Wow, what a refreshing point of view these ifeminists have! You can either be... a Madonna or a whore. What a wide range!

I could swear I've heard those options before, though. Where could it have been...?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Why are (fill in the blank) so pushy - so victimized feeling - complaining? Libertarians usually are outspoken for their own liberties but for not for those "others."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well thank you Christy Burbridge, for introducing me to this site - I read the introduction and the faqs, and I really can't see anything there to disagree with. This is the feminism I remember from the 70s: a desire for EQUALITY between men and women, in life and under the law, a respect for human beings regardless of gender, and treating adults as adults instead of trying to control them or protect them from unpleasant facts.

I enjoy reading the articles on AlterNet, but the comments so frequently are man-hating and unpleasant. And yes, it would be nice to have a world where prostitutes (male AND female) were not purchased, but while people can make money that way, I would rather they were allowed to practice safely and with dignity, rather than being legislated against and criminalised.

Oh, and by the way - "And this is supposed to help women progress as a class how?" - women are not "a class"; they are, or should be, the equal to the men in their class, whether it be a political class, a working class, a minority class, a firefighting class, or whatever. Half of the population is not a special class just by virtue of its chromosomes. And yes, if they are being treated as special (discriminated against, or subject to affirmative action), this should be challenged by intelligent human beings, whatever their gender.

Thanks again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good job Chris, but one MAJOR error. Women are not, never have been, a minority. You referred to "women and other minorities". How can someone who has such an obvious grasp of the issue be completely wrong on a fundamental fact? Could it be that because we have been so marginalized and we hear the constant refrain "women and minorities" that even the "smart ones" have bought that lie? HMMM, food for thought?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have yet to meet a man that is my equal. I am not interested in equality with subordinates. How about liberation? The word we used in the 60's and 70's that expressed how we FELT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jeff Christy was a name Rush Limbaugh used to use.

ALTER-net? Seems a lot more like what passes for mainstream media to me.

I can get stuff like this watching Fox News.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

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

I'd like to NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE.

Or, to have BETTER OPTIONS from which to chose.

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

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

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

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What I liked about the women's movement of the seventies was that we cared about one another, looked for commonalities, stood together even when we were very different. Ifeminists are not a movement, they're a point of view, and from where I sit, they seem lazy and pretty self-involved. Who needs an ifeminist when the real thing is so much more supportive?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am tired of "feminists" equating sex industry, which is a choice, to discrimination in employment, which is not a choice. It is possible to support the right of women (and men) to work in the sex industry (legally, without pimps!) AND to support affirmative action for victims of past discrimination. Maybe if there are fewer men than women in the sex industry, then affirmative action is needed to help men get into this business!

I support freedom. In this the libertarians are right. But that does not mean I have to support the status quo or reject affirmative action. If women are forced into the sex industry by lack of opportunity in other areas, that needs to be addressed by removing the obstacles in the other areas, not banning the sex industry.

Why is it that both sides seem to me to be moralistic authoritarians who desire to force their choices on everyone? How about opening up opportunities to everyone for what they want, whether we approve or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A reply to the above comment:
LLMystic, who wrote the above, sounds like someone who has a lot to lose if women were freed from the brutality of the sex trade. Like maybe, all the money she sucking out of the lives of others. Yes, another sell-out sitting high and pretty on the bloody heap of her sisters beaten bodies. Think about what the so-called sex industry is really about. First of all, it's all about men's sexuality. I don't see a huge call coming from women to whack off to a video or a magazine. I hate the term "sex industry". This imparts a false legitimacy and decency. There is no "sex industry". There is a trap, a vortex that poor and vulnerable people of many ages and either gender can fall into. Devoting your life to to a predatorial economy that caters to the sexual needs of anonymous men should not be the basis of another human being's professional life.

LLMystic's double speak is heartless capitalist B U L L S H I T. Read between the lines - she means to write "Leave me (and the myriad of others like me) alone, so I can continue getting rich off the pain and suffering of untold men, women and CHILDREN." (The so-called industry is vastly comprised of child victims.) Let LLMystic go complain about how people are interferring with her get-rich schemes to the innumerable victims of porn. And don't think AMERICA. Think WORLD-WIDE victimization of women and children. In France, not only were young Eastern European girls as young as 12 caught in up in a sex slave network, but the men involved were also buying the babies of women who were caught in their web and reselling them to French people. The men were compensating the mothers 200 Euros for each baby. That's a whopping $250 or so. LLMystic thinks that porn grows in a pretty, sexy little garden somewhere. It actually festers in back alleys as crime networks exploit helpless and vulnerable people all around the world. Where's the economic opportunity in Bangkok, Sierra Leone or whereever? All the children and women who drug themselves just to be able to service their John, just to be able to get the money, just to be able to eat and sleep, just to be able to keep on living (or dying).

There are and always have been MADAMES, women who prey on other women caught in the "sex industry" bullshit trap; women who pretend that "her girls" are perfectly happy to get used like a piece of meat in exchange for money, who pretend that it's all about pleasurable sex and not about dehumanizing, objectifying misery. Like little girls really grow up dreaming "You know, I think I'll grow up to be a prostitute who has sex with men for money".

LLMystic - TWO MESSAGES TO YOU: STOP LYING TO ME. and YOU SICKEN ME!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The crux of ifeminist analysis can be summed up in two words: Anything goes.

Oddly enough, that is precisely the type of statement the religious right makes when railing against the non-religious in their morality wars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminism is about respect for woman as complex and competent human beings, with as many and as well-paid options as men have. It's been 40 years since I was the third generation of women in my family to go to college. And there are still girls whose parents think only boys need higher education. I hesitate to say 'the problem with people today...'. But the problem with people today is that too many incredibly selfish and massively miseducated people think that "IM THE ONE WHO MATTERS AND F*** ANYONE WHO WON'T AGREE WITH ME." We are all in this together, folks, and intelligence and competence are NOT gender-based. Will it take another 40 years to get through to you f-ing pricks?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The ifeminists' site came up in a discussion we were having here in Australia a few weeks ago. I, and others, looked at the site and wrote it off as a bad joke offered by people who hate women and feminism.

Bloody hell. You mean it's actually serious???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From a male point of view I don't think we need all these different points of view about feminism for all we need is decent and fair treatment of all sexes/sexual orientations by all sexes/orientations. Don't anybody hold their breath for this to happen for we are a long way from it and other aspects of a really decent society. It's a long hard slog to justice for everyone for today there is still only justice for wealthy males.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm a little tired of hearing that feminists are stamping around demanding this and that and frightening the horses. Sorry if I'm a bit incoherent, but it's a bad brain day. I'll try to tackle a few comments individually.

Ifeminists believe that freedom and diversity benefit women,

Well, yes. Freedom and diversity benefit humans, regardless of gender. Or religion. Or politics.

whether or not the choices that particular women make are politically correct.

Honestly, if I could find this woman I'd give her a slap. I'm so very sick of the lazy phrase "politically correct".

They believe that telling women what is or is not best for them by enacting legislation against pornography is "paternalistic" to women who choose to work in the sex-industry,

Possibly. There are a lot of paternalistic laws still on the books, and a lot of paternalistic attitudes still out there. Porn is not always a bad thing: there's a movement of women's porn makers in Japan, for example. They usually treat the cast better in general, and the content has a different style because it's aimed at women, but it's still porn. Women are human too, and sex is a human thing. We have hormones. Sue us.

affirmative action only "embeds gender privilege" for women in the law.

This is total bollocks.

And Aussie Kim, you said:

Some sex workers even offer specialised services for people with disabilities,

Did you hear this on a radio programme, I wonder? Because I produced a show where we talked to a sex worker who works with the disabled, and she gave us a great interview. Wonder if you heard it...?

It feels like every now and again someone has to stand up on their hind legs and bray about how "feminists are ruining the world with their demands". Ho hum. Me, I've got a double X, but that's just a part of my self-definition.

Yes, there are injustices relating to women, just as there are injustices relating to other categorisations. Sometimes what governments or NGOs do works well, sometimes it doesn't. But to claim that it can all be reduced to "personal choice" is foolishly simplistic.

Oh, and I should make it clear that I don't blame men for everything that's wrong in the world. Nor do I believe that all men are rapists, or anything silly like that. Nor do most people with an IQ greater than that of a slug. Nor do I believe that all women are saintly or superior.

We're all just people, fergodssakes. What we put in our trousers is important only if we want to procreate. What's important is how much support we can give each other, and that's where the libertarian ideas go wrong: if everything is reduced to each individual acting only for themselves, we'll all pretty soon end up with Helena. Humans are social creatures, and co-operation works to maximise a whole lot of good things. Let's try it sometime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what does affirmative action have to do with feminism?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FTA: but where are all the male prostitutes and victims of the sex trade?

If you don't already live in a major city, go to one. Find the gay district. Walk around for about 10 minutes. Question answered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminist's who fill up on awe and wonderment in the silence of nature and who uphold equality between the sexes, are feminists with depth and much more to offer than those mentioned above.

Within theological feminism, a distinction is made between revolutionary and reformist feminists.
Reformists recognize the liabilities and the potentialities of the Christian tradition, and seek to reformulate faith and practice.

Revolutionary feminists find the Christian tradition irredeemably patriarchal and oppressive and looks to other traditions or to new theologies.

"Soon after I had published the pamphlet "Common Sense" [on Feb. 14, 1776] in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion... The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."-Tom Paine

On with that revolution!

Current Articles by an American Irish dissenter, Eco-Feminist, Satirist, Activist, Agitator of Church and State available @
http://www.opednews.com/author/author1112.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"...the law was designed without significant input by women and other minorities, it innately disfavors them..."

Sorry. I lost interest at this point.

Women are not a minority. You have a numerical majority in the US and have had the right to vote and run for office for several generations. Further, you have the support of many men. If you want the laws to change in some way, run for office, get elected, participate in the process, or shut the fuck up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Males and females are fundamentally different."

It's about social inequality, imposed on women by the patriarchal arrangement of society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Actually, iFeminism is nothing new. There were always
women ( AND MEN ) who thought that they could take care of
themselves and needed no affirmative action legislation. Let's
face it. If you are Oprah Winfrey, about the only harassment
you get is someone with a website insisting you run for
President of the United States. She was just on CNN a few
minutes ago decrying the fact that her lawyers sent a
" Lawyer's Letter " to the guy who is allegedly cyberstalking
her electoral body by insisting she run for President.
Not a bad idea, if she makes Mayor Mike Bloomberg her
running mate. ( and the ticket could be either way as
far as I am concerned. )

But the affirmative action laws exist to allegedly remedy
PAST discrimination and its ongoing effects. Please,
iFeministas, don't give me the crap that the world is sex
neutral and you don't take into account gender. Let me
tell you , I was an employment discrimination lawyer
for 35 years and the self made woman, like the self
made man, is a typical product of unskilled labor. Nobody
ever got to the top without the " old boy/girl/eunoch
network. " I don't care who you are. Libertarians like to
think they could do it all by themselves. If that were true
we would have lot more of them at the top of America's
corporations and in Congress, to say nothing, and I sure
do these days, of the White House.

Any criminal attorney will tell you that the ideal murder
client is a great looking female who has killed some S.O.B.
that the world really hated anyway. Take Dr. Tarnower,
the diet doctor who abused his mistress egregiously and
she finally did him in. Is anyone calling for her head? No.
Rather, they are erecting ( excuse the pun ) statues for
people like her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the essence of feminism is being open to evolving into who you truly are-
fully woman and sensual,
cerebral and contemplative
active and restful
doing that something
that one
was born to do.

http://www.opednews.com/author/author1112.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"More than likely, we are all at least somewhat familiar with liberal feminism, radial feminism, ecofeminism, and a whole host of others."

I disagree. Most people have, at best, naive understandings of feminism (including, I would argue, most people who call themselves feminists). More often, though I see open hostility to the importance of radical feminism in transforming our society and culture for the better--hostility often predicated on fear, absolute ignorance and/or a downright false and deceitful understanding of what feminism is.

I also disagree about the whole "feminists are for equality" bent. Equal under what circumstances? Many feminists (rightly) point toward the current definition of masculinity that rules our society (as well as the counterpart it demands in defining what "femininity" is, e.g. submission to and acceptance of masculine rape culture). So "equal" under these current circumstances means "becoming more masculine?" More like the oppressor? Yah...that'll just shift and intensify the oppression...rather than seeking to transform the "masculinity/femininity" co-dependent relationship that is the proximate root of many of our current gender problems.

I like the fact that the article brings up the idea of "co-optation" as it's important to the feminist movement in the sense that many well-meaning people (esp. men) want to help without first accepting the transformation that needs to happen within themselves. So, in fact they are seeking to mold "feminism" to their unconscious patriarchal ideals rather than become actual feminists.

Being a true feminist means willfully accepting a belief system that alienates oneself largely from mainstream culture (and the traditional gender roles represented therein) until that culture changes. And if the culture has "already changed" then why are people trying to disarm feminism by seeking to modify the ideals that feminism represents?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am tired of "feminists" equating sex industry, which is a choice, to discrimination in employment, which is not a choice.

"choice" for a child to sell her body to survive--"choice" for poor immigrant women who are raped and put on drugs--"choice" for the uneducated, the unlucky, the millions of sex slaves around the world. they are the rule, not the exception.

there is no "choice" when your other choices are worse then having men sexually assault you every day of your working life just to survive. the deck is completely stacked.

and i'm not even mentioning what the pornification of our culture is doing to the next wave of young girls growing up seeing themselves portrayed everywhere in our media as the sex class. sure they'll have 'choices'; being sexually pleasing, pliable and available is the sure 'choice' to male approval--many young women learn this early, often at their father's knee.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

like the author before me, i went to the site and read what Ifeminists are all about. Honestly I totally disagree with alternet on this one. Ifeminists advocate strength and intelligence for all women, and they ask that we not judge women as another class as the author of this article did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At first I thought you were just being illiterate, but then I realized that it was another of your sly and subtle double entendres! Awesome.

Kuber, watch for yourself in a piece of prominently published fiction! You're an inspiration!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a difference between real choices and false choices; Most little girls throughout the world do not aspire to grow up and work in the sex industry-it is a decision made with the circumstances one finds oneself in, for the most part. while I don't think that women in the sex industry should be criminlazed-it is in fact an industry that continues to marginalize women, although not the only one (the fashion industry runs a close second...)

ANd for those that would label feminists as angry, bitter bitches and that we should stop complaining and run for office-It was US ANGRY BITTER BITCHES that paved the way for women to get into office. Bitter and Angry? 14000 years of male oppression coupled with women that gleefully go along with it would piss you off too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are a few issues that readers should be aware of. While most people would agree that women and men should have equal rights under the law as well as equal economic opportunity, there are those who strongly disagree. The most virulent example in the modern world is the Taliban - Saudi approach, which states that women cannot vote or drive cars and must wear a veil in public.

However, the feminist movement was also heavily infiltrated in the 60's and 70's by the FBI, and feminists made good agent provocateurs in groups like Students for a Democratic Society, where they would do things like accusing all men in the group of being secret patriarchs and male supremacists. Since the main goal of COINTELPRO was to break up groups of political dissidents in the US by driving 'wedges' between groups like SDS and the Black Panthers, it's easy to see why this was an attractive approach. Divide and conquer - that's a very old strategy.

The renewal of COINTELPRO in the United States was evident well before 9/11; see the alternet coverage:
http://www.alternet.org/story/11411/
"FBI's New Generation of Cointelpro
By Hank Hoffman, In These Times. Posted August 28, 2001.
The FBI may be planning a disruption effort against anti-globalization groups similar to Cointelpro, which focused on the anti-war and Black Power movements in the '60s and '70s."

If one looks at the modern versions, for example the use of the Pentagon "Operation TALON" to spy on student anti-war protests and groups in the United States, you can see that COINTELPRO is alive and well, although it is very unclear who is running it - Rumsfeld's little army? Private contractors? Or the good ol' Federal Bureau of Information Control?

The antidote is simpy to stay calm and not allow people to manipulate your emotions and intellect. Agent provacateurs can be mistaken as hot-headed idiots, but would you really want anything to do with either group? Angry feminists who accuse all of their fellow progressives of being in league with the patriarchal oppressor should be viewed with suspicion, particularly when they spend all their effort on attacking political dissident groups.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need to go back to a patriarchal society, where men are the heads of family. Women should be at home raising children, cooking, and keeping a clean and tidy house.
If we do not go back to this way of life; we are doomed.
Tens of thousands of broken homes and 1 parent families
(if you can call them that) are failing and producing degenerate offspring. From violence to you name the perversion, it reigns in modern America. The government wastes millions , if not billions of dollars enforcing laws such as affirmative action, diversity in the workplace, and forced integration. We as a race are on the brink of disaster unless
we stop these social welfare programs and go back to the old ways. Our schools are a joke, civil rights only brings out the "Victim Mentality" in people, and the special privilige alloted to certain races of color cause silent segregation and a more intolerant people. Wake Up America!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ok, here goes. I feel as though I may get pounced on but whatever.

I realize that the terms "feminist" or "feminism" have different, subjective meanings. So I will be forced to generalize, based on my own experience. I do not know everything.

Whenever I see a "feminism" topic come up on these boards, I see some great, insightful comments, but I also see other things. Because I want to understand, I am going to focus on the things I perceive as both unhelpful and common:

-Man-hating
-Joyless, "more-activist-than-thou" rhetoric
-Weird ideologue stuff like "wimmin"
-NO self reflection, just anger at others
-Sex-as-pathology only
-Sort of pie-in-the-sky stuff about "the system" without many day-to-day concretes.
-All-or-none thinking, sort of like talking with 911 conspiracy buffs: if you point out that steel does not have to become liquid and melt before it loses strength, they write you off as a commissar and an apologist

As a man, it strikes me as a sort of an exclusive club, like Malcolm X before he went to Mecca. It's a woman thing, I wouldn't understand.

Does this movement- if it can be considered at all cohesive- want to win people over or what?

It's like watching a gay rights parade and the leather bondage dudes are walking by. What does that help? Are we trying to convince people of our views, or just emote about our "outsider" status?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey, thank you for asking the questions--I see too often the yelling back and forth (which I have participated in, also) and it doesn't add anything. What I've found is that unfamiliarity with the scope and purpose of feminism tends to create a great deal of uncertainty and confusion. There are many stripes to "feminism" and that uncertainty itself creates much to debate about. To generalize, the one goal that seems to be a part of all of this is to achieve "equality" for women on par with what men have traditionally enjoyed. Now, how does that take form? Is it in choice--from choosing how to deal with your own body, birth control, abortion, being a stay at home mom, going to work, not having kids, porn? Is it in solely economic terms--equal pay for equal work, equal access to healthcare, childcare, etc? Is it in social perceptions--kids, education, sexuality, religion? The list can go on. Then there is the factor of race and capitilism--i.e. women in the third world.

Depending on which thing you choose to make your case on, feminism takes a different look. Here's the thing though--the status of women in our culture (Western European based) is based on a long history of patriarchy. So, for most feminists, they try to find ways to attack this--and this comes out in different ways: changing social and political systems (voting, worker protections), reclaiming control of their bodies (abortion, birth control, for some, porn), attacking economic distribution (pay, access to jobs), or ethics (religion). Some view these as exclusive, but they are all interlinked. How do you choose one. Usually based on personal experience or perceived immediacy. They are all important. But there is disagreement as to which should take the lead.

However, some of these things can't come before others. Such as women adopting traditional roles as a "choice" before they are actually a choice. If you grew up being told, and being bombarded with images of, men constantly as stay at home fathers, not in the workplace, etc., you would automatically have a greated tendency (not a given, but creates a shift) toward "choosing" that life as your own. Our social conditioning creates for us boundaries that we tend to occupy. It either takes extreme will or another perspective to break us out of that mindframe. Such is what we have done to women. So, items that deal with roles of women and sexuality (mostly) aren't so much a choice for many women--hence the reason that before they become viable choices, the structure that supports them must be abolished and replaced (patriarchy destroyed and another paradigm envisaged). No easy feat, and I'm not going to suggest anything.

The problems I see popping up here are that men, mostly, and some women who are attached for their own reasons to this hegemonic structure, feel threatened by challenges to that structure. I'm not saying that in a bad way--just is the case. We believe what we believe and don't like it when some of the basic assumptions we have about life are shaken. The thing we have to realize is we are conditioned to believe this is the case when there are many alternatives--we but have to let our imaginations go.

Lastly, there is the whole masculinity thing. Men (not all) tend to feel most threatened. They have enjoyed centuries of rule and egotism based on patriarchal values. When their foundation is challenged, we get agro-males who can't deal with the alternatives. It strikes at the heart of who they are--as people, and as Men. When assumptions are allowed to become Truth, it is difficult to break away. So, feminism is villianized and attacked. The women are called cold, lesbian, anti-family, and every other derogatory term. They are silenced before they can speak. Such has been the history of women who challenge the system. We need to change that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ultimately, its about creating a more equal and just world. The links between patriarchy, Western capitalism, empire, and colonization are pretty strong, and it will take a lot to break that. And its not going to be nice--as is seen here whenever these issues come up. Feminism isn't just for women, its is for all of us--if you believe in challenging the system and creating a more just and equal world, then you might be a feminist.

As a side note: I'm a straight male in my 30's. No, I'm not fem, I probably bench more than any other guy on this site. I just say that because I know the personal attacks are coming. Bring it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK, that one had me cracking up, alone, at my computer for a good 10 minutes. Thanks. You guys made my day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. Infighting, bickering, name-calling and a host of other slurry bomb/drive-by insults stemming from disagreements over feminist dogma. It appears that there can be only one true feminism and that is reserved for "real women" as stated so elegantly by sln70:

"How about YOU go change in yourself while the rest of the real women go out and make the world better for you and your manicures?"

"I have yet to meet a man that is my equal. I am not interested in equality with subordinates."
-Lee Slaughter

Yet another enlightened post from "a real" bread and butter feminst of the 60's and 70's. Now if you could only bring more women around to that elitist and haughty way of thinking . . .

Oops, wrong thread - my bad . . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I-Feminism starts with I. I as in you or I.

Each individual has the right, and the responsibility to take care of him- or her-self, at least as soon as one is old enough to do so.

(Of course, some can't and the rest of us do what we can for them.)

WE don't need a strong government to oversee our lives. Don't forget, if a system is set up to make things "fair," for example affirmative action, we cannot guarantee that this same bureaucracy will not someday be used to enforce *unfair* policies.

We women do not need to have our lives "as a class" improved. To heck with the "class." What about *you* as an individual?

The point of I-Feminism is *YOU COUNT!!!* YOU! An individual human being, are what is important.

I touch on this in my blog essay at http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you can be all the "you" you can be, but if you happened to be a female through most of recorded history, you were never going to even get a glimpse of the playing field, much less be able to level it. libertarian assumptions always sink their arguments upon any type of closer examination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They aren't particularly "independent" as they usually rely on grants from conservative think-tanks for their existence and publications, and are too busy seeking the approval of powerful men of the status quo to think or analyze. Instead of taking the time and putting in the effort to conduct studies regarding issues they have to see if the conclusions would find them correct, they sit back and throw stones at non-”ifeminist” feminists for not putting women on the back-burner in favor of what they want to see or piss all over non-”feminists” who actually got off their asses for not coming to the conclusions they want realized. They accuse non-”ifeminists” of relying on “victim hood” or whatever and then turn around and claim they’re being oppressed for their points-of-view and/or get behind so-called Men’s Rights Activists and scream “we’re the REAL victims!” from the top of their lungs. They have an “it’s all in your head”/”Blame the victim” mentality of rape and date-rape which is contradictory: they say, “you’re campaigns like Take Back the Night and raising awareness of date-rape is just man-hating”, but then say, “why did you go out and rink? Don’t you know they’ll take advantage of you? Why do you go to that party? They’re boys with out of control hormones! You should of at least brought a man with you”; you’re not allowed to say that men are usually the ones that are rapists and certain situations are conductors to it … because that is “man-hating” or “victim hood” (yes, actually trying to do something is being a victim. Yep). But at the same time, boys will be boys and you should know better not to wear that skirt!

Wendy McElroy, Christina Hoff Sommers, and the rest of the IrresponsibleFauxminism ilk like to say they’re throw-backs to first-wave feminism, but were they alive back then? They’d have been serving muffins to the anti-Suffragists table, if not heading it themselves (if they were allowed, which if they weren’t they’d somehow rationalize and claim by not caring they are “empowering themselves”), and claiming giving women the right to vote would be silly, perpetuating victim hood, and everybody who thinks women should have the right to vote just don’t want to face “science”.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jesus knows I'm no fan of Libertarianism that thinks all that is needed to reach paradise is yet more capitalism. And the commentaqry critiqued tries to glue feminism to this dubious foundation. But the "feminista" writer..lol... writes her article in "Feminista- The Journal of Feminist Reconstruction" (laughing still more), a most hilarious and pompous name of a mag if there ever was one. These are surely academic types full of it, so to speak.

Italian director, Wertmuller, made a film or two about privileged women and their attitudes towards working class men. In America, we have a whole industry of women trying to garnish meager paychecks of wayward, lower working class dads. We have a whole industry of women who hate pornography, and hate rape, yet never seem to mention that men are constantly vicitmized by rape themselves. How about a "Take back the night at prisons, Feministas? And why don't you feministas concentrate on how 'romance novels' victimize men, for just a slight change of pace? Start a movement to make 'love fantasies', both lit and pics illegal. Ban them soap operas, too! As a man, I find women's addiction to this stuff to be totally degrading. Men, let's burn Cosmo! You have nothing to lose but the jock straps that constrain our beautiful bodies.

And that's another thing. Many men are bored to death trying to build the perfect body thru the use of bowflexes. They go out and pound their faces in trying to be tough for you unappreciative feministas. Oh the horror of it all!

No wonder we are raising a generation of demented youngsters with the Male thing and the Female thing as it is, in the US of A..... Alternet presente! Feministas and all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here is a rediculous quote from the ifeminist faq site:

"What is the ifeminist position on having women's studies programs at public universities?

Women's studies programs are a good example of why universities should not be publicly funded."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...way to control women.
If ya cant see through that y'all blind.

The problem for feminists is often women themselves. Many of those who oppose women's equality are actually women.
I remember the mothers of my mates at school ( Catholic education ) they abhorred feminism ( mind you these women were stay at home do nothing think nothing be nothing give up wastes of space who wanted their daughters to be just like em) Fortunately my mother liked to use her brain and was an outcast amongst the C.W.L ( Catholic Women's League.. no bullshit this exists! )
Geez girls,, stop marrying these sexist controlling bastards out there and we might see some change for the next generation.
The reichwing and Religious Fundies want to control women first then everything after:they are doing a fine job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"And this is supposed to help women progress as a class how?"

I am of the male gender. I became confused with the sentence above. I went to one of my dictionaries and looked up the word "class"- using The American Heritage College Dictionary - 4th Ed. 2004. What I found was much too lengthy to reproduce here, but I will say that the word "class" refers to many senses.

Since we do live together in society, I very much would like to solidarize with both feminists and progress, but despite the distinguishing of "IFeminists" and "Feminists" I am still left wondering and having to strongly support or strongly oppose feminists in approaching social and political goals or projects. I suspect it lies in the underlying conceptions of particular members of our society and what 'individual' or 'individualism' actually refers to and what that means to progress vs the 'status quo ante' or regression. "Class" and what it refers to becomes important to clarify in these circumstances. Or is it just about the un-helpful discussion of 'the struggle between the sexes (or genders)?

If not an 'IFeminist' or other hyphenated forms of feminism, what does this article propose in the way of progress? Not being a woman, I contribute this question in the hopes of progress of course, and I do consider women to be critical in these endeavors. A contribution by women to clarifying concepts such as 'class' would be indeed welcome, especially in relation to progress in our social and political relations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As feminism goes, a nice alternative to the usual cliches and us-and-them mentality.

But if it's really about rights, gender equality, and distancing yourselves from other feminist groups, why call it feminism?

Their FAQ answer: that it's their specialty or focus, sounds kind of lame. I think a better answer--which is a theme in their articles--seems to be that a lot of what feminist groups have done, like making domestic violence a women's issue, asking for special treatment, limiting individual rights to "protect" women, etc. can make things worse for everyone...

So they want to try to make it better for everyone so that it's better for women...Something like that. Not a bad angle, assuming that's their agenda, and not something more devious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...what will we all do?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Simple as that. Of course they don't believe in government intervention to secure the rights of women (or anyone else for that matter)...they don't believe in government! I don't think they necessarily believe in traditional roles, either. They just have that I-can-do-it-all-myself mentality you get from playing too much D&D...er, hanging out with your libertarian boyfriend...er, I don't know, where do these people come from? I understand the tech geeks who don't like to socialize and think all groups are bad, but there aren't THAT many female techies, and the ones I knew were standard left-liberal. Who are these people?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The iFeminists like Wendy McElroy are a wonderful group of people representing an honorable cause and a socially virtuous effort!

It's a shame what has happened to mainstream feminism: child rearing isn't as respectable anymore while imasculating males has become all the vogue for butch women and mass media. Mainstream feminism has co-opted the original vitrues of working for legal equality and social parity and replaced it with misandrism and social decline.

I used to think organizations like the National Organization for Women were helpful progressive organizations but it's clear they're instead repressive and sexist while still successfully deluding people into believing they're for justice and equality.

Take for example shared parenting initiatives that would create a presumption of joint custody increasingly being considered by states accross the country. It's organizations like the N.O.W. that are typically the most vocal opponents of the *shared* parenting concept. But shouldn't equality mean that men and women are treated the same by the courts in divorce as well as any other judicial matter? Shouldn't the societal norm be that parents share equal custody after divorce instead of this being the exception?? What's good for the goose hardly seems good for the gander according to mainstream feminism and that's sexist and wrong.

I hope iFeminists will get more publlicity and that more people will learn about what sets them apart them from other feminist organizations and perhaps someday re-align the mainstream feminist actions to the ideals of legal equality and social parity that they originally were.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the kind of movement that springs from those who were never part of the struggle. Many young women today have forgotten what the world looked like for girls and women before the LAW forced institutions to change. It was not much more than a hundred years ago that women were owned by their husbands and their CHILDREN belonged to their husbands. Demanding and achieving affirmative action and an Equal Rights Amendment are the only way women will ever be equal partners with men in this society. Powerful white men do not share their power. It must be taken from them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a postscript to my earlier post. I am a radical feminist, not a man hater. The terms are not synonymous. I am a full time stay at home mother with 6 adopted children and 3 grown children. I have chosen this path. My husband supports this decision, both economically and emotionally. I am an equal partner in our relationship because my husband is also a radical feminist. Our household members share the work of the household - there is no wome's work or men's work. There are however areas that each family member excels. I am a great cook and so I cook. My husband is a great musician, so he supervises piano practice. I am a planner, so I do all scheduling and budgeting. My husband is a plumber and electrician, so he does most home repair. He also replaces all missing buttons., and repairs clothing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]