SOME LESSONS NOT LEARNED BY THE DUKE FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE CASE
By Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq.
413-445-6789
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
I received an interesting e-mail about a David Usher article. The site was called “Opednew.com” Mr. Usher writes a somewhat provocative title, “The Feminist Klan Exposed,” but basically writes about the Duke rush to judgment, allegations of rape being automatically believed or at the very least being presumed true, the failure of Duke University to make an apology, discussions of a “culture of rape” (which are somehow not rank “misandry,”), and is critical of a “women’s rights” culture that somehow includes the right to not cross-examine a putative rape victim about her motives because “that is putting the women on trial.” So you basically get the point—David writes article saying that some accusations of rape are true, some are false, and only extremist believe all such accusations are true or nearly all such accusations are true.
There are clearly some good points made in the blogs (very intermittent). But it is an insight on how people are thinking. Folks, we don’t just make this stuff up.
Actual thoughts by people who wrote included:
1. The stripper that made the false accusation was still the victim.
2. Mr. Usher is a misogynist because he is concerned about the over the top elements of the women’s rights movement.
3. It was hysterical for Mr. Usher to write about the hysterical approach taken to the Duke Lacrosse Team.
4. The kids were to blame for being falsely accused because they were drinking.
5. Most importantly: There was almost a complete absence, save for about two people, about lessons to be learned from the Duke case, and a repetition of the same old hackneyed shibboleths about men’s domination over women.
Here is some advice to some of these folks. There are many men that are clearly violent, that rape women, or that are child abusers. We condemn it, don’t sugar coat it, and get on with it. We don’t write that these people are “hysterical” or have “issues with men” when they write about such stories. In a discussion about a clearly guilty party, it is appropriate to make parenthetical discussions about false allegations. We don’t serve the “false allegation” dish as the main serving in a case where there was clear guilt, however.
But let’s look at the converse where the men were clearly innocent. The response in the blog is a parenthetical discussion, almost an afterthought, about the false allegations in the Duke case, with the main course still focusing on the subjugation of women. It is as if the appetizer, soup, main course, and desert is about “how we still need to be sensitive to the women that have courage enough to make a claim of rape,” and the after dinner mint as you are walking out the restaurant is the unfortunate Duke Lacross players. I am thoroughly convinced that these people are beyond rational thinking, moderation, or common sense. And there is that not so convincing argument, “We really don’t hate men even though we usually think you are guilty” type of arguments.
Most disturbing are the way Mr. Usher’s facts are ignored. Actual quotes? Who cares. (They are not even addressed.) Actual facts that occurred? Who cares? The continuing pattern is to ignore these inconvenient things or regard them as having little significance.
Instead of writing kind and sympathetic words about the obvious victims on the Duke Lacrosse Team (and maybe with an understandable, “We still need to be sensitive to rape . . .”) the following is written:
Chip writes that we are a “white man sexist patriarchial society.” Ridiculously he writes, “Most don’t want a woman having the right to vote.” If you seriously believe that, I could not possibly reason with you.
Mars Coulton writes, “This article isn’t an attempt to ‘raise important issues.’ Its only intention is to silence women from fighting for our equlity.” Mars, if you don’t see the important issue in an entire team appearing on a wanted posters and being presumed guilty . . .
Just sharing writes, “Let me ask you all, folks, why do we have to invite strippers and what kind of a perversive instinct do we satisfy doing that? Maybe that should be discussed first.” Anything to change the topic of an out of control prosecutor and rush to conclusion by “women’s advocates” to the victimization of women and men’s carnal lust. Yes, let’s go back to the stipper thing.
Gormley wrote about how uncomfortable she was about garter belts at weddings.
Then there is Mofett’s strawman argument , “I’ve obviously missed something, apparently women are trying to eliminate men, or at least subjugate them. I’ll have to make a note of that. I’ll also have to let all the women I know that they are in charge of everything, especially universities… and they didn’t even know it!! Go figure.”
I think the part you missed is what actually happened at Duke. Usher wasn’t inventing a “hypothetical” world. Obviously, a bunch of student and professors made some idiotic jumps to conclusions because they assumed that all, or nearly all, or a great majority, of rape allegations are true. But I guess that is “subjugating” women if you worry about presumptions of innocence and that type of, how would Mr. Mofett put it, “crap.” Mr. Mofett is “reminded of the 3 Stooges ‘Women Haters Club””. A later blogger corrects him and states that it was the Little Rascals.
Mofett’s later writes about Usher: “You make a constant and unartful attempt at ad hominen attack, but you really don’t have anything meaningful to say do you?” Urrr, Mr. Mofett, I think “you really don’t have anything meaningful to say do you?” is an “ad hominem attack.” By engaging in the very behavior you are accusing Mr. Usher of doing you are engaging, unwittingly, in a literary device known as “irony.”
Panurg still writes, “pins people against each other,” and then writes a blurb about how a bunch of rich white boys exploited a black stripper.
GAMMA DELTA IOTA writes, “Yes, … the lady was not the victim, here, but at the same time, she indeed was the victim.” Hmmm. “Lady” (that would the stipper) makes false accusation ruining lives of Duke Lacrosse Team. But rather than say anything very strong about her, there is a side of her where she was the victim. Oh.. . . .and the boys deserve this fate because they were drinking alcohol. Those 18, 19, and 20 years old and their alcohol. Oh, by the way, here’s a gun. Can you go fight for me in Iraq? It was a classic case of blaming the victim.
Mumzee writes, “The struggle for equal rights is not an anti-man thing but a pro-woman thing and it has been going on for many years.” Mumzee, the subject was false allegations of rape and how quick people are to assume the allegations are true because most men are monsters and all, or nearly all, or a vast majority of those claiming to be raped are telling the truth. Apparently, this is “the struggle for equal rights.” Hmmmm. Most women would not agree with your conception that enjoying “equal rights” includes a presumption that the rape allegation is true.
Steven Lesser: After making some good points writes, “I am afraid that whatever good ideas you might have wanted to express were drowned out by you going too far in almost every instance. Yes, there are women who in their support of women’s rights cross way over the line into misandery.” But isn’t that the whole point? Any time there is a criticism that a supporter of women’s rights has crossed the line the response is to say that the criticizer is himself or herself a misogynist? Was there anything learned in the Duke case other than “a few good points”?
Blue Pilgrim writes, “I suggest that the major problem we face is hysteria and extreme positions from both ends of the spectrum, and unfortunately, this piece doesn’t help that situation . . .” As a reminder, David was writing about the “hysteria and extreme positions” taken by some obviously misguided people. Observing the hysteria is not in and of itself hysterical.
The blog is insight into how real people think. Rob Kall nearly apologizes for running Usher’s article, “These were the considerations I evaluated in publishing this article, which, at first glance, I found repugnant.” He otherwise is somewhat sympathetic to the father’s rights movement.
To read the actual blog, go here.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
David R. Usher said,
An important debate has been started, which in my opinion, is long overdue. It is my experience that this movement is comprised of individuals of all political stripes. Both parties largely have it wrong. I strongly believe that human rights, in balance, is something everyone believes in regardless of other political affiliations.
Readers will also enjoy Rob Kall’s preface to my piece, which is presently the top discussion at opednews.com. See:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_070507_publishing_without_c.htm
May 8, 2007 at 11:36 am
bolwriter said,
A few feminists like Wendy McElroy and Cathy Young support gender equality. Reading their work and comparing it to the usual feminist claptrap is like discovering a new world.
May 8, 2007 at 11:56 am
Rinaldo Del Gallo, III said,
As for myself, I am a moderate, centrist Democrat. Bolwither’s points are valid. “That feminists themselves allow other feminists to get away with this nonsense is proof positive that at least the movement’s vocal minority is without ethical foundation.” Again, substituting another word for “feminist,” they are still not doing their movement any good.
May 8, 2007 at 1:17 pm
spectre said,
May 8, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Rinaldo Del Gallo, III said,
1. Wants to promote equality among the genders.
2. Rejects outdated stereotypes as men as breadwinners and women as nurturers.
3. Rejects the idea of women being financially dependent on men.
The father’s rights opponents, who call themselves “feminist,”
1. Want to promote inequality in family court.
2. Embrace stereotypes as men as breadwinners and women as nurturers.
3. Embrace the idea of women being financially dependent on men and men financially supporting them.
Because the platform they support is antithetical to what feminism means by definition, they are not feminist.
Rinaldo
May 8, 2007 at 1:43 pm
spectre said,
Actually, the platform the faux “feminists” seem to support is antithetical to anything seen before the “real” feminist movement.
They support, as you noted, man as breadwinner and woman as dependent. However, they don’t admonish women who are not nurturing, and they do all they can to undermine men.
Has the world ever seen anything like this before?
And yes, the comments following David’s article are jaw droppingly crazy. They are the actual thoughts of these people … and I suspect a huge proportion of our population. God help us!
May 8, 2007 at 1:56 pm
scottkirk said,
May 8, 2007 at 2:45 pm
KRS said,
There’s a difference between feminism as it existed in the early days of its existence, versus how it exists today. Traiditional feminism circa the 1960s or so is something most of us probably support: equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities for all, equal access to education, and so on.
The more modern version of feminism, however, gender feminism, is opposed to these things. Through vehicles such as VAWA and others, gender feminism consists broadly speaking of gender preference for women. It is not at all about gender equality.
So when presented with siotuation such as the Duke rape case, the gender feminists side with the lying accuser rather than the innocent victim. In their world (articles of faith) men are always the victimizer and women are always the victim regardless of the facts. This is also why when they are presented with situations such as women enjoying distinct advantages in family law court decisions, the gender feminists are silent with regards to “gender equity”. And on and on.
May 8, 2007 at 3:00 pm
tonysprout said,
May 8, 2007 at 3:02 pm
JamesH said,
another thing which come to mind to what is known as sciopathetic behaviour.
Sociopathic individuals are extremely self-confidant, intelligent, charismatic and persuasive of others as well as themselves. They inspire those around them and create a dysfunctional culture, - often dizzy and disoriented by its success. Success is proof of the accuracy of any claim they make. Words and sometimes bizarre ideas become a substitute for reality. They surround themselves by supporters who worship them and believe they can do no wrong.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/health/sociopathy.html
May 8, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Joi said,
First the original article by Usher was well written, unfortunate that the main point “false allegations” and “guilt by gender” where generally missed by the readers.
That said, I visited the site personally and read some of the comments.
Chip writes that we are a “white man sexist patriarchial society.” & he writes, “Most don’t want a woman having the right to vote.”
Some of the comments like the one above are revealing. They come from a women’s studies, or feminist perspective of “contiousness raising sessions.”
The average Joe or Jane wouldn’t use this type of lingo. So when we are dealing with such people they have already “seen” and “accepted” the light.
From that point on any article Usher writes or his ilk for that matter would be considered “propoganda from the oppressor class.”
Remember to “them” WE are the oppressors. That is what they have been taught to believe. So, with such a world view firmly in place it is difficult to “unprogram them.” To see things as they really are, not as they think things are.
I hope I was able to make my point clearly. I’m not the worlds most gifted writer.
May 8, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Joi said,
http://www.umbc.edu/cwit/syl_wmst.html
May 8, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Menck said,
I, too, read all the comments on that web site — and felt like I’d been teleported in some bizarre alternate reality where up is down, in is out, and everyone was floating around in space because the law of gravity was recently suspended by an act of Congress.
That said, I think it was a masterstroke to get it published there and the site administrator is to be commended for his willingness take on views that don’t coincide with the party line.
Methinks, however, that a few brain circuits of the party faithful were overloaded and melting by the time they reached the second paragraph.
Great work, David.
May 8, 2007 at 6:10 pm
thurston861 said,
The NC AG should have charged that DNA Receptical, and moved her to be found insane, a Sociopath, and incarcerate her for the rest of her life.
She is a Working DNA Receptical in the Sex Trade and has now shown propensity by three acts to try and destroy the people who make her money, MEN.
It is the NC AG’s DUTY to protect society from such ilk.
He has to go!
May 8, 2007 at 6:27 pm
David R. Usher said,
Actually, I didn’t jump through any hoops to get it published at opednews. Too many folks make the mistake of thinking that the men’s movement is “conservative”, and forget to notice that there are a lot of very liberal men and women in the movement. Both liberals and conservatives are wrestling with these issues, and trying to extricate themselves from 80 years of Frankfurt School social shapeshifting, and 45 years of hard core feminism.
Rob Kall has been there and seen it himself, and that was the seed of wisdom that caused him to publish it. He is a wise man, and willing to learn, even if it stretches his brain well beyond the customary lines of thinking. He is to be greatly credited for having the courage to publish something that everyone needs to read.
This is one reason why Hillary is in such trouble. She is a radical femininst, and that does not sit well with many liberals, just as it does not sit well with conservatives. There is a common bond here, which if explored and refined, will help propel very positive changes in socioeconomic policy and law.
May 8, 2007 at 7:36 pm
scottkirk said,
I make a proposal to men to tell a friend about mensnewsdaily..so in turn boost up the hits on this site, which will increase the cost of advertising, and we’ll reach more listeners, which in time will put the information exchange into our man Mike Lassalles hands…and we’ll start to get our message out into the main stream…
May 8, 2007 at 8:25 pm
scottkirk said,
I’m not getting paid for this plug…I simply want to see this site become a powerfull news source that reaches 200,000 readers a day….by the end of this year…
May 8, 2007 at 8:30 pm
amfortas said,
“Let me make the point clearer. A “feminist,” by definition, is one who:
1. Wants to promote equality among the genders.
2. Rejects outdated stereotypes as men as breadwinners and women as nurturers.
3. Rejects the idea of women being financially dependent on men. ”
This is NOT SO, Rinaldo. I am not a feminist and I want these things. This simply gives these sought concepts to feminists. The things you mention ‘define’ adults of both genders. To claim that it is ‘Feminist’ is theft.
I am heartily sick and tired of finding excuses for feminism. Sure there are mini-fems who claim to want equality but their misandry and destructive actions, their silence at the filth and wickedness of their ’sistas’, is enough to show them for what they are. Opportunists. St Peter was an amateur in denial in comparison.
I admire the work you are doing, Rinaldo, but see you back-peddaling and excusing. There is no need for that. It spoils your progress. I doubt if anyone here with sense would talk about caring, sharing Communists building Gulags for the poor and dispossessed or the benefits that Nazis brought to railway operations.
Feminists have NO CLAIM at all on equality seeking. Their actions demonstrate that.
Feminists do NOT reject the idea that women are nurturers - they continually use that claim of quality as a weapon to beat men with.
Feminists Do see men as breadwinners, preferably forced.
Feminists DEMAND that men financially support them: via personal effort; and taxes; from peonage; from ‘affirmative action; from punitive financial harrasment in the workplace; from false accusation; etc
Get a grip. By their fruits ye shall know them.
May 8, 2007 at 9:28 pm
David R. Usher said,
Feminism, at its root, is not about equality. “Feminism” means to view everything through the eyes of women. This, in itself, is a matriarchal perspective, just as masculism is, in itself, a patriarchal view.
Unfortunately, so many people are inured to the manufactured definition of the word — importing some vision of equality into the picture. Image trying to define “racism” in the dictionary as “seeking equality between races”.
So, according the the (unreliable) wikipedia, there are about 28 different flavors of feminism — some equalitarian — most not. Unfornately, the equalitarianists keep fighting for control of a word which is sexist, and they lose every time.
I have urged the collaborative of equalitarian / anti-feminists to walk away from the “feminist” movement. They cannot stand apart and be identified positively, and form their “own” movement, unless they do. Since most equalitarian / anti-feminists are very interested in rebuilding marriage as the cooperative institution it is supposed to be, I have proposed many times that they join me / us and be “the marriage movement”. If equalitarian feminists do this, it will remove the artificial supports that keep “feminism” alive because they will no longer be identified with it, and therefore create the illusion that they support “feminism”.
I strongly believe that the “marriage movement” is the way to go. Every vexing social issue of major import comes together in productive ways immediately. “Feminists” do not stand a chance going up against a united front of equalitarianists.
This development would effectively end to the gender war. Feminists will have nothing to fight, if nobody pays any attention to them. They will fade into oblivion, just as the WKKK / KKK did when racism fell apart.
This would also effective end the strong divisions between liberals and conservatives who agree that feminism is a major problem. Presently, liberals dislike the men’s movement, because they think its purely a conservative thing. Conservatives hate the men’s movement because they believe feminists who say we are just a bunch of irresponsible violent animals. This is perhaps the primary reason why we have been unable to advance the cause. We are (as intended by Frankfurt School feminist strategists) all divided. Once the political / class / sex walls constructed by feminists are torn down, and entirely new era will develop, with little in its path to block the way.
May 8, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Rinaldo Del Gallo, III said,
The reason I avoid the word feminist is that people tend not to understand. When WE say we don’t like feminist, we mean we don’t like people that favor an unfair and biased legal system, that embrace outdated gender stereotypes regarding mothers and fathers, and that we don’t like knee jerk responses (as in the Duke case—how this conversation got started). When the press learns you said you are anti-feminist, they say you hate women.
Are group used to be part of another group whose mission it was to discredit “feminism.” A local journalist tried to pass this off as misogyny. In reality, most people don’t have the time to get into the nuances of feminism. In sort letters to the editor and the like, I try to avoid use of the term.
May 8, 2007 at 10:44 pm
amfortas said,
May 9, 2007 at 1:41 am
DcFather said,
Sounds to me like there is at least one poster on OpedNews who understands how most of the others there think. I’d take it a step further and argue that many of them are so smitten with PC that they have assumed the role of “thought police”. But even more bizarre than a website loaded with PC followers is how prevalent such thought policing has become on college campuses, obviously including Duke, and worse, in today’s courtrooms. The old KKK never had the kind of following that we are seeing with today’s feminist klan.
May 9, 2007 at 6:13 am
wheresmy40 said,
But, femi-NAZIS do not want equality, they want everything. I believe Rush Limbaugh coined the term “feminazi” to describe women and their emasculated male cheerleaders of NOW and other misandrist organizations as it defines quite handsomely the extent these man-haters will go to win, win, win. Death to all who oppose the matriarchy.
Any feminist who still only wants equality is considered and enemy of the Femi-Reich and is to be exterminated along with all males.
My apology to any and all affected by the Nazi reign and the holocaust for using this analogy. But, it fits and gives a clear picture of what America is up against.
May 9, 2007 at 10:36 am
scottkirk said,
we’ll continue to lose the battle against the fem-nazi juggernaut under our current main stream media outlets..
We could feed this web site “steroids” so to speak by mentioning it to a friend…
This site could become a major player in just a few years…only if the site hits climb to around 200,000 hits per day will we know our views are being promulgated…
TAKE ACTION…BE BOLD AND TELL A FRIEND ABOUT MENSNEWSDAILY
May 9, 2007 at 12:27 pm
mruffolo said,
Unique Users 43 per million
Visit Sessions 50 per million
Page Views 73 per million
See the graph “view traffic rank trend”
http://www.ranking.com
Suggestion - Wikipedia links to mensnewsdaily.com may help.
May 9, 2007 at 12:48 pm
mruffolo said,
I made a point on a townhall.com and referenced the mensnewsdaily.com article. For example,
I expect that she will not bankrupt me during the dating and divorce process – the Double Ds of American woman (thanks Rudov).
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/04/13/her-double-ds-can-bankrupt-you
May 9, 2007 at 12:56 pm
jackal1994 said,
If the administrators threaten disciplinary or legal action, they will face a multi-million dollar freedom of speech lawsuit (because they didn’t stop the Lacrosse poster).
It’s called: what’s good for the goose is good for the gander
May 9, 2007 at 2:58 pm
donnieboy57 said,
i too link to mensnewsdaily when sending info to family and friends. my problem is that so many of my friends are married and their wives are…drum roll please….liberal shrews and i am concerned that i would create problems in their marrage. who wants to be the bad guy in that situation? after 3 divorces, i know that most married women don’t want their hubbys running around with or even intereacting with single and divorced men. its true.
note: did another pole. 50 hummer drivers. 38 women, 12 men. go figure. guess that sale demographic isn’t hampered too much with the wage gap problem. lol.
May 9, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Lloyd selberg said,
Is Feminism a cure for which there is no disease, or a disease for which there is no cure?- R.F. Doyle
Quoting from the book section on feminism: Writer David Usher says:
The relatively small (but growing) cohort of equalitarian feminists (such as Kate O’Bierne, Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Kathleen Parker, and Erin Pizzey) are the legitimate followers of suffragettes. They still seek reasonable social equality between the sexes, and strongly oppose the egregious destruction of marriage and men’s social rights caused by second-wave feminists. The prevailing second-wave feminist movement, steered by the National Organization for Women, predominantly applies ideological and statistical machinations to achieve women’s supremacy targets. It sees equalitarians as “anti-feminist” enemies and is constantly at battle with them for control at the helm of feminism.
May 9, 2007 at 7:34 pm
scottkirk said,
you mention suffregettes…are you aware that the only real organized resistance to women voting was a womens group…
May 9, 2007 at 8:45 pm
pappy_mcfae said,
Having dealt with a few radical feminists in my time, I have no love for them, and more than just a bit of mistrust. I found it easy to understand where Mr. Usher was coming from, and even easier to know he was speaking the truth.
I wish that I could claim that I wasn’t suckered in to the spin that blew up around the Duke lacrosse team “rape”. I was. As disconcerting as that is to myself personally, at least I can admit that I was wrong. I was wrong.
That fact was made clear when I first heard that the semen found in the vagina of the lying skank didn’t belong to any of the three accused. Once that information came forth, I was amazed that the rape charges weren’t automatically dropped. When that happened, I began to smell a rat. I may not be a lawyer, and I’m definitely not a cop, but I have seen enough CSI, CSI:Miami, and CSI:NY to know that if the DNA doesn’t match, the person in question did not ejaculate into the vagina of the “victim”.
If anything, this particular issue has brought up a point that I think needs to be made. Sometimes, the “progressive” mind is as closed as the “conservative” mind. Oh yes, both have their sacred cows. Both are just as likely to have minor coronary episodes when those sacred cows are lead to the slaughterhouse.
It also proves that hypocrites are just as prevalent on the right as they are on the left. While I have always known this truth, as hypocrisy is a human condition that exists outside of political or religious ideology, until Mr. Usher’s article was published, I had never seen it so clearly. Frankly, I was disgusted. While there are some groups that are more given to hypocrisy, it is now abundantly clear that hypocrisy can come from anyone.
I was amazed by the number of people who, when talking about other issues, are level headed, forthright, and clear who became raving lunatics when there was even a suggestion that feminists might not have the best of intentions…that their political agenda might not be as rosy and pure as they would like us to believe. It was like watching Dr. Jekyll become Mr. Hyde right before my eyes.
I saw people who REGULARLY slam Flush Lintball start to do his routine. Instead of answering points and discussing them, it was personal attack time. And Mr. Usher wasn’t the only victim. People who spoke in support of his ideas (such as myself) were accused of “ad hominen” attacks, spewing hate speech, and so on. Few indeed were those who actually argued points.
One writer even had the audacity to pull out the “what about your past history…” card. Oh yes, it was time to start blaming men who weren’t alive to own slaves for slavery. It was time to accuse all men of being rapists. And so it went.
Oh well, I guess, if nothing else, this episode really opened my eyes. People really get pissed off when you attack their sacred cows. Obviously, feminism is a sacred cow (filled with cows) for the “progressive” set. To bad, so sad.
I always thought that the progressive mindset was “question authority”. It’s been my anthem for as long as I can recall. It’s amazing how it’s ok to question authority when it’s mainstream, but it’s a bad thing if the authority is spewed forth from the mouths of man-hating women.
Go figure!|
Blessed be!
Pappy
May 10, 2007 at 12:37 am
Rinaldo Del Gallo, III said,
Let me make the point clearer. A “feminist,” by definition, is one who:
1. Wants to promote equality among the genders.
2. Rejects outdated stereotypes as men as breadwinners and women as nurturers.
3. Rejects the idea of women being financially dependent on men.
The father’s rights opponents, who call themselves “feminist,”
1. Want to promote inequality in family court.
2. Embrace stereotypes as men as breadwinners and women as nurturers.
3. Embrace the idea of women being financially dependent on men and men financially supporting them.
Because the platform they support is antithetical to what feminism means by definition, they are not feminist.
scottkirk said,
“Rinaldo…you make a good point…who hijacked feminism?????and how can we stop these terrorist hijackers???”
My reply to Scott is that I think the way to respond is by telling people that they are not feminist. I think this is much more effective than telling them feminism is bad. Feminism, as properly and usually defined, is a good thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_feminism
KRS writes,
“There’s a difference between feminism as it existed in the early days of its existence, versus how it exists today. Traiditional feminism circa the 1960s or so is something most of us probably support: equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities for all, equal access to education, and so on.
“The more modern version of feminism, however, gender feminism, is opposed to these things. Through vehicles such as VAWA and others, gender feminism consists broadly speaking of gender preference for women. It is not at all about gender equality.”
My reply to Kirk is that I understand what you are saying, but don’t regard this other type of “feminism,” “gender feminism,” as feminism at all. I understand why the term “gender feminism” is coined, but a subspecies of thought cannot completely fall out of the original definition—it must be some type of valid subset.
For instance, maybe you believe in natural rights. This can be broken into two groups—one that believes natural rights come from God, one group that observes the order of nature. But either group fits into a “natural right” theory.
This “gender feminism” can’t really, BY DEFINITION, be a form of feminism. To this extent, I guess I disagree with Christine Hoff Sommers. I do assert, however, this is a SEMANTICAL argument—but here labels are important—FOR IF WE EDUCATE THE PUBLIC THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT FEMINIST I think we our better able to accomplish OUR mission—promoting gender equality.
tonysprout said,
“Reading most of those posts reminds me more a marxist sloganeering convention where thinking is avoided and memorization of the party line as a zen mantra is a prerequisite for inclusion.”
I hate to make generalizations but there was a real heavy amount of thoughlessness knew-jerk unintrospectiveness afoot—there is much truth in what you say. I don’t expect people to say, “By golly, you’re right and I am wrong.” But I expect them to address the issue cogently put before them, and that wasn’t happening.
Joi said,
I would like to make an observation here. “First the original article by Usher was well written, unfortunate that the main point ‘false allegations’ and ‘guilt by gender’ where generally missed by the readers.” And that’s the whole point Joi—Mr. Usher was practically clubbing them on the head with this point. He wasn’t being subtle. And yet he was virtually ignored to talk about the usual mantra.
DcFather said,
“To hell with the facts The modern way of rational and logical thought is to first find out whats politically correct then form your opinion or hypothesis on only that.”
Sounds to me like there is at least one poster on OpedNews who understands how most of the others there think. I’d take it a step further and argue that many of them are so smitten with PC that they have assumed the role of “thought police”. But even more bizarre than a website loaded with PC followers is how prevalent such thought policing has become on college campuses, obviously including Duke, and worse, in today’s courtrooms. The old KKK never had the kind of following that we are seeing with today’s feminist klan.
I would state in reply, these people would win a hell of a lot more converts if they were much more tolerant of opposing views. But ever view is a “view not to be tolerated” because it promotes subjugation of [include the name of group]. Even if their view had merit, one ultimately gets turned off by the attitude. It is difficult, though I strive to do this, to get to their arguments.
Wheresmy40 writes: “Feminists sought equality in all areas. Many people thought, Okay, that’s fair. But, femi-NAZIS do not want equality, they want everything. I believe Rush Limbaugh coined the term “feminazi” to describe women and their emasculated male cheerleaders of NOW and other misandrist organizations as it defines quite handsomely the extent these man-haters will go to win, win, win. Death to all who oppose the matriarchy.
Any feminist who still only wants equality is considered and enemy of the Femi-Reich and is to be exterminated along with all males.
My apology to any and all affected by the Nazi reign and the holocaust for using this analogy. But, it fits and gives a clear picture of what America is up against.”
Reply, if a “femi-NAZIS do not want equality, they want everything” they are not feminist. More importantly than this semantical point, what is a more effective argument. “These women are femi-nazis” (sounds like you hate women) or “these women are not really feminist” (sounds like they support gender stereotyping and are against equality.) I submit the later.
Lloyd selberg said, Check SAVE THE MALES, (www.mensdefense.org) a new book by Richard Doyle for a clear understanding of the term “feminism.” (www.mensdefense.org/STM_Book/Feminist.htm) The web site is yet to be updated with the 4th Edition text.
Is Feminism a cure for which there is no disease, or a disease for which there is no cure?- R.F. Doyle
Quoting from the book section on feminism: Writer David Usher says:
The relatively small (but growing) cohort of equalitarian feminists (such as Kate O’Bierne, Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Kathleen Parker, and Erin Pizzey) are the legitimate followers of suffragettes. They still seek reasonable social equality between the sexes, and strongly oppose the egregious destruction of marriage and men’s social rights caused by second-wave feminists. The prevailing second-wave feminist movement, steered by the National Organization for Women, predominantly applies ideological and statistical machinations to achieve women’s supremacy targets. It sees equalitarians as “anti-feminist” enemies and is constantly at battle with them for control at the helm of feminism.
Llyod said,
“Quoting from the book section on feminism: Writer David Usher says:
The relatively small (but growing) cohort of equalitarian feminists (such as Kate O’Bierne, Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Kathleen Parker, and Erin Pizzey) are the legitimate followers of suffragettes. They still seek reasonable social equality between the sexes, and strongly oppose the egregious destruction of marriage and men’s social rights caused by second-wave feminists. The prevailing second-wave feminist movement, steered by the National Organization for Women, predominantly applies ideological and statistical machinations to achieve women’s supremacy targets. It sees equalitarians as ‘anti-feminist’ enemies and is constantly at battle with them for control at the helm of feminism.”
Reply, I think it is better to avoid terms such as “second-wave feminist,” and “gender feminist.” The idea of favoring a gender is anti-feminist.
Llyod further writes, “It sees equalitarians as ‘anti-feminist” enemies and is constantly at battle with them for control at the helm of feminism.” And that’s the whole point. You can’t be anti-egalitarian and then call yourself a “feminist.”
pappy_mcfae said,
“As the person who corrected Mr Moffet about the “He man woman hater’s club”, I want to thank you for mentioning me, even if you didn’t mention my name. Having dealt with a few radical feminists in my time, I have no love for them, and more than just a bit of mistrust. I found it easy to understand where Mr. Usher was coming from, and even easier to know he was speaking the truth.
I wish that I could claim that I wasn’t suckered in to the spin that blew up around the Duke lacrosse team “rape”. I was. As disconcerting as that is to myself personally, at least I can admit that I was wrong. I was wrong.
That fact was made clear when I first heard that the semen found in the vagina of the lying skank didn’t belong to any of the three accused. Once that information came forth, I was amazed that the rape charges weren’t automatically dropped. When that happened, I began to smell a rat.”
Well Pappy, I hereby acknowledge you on the Little Rascals as being the true originator of the “He-man Women Haters Club,” and not the Three Stooges.
Your point pappy that these people did not go through a similar transformation that you did is the whole point of my article. Your points are very well made and taken.
Finally, Mr. Usher writes,
“Feminism, at its root, is not about equality. “Feminism” means to view everything through the eyes of women. This, in itself, is a matriarchal perspective, just as masculism is, in itself, a patriarchal view.”
As much as I respect Dave’s points, feminism, at its root, IS about equality, and that’s why these people are NOT feminist. Again, this is a semantical argument—but these semantics MATTER in a world of short attention spans.
Mr. Usher writes, “Unfortunately, so many people are inured to the manufactured definition of the word — importing some vision of equality into the picture.”
And that the point—when you start spouting off stuff that is say “feminism is bad” etc., etc., . . . they assume you are anti-women or anti-equality. People don’t have the time to read about the different nuances of feminism.
Mr. Usher further writes, “So, according the the (unreliable) wikipedia, there are about 28 different flavors of feminism — some equalitarian — most not. Unfornately, the equalitarianists keep fighting for control of a word which is sexist, and they lose every time.” This explains why 70% of all women don’t consider themselves “feminist,” whatever the term means. I think that what happens is we don’t expose these people as non-feminist (rather than a different flavor of feminism) these types of arguments are lost on the general public. There are certain people, really into a given field, that have endless names for different types of things. Music is one of those fields—“Boston techno punk.” I think having discussions about abstract categories is not helpful.
T
he moral of all this is that there is a point where you have evolved so much from starting principles you are no longer in a given category. If you embrace principles that are not egalitarian, if you embrace stereotypes of men as breadwinners and women as nurturers, if you embrace disparate treatment of men and women, you are NOT a feminist. Your not a “gender feminist,” nor a [insert whatever title you want here] feminist. This is my SEMANTICAL point.
My PRACTICAL point is that if you start attacking “gender feminist,” or “femi-nazis,” or to make up a term, “maternal based feminism,” your point quickly becomes lost on the general public.
IT IS DEFINITELY TRUE that feminism has come to mean something more than “equality among the sexes,” in our general culture. But this is a somewhat arcane process. Most people believe in equality of genders and not embracing stereotypes of men and women—they get this in 2 seconds—there failure to embrace these fundamental tenets ENCOMPASSED IN THE WORD FEMINISM is understood in 8 seconds.
A better tactic still, is to avoid use of the word “feminism.”
May 10, 2007 at 9:00 am
red pill said,
Respectfully submitted is the critisism that feminist is primarily intended to promote gender equality as if it is a good thing. Firlstly, the very name indicates it’s emphasis and advocacy. OTherwise it would be called “Equalism”, which it is not. Secondly is your derived implication that there is supposed to be equality of gender, of some unstated form, which there is not. Perhapse you ment leagally I dnn’t know but functionally and structurally athere is no perfect symmetrical equaliyt not subject to massive interpretation and variablity. That there is not even legal equality, sir, that is at least in part your fault either by exclusion, collusion or contusion…
May 10, 2007 at 9:16 am
red pill said,
May 10, 2007 at 9:17 am
Lloyd selberg said,
Like Warren Ferrell, I spent the first forty years of my life promoting “feminist” thinking in my daughters. I accepted the idea that men and women are potentially equal, ignorant of the fact that they are naturally very different. Men and women are equally important to civilization, but distinctly different and complementary in nature.
Promoting androgyny, men and women as equals, is in defiance of natural laws and may well lead to the end of modern civilization. History has shown that androgynous societies don’t exist for long and ultimately fail. Only in an over civilized society, would anyone suggest that men and women are equal.
Who really cares how we define “feminist,” when we are watching the strongest nation on earth succumb to totally irrational PC thinking? Rule of law has been replaced with rule of irrational political correctness. Western civilization is totally dependent on rule of law and rule of law is dependent on rational thought. Unfortunately, women are not rational creatures by nature. Only in a patriarchal society can civilization exist.
Rinaldo Del Gallo, III in initiating this blog addresses only “the leaves of evil” but fails to address ‘the roots of evil” that result in society’s response to the Duke Rape case. Arguing the definition of “feminist,” reminds me of Rich Doyle’s comment regarding the men’s movement: “The history of our “movement” has resembled a circular firing squad unable to redirect its fire at the real, philosophic enemies.”
May 10, 2007 at 12:11 pm