Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Some Thoughts About Perceptions

In the comments thread from my last post, the one that listed the feminist quotes, I got a response from Margaret that I wanted to address. I started to just leave a comment, but it wound up getting pretty long, so I thought I'd make it a post of its own because there were a few really important points that came up. I want to first and foremost thank Margaret for posting thoughtful comments and trying to keep the discussion "above the belt", so to speak. I'm not singling you out, M., it's just that you've posted a lot of really commonly held beliefs, and those are what I'm responding to. That being said...

The Catherine MacKinnon quotation ("In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." -- Catherine MacKinnon) doesn't seem man-hating at all. She is saying that because women were second-class citizens, they were essentially coerced into sexual relationships. (If your whole cultural worth is based on marriage, and your job opportunities are limited by your sex, then you have little choice but to marry and therefore little choice but to have sex with your husbands. You may or may not be enthusiastic about it but you never had a meaningful choice.) It's not an argument that I buy at all, but it is not a man-hating argument. It is a critique of the system both men and women lived in. She is not saying that men wanted to be rapists, but rather that the system was such that meaningful consent was not possible even between the best-intentioned couple. Again, I think she overstates her case, but I don't see it as a man-hating argument.
Your statement that women were second class citizens is something of a disconnect. Men and women were the same class. If it’s true that women had little choice but to marry and therefore little choice but to have sex with their husbands, it’s just as true that men had little choice but to marry and therefore little choice but to work at whatever employment they could find to support their wife and children. More often than not, this meant hard labor.

You can say that men could choose not to marry, and this is certainly true. But if a man didn’t want to die alone, and very few human beings do, there wasn’t a whole lot else. Likewise, a woman didn’t have to marry if she wanted to support herself, but how many made that choice? Not too damn many.

As for MacKinnon’s statement not being man-hating, that may be true if she had stated the whole case, but she didn’t. And in the half she chose to address, she portrayed the woman as a helpless victim, unable to give meaningful consent, whatever that is, and the man as a beast. Was her husband able to give meaningful consent about whether he wanted to work in a coal mine? If he had no education, and most people didn’t, then no, he didn’t. If he did have an education and was able to earn enough to be wealthy, was his wife not benefiting from that wealth? She made her choice when she agreed to marry him. If you follow MacKinnon’s logic, all marriage should be sexless, and therefore childless. So she’s either advocating the end of marriage, or the end of the human race, neither one of which is a viable option in my opinion.

Marriage was, and remains, a give and take. No one gets out of this life without making a few sacrifices. If that means having sex when you’re not enthusiastically in the mood, or going to work when you don’t feel well, or coloring your own hair instead of having it done because you have to pay for little Suzy’s braces, then that’s what you do. You don’t complain about it and think you’re somehow oppressed because life isn’t treating you like a princess. You do what you have to do, and you move on.

Same with the Susan Brownmiller one, which is a class critique not a critique of men as individuals. ("Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" - Susan Brownmiller)
Again, I have to disagree with you here. Give Brownmiller some credit for having command of the English language. When she says “conscious process”, “all men”, and “all women”, that’s precisely what she means. She’s saying very clearly that all men rape, or threaten to rape, all women in order to keep them afraid and in line. In other words, every human being with a penis is constantly fighting the urge to sexually assault any human being with a vagina. It doesn’t get much more hateful than that.

The Gloria Steinem quotation is not man-hating either, but rather is illustrating the absurdity of anti-woman stereotypes by turning them around. (“If women are supposed to be less rational and more emotional at the beginning of our menstrual cycle when the female hormone is at its lowest level, then why isn't it logical to say that, in those few days, women behave the most like the way men behave all month long?” – Gloria Steinem)

Ok, I agree with you that this one is not man-hating. I can even go along that she is trying to illustrate the absurdity of a stereotype. But in doing so, she’s showing her complete disdain for half the human race.

You don’t make a point by taking a potshot at someone. In fact, I’d say that Ms. Steinem was letting her emotions affect her rationality by even making the statement. There are a great many women who do become less rational and more emotional at the beginning of their menstrual cycle. I’ve done it myself. If it doesn’t happen, then why do we have medically documented disorders like PMS and PMDD? It’s not a stereotype if it’s true.

The fish without a bicycle one always makes me laugh as an example. This was grafitti on a women's room wall that kind of took off and became popular as a bumper sticker or button about a million years ago -- early 70s I think. This was an era when women were still told they needed a man to have any kind of worth, or status, or happiness. But in many ways men and women are not well-matched, and relationships with men often cause women terrible problems. So there is an irony in the old idea of "needing" a man. It's kind of a rueful equivalent of a man saying -- "Women: can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em." The fact is that most of us probably do need a man like a fish needs a bicycle, but we want and love and pursue men anyway! That's why it's a funny saying.

This is what you were told that women were told. I was a little girl then. I was told that I could be anything I set my mind to. Not because of some esoteric women’s movement that finally freed my sex from slavery, but because I was smart. And if I applied myself, and worked hard, I could do anything. I was told this by my parents, by my teachers, by society. No one said anything at all about being a girl. It simply didn’t figure into it. It was the same thing they told the boys. “You want to accomplish something? Get off your ass and get it done!” There was none of this entitlement mentality that is so prevalent today.

When Steinem made that quote famous, she may have been trying to make a point that women do not need a man to accomplish anything, but the message she wound up sending was that women don’t need men for anything at all. And that’s just not true. Humans need human companionship. And those of us who are heterosexual, which is most of us, are drawn to the opposite sex. It’s biology. There’s nothing wrong with that. It doesn’t make us weak. It makes us human.

I do get why you think it’s a funny saying, but you perceive it that way because you have some mistaken beliefs about things that happened – or didn’t happen – before you were born. Also, it’s because you perceive only half of what’s going on. You say that relationships with men often cause women terrible problems. I don’t know about often, but I freely acknowledge that it does happen. But by the same token, relationships with women have been known to cause men terrible problems – and it happens at least as often as the other way around.

I appreciate that you do acknowledge that some of those quotes no one could have an excuse for. There are extreme people on both sides of this thing. But the difference is this: when you see a man advocating violence and revenge, the main force of the movement speaks out against it and condemns those members. They are kicked off of sites, and we distance ourselves from them.

I haven’t seen the main force of feminism speaking out against Solanis or Greer or Comins or any of them. Perhaps a few members do, but the main force do not. In fact, people like Lorena Bobbitt or Mary Winkler are presented not only in a sympathetic light, but as examples of empowerment. That’s just sick.


There was a reason that I put so many different quotes by so many different prominent feminists. It was to make the point that these aren’t just a few fringe kooks, but are representative of at least a sizable number of feminists. If they weren’t, they would be shouted down, just as men are when they say something feminists don’t agree with.

I see more "man hating" among women of my mother's generation and traditional women than in Gen X and younger feminists. Older women had to put with a lot of men who took it for granted that they should be top-dog in the marriage or at work because that was the cultural expectation of the era. So a lot of older woman and traditionalist women have gotten frustrated with men in general in ways that we younger feminists never did. We younger feminists expect men to work with us on an equal basis as partners, and have faith that men are willing and able to do so.

Yes, but what does this mean, Margaret? Does it mean that they have to defer to you on everything? Does it mean that they have to change the exact same amount of diapers, and you have to change the exact same amount of oil? Feminism gets so caught up in making sure everything is “equal” that it winds up whining like a child.

Personally, if I accomplish something, I want to be on an equal playing field, not have a leg up because I’m physically weaker than a man. If I can’t out-lift a man, or carry a victim out of a burning building, or beat him in a race without a head start or assistance, that’s ok. I don’t have to. If I had to cheat to get there, it doesn’t mean anything except that they let me win. And to me, that’s nothing to brag about.

27 comments:

flint's gunner said...

Wow.

May this kind of clarity soon become the common coin of the realm.

Factory said...

“The Roots of Violence: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, Science without humanity, Worship without sacrifice, Politics without principles”

“Men often become what they believe themselves to be. If I believe I cannot do something, it makes me incapable of doing it. But when I believe I can, then I acquire the ability to do it even if I didn't have it in the beginning.”

“We must always seek to ally ourselves with that part of the enemy that knows what is right”

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”


-Mahatma Ghandi

Muse said...

This is truly a beautiful retort to Margaret's comments.

You're an amazing woman and I hope very much to be more like you as I go through life.

My only comment is that MacKinnon, like other feminists, perpetuates the female victomhood more than men ever could. With her comment about women being "unable to give consent" because they're not "strong enough", she directly attempts to cow the female spirit and all it's beauty. We are not weak, simple, or stupid. She, like other feminists, only wants to keep the rest of us living in fear so that she feels important.

They're just as bad, if not worse, than men who commit actual rape (not the trumped up stuff we hear from our courts). Their sole purpose is to keep others below them either emotionally or physically which is precisely the reason I am not a feminist and fully support the men's movement. I will not be made to fear my world. So screw feminists who would have me bow to their irrationalities and lies.

But I digress....

Your faithful sister,
Muse*

Anonymous said...

Kelly,

I read your blog and I want to say that it is not easy to vocalize common sense.

To be someone who is going through deprogramming is not easy, and it makes me happy to see other people take those courageous steps. Especially people who as a parent, have a lot invested in their children.

The hostile PC environment of the Western world has made it difficult for normal, intelligent people to take a stand.

Believe me, I know. I was raised in a family of politicians, diplomats and lawyers. I have seen first hand the processes contributing to this PC obsession and the consequences for going against it. I can not reveal too much, but working with the United Nations at the young age of 17 is what began my journey to doubting the blindly accepted feminist and liberal attitudes. There are truly a lot of people who have money, careers, time and energy invested in maintaining these beliefs.

Misguided women like this one you are responding to, they have no idea the devastating effects their ideologies have in other countries. Yes, even third world countries. The ones they try to help. I have seen them first hand, living in Sub Saharan Africa for half of my life and volunteering in Central America during my first year of university. Many others in the field of international development will tell you the same and more.

I am not a man with an agenda. Simply a young lady trying to finish her education in the West so that this life may lead me down other paths. I just wanted to give a toast to you. I personally have lost friends, turned down opportunities for a career in politics, and still have some family disapproval because "speaking my views". But such is life. There is no such thing is making everyone happy with you. Not even Jesus himself could do it.

To see more and more people such as yourself taking a stand gives me hope. Your children will have a good role model to look up to.

Bretwalda Edwin-Higham said...

Hang in there, Kelly Mac.

Anonymous said...

Men, not women, are the new second-class citizens. We are the men of the falsely-accused generation.

Anonymous said...

No other topics I write about so consistently provoke passionate personal response as those dealing with systemic discrimination against men. When, for example, I point out double standards for boys and girls in the health care system, or expose the use of bogus statistics around domestic violence, my inbox fills with male gratitude simply for acknowledging an obvious fact: Our culture is profoundly misandric.

Of the myriad forms of discrimination men cite, one looms over the rest: The egregious treatment meted out to fathers in the throes of contested child custody following the "no-fault" divorces most of them did not initiate or desire. My files bulge with stories of disenfranchised fathers ripped from their children's arms and lives. They have lost their homes, their careers, fortunes, friends and reputations, often on the basis of false allegations of abuse (for which their female accusers are virtually never punished). I wouldn't mention such anecdotal evidence, if the anguish in these testimonials didn't jibe with objective data confirming the shameful gender bias that dominates the family law system.

About half of all marriages end in divorce. Women are twice as likely to initiate a divorce as men, largely because they can be fairly sure they'll end up with control of the children. Where shared parenting is the default template, divorce rates plummet. Men are six times as likely as women to commit suicide within the first two years after a separation: That they kill themselves from despair rather than their ex-wives for revenge is, ironically, a tragically eloquent rebuttal to the feminist credo that men are inherently dangerous to women.

Although 25% of women make more money than their spouses, 97% of support payers are men (even in cases of shared parenting). Mobility decisions favour women: The psychological comfort to a Vancouver mother of moving near her Toronto-based family will be privileged over the psychological devastation the virtual loss of his children causes the Vancouver-bound father.

Misandry in family law begins with an ideology that views children as the property of women, even though many peer-reviewed studies show children want and need both parents, and no studies show sole parenting by a mother serves children's best interests. This ideology is instilled in judges during training sessions featuring feminism-driven materials, and subsequently often plays out as unaccountable kangaroo courts.

The result is that an adversarial mother who initiates a divorce against the will of the father --however indifferent her parenting skills, however superb his and even if the children spend their days with nannies or day care workers --pretty well has a lock on sole custody of the children. If she denies rightful access to the father, she will never be punished at all. Conversely, if he withholds money, he will be criminalized: His picture as a "deadbeat dad" may appear on government-sanctioned Internet sites, and if he goes to jail, as is likely, he will serve a longer sentence than cocaine dealers.

Most men think such kafkaesque scenarios can't happen to them. Happily married men parenting with equal diligence believe in their hearts that men who find themselves savaged by the family law system are congenital losers, or were demonstrably lousy husbands and fathers. Many such "winners" are in for an unpleasant surprise.

"We want to pull away from the idea that parents have rights in relation to their children," said Jennifer Cooper, chair of the Canadian Bar Association's family law section, representing 2,200 divorce lawyers. "Parents" in this statement is the hypocritical lip service feminism pays to humanism: She meant "fathers," for women's rights today are never "pulled away from," only supported or furthered. In the days when children belonged to both their parents, it used to be said that children were "hostages to fortune." Today they are hostages to feminism and the state.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
jorzo said...

Hey, I'm surprised there isn't more passionate negative comments from feminists. Do you censor those?

I'm a man by the way and I don't describe myself as feminist, though I'm plenty sympathetic to the idea of reasonable equality between the genders so if a feminist defines it that way, I would of course have to include myself.

flint's gunner said...

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/213589

My! Talk about perceptions! Just loom at the big, beaming smile of this local woman who, like so many of the Favored Sex in this rotten , reeking Matriarchy, has literally gotten away with murder.

Maybe we deserve to fall, like the Roman Empire before us. Burn, baby, burn!

KellyMac said...

Hey, I'm surprised there isn't more passionate negative comments from feminists. Do you censor those?

LOL of course not. They're just scared of me ;)

I make it a practice to post everything short of the illegal or irrelevant. I have on occasion refused to post continuations of arguments, but that has always been done with a warning. There is one comment I removed on this thread, but it was a duplicate.

Gonzman said...

Hey, I'm surprised there isn't more passionate negative comments from feminists. Do you censor those?

No. While you may be used to that kind of gutless behavior on feminist spaces, on this side of the aisle we don't fear dissent.

Mainly because our side can withstand scrutiny and questioning. Such is the nature of truth, as opposed to lies and internal contradictions.

gwallan said...

Kelly...with regard to the Gloria Steinem quote about hormones

Steinem operated from a false premise in comparing female with male behaviour in this context. It is imbalanced hormones which cause unpredictable behaviour rather than one or the other of the gender specific groups of hormones.

Indeed if Steinem were right in her assertion then men should be eternally commended for NOT behaving like shreiking harpies ALL the time.

Ampersand said...

Kelly, the quote from MacKinnon that you list is a fake; it wasn't said by MacKinnon, it was said by a critic of MacKinnon, Daphnie Patai, in her book Professing Feminism. Don't take my word for it; look at Snopes.

I've told this to dozens of MRAs over the years. Maybe you'll be the first one to post an apology for posting a falsely attributed quotation to a feminist.

In your previous post, I can't be sure how many of the quotes you list are real and how many are fake, because whoever compiled that list -- which includes at least one known fake quotation -- didn't have the integrity to include citations so readers can check to see if the quotes are real, fabricated, or taken out of context. I doubt you can be sure either, frankly; so why are you posting a list that you can't be sure of the truth of?

The Dworkin quote is taken out of context. (I've read it; it's somewhere in Letters From A War Zone, I think). In context, it's the equivilent of if a critic of waterboarding, responding to someone saying that waterboarding isn't so bad, said "I'd like to strap one of them with their lungs above their head and nearly drown them, over and over, and then see if they think it's a walk in the park!" The critic in my example isn't saying that he'd literally like to do this to anyone; he's trying to point out that the practice he's objecting to is brutal.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with Dworkin on a number of counts. But to use that out-of-context quote to imply that she favored torturing men, which is what your posted list did, is utterly dishonest. I can disagree with Dworkin without having to lie about what she said; apparently the list you quoted can't do the same.

KellyMac said...

Thank you for the clarification on those quotes, Ampersand. I got most of them from Wikipedia, and I'll admit I didn't research all of them as well as I could have.

Still, though, you have to admit that the sheer number of them, even if some of them are taken out of context, is enough to make a person wonder what the movement is really all about.

Ampersand said...

I don't understand, Kelly. I've pointed out that two of the quotes on your list are dishonest -- either fabricated or distorted through out-of-context quoting. Yet you apparently think I should be taking the list seriously. Why should I assume that the rest of the list is an honest representation of anything?

If a feminist produced a list of ten conveniently un-cited quotes by MRAs, and you immediately spotted two of them as being fake or out of context; and if the feminist was unable or unwilling to provide citations for the quotes ("I think I saw most of them on Wikipedia" is not a citation); would you find it reasonable for the feminist to suggest that the rest of the list, which may or may not be honest, should be taken seriously?

* * *

But let's assume, for argument's sake, that only a minority of your quotes are fake.

You claim that out-of-context quoting magically becomes meaningful if you do it ten times instead of just once. I think that's nonsense. It's a lie done once, and if you repeat it ten times, that's not meaningful; it's just ten lies. If you're incapable of proving your point without out-of-context quoting, then your point is nonsense.

Of the non-fake quotes, the most extreme ones that I'm familiar with are from the 70s (including the one from the mentally ill psychotic celebrity stalker). I think this indicates that rhetoric was looser and more over-the-top in the late 60s and 70s, especially among radical leftists; but I don't think it proves anything about today's feminism. It's telling that you don't have quotes from any feminist leaders who have been prominent in the last ten years.

A couple of quotes are from people I've never ever heard of, even though I'm a pretty well-read person who majored in Women's Studies.

The one that I'm sure is recent is from a movie star who is not, that I know of, a feminist.

I'm curious as to what your definition of "representative" is, because to me this list looks like "cherry-picking," not "representative." And even when you're cherry-picking, you have to rely on fake quotes, out-of-context quotes, and decades-old quotes to make your point. To me, that suggests that your argument lacks legitimate evidence.

Anonymous said...

Maybe you'll be the first one to post an apology for posting a falsely attributed quotation to a feminist.

How many feminists have apologized for falsely blaming the Duke team for the non-rape without any evidence? In fact, there are many who still refuse to believe that the students are not guilty.

It's telling that you don't have quotes from any feminist leaders who have been prominent in the last ten years.

It's telling that you don't have any feminist leaders who have been prominent in the last ten years.

...but I don't think it proves anything about today's feminism.

See above.

A couple of quotes are from people I've never ever heard of...

Like ?

Anyways,

Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto
...where I read that: Sisterhood is Powerful (a feminist writings collection edited by Robin Morgan) included excerpts of the SCUM Manifesto.

Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape

Sally Miller Gearhart,The Future—If There Is One—Is Female, Reweaving the Web of Life (Link)

Catherine Comins from Vassar College

Marilyn French

---

Why should I assume that the rest of the list is an honest representation of anything?

Alright, how about this one ?

...if a powerful man is accused of rape and is acquitted that doesn’t mean he’s not a rapist. It means he is a rapist.

or this...

I do mean what I say. I am a feminist; I believe women when they say they’re raped.

And when someone (rightly) calls her position irrational, she comes out with this gem...

...it is completely unacceptable to call women irrational on a feminist blog. Don’t do it again.

And guess who is the author ?

Maia from Alas, A Blog (Ampersand's blog)

KellyMac: Please add these misandrist quotes to your list. And do include a link to the post on Ampersand's blog.

Anonymous said...

She's still not taking responsibility for herself, is she? She's just found another scapegoat.

Ian. said...

This is messed up. The idea that men have to take care of the finances of the family is a huge part of patriarchy. And even if it's hard, it's still institutionally a lot better than the female representation of the housewife. It's better because you have the freedom to leave the mines and start a new life. But the woman does not have this freedom. She cannot get work because no one will hire her. And she also cannot leave her child he must be fed too. Patriarchy is rooted in gender roles. And even through all the talk about responsibility the truth is still that women don't run the country, women aren't influential on culture, and the demeaning of women is ever present in American culture.

Yohan said...

Ampersand: A couple of quotes are from people I've never ever heard of, even though I'm a pretty well-read person who majored in Women's Studies.

Then you should start your research about these people.
It is YOU, who majored in Women's Studies.

Kellymac: I haven’t seen the main force of feminism speaking out against Solanis .....

Plenty of men-hating comments are existing and accepted within the feminist movement. Yes, an excellent example is Valerie Solanas 'manifesto', calling for the killing of all men.

Women like Hirshman are well-known for remarks about how to destroy what we call 'family'.

Some few more men-hating quotes by feminists unknown to Ampersand do not change anything.

Some few more men-hating quotes from feminists, which might be not true do not change the overall situation regarding feminism either.

Feminism is a hateful movement demanding advantages for certain women solely out of the fact that they are females.

Nowadays feminism has nothing to do with equality between men and women.

Anonymous said...

A saying I originated nearly 30 years ago:

When Satan made feminists, She was not joking.

Anonymous age 65

Mil said...

Hey there. I just wanted to inform you that Wikipedia is not a good source in any circumstance, especially not for quoting to the general public. Many of their articles are not cited properly and you can't even be sure of who the author is. It is disapproved in most universities and "not a credible source" so that should mean something, shouldn't it?
Cheers :D

Eugene said...

I would say that feminism is not a movement of reason, but a movement that set out to change inequalities that its members perceived.
I see it as a movement that began with people perceiving that women were being oppressed. Eventually, they began to see everything that way and like-minded people got together. They sympathized with others with similar trouble.

The goal and its process never needed to be reasonable. I think they see reason as a tool to justify their means.

Anonymous said...

Hi guys,
check this out
http://reportfromthefuture.blogspot.com/2009/09/report-6-women-against-feminism-ii.html

Bonnie said...

This argument for anti-feminism has always baffled me. Anti-feminists believe in traditional gender roles and that the degradation of society has been caused mostly by the destruction of that paradigm, right? So if men are meant to have careers and be the providers and, in turn, hold the authority over their households, and women are meant to have and raise babies, then how can you argue that men should have custody of the children in the case of a divorce? I'm not saying women should always be granted custody or that men should have no right to their children, but the mother having primary custody makes the most sense BY YOUR OWN ANTI-FEMINIST ARGUMENT! Women are either best suited to being child rearers or they're not - you can't have it both ways.

The simple fact is that MOST of the dads raising hell about custody are actually just pissed off about having to pay child support and/or alimony. By the way, alimony is not a default anymore except in a few states, and in nearly all of them, a spouse isn't eligible to alimony until after ten years of marriage. Usually the wife gets alimony, but men can get it also...the reason men rarely receive alimony is because in most cases, divorce after years of marriage and being out of the workforce to raise children usually disenfranchises women tremendously. Men, on the other hand, generally see a significant increase in household income after divorce, when they pay a flat child support fee each month and nothing more.

As far as the courts ruling that the custodial parent can or cannot move, they generally restrict one spouse from "running off" with the kids. But why shouldn't a woman who is suddenly single, the mother of two or three young children, and facing low wages and long hours due to re-entering the workforce after years of staying at home be entitled to move close to her parents for support and help with childcare or to a city with better job prospect for her skills and field? (The same applies to a father who becomes a custodial single parent, of course, but I'm taking the part of mothers in this post to counter your vehement stance against them.) My husband is a soldier - if we're stationed in, say, Kentucky or Louisiana or some equally dead-pan, god forsaken place like that, and we divorce, should I be force to stay in a state with a terrible economy far away from my supportive parents and sister? What happens when he deploys again after the divorce or gets stationed in a new state or country? Should I be forced to move at my own expense to every duty station he's assigned to for the rest of his career? Obviously not!

The fallout after a divorce is not a "men's rights" issue. That is BS. It's an issue of men wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. Make a baby then bail when you're tire of your wife and her 30 year old post-baby body and her insistence that you take your plate to the sink after you eat and respect the housework she does for you by making sure your dirty underwear make it into the hamper. Once you guys decide you're tired of being husbands and fathers, you think you should be able to take your money with you when you run off with the 25 year old minx from HR. Sorry, Charlies. Fatherhood is FOREVER.

Erin said...

I love this blog so much. I am a 15 year old Catholic schoolgirl, rather intelligent, and completely anti-feminist. People think that there is something wrong with me when I say that I do not care for being "in control of my body." I believe in the right to life, and I would never have an abortion under any circumstances. It is wonderful to find a place where I won't be looked down on for wanting to be a traditional stay-at-home-mom, and wanting to please the man I'm with. Thank you for being awesome:)

Anonymous said...

Wanna hear something funny? And true: The stupid Gloria Steinem line ("a woman without a man...") is indeed a pathetic copy from philosopher Charles S. Harris: "A man without religion is like a fish without a bycicle". Some woman (not even Steinem) just rephrased it, and Steinem simply copy.

So Gloria Steinem needed a man even to say she doesn't need him. I could not think of a clearer example of feminism pathetism.

Of course, thanks to mass media nobody remembers Charles Harris, who by the way was far more intelligent and interesting than Steinem. In some places you will even find people stating that the original line ("a man without religion...") is a copy of Steinem's.

That's what feminism is all about: prejudice and media.