feminism.

You simply made my point. Feminism is a set of double standards. Women want equality, only when it benefits them.

Margaret: It seems to me that it fills some psychological need for you guys to blame all the things you don't like about society on a unified cast of characters, i.e. "the feminists." It may make you feel better to have an "enemy" at whom to direct your rage, but it doesn't seem very adult or productive

Let us try this again : It seems to me that it fills some psychological need for you guys to blame all the things you don't like about society on a unified cast of characters, i.e. "the Patriarchy(TM)." It may make you feel better to have an "enemy" at whom to direct your rage, but it doesn't seem very adult or productive.

So long, girls. Continue living for your egalitarian dream

plonkeroo said...

For many weeks I have been trying to pin down down feminists (using the term loosely) on Yahoo Answers but getting the truth out of them is like try to grab hold of a slithering eel.

Anonymous said...

"I can show you a LONG list, where you will miss 'equal rights' between men and women."

Don't forget health-care, especially issues around Domestic Violence or more importantly, Prostate Cancer;

'In 2003, Bob died from prostate cancer, a disease which is now killing one man every hour in the UK. Shockingly, although it's almost as common as breast cancer, it gets a fraction of the research funding.'.

- http://www.giveafewbob.org

Gender Equality...? H'yeah, right Margaret, anything you say.

*NOTE to all the Feminists out there* - I picked that site for a reason... (hint).

THE MAN said...

THE DEMISE OF THE AMERICAN MALE AND ITS EFFECT ON NATIONAL SECURITY

As this essay begins, one should be at once grieved and saddened by the state of affairs for Men in the United States of America. For the reality of the situation is this - the American Male is under attack: psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually, by the very people whom he was created to protect - American Women.

American Women are constantly overheard to talk about "why there are no more good Men left," or "why don't Men commit," or "why do Men lie and then leave," or even "why are Men so irresponsible?"

It didn't use to be like this - but for the past 50 or so years, Feminist legislation and liberal dogma has completely ruined this country. America's enemies have invested trillions of dollars in Feminist groups and legislators which make it very easy to destroy, defame, and emasculate the American Male.

Our educational system supports this agenda.

Every single admirable quality of the American Male is now suspect - responsibility means inflexibility, strength of character equates to stubborness, standing one's ground equals abusiveness, courage and fearlessness is now insanity.

If a Man exhibits any of these qualities to his wife or girlfriend, she can easily destroy him by lying about abuse, rape, verbal haranguing, anything, and he can be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of a crime.

Even if she is lying, and has a pattern of lying, because the "system" does not want to take any chances.

What Man is crazy enough to risk that? What Man would put himself in that position of trust, when he should know that the only thing standing between him and a jail cell is the fickle whim of a Woman who just might get angry one day (whether justified or not)?

Men are forced to live in one of two ways - either as a coward by avoiding relationships with Women completely, or as an emotional thief, stealing sex and love on the sly, and then leaving when the relationship gets too intense and meaningful. The only types of Men who have nothing to worry about are the effeminate ones that lack any Manly traits whatsover, and these are the Men that Women are forced to marry.

The relationship for Men has become similar to sticking one's head into the lion's mouth, with the possibility of never being able to escape, if the jaws suddenly snap shut.

In the current state of the law, Men can and will, with just an allegation, lose all of their money, their kids, their house, their job, their respect, their self-respect, their friends, their self-esteem, their standing in their community, their families, and above all, their souls if a Woman simply decides, one day, in one minute, to snap and cast him into the abyss of hell by calling 911 and lying.

No Police Officer called to the scene will ever take the chance of not arresting someone in a domestic dispute, and unfortunately, the statistics point out that it is overwhelmingly the Man in the relationship who is arrested, and not the Woman.

Does this mean that there are no Women out there who beat, abuse, or harass Men in relationships? Of course not. But that is unfortunately proof positive that the system is not working well.

Is it really worth the risk for Men to get into a relationship?

It is a basic cornerstone that the building blocks of a healthy, successful, prosperous, and strong nation are, in this order: (1) healthy individuals which make up (2) healthy relationships which in turn create (3) healthy families which beget (4) healthy communities which forge (5) healthy towns which in turn generate (6) healthy cities creating (7) healthy states which ultimately make a (8) healthy nation or country.

How easy is it for our enemies, both foreign and domestic, to destroy our entire country's entire strength, health, longevity, self-reliance, morale, and confidence, when all they have to do is pit this nation's Women against its Men through horribly unfair legislation, unbalanced favoritism of the legal system in favor of its Women against Men, castigating all of the valuable characteristics of Men that were once and formally prized, as now border-line criminal conduct, and striking at the very roots of the tree of this country?

This problem has therefore become a National Security issue, and should be treated as such by our Government.

Our country's lives are at stake. No wonder every single foreign war we have entered into over the past 50 years has progressively been less and less effective, where our foreign enemies have consistently made mince-meat out of our Armed Forces, and we can no longer win a difficult war with decisiveness and efficiency. The Men of our Armed Forces are no match psychologically, emotionally, or spiritually for most Men of foreign countries, who have never had to deal with or be emasculated by this scurrilous baggage. No wonder that Men from foreign countries routinely laugh at the effeminate nature of American Men who have been degraded out of fear, obedience, and the shame of being Men from our Women, who have made us feel guilty for just being Men. Metrosexual Men have become de rigeur, and flagrant homosexuality and feminine behavior in heterosexual Men is welcomed, nourished, safe, and politically correct in American society and in the eyes of the law. Manly behavior is not.

No one supports abuse by Men, or by anyone.

But the system is totally broken, and good Men are getting destroyed. Too many Men are getting ruined by a system run amok, where even the most base, lying, evil, insecure, mercenary, violent, money-hungry, and selfish Women, some of whom have been officially proven to be so, can easily destroy a Man of proven great character, strength, reputation, honor, and respect.

It happens thousands of times a day in this country. With regards to any type of allegation of Domestic Violence (what these types of cases are called), any Police Officer, Prosecutor, or Lawyer will tell you that a Woman's word is 100 times stronger than a Man's, even in the absence of any evidence to substantiate this. And the Police Officer will blindly arrest, and the Prosecutor will doggedly pursue, that Man.

The question is why?

And when will we as a young nation recognize that even Ancient Rome fell because of this type of internal moral and spiritual decay of the qualities that made Men strong, their families strong, and ultimately, their nation, strong.

Raphael de Plume
New York, New York
September 11, 2007

123 123 said...

Nice story as for me. It would be great to read something more about this matter. Thank you for posting this material.
Sexy Lady
UK escort