« Unitarian Jihad Name Generator | Main | Now Germany's Calling The Death Knell Over Low Birth Rates »

April 10, 2005

R. I. P Andrea Dworkin

I just received word in e-mail that Andrea Dworkin has died in her sleep. I was never a fan of Dworkin's, but I know from reading a couple of her books that her comments about rape and marriage have been taken out of context. I really don't have much more to say about this than to let my readers know she has died. I figured that was newsworthy enough.

Posted on April 10, 2005 at 05:53 PM | Permalink

Comments

Damn. I'm going to have to revisit some of her work.

Posted by: Lauren at Apr 10, 2005 6:18:49 PM

I know from reading a couple of her books that her comments about rape and marriage have been taken out of context.

And what research / statements / comments haven't, hey Trish?

Anyway, thanks for the news.

tt

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Apr 10, 2005 7:17:08 PM

Wow.

Posted by: bitchphd at Apr 10, 2005 8:25:17 PM

Has anyone seen an obituary for Andrea? I can't seem to find confirmation of her death anywhere, not even on her website. Maybe tomorrow?

Posted by: silverside at Apr 10, 2005 9:44:39 PM

I knew there would be something about it here...very sad.

Posted by: Clancy at Apr 10, 2005 10:02:15 PM

Nothing in the New York Times this morning, although obituaries are offered for persons of far less prominent public impact. Interesting....

Posted by: silverside at Apr 11, 2005 9:26:25 AM

Nothing on Google News, either, Silverside. Check out Rad Geek's blog, which is on my sidebar. He wrote about her work and her death today.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 11, 2005 10:59:19 AM

This is really sad; if anyone was brave enough to call men on their shit Ms. Dworkin was. I can't find anything at the BBC news website, perhaps I'm overlooking it!

But I urge people to drop them an email and complain of their omission:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3281777.stm

Posted by: Sour Duck at Apr 11, 2005 12:11:14 PM

The world has lost another great figure .. first the Pope now Andrea

Posted by: Steve at Apr 11, 2005 12:23:25 PM

Yes, I sent an email to the NYT too.

Posted by: silverside at Apr 11, 2005 12:53:00 PM

I just checked Google news, and the Guardian has an obit. But that's it.

Posted by: galnoir at Apr 11, 2005 1:57:18 PM

Just to clarify - the article in the Guardian is a news piece - not an obit which will appear tomorrow.

Posted by: Spicy at Apr 11, 2005 7:44:35 PM

Her obituary is now on yahoo news.

Posted by: silverside at Apr 11, 2005 9:18:30 PM

It sort of seems impossible that such a lively mind could pass--it's a sobering thought.

Posted by: Amanda at Apr 11, 2005 11:55:37 PM

"In everything men make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, still their sobs as they mourn the empitness and alienation of their lives." - Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, Page 214.

I know you all love to argue that her man-hating quotes are "out of context", but can any of you actually concieve of contexts in which her statements are appropriate, (as in, NOT offensive extreme anti-male bigotry)?


"This is really sad; if anyone was brave enough to CALL MEN ON THIER SHIT" - (emphasis mine), "Brave" enough to hate huh? Notice Trish's bigotry anyone? Of course you won't. What would be truly brave is to notice her sexism and stand up against it, (like you all pretend to be doing), in spite of the obvious social repercussions. Expressing popular sentiment isn't brave in the least.

"I have rarely if ever heard anti-male statements from feminists" - Hugo Schwyzer. I'm sure that idiot won't consider either statement quoted above to be man-hating either.

Now if you will all excuse me, I'm off to celebrate the death of one of the most evil, bigotted, phallophobic hate-mongering destructive influences of the century. Meanwhile, I expect you to never waver in your opinions that just because something looks like anti-male bigotry, acts like anti-male bigotry, would obviously be recognized by you as bigotry if the genders were reversed, doesn't mean that it is, especially since there could never possibly be such a thing. There's always some excuse or rationalization, just focus on a subgroup of men like violent criminals or the super wealthy, and ignore the reality that they represent only a small percentage of all men and voila, the bigotry dissappears. Toodooloo dumbfucks.

Posted by: Hombre at Apr 12, 2005 12:02:08 AM

Great Comment, Hombre

Posted by: Old Curmudgeon at Apr 12, 2005 9:55:16 AM

Great comment, Hombre.

Thanks

Posted by: Old Curmudgeon at Apr 12, 2005 9:55:36 AM

Anyone who makes shocking and offensive generalisations about other people on grounds of race or sex deserves little respect. Dworkers would be called all the names under the sun if she wasn't batting for your team. Recently a great world figure who called for love & peace between all people also bought the farm. How come no tribute to him Trish? I'll do it for you. John Paul 2 RIP.

Posted by: Steve at Apr 12, 2005 10:49:29 AM

"Toodooloo dumbfucks"

That's why Andrea wrote. And wrote. To confront the violence and obscenity and tell about it when virtually no one else wants to even acknowledge it because it makes us "uncomfortable. She called herself the Malcolm X of feminism, precisely because she didn't care about making men (or women) "feel good." She just wrote passionately about what she saw as the truth. And she paid for it with vicious slander from both rightwingers like Rush Limbaugh and even other feminists.

Yes, I do think she was over the top sometimes, just like Malcolm X was for that matter. But sometimes you need people like that.

Posted by: at Apr 12, 2005 10:50:10 AM

"Toodooloo dumbfucks"

"That's why Andrea wrote"

Maybe, just maybe, you're confusing cause and effect. I mean I think it worked like this...
First cause, Andrea wrote a bunch of hateful, bigotted, evil crap.
Second cause, The regs at this blog supported her,
Effect, I insulted you.

You seem to think it worked in reverse,
Cause - I insulted those who supported Andrea's bigotry after she died.
Effect - Andrea wrote a bunch of hateful bigotted evil crap while she was alive.


"To confront the violence and obscenity"

First, you equating swearing at people who support bigotry with violence. You might call it obscene, but I think tolerating, excusing, and secretly supporting the bigotry is the real obscenity here. Secondly, don't you bother to learn from what you read? I just wrote "THERE'S ALWAYS SOME EXCUSE OR RATIONALIZATION, JUST FOCUS ON A SUBGROUP OF MEN LIKE VIOLENT CRIMINALS or the super wealthy, and IGNORE THE REALITY THAT THEY REPRESENT ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF ALL MEN and voila, the bigotry dissappears." and immediately you do exactly that, start excusing her bigotry by pretending the small percentage of men who commit violent acts justifies it.

"She called herself the Malcolm X of feminism, precisely because she didn't care about making men (or women) "feel good.""

Oh look, a double standard from a feminist, what an amazing surprize. Funny, when I call you dumbfucks, I'm guilty of "violence and obscenity", but when she writes naziesque things about men all she's guilty of is "not caring about making men (or women) feel good."

"She just wrote passionately about what she saw as the truth."

Yeah, so has David Duke. I'm not impressed. Perhaps if she'd recognized the truth that men are just as human as women, men's rights are just as important as women's rights, and that women's responsibilities should be no less than men's, maybe then she would have written something worth reading. But unlike you I can't admire the "passion" of a hatemonger.

"But sometimes you need people like that."

No, you really don't.

Posted by: Hombre at Apr 12, 2005 11:23:24 AM

I am never happy when ANYONE dies. Even if I disagree with them. However I feel alot the same way as a man about Ms. Dworkin as I do as an Indian about General Custer. Dworkin lumped men in one big category, just as Custer lumped all Native-Americans into one "savage" role, and advocated our deaths. Never mind that the majority of us "Injuns" were peaceful and giving. Did we have wars? were people killed? yes. But show me a culture where that is not the case. And let me remind folks that it was the WOMEN in our tribes, including mine (Cherokee) that skinned MEN alive.
Dworkin saw men the same way that Custer saw Indians.
But in the end, I celebrate neither's death. In both cases Two human beings are dead. And regardless of their "oppinions" all humans have the potential for good. And that is lost.
I am just sorry that like Custer, Andrea never got to reach that potential. The potential to do good for ALL human kind. Not just those of her "group"...,

Posted by: Thundercloud. at Apr 12, 2005 11:32:45 AM

...Dworkin writes, "the INCEST TABOO ensures that however free we become, we never become genuinely free...[it] can be destroyed only by destroying the nuclear family as the primary institution of the culture." According to Dworkin, the destruction of the family will also eradicate any sexual distinction between children and adults..." After that she says something about kids being erotic beings who have every right to live out their sexual impulses. And that's a mere sample of some of her more 'choice' quotes.

mmm hmmm, as I've said before, real nice.

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 12, 2005 12:18:31 PM

I am new to this board, but based on what I have read here about Dworkin, she sounds like some SOME KIND OF NUT (note: I have always been one to cut to the chase).

--quetzal

"The Truth Will Always Be"

Posted by: quetzal at Apr 12, 2005 1:36:02 PM

Funny how no one mentions Warren Farrell's own promotion of positive incest.

And Steve, Trish hardly posted a tribute. It was more of an FYI, since it did not make the papers until three or four days after her passing (unlike the Pope, whose death has been reported everywhere at every minute). Trish may not have posted a tribute to the Pope because she might not agree with him. (I myself was unimpressed with his--and the Vatican's--indifference to the cover up of sexual abusers in the priesthood.) She's not obligated to post a tribute to him any more than you are obligated to post a tribute to Dworkin. Unlike some of the more rabid trolls infesting the net, she didn't post any gloating posts or personal attacks against him. She left well enough alone and posted about other things. 'Cause she has this thing called a life. Let's contrast her absence of any shadenfraude over the Pope's death with some of the vitriolic Dworkin comments here.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 12, 2005 1:57:38 PM

"Funny how no one mentions Warren Farrell's own promotion of positive incest"

That's very telling. Yes, very telling indeed. Now why do you think that is?

Is it...
A. Because Farrell doesn't promote incest, and all claims that he does are easily shown to be pollitically motivated slander attacks by the likes of Liz Kates, whose incredible phallophobia expresses itself in writings about penises shedding cells which grow into new penises in people's carpets?
B. Because this thread is about Andrea Dworkin, and Farrell has nothing to do with the subject?
C. Because they weren't trying to distract away from criticism of anti-male bigotry?

"Unlike some of the more rabid trolls infesting the net, she didn't post any gloating posts or personal attacks against him."

Of course, the pope didn't spend his life trying to convince people to hate and mistreat her gender.

"She left well enough alone and posted about other things. 'Cause she has this thing called a life"

Lol, did you just accuse people you disagree with off not having a life? Such is the maturity of the feminist.

Posted by: at Apr 12, 2005 3:17:27 PM

"First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't. My book should at least begin the exploration.

Wow, sounds like he's not promoting incest at all. He never contacted the magazine and demanded a retraction for this quote, nor did he ever write to the magazine and insist that his opinions were misrepresented. And he does state pretty clearly that parent-child incest isn't bad. Funny how the misogynists will call out Dworkin for her alleged pro-child abuse comments (her chapter did not promote child abuse or incest, but you'd have to read the whole thing to get it), but ignore Farrell's. Farrell himself denied making the specific quote, but couldn't figure out what, exactly he said. He never once made any noise about the article--kindly note that I linked to the entire thing, BTW. You can read the whole thing instead of one out of context quote. It's called intellectual honesty; you should try it sometime.

(I could go into why I don't agree with her overall analysis related to the quote, but you're not really interested in discussing Dworkin or what she actually said.)

Because this thread is about Andrea Dworkin, and Farrell has nothing to do with the subject?

It's because the finger-pointing over Dworkin's alleged pro-child abuse quote is hypocritical given your big hero's pro-incest interview.

Yep, Trish has a life. She doesn't troll other blogs and liken people to Stalin or Hitler. She also didn't post about how she'd celebrate the death of Pope John Paul (unlike Hombre/Feminazimartyr did over Dworkin's death). Celebrating the death of someone just shows the level of maturity of the average foaming-at-the-mouth misogynist troll.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 12, 2005 5:12:55 PM

Good Lord, I work on an article and watch Clive Barker movies at the same time all day and my blog goes nuts. Thanks for defending me, Sheelz.

Yeah, I just posted an FYI about Dworkin. I never got into her works, although I read two of her books. Speaking of Warren Farrell, he's been trying to keep that Penthouse article under wraps for 20 years, and he hasn't succeeded. Penthouse aside, his men's rights stuff is garbage, but Penthouse sure hasn't helped him any.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 12, 2005 6:22:26 PM

Count me in as one of those immature, average, foaming-at-the-mouth misterogynist trolls. With one exception - I don't hate women, just Dworkin. Dang. Is it possible to hate someone who's already DEAD? I reckon not. But it is possible to CELEBRATE their long overdue demise! I hope she had a bad dream while she died in her sleep. Looks like it's Miller Time boys. As I pour I'll be sure to make LOTS of FOAM (for the mouth) and dance a little jig. Then, maybe I'll go shoot some animals and drive my very large polluting monster truck in donuts over someone's petunias. But, the evening wouldn't be complete unless I find a gaggle of half dressed women (just expressing their sexuality) and make the most lude and unflattering remarks that is huMANLY possible. Belch, scratch my genitals and spit a most glorious loogie in an attempt to break the world record for distance. Now, if that don't make some of them little fillies swoon and want to hop right in to my truck, then I must be losing my touch. After all, I have a reputation to uphold and I certainly hate to disappoint.

Savoir Faire is everywhere

Posted by: Savoir Faire at Apr 12, 2005 6:24:44 PM

""First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't. My book should at least begin the exploration."

Wow, sounds like he's not promoting incest at all. He never contacted the magazine and demanded a retraction for this quote, nor did he ever write to the magazine and insist that his opinions were misrepresented"

How would you know? I kind of doubt he would bother to call you and let you know about it.

"And he does state pretty clearly that parent-child incest isn't bad."

Actually I first misread that as "gently caressing their children", and it seemed like he was saying parents who are afraid to gently caress their kids create children who are afraid of intimacy, and thus sexually repressed. This of course, doesn't support incest at all, and I suspect it's probably what he was saying. It would be interesting to see the rest of the article so we can get a better look at the context.

"Funny how the misogynists will call out Dworkin for her alleged pro-child abuse comments"

How do you know those who call out Dworkin for her alleged pro-child abuse comments are misogynists? Did they say they hate women? Did they say anything about women at all? Or are you just unable to distinguish between objecting to one woman, (on the grounds of child abuse no less), and hating all women? Unless you can provide actual evidence, methinks the latter.

"but ignore Farrell's."

He claims he was misquoted, and he's done nothing else since then, (this was way back in 1978 folks), to indicate he supports incest either. Such paltry evidence to convict someone on!

"kindly note that I linked to the entire thing, BTW."

Kindly note that you simply linked to a completely uncredible feminist kook site, run by an insane woman with an obvious hatred for anyone who stands up for the rights of men, (or fathers specifically).

"It's called intellectual honesty; you should try it sometime."

Hey, great soundbite, do you get a chance to use it often? Perhaps you might want to learn to use it correctly. Intellectual dishonesty is not just something to accuse others of randomly and hope it sticks. They have to actually behave in an intellectually dishonest manner first, perhaps by pretending to go after Farrell out of concern about his alleged support for incest, but in reality be slandering him because he supports men's right. See how that works?

"(I could go into why I don't agree with her overall analysis related to the quote, but you"

You should have ended that sentence there. Once we see you blame us for your actions, your reasoning becomes irrelevant.

"Yep, Trish has a life. She doesn't troll other blogs and liken people to Stalin or Hitler."

Funny, she has trolled groups I used to belong to in the past. But now she seems to promote her bigotry from right here. And you all just fucking nod and never object to the sexism because misandry is popular and true egalitarianism is not.

"She also didn't post about how she'd celebrate the death of Pope John Paul"

But John Paul didn't spend his life promoting hatred towards her gender. Ignoring the counterargument doesn't make it go away.

" (unlike Hombre/Feminazimartyr"

Yes, I'm sure we all look alike to you. No, I'm not Feminazimartyr.

" Celebrating the death of someone just shows the level of maturity of the average foaming-at-the-mouth misogynist troll."

I look forward to showing my maturity with in a celebration for you as well.


Posted by: Hombre at Apr 12, 2005 6:27:40 PM

"Thanks for defending me, Sheelz."

She didn't defend you Trish, she distracted away from your manhating comment. Your bigotry is not denfensible. "Call men on their shit"? Fuck you asshole.

Posted by: at Apr 12, 2005 6:30:53 PM

If Farrell was so misquoted, why didn't he contact the magazine and demand a retraction? Why didn't he threaten legal action against them? He's been quite happy to post such threats against the folks who first brought the article to light--yet when it first came out, he did nothing. Crap, if I was so misquoted, you can bet I'd get on the horn and rip the editor a new one. I'd at least write a letter to the editor. And I'd call a lawyer if they didn't bother to run a retraction or the letter.

No one's convicting him, since expressing opinions isn't a crime. (Curious, though, how a 25-year-old quote by Farrell doesn't matter because he supposedly never espoused incest after the interview, but a 30-year-old out-of-context quote by Dworkin is "enough to convict." Especially in light of her extensive writings on the evils of incest and child abuse.)

It is rather hard to tell you silly trolls apart what with all that mouth foam you all produce. Wipe it from your face and calm down, cupcake.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 12, 2005 7:09:41 PM

Andrea Dworkin was a radical. Not a liberal. As such, being nice or "fair" wasn't a particular priority of hers. So condemning her by the standards of liberalism is not exactly fair, because she didn't espouse liberal philosophy at all. She herself said she didn't believe in compromise and all that good liberal stuff.

In that sense, she's similar (as she herself stated) to a Malcolm X. Or even a Che Guevarra. She is not exactly a General Custer, as she never had any power or even a movement behind her to enslave or colonize anyone, so that is pretty misleading. She was always something of a marginalized voice in the women's movement, never mainstream by any means. A lot of what she said was the stuff of a provocateur. Sometimes I felt she was on to something (even if she oversimplified), other times I thought she was out there. But she was always interesting. I will miss her, only because I think too many liberals limp around trying to please everyone and not make waves, even while the conservatives do all the namecalling and smears they like, and nobody gives a s---. Andrea wouldn't play the liberal's game, and I kinda liked that.

Posted by: silverside at Apr 12, 2005 8:12:27 PM

I notice some obviously sexist remarks towards men have been cited here, (one made by Trish herself), and none of the feminists has had the courage or the integrity to stand up against any of them.


(And for as much as the word misogynist has been bantied about in here, I haven't seen anyone say anything negative about women here at all. )

Posted by: at Apr 12, 2005 8:52:40 PM

Other than someone referring to Andrea calling men on their shit (taking accountability), that's about it for "sexist" remarks.

As for the "other side" we're treated to such charming comments as we're apparently "dumbfucks" for even noting her passing. Not that anyone here has said they were unambiguous fans. I'm not. Still, I wonder if she wasn't on to something. Andrea would certainly not be surprised by the depth of the hostility, hatred, and personal attack. That's what she observed and wrote about. You have it backwards. She didn't so much propagate male hatred as write about male hatred of women, which makes everyone very uncomfortable, so she's accused of the hatred she tried to draw attention to.

Posted by: silverside at Apr 12, 2005 9:23:12 PM

"In everything men make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, still their sobs as they mourn the empitness and alienation of their lives." - Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, Page 214.

I know you all love to argue..."

Argue about what?

If we call war by it's proper name, mass murder, Dworkin was correct...All men love it...

Actually even when you're not involved in a war you play 'war games' which is what all these sports events are that you are all so fascinated by...what else is the hunting and now the paint ball games that you engage in but a 'microcosm of war'...

Please...

When she's right, she's right and Dworkin was right on this...so let's not argue that point...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 12, 2005 9:23:56 PM

"THERE'S ALWAYS SOME EXCUSE OR RATIONALIZATION, JUST FOCUS ON A SUBGROUP OF MEN LIKE VIOLENT CRIMINALS or the super wealthy, and IGNORE THE REALITY THAT THEY REPRESENT ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF ALL MEN and voila, the bigotry dissappears."


The problem is that when you add up the sum total of all the bad things men do however, THEN we could be looking at a sizable number...

For instance, % who rape, % who kill, % who commit robberies or assaults not counting rape, % who steal or mug people, % who beat wives, % who abandon children, % who use drugs or alcohol to excess, % who are either brutal police officers, corrections guards or soldiers, % who drink and assault people either with their fists or a car, % who get custody of kids just to avoid paying child support, % who cheat x-wife out of maritial assets, % who cheat on wives and spread disease, % who abuse or neglect their children, % who are terrorists, % who start wars or commit genocide...

So yeah, I know collectively we are talking about a small percentage who does any one of these bad things individually, but add them all up and then what????

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 12, 2005 9:35:44 PM

Hmmm, NYMom just accused all men of loving mass murder. Anyone going to actually object to that sexism here?

Posted by: at Apr 12, 2005 9:37:54 PM

"...and that women's responsibilities should be no less than men's...

...and vice versa...because you can talk to me about men's responsiblities being no LESS then women's the day one of you starts preparing for childbirth from about the age of 13 or so when the first menses hits, has one every month for about 40 odd years in continuing preparation to bear a child whether you want to or not, gets pregnant a couple of times during that 40 year interval, carries the child for nine months, culminating in in a painful and bloody delivery that last anywhere from 10 hours to 24 leaving your body a total mess for the most part; then finally has you going through menopause for about 5 to 10 years or so while mother nature phrases you out of the fertility lineup...

So when ONE of you MEN does all that, just ONE, then you can talk to me about lesser responsibility...

Okay...

Until then, shut up...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 12, 2005 9:47:47 PM

"And let me remind folks that it was the WOMEN in our tribes, including mine (Cherokee) that skinned MEN alive."

Thus they were BAD...Andrea Dworkin wrote some books...get it...not in the same category as Custer or some crazy indian women chasing after people with a knife...unless Andrea Dworkin killed someone that I never heard of...

Did she...

Then your analogue is false...and these allegations and comparing her to all these different people is getting a little ridiculous...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 12, 2005 9:53:04 PM

"The problem is that when you add up the sum total of all the bad things men do however, THEN we could be looking at a sizable number...

For instance,
% who rape, - very small, far less than the % of women who make false rape accusations.

% who kill, - Again very small, unless you're condemning those who kill to protect your freedoms.
% who commit robberies or assaults not counting rape, - I understand poor people commit more robberies than rich ones.

% who steal or mug people, It seems you're counting some twice.

% who beat wives, - Equal to the percent of wives who beat husbands

% who abandon children, - At least they aren't aborting them.
% who use drugs or alcohol to excess, - signs of stress and being unloved. Also, not sins.

% who are either brutal police officers, corrections guards or soldiers, - Again, you're counting the same men multiple times.
% who drink and assault people either with their fists or a car, - Men's social obligations to drive and take more risks do not make women more moral.

% who get custody of kids just to avoid paying child support, - Has anyone ever done that?
% who cheat x-wife out of maritial assets, - Right, she sacrificed going to work today. And yesterday. And the day before. Meanwhile she was subsidized by his income. What a huge sacrifice, surely after divorce he whose taken care of her lazy ass all those years owes her a lot!

% who cheat on wives and spread disease, - hmmm, about even to women.

% who abuse or neglect their children, - Women abuse their children more.
% who are terrorists, - You know how many of these groups I could combine and honestly say I've never met a man who fits into them?

% who start wars or commit genocide... - Well, out of those who have the power to declare war, men only do so a small percentage of the time. I've yet to find a woman who had that power who didn't use it.

"So yeah, I know collectively we are talking about a small percentage who does any one of these bad things individually, but add them all up and then what????"

If these "crimes" were all equally relevant you might have a point. But I don't think grouping "men who drink too much" with "terrorists" is an objective way to view them. Nor is focusing only on the bad and ignoring all the good that men do. Looks like hate speech to me.

Posted by: at Apr 12, 2005 9:56:31 PM

"Hmmm, NYMom just accused all men of loving mass murder. Anyone going to actually object to that sexism here?"


Well you just did...now why don't you have the courage of your convictions and give yourself a name...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 12, 2005 10:01:03 PM

To NYMOM regarding the giving of a name - He/She doesn't need to, no point.

NYMOM - Quote
""...and that women's responsibilities should be no less than men's...

...and vice versa...because you can talk to me about men's responsiblities being no LESS then women's the day one of you starts preparing for childbirth from about the age of 13 or so when the first menses hits, has one every month for about 40 odd years in continuing preparation to bear a child whether you want to or not, gets pregnant a couple of times during that 40 year interval, carries the child for nine months, culminating in in a painful and bloody delivery that last anywhere from 10 hours to 24 leaving your body a total mess for the most part; then finally has you going through menopause for about 5 to 10 years or so while mother nature phrases you out of the fertility lineup..."

That is a natural function, that is nothing to do with a man's responsibility. No man inflicted this on you, so why use in one-up-ism. Now if you are talking about a man taking responisibilty for this child (that he may not of wanted - then he has no rights in that situation, just the responsibilities.... hmmmm!!!) I will agree that a man should do that. BUT NOT ON JUST THE MOTHERS TERMS. Parenting is a shared responsibility.

NYMOM - Quote
""And let me remind folks that it was the WOMEN in our tribes, including mine (Cherokee) that skinned MEN alive."

Thus they were BAD...Andrea Dworkin wrote some books...get it...not in the same category as Custer or some crazy indian women chasing after people with a knife...unless Andrea Dworkin killed someone that I never heard of..."

Yeah.... Andrea JUST wrote some books, and Hitler JUST had a dislike for Jewish people. Hatred is hatred. Even if she doesn;t kill, that doesn't mean her words are any less potent. Passionately spoken words can motivate people to do many things. And as the old saying goes "The Pen is mighter than the sword". Think about it.


-------0------
Andrea Dworkin's many (not all) diatribes we're based on male hatred. Having a voice, stating your opinions is not a crime. Apparently, the USA prides itself on the freedoms of speech. But then with freedoms, theres always the lee-way for abuse. Insighting hatred for a complete gender - NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!! Come on. No matter what side of the fence you sit on that is wrong. Ultimately, for all of her mussings, Andrea was a deeply troubled woamn with issues ...... some what understandable considering what has happened to her. As a black male, I have been abused many times for just that - being a black male. That doesn't make me want to hate. No. Angry - HELL YEAH!!! Fustrated, empty, disappointed and shit load of other such emotions - yes. However, that doesn't make me want to encourage other black men to hate. Andrea was plain wrong in that aspect.She was also wrong in other points an example:-

She believes that battered women have the right to kill their batterer - she made this comment after O.J Simpson was aquitted of murder. Would she say same for abused husbands/boyfriends? Is it right to incourage murder? Don't women have the right to walk/run/get away from the situation. (and I'm not condoning DV!!) She has stated this a number of times.

Now imagine Andrea being given power, I mean serious power - prime minister, etc.... Do you think she would provide the equality feminists are "apparently" fighting for? Equality in the sense of equally shares distrubution of rights and RESPONSIBILITY?

Posted by: Not so silent watcher at Apr 12, 2005 11:32:34 PM

Sheelzebub: If Farrell was so misquoted, why didn't he contact the magazine and demand a retraction? Why didn't he threaten legal action against them? He's been quite happy to post such threats against the folks who first brought the article to light

I'm one of the ones he threatened, yet he was too cowardly to write to me directly. He send letters to men's rights activists, and they posted them on mailing lists and newsgroups. I've never been sued. I've fisked every one of his letters on my web site.

Warren Farrell

I have my own copy of that Penthouse issue. Nothing I've written about it was based on rumor. I own The Real McCoy, and Farrell does not look good in it. He was speaking out in support of "positive" incest.

--yet when it first came out, he did nothing. Crap, if I was so misquoted, you can bet I'd get on the horn and rip the editor a new one. I'd at least write a letter to the editor. And I'd call a lawyer if they didn't bother to run a retraction or the letter.

Of course he did nothing. He had no problem with the article, only people like me who brought it to light. He gets a bug up his ass every time he comes out with a new book because that Penthouse article is always trotted out to show what his real agenda is, and it isn't fairness between the sexes and concern for children.

No one's convicting him, since expressing opinions isn't a crime. (Curious, though, how a 25-year-old quote by Farrell doesn't matter because he supposedly never espoused incest after the interview, but a 30-year-old out-of-context quote by Dworkin is "enough to convict." Especially in light of her extensive writings on the evils of incest and child abuse.)

Really. They're quick to vilify Andrea Dworkin but they defend Warren Farrell and his ilk to the death.

It is rather hard to tell you silly trolls apart what with all that mouth foam you all produce. Wipe it from your face and calm down, cupcake.

The level of hate their showing on my blog is just amazing, isn't it? I expected as much, but even I'm surprised by how vicious they are being. Let them. They're only proving my point about how horrid father's rights activists are.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 7:17:06 AM

"Thanks for defending me, Sheelz."

"She didn't defend you Trish, she distracted away from your manhating comment. Your bigotry is not denfensible. "Call men on their shit"? Fuck you asshole."

Keep it up, guys. I don't have to do a thing to make all of you look bad. You're doing a bang-up job all by yourselves.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 7:18:05 AM

They've even got a thread devoted to me by name at Stand Your Ground. That's one of the places the trolls are coming from. They linked to this post.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 7:31:12 AM

I don't have to do a thing to make all of you look bad

... to yourself, that is, of course...


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Trish.

So, obviously, is "looking bad".

So long as you include yourself in "all" that's just fine with me!

tt

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Apr 13, 2005 7:36:42 AM

"% who rape, - very small, far less than the % of women who make false rape accusations."

You guys just can't stop posting your lies, can you, even after they've been exposed repeatedly? I've already demolished your claim that women routinely make false rape allegations. False rape allegations are rare. All of the numbers are less than 10%.

"As with all other Crime Index offenses, complaints of forcible rape made to law enforcement agencies are sometimes found to be false or baseless. In such cases, law enforcement agencies "unfound" the offenses and exclude them from crime counts. The "unfounded" rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were "unfounded," while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent." [Section II, Crime Index Offenses Report, Crime Index Total, 1996]

And this one is another lie: "% who beat wives, - Equal to the percent of wives who beat husbands." You should know that Richard Gelles is one of the researchers who designed the Conflict Tactic Scales, which men's rights advocates have been misusing for years to "prove" men and women are equally violent. Guys, women aren't beating men in equal numbers to men beating women.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:
NOT AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD
By Richard J. Gelles

[excerpt]

[W]hen we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of "battered" men as there are battered women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and only about ten percent are men.

Now, knock it off. Stop spreading lies on my blog. You aren't going to get away with it. If you want to post your lies, go back to Stand Your Ground or Mens Activism or wherever it is you guys like to whine.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 7:45:06 AM

Now, knock it off. Stop spreading lies on my blog.

OH! Your blogs are so pure, so clean, so innocent! So free of lies and lousy argument and distorted, misinterpreted and misused statistics.

Not to mention honest admissions of wrongful allegations...


So why should they? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Apr 13, 2005 8:02:09 AM

"They've even got a thread devoted to me by name at Stand Your Ground. That's one of the places the trolls are coming from. They linked to this post."

Yes, they've now started a campaign of harrassment against me as well, similar to what that Tim Pilzner was doing with posting my name, my address, even a picture of me...now claiming my office functions as the DA where I work, which is a complete lie, of course...

What is it with these freaks? AND how come they keep getting a free pass on everything they do, that's my question????

Even that crap they pulled on Hugo Schwyzer after he did the Glenn Sacks show, was anybody ever called to account for that...No...another free pass for those idiots...

That whole site should be closed down as it serves no useful purpose but to harrass and threaten people...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 13, 2005 9:44:38 AM

"That is a natural function, that is nothing to do with a man's responsibility. No man inflicted this on you, so why use in one-up-ism. Now if you are talking about a man taking responisibilty for this child (that he may not of wanted - then he has no rights in that situation, just the responsibilities.... hmmmm!!!) I will agree that a man should do that. BUT NOT ON JUST THE MOTHERS TERMS. Parenting is a shared responsibility."


...a natural function...mother and child bond, etc., whereas the male connection with children is all artificial, a social construct, a legal document, a court order, etc., finally at least one of you admitted it...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 13, 2005 9:49:20 AM

Trish: They've even got a thread devoted to me by name at Stand Your Ground. That's one of the places the trolls are coming from. They linked to this post."

NYMOM: Yes, they've now started a campaign of harrassment against me as well, similar to what that Tim Pilzner was doing with posting my name, my address, even a picture of me...now claiming my office functions as the DA where I work, which is a complete lie, of course...

What is it with these freaks? AND how come they keep getting a free pass on everything they do, that's my question????

Even that crap they pulled on Hugo Schwyzer after he did the Glenn Sacks show, was anybody ever called to account for that...No...another free pass for those idiots...

That whole site should be closed down as it serves no useful purpose but to harrass and threaten people...

I'm not going to post over there. They're riled up enough as it is. What they write about me doesn't concern me. I know I'm the one they feel threatened by. I don't feel threatened by them in the least. They're scum. Yes, they attack anyone they find threatening. They went after Hugo with a vengeance.

I agree with you about this point: Free speech is one thing but harassment and stalking are different things entirely. Fathers' rights activists have tried to find out where I live before, which is one reason I don't post much personal information online. I also don't allow my contact information to be available anywhere. I don't want those morons banging on my door or calling me on the phone. I wouldn't put it past them to attempt to do that. I have had a virulent woman-hater threaten me via e-mail (including a death threat), and I notified the police, who took care of it. Amanda has had trouble with a nasty troll at Pandagon. You never know what loonies are reading, although some of the loonies have come out of the woodwork and are busy slobbering all over my blog's comments.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 10:21:08 AM

"the day one of you starts preparing for childbirth from about the age of 13 or so when the first menses hits, has one every month for about 40 odd years in continuing preparation to bear a child whether you want to or not, gets pregnant a couple of times during that 40 year interval, carries the child for nine months, culminating in in a painful and bloody delivery that last anywhere from 10 hours to 24 leaving your body a total mess for the most part; then finally has you going through menopause for about 5 to 10 years or so while mother nature phrases you out of the fertility lineup"

I see, so you're against equality because some people are more equal than others. Reminds me of something a squealing pig once said.

Posted by: at Apr 13, 2005 10:22:17 AM

The squeeling pig from Animal Farm? Not a good analogy. What you want are special privileges. Same rights with far less investment.

How about the Little Red Hen, who got the seed, grew the wheat, milled the flour, baked the bread with no help? And then after she was done, everybody else wanted "equal rights" to the finished product?

Posted by: silverside at Apr 13, 2005 10:34:55 AM

"The squeeling pig from Animal Farm?"

Perhaps, or maybe your arguments just remind me of squealing pigs in general, it's hard to say. The bit about us not being equal physically so we shouldn't have equal rights does have shades of Animal Farm in it though.

"How about the Little Red Hen, who got the seed, grew the wheat, milled the flour, baked the bread with no help? And then after she was done, everybody else wanted "equal rights" to the finished product?"

Did the man who gave the hen the seed have a legal responsibility to pay 25-40% of his income to the hen for 18 years? Has bread been found to be much less likely to commit violent crimes, do drugs, or drop out of school when the seed giver has equal custody of it? It seems there's a few problems with your analogy, try again.

"Same rights with far less investment."

Ok, let's not let American women vote until as many of them have died defending the US as men have. It would be wrong to give them the same rights when they've given far less investment right? Or are you inconsistent about that? Would you argue, as another feminut I once knew did, that by giving birth women make up for that duty? But then you'd have to acknowledge that by dying and being otherwise maimed or traumatized by war to fight for our freedoms, men have made up for their "lack of investment" by not giving birth. Yet somehow, I suspect you think you should get to have it both ways.

Posted by: at Apr 13, 2005 11:18:44 AM

Sheelzebub-Why are you and your feminazi cult still here? Join Dworkin. You can "do it" yourself. And take the rest of the Bolshevik hordes with you.

Posted by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR at Apr 13, 2005 2:10:38 PM

Ok, let's not let American women vote until as many of them have died defending the US as men have. It would be wrong to give them the same rights when they've given far less investment right?

Many of feminists have actually pushed for women to fight in combat--and fought against conscription for men. A lot of traditionalists--many of whom are men--are opposed to women fighting in combat, and think conscription is just fine. So if you want to blame someone, blame the guys who set the policy, and put the strawman away.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 13, 2005 2:28:11 PM

Sheelzebub-Why are you and your feminazi cult still here? Join Dworkin. You can "do it" yourself. And take the rest of the Bolshevik hordes with you.

Hombre (you posted the same diatribe under different names here and at Hugo's blog, kiddo), why are you still here? At this blog, I mean. If our presence disturbs you so much, you are free to go elsewhere. You don't have to read any of these posts, or reply to any of them. You just can't seem to resist. We throw the stick, and you fetch.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 13, 2005 2:30:59 PM

SheelzeDouchebag-
Well thank you for confusing me with Hombre. I admire his eloquence and content. Im only here to annoy and destroy the feminazi plague. Consider me the feminazi-seeking-missile. Now be reasonable (a very relative term) and pack it up. North Korean gulags await your presence.

Posted by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR at Apr 13, 2005 2:59:06 PM

Well, as the argueing on this blog shows, THIS is where we are in America. Look at what we're saying to each other. I mean really LOOK. I have to say that if women were REALLY for equality (and some are and some aren't, same goes for some men) then they would stop demanding privliges and special rights for themselves while trying to take rights away from men. How is having special rights (over others) and those others losing rights EQUALITY? ansewer; it ISN'T.
I want ANY of you feminists here to say that you have had it worse than my people. (American Indians) But you haven't. You havn't been the victims of genocide, you were given the right to vote LONG before any Native-American (man or woman) were and if you want to talk about violence, American Indians are the largest victims of violence not just in the country but the WORLD. None the less you do not see any of us picketting to "Kill whitey" including white WOMEN who have been as hitoricaly anti-Indian as any white man has ever been. and you do not see us advocating or incouraging violence against whites and you don't see us wanting to take rights away and dis-empower whites for our own gain as Americans. We certainly don't have a hold on the media the way American women do. The only time we Indians have been mentioned in the media in the last decade, has been the RED LAKE SCHOOL attack, and of course that was something negative. You hear about women's issues in the media DAILY! Women's social consernes, women's health, women's political consernes and anything and everything that consernes women.
Do you ever see INDIAN consernes and issues aired in the media? NO! You hear plenty about BREAST CANCER, but little or nothing about the epidemic of diebetes on moast reservations. You hear about FEMALE victims of D.V. but NOTHING about how Indians are CONSTANTLY the victims of general violence, including HOMICIDE, on a daily bases at the hands of non-Indians. You hear about how the leading cause of death for women is HEART ailment. Well that and HOMICIDE and SUICIDE are the leading cause of death amoung INDIANS especialy Indian MEN. Where is the oh, so objective, tolerant and all-inclusive media when it comes to Indians?!?
And you women, especialy you over privileged, well educated, coddled WHITE women, all you do is complain about how rotten YOU have it.
Are you rounded up like cattle and placed on a reservation? have you had your COUNTRY STOLEN FROM YOU? Have you been given small pox infected blanketts to kill you off? Have you been driven on a thousand miles trek to a God-forsaken piece of land, in hopes you would all just DIE THERE?
Are your consernes, politicaly, socialy and personaly completely IGNORED by the media and polititions? Is there (still) a policy of GENOCIDE against women by the federal government as there is against Indian people...?
Don't bother ansewering. Because the ansewr to all those questions is; NO!
To listen to feminists and, frankly, alot of American women today you would think that they are the most under-represented, over-ignored and endangered people on the planet. But I am here to tell you that you ARE WRONG! DEAD wrong.
But despite that any and all American women, particulairly WHITE women have things ALOT better than MOST Indian men OR women, doesn't mean that I or any other Native-American will now or ever call for supirior rights, special privliges and special consideration over White women. (or men) Hell we can't even get EQUAL rights and recognition. What would make us think that we would get any more than that?
The next time you feminist types want to complain about how badly you have it (and in some cases you might) go visit an Indian reservation. I recomend the Navajo reservation, the Pine-Ridge and Rose bud Lakota reservations. GO there. Then come back after seeing the conditions there and tell me how bad you American women have it. Especialy you white women...,

Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"

Posted by: Thundercloud. at Apr 13, 2005 3:58:53 PM

Feminazihatemartyr: "Sheelzebub-Why are you and your feminazi cult still here? Join Dworkin. You can "do it" yourself. And take the rest of the Bolshevik hordes with you."

Excuse me? This is my blog, and I and the feminists who post here aren't going anywhere. If you have a problem with feminists who post here you should take yourself elsewhere, like back to that men's rights board where you found this post in the first place.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 4:18:33 PM

The Day is coming when you and your bloodthirsty babymaulers and their marxist rebellion will be eating every word. Repent or be destroyed in the Second Death described in the Book of Revelation!

Posted by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR at Apr 13, 2005 4:24:51 PM

Thundercloud-
As a white heterosexual "priveleged" man I extend my condolences to you and the plight of the American Indian. Do not lose hope. Judgement Day is coming and the "Custers" of history (as well as the feminazi tyrannts of today) will be accounting for their deeds. Everyone will.
Sincerely, FHM

Posted by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR at Apr 13, 2005 4:30:52 PM

The reference to pigs and some people being more equal than others is a literary illusion to Orwell's Animal Farm, for those of you who slept through high school English.

I find it interesting that the FR crowd, which is definitely in line with totalitarian thinking, accuses feminists of this. I just want to raise my kid in peace. Too bad it will never happen. And spare me the bullshit. I DO pay child support, buddy. So spare me the sob story and nonsense about single moms. Instead, my daughter is being raised by a chronically unemployed deadbeat who withdraws visitation on a whim.

In fact, mothers do invest more in the process of giving birth and raising children than men do. But it's discounted to make everything "equal." Which makes the FR people more Bolshevik-like, truth be known (e.g. a leveling "equality". But I doubt you know very much about Soviet history, Bolshevism, Lenin, Rosa Luxemburgh, or any of that.) In no other area would you tolerate someone who invests less with getting the same return.

Posted by: silverside at Apr 13, 2005 4:33:49 PM

LONG LIVE THE LAKOTA NATION!!!!!!!

Posted by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR at Apr 13, 2005 4:34:17 PM

I'm sorry, I must have missed that part of American history where American women are responsible for creating the mess that Native Americans exist in today. Don't make the same mistake as that young man in Minnesota. Looking to rightwing fascists for relief from your pain. Feminists have never advocated for any policy oppressing Native Americans. Where did you come up with that Big Lie? Go back and read again who did what to whom. Where do feminists come in in the historical record?

You have been convinced, out of your sense of powerless, to go after phantom enemies. This is how fascist thinking operates. You don't actually do the work to find out who did what. You bash.

Note to Teri. Note postings above. Exhibits A, B, and C as to how the Fathers Rights movement has not changed. Still violent, still frothing at the mouth, and rapidly approaching what one commentator has called pseudo-fascism, with its utter infatuation with violence, will to power, intoxcation with power for its own sake.

Posted by: silverside at Apr 13, 2005 4:41:51 PM

silverside- So-called Feminism is marxism at its most egregious. You need references? Ive got gigabytes full of them. Even though you make the reference to Orwell you blindly ignore the target of his work. Everything feminazi's accuse us of being are projections of their own twisted delusions. Orwell is no doubt rolling in his grave over you and so-called "feminism".

Posted by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR at Apr 13, 2005 4:42:49 PM

Feminazihatemartyr: [multiple screechings deleted]"

Dude, you okay? You escaped from the howler monkey cage at the zoo again, didn't you? ;)

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 4:49:05 PM

Silversnide-
"Note to Teri. Note postings above. Exhibits A, B, and C as to how the Fathers Rights movement has not changed. Still violent, still frothing at the mouth, and rapidly approaching what one commentator has called pseudo-fascism, with its utter infatuation with violence, will to power, intoxcation with power for its own sake."

Hypocrit. We arent murdering children in the womb and calling it "empowerment". Bloody feminazi thugs.

Posted by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR at Apr 13, 2005 4:49:09 PM

Somebody better get a tranquilizer dart. He's hurling poo at the onlookers... ;)

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 4:52:44 PM

Come over to Standyourground.com again Trishypoo. Bring the rest of your loser-crew with you.

Posted by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR at Apr 13, 2005 4:53:14 PM

Why, Feminazihatemartyr? I'm not threatened by you guys. You are obviously threatened by me because you keep posting shrill rantings here on my blog. Dial it down a notch before you give yourself a stroke.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 4:58:06 PM

"The reference to pigs and some people being more equal than others is a literary illusion to Orwell's Animal Farm, for those of you who slept through high school English."

That's literary allusion, Valedictorian.

"I find it interesting that the FR crowd, which is definitely in line with totalitarian thinking"

Not at all, we object strongly to totalitarion thinking. That's what makes us anti-feminist.

"accuses feminists of this"

And rightly so. NYMOM clearly stated she opposes equal rights based on the fact that humans aren't exactly equal. Sorry if nature made you the ones to get pregnant, but trying to deny men equal rights because we're biologically different is like saying blacks and whites should have different rights cause they're darker than us. It is totalitarian thinking.

"I just want to raise my kid in peace."

Then you should stop advocating for oppression.

"And spare me the bullshit. I DO pay child support, buddy. So spare me the sob story and nonsense about single moms. Instead, my daughter is being raised by a chronically unemployed deadbeat who withdraws visitation on a whim."

Aha, so you want the right to complain to be yours only, (men in that situation only have sob stories), even though you're probably paying less child support than a man would in your situation. By the way, around here women are only denied custody if they're complete psychotics with criminal histories and prostitue themselves for crack, is that true where you live too?

"In fact, mothers do invest more in the process of giving birth and raising children than men do. But it's discounted to make everything "equal.""

What you want to get paid for giving birth? Whose decision was it to do that again? Oh yeah, your own.

"Which makes the FR people more Bolshevik-like, truth be known"

Did the Bolsheviks also feel that fathers should have equal rights even though they don't give birth? Is that a defining aspect of being a Bolshevik or are you just full of it?

"e.g. a leveling "equality". But I doubt you know very much about Soviet history, Bolshevism, Lenin, Rosa Luxemburgh, or any of that."

In the Early 1900s the Ottoman empire was collapsing, leading to Russian and european expansionism. In 1905, the first Marxist uprising in Russia failed. In 1914, a chain of events based on the expasionist policies and beginning with the asassination of a somewhat unknown fellow named Franz resulted in Russia entering a war that was very unpopular with it's people. Further discord was created by the spread of Marxist propaganda by the enemies of Russia, until one day in Febuary 1917 a certain order was not carried out as it should have been, and as a result the leadership of Russia changed. The following October, due to poor military planning, Lenin, Trotsky, and friends replaced the new leaders and formed the Bolshevik party. The first thing they did was quit the unpopular war they'd entered 3 1/2 years prior, and enter a new, more civil war with a group they dubbed the anti-us which was to last until 1922. Two years later, Russia was officially rechristened the USSR, and Lenin's successor started to prove himself corrupt, but only in intimate circles. Shortly after Trotsky was ousted the corruption quickly picked up speed, as the communist leaders discovers the easiest way to overcome problems was to use the same methods they'd rebelled against the Czar for using. This last part is covered in Animal Farm, and afterwards is just a tale of a corrupt, ineffective government ruling for as long as it could until it collapsed. You're right though, I know nothing about it.

"In no other area would you tolerate someone who invests less with getting the same return."

Well, people over 7 feet tall eat more food, and thus emit more greenhouse gas eroding feces than the rest of us, but I'm okay with them getting the same legal responsibility for the environment as the rest of us. I won't hate them just because they are biologically different than me, ya know? Oh wait, you wouldn't.

Posted by: at Apr 13, 2005 5:19:37 PM

My (admittedly long-winded) post was meant to point out that While feminists (seem) to believe that women have been and are the only people on the planet treated wrongly, there are people who have been and still are treated much worse, AND that we (Indians unlike alot feminists) do not and will never try to take away the rights of others to gain power for ourselves, all the while calling it equality.
Do feminists and women have the right to be angry for how they were treated? Sure. So do Indians. But un-like (too many) feminists we don't want to "casterate all whites", "kill all whites", "destroy all whites" and/or take all power from whites and bestow it upon ourselves.
We indians have NEVER asked for anything more than TRUE equality. Nothing more. (or less).
This cannot be said for alot of feminists, including Ms. Dworkin, who lumped ALL men into one category, the way I (we) see alot of other feminists doing.
This mind set is not only counter-productive it can be dangerous, and not ONLY to the people it is directed at.
I hear alot of feminists talking about how they are going to "destroy the patriarchy" and "take away men's power" all under the guise of "equality". But they also seem to think that ALL men everywhere are going to just cheerfuly let that happen. I speak for alot of men when I say: 'I and many other men, regardless of ethnicity are not going to just stand by while our (God-given) rights are taken away simply to be given to a people whom want nothing more than to destroy us.' If feminists REALLY want EQUALITY, and I mean the ACTUAL definition of it, not the rad-fem version, then fine. I will THEN cheerfuly and happily be on their side. But when they make the goal obviously what it is I.E. to destroy me, then NO WAY am I gonna side with my destroyer. That would be NUTS! Why would ANY people WILLINGLY allow themselves to be destroyed, literaly or figurativly? But I see feminists (like Ms Dworkin) who get angry simply for the reason that men, no matter what their race will not just lay down and die.
My people (Native-Americans) have had to fight for what few rights we HAVE. We have had to fight tooth and nail to achieve even a sliver of equal treatment from the government. (which is made up of BOTH men AND women) Now here come a bunch of feminists (both male and female) who want to opress me further, not only for my ethnicity but now my GENDER.
Sorry, But I am just NOT gonna go through any more oppression for WHAT EVER reason. I've been through it as an Indian, I'll be damned if I'm gonna go through the same cotton-pickin' thing just because I was born a male.
First the whites (both male and female) hate me because of my race now here come the feminists to do the same damn thing (all the while denying it) to me because I'm a male.
Dose humanity NEVER learn from it's past?
Many feminists are the example that it doesn't.
Humanity seems never satisfied unless it has SOMEONE to hate, scape-goat and destroy. Be they Black, White, Indian, Male or Female, it is with out END.
Well, like I said I'm not going through it again, and I know I speak for most Native-American men when I say that.

Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"

Posted by: Thundercloud. at Apr 13, 2005 5:28:12 PM

sheelz: "In fact, mothers do invest more in the process of giving birth and raising children than men do. But it's discounted to make everything "equal."

Anonymous: "What you want to get paid for giving birth? Whose decision was it to do that again? Oh yeah, your own."

That was probably one of your most important points, Sheelz, and he completely ignored it in favor of having a temper tantrum. Yes, mothers invest more in the process of giving birth and raising children than men do, which is why mothers most often get custody of the children upon divorce. Not only do mothers do this work, they do it with fathers' blessing. Fathers' rights activists pretend that parenting is an equal playing field, when parents do not go into divorce on equal footing. There was always one primary caregiver, and most often that was mom - which is why she gets custody. If dads want custody, they should do the nuts and bolts, basic, primary care from the beginning, and not demand "equality" years later in a courtroom. This drive for presumptive "shared parenting" (ha!) is all about those men wanting their demands met without having done the work.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 5:37:44 PM

Hear, hear, Thundercloud!


Moral of the Story?

Hate begets Hate, Unreason begets Unreason, Screeching begets Screeching. Allegations beget Allegations, Lies beget Lies, Injustice begets Injustice. Only problem is, they all tend to escalate. And THAT'S how wars get started.

Perhaps, the world is actually much better off with fewer people like Andrea Dworkin. This thread, devoted to her memory, is perhaps the best testimony to her "contributions".

tttwtanbtt

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Apr 13, 2005 5:44:37 PM

Thundercloud- Excellent points. It is because the feminazis make no distinctions that defines their hellish tyranny. They are the most twisted gang of thugish brutes conceivable. Theyve declared war upon the universe and most absurdly become irate when everyone resists their ludicrous demands. We will not surrender and the day is coming when they will pay for their crimes. Fortunately they dont know this and will foolishly continue to wage war upon us all, unaware that this will be their undoing.

Posted by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR at Apr 13, 2005 5:48:21 PM

There was always one primary caregiver,

Nothing like a black and white, incorrect statement. Sometimes, parents do share care equally, especially when mothers go to work too. But logic and fairness are not your big thing.

and most often that was mom - which is why she gets custody.

That infallible logic again!

If dads want custody, they should do the nuts and bolts, basic, primary care from the beginning,

And going off to work his guts out, from the beginning, while mummy stays home and looks after baby is obviously nothing like an equal nuts and bolts contribution... So long as you only count the things on your side of the equation, you'll always come out with a wrong answer, that looks in your favour. But good looking, wrong answers are better than the truth, right?

and not demand "equality" years later in a courtroom.

Years later... Oh, so the mother stopped her contribution years ago, like the father did? More good reasoning? Oh, of course, you mean years after "all the work was done", in the delivery suite.

This drive for presumptive "shared parenting" (ha!)

Yep, funny, eh? Don't you understand simple truths? Like: presumptive shared parenting would have the effect of stopping a large amount of the fighting to gain the "upper hand" you so desperately want. Why is Equality not enough?

is all about those men wanting their demands met without having done the work.

What "work", Trish? Only those activities that **you** define as such?

tt

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Apr 13, 2005 5:59:25 PM

"...and vice versa...because you can talk to me about men's responsiblities being no LESS then women's the day one of you starts preparing for childbirth from about the age of 13 or so when the first menses hits, has one every month for about 40 odd years in continuing preparation to bear a child whether you want to or not, gets pregnant a couple of times during that 40 year interval, carries the child for nine months, culminating in in a painful and bloody delivery that last anywhere from 10 hours to 24 leaving your body a total mess for the most part; then finally has you going through menopause for about 5 to 10 years or so while mother nature phrases you out of the fertility lineup...

So when ONE of you MEN does all that, just ONE, then you can talk to me about lesser responsibility..."

I reject your premise out of hand.

Men will no longer accept this manipulative, dishonest and bullying tactic.

You can biologically bear children and I cannot? So what?

I can produce sperm. I have a prostate. You do not. So what?

Your argument is based upon your bias that as women can bear children, then you have more responsibility than men.

We are equal.

That is what Feminism was about, right? equality.

Hateful positions such as your show that it was about superiority all along.

Posted by: Lee at Apr 14, 2005 2:03:00 PM

To quote Rodney King's simple but eliquent catch-phrase; "Can't we all just get along...?"

Posted by: Jinx. at Apr 14, 2005 2:17:30 PM

"...We are equal..."

No we are NOT...and your continuing attempts to try to be 'equal' with such an unequal contribution from your end is basically discrimination against women...

We invest much, you little, then you want to 'share' everything equally after contributing nothing, taking no risk, bearing little or none of the burden...how is that fair...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 4:13:03 PM

Jinx- I would truely like to see that happen, too.
But un-fortunately, as a tribal elder once told me:, "It is pointless to show light to the blind."
That is why it is so hard to maintain peace.
And it DOESN'T matter if you are male or female. You just have to be human.

Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"

Posted by: Thundercloud. at Apr 14, 2005 4:17:49 PM

"To quote Rodney King's simple but eliquent catch-phrase; "Can't we all just get along...?"

Obviously not...he was living in a pipe dream...

It's too bad but it's the wave of the future...men and women will just be like men and men are with each other...which is arguing over everything, not able to share or make joint decisions...it worked before because women were always the ones to give in as we were in the lesser position, now we're not so things must change...

Just as different races always 'got along' here as long as one was always able to lord it over the other, now they can't do that anymore so it's a natural evolution of power-sharing relationships...and some people will JUST not accept that sharing...

I won't say which group, but it's the usual suspects...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 4:18:37 PM

"We are equal"

"No we are NOT"

Men built the whole of civilization, and invented almost everything, but women want to be equal in all that, though, right?
Not a whole lot of difference when you put it in these perspectives.
So in keeping with your logic then women must build a whole civilization and invent things up to par with men THEN women can be equal.
Can't you see how faulty that kind of "logic" is??
And in closeing, Your saying; "No we are NOT" (equal) shows that you do not TRUELY want "equality". Just supirior rights and privliges over men, just like Thundercloud and some of the other male posters are saying.

P.S.
I am a WOMAN.

Posted by: Jinx. at Apr 14, 2005 4:29:18 PM

"Ok, let's not let American women vote until as many of them have died defending the US as men have. It would be wrong to give them the same rights when they've given far less investment right?"

We've invested our suffering and blood to give you the soldiers you moron...how do you think you grow soldiers...

Even the ancients knew a painful and bloody delivery was equivalent to being on the front lines in war...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 4:30:26 PM

PLUS very few men go into combat today whereas MOST women bring children forth in pain and suffering...

So why don't we just remove the vote from ALL MEN who don't go into combat...

That sounds faired to me...

Posted by: NY MOM at Apr 14, 2005 4:34:17 PM

"% who commit robberies or assaults not counting rape'"

% who steal or mug people, It seems you're counting some twice."

No...as a robbery could be just breaking into your car and stealing a stereo, it doesn't mean any physical violence, yet is still an anti-social act...whereas a mugging implies a weapon and physical confrontation to take your valuables off your person...

Big difference...

Same thing with stealing something...doesn't imply physical violence but it could...so there is some slight crossover but they are still distinct categories...


% who are either brutal police officers, corrections guards or soldiers, - Again, you're counting the same men multiple times.

Where are they counted multiple times????

There are brutal police officers

and then other police officers...I don't think it's a crime JUST to be a police officer...if that' what you are implying...


Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 4:41:28 PM

"You havn't been the victims of genocide, you were given the right to vote LONG before any Native-American (man or woman) were..."

This is a lie btw...women were not given the right to vote until the 1920...

Interesting that an American Indian would be defending the very people who exterminated his own people...I think there are more deer in this country now then Indians YET you are all gun ho to reestablish the status quo that exterminated your people...

Sigh...

People never cease to amaze me...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 4:47:25 PM

""Ok, let's not let American women vote until as many of them have died defending the US as men have. It would be wrong to give them the same rights when they've given far less investment right?"

We've invested our suffering and blood to give you the soldiers you moron...how do you think you grow soldiers..."

You don't get credit for fighting in wars when you didn't fight in them. As I said, if you want women to get extra rights in the area of children because they give birth, (if they want to), then men should get extra rights in the area of freedoms because they defend them. Until women do an equal share of defending our freedoms, they should not get equal rights in that area.

"Even the ancients knew a painful and bloody delivery was equivalent to being on the front lines in war"

The first clue that an idea is suspect is that it was believed in ancient times, (at least according to you). Giving birth is giving birth. Being on the front lines is being on the front lines. There's almost nothing comparable about the two. You want credit wrt parental rights because you give birth but you also want credit wrt defending the nation because you give birth. It doesn't work that way babycakes. You get credit only for what you do yourself, just like men only get credit for what we do ourselves. It's called equality.

Posted by: at Apr 14, 2005 4:49:55 PM

"Even the ancients knew a painful and bloody delivery was equivalent to being on the front lines in war..."

For the ancients, perhaps. Not anymore. I've been to the maternity ward twice and I for one would take it over the front lines any day. The raising of the kids is the hard part.

"No we are NOT...and your continuing attempts to try to be 'equal' with such an unequal contribution from your end is basically discrimination against women...

Our marital property is ours, regardless of who went to work and earned it. Our children are ours, regardless of who carried them. When it comes to relationships between men and women you can't just assign someone a lesser position without opening up a whole different can of worms that you wouldn't want to deal with. Equality isn't so bad when you consider the other possible alternatives.


Posted by: Anne at Apr 14, 2005 4:50:38 PM

"The Day is coming when you and your bloodthirsty babymaulers and their marxist rebellion will be eating every word. Repent or be destroyed in the Second Death described in the Book of Revelation!"

Is there a doctor with a straight jacket in the house to put on this clown...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 4:50:46 PM

"LONG LIVE THE LAKOTA NATION!!!!!!!"

Oh please...if you weren't arguing with us, you'd be over there trying to turn his reservation into a housing development and kicking him and his family in the street...

Get over yourself...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 4:55:36 PM

"For the ancients, perhaps. Not anymore. I've been to the maternity ward twice and I for one would take it over the front lines any day.'

That's probably because you allowed them to pump too many drugs into your system which was bad for your children...What were you thinking so selfishly exposing infants to all that pain killing medicine just for your own comfort...

Disgraceful...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 4:57:55 PM

You should have been arrested for child abuse Anne...

I never heard of anything so selfish and irresponsible as what you just told me you did to your own children...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 4:59:23 PM

"Men built the whole of civilization, and invented almost everything, but women want to be equal in all that, though, right?'

Yes, since woman provided you with the manpower to build it...

Duh....

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 5:02:56 PM

"That's probably because you allowed them to pump too many drugs into your system which was bad for your children...What were you thinking so selfishly exposing infants to all that pain killing medicine just for your own comfort..."

Is that a fact? Well, as usual you are presuming to inform total strangers about the facts of their lives. It so happens I had to have hemorrhoid surgery when I was two weeks from my due date with my son and was ordered by my OB to have a C-section to minimize the danger of further damage during delivery. And I had epidural anesthesia during said delivery, as do the vast majority of women who deliver today. It goes into the spinal fluid, not the bloodstream, and does not affect the baby. The effect was patchy, as well--I had a great deal of pain when they reached the innermost layers, and was not given any further meds to dull the pain until after the baby was out. I'd still take it over the front lines.

Child abuse? Well, in that case I guess we should storm the maternity wards, send the vast majority of those children to CPS, and arrest their mothers before their epidurals wear off. So much for the great mothers' advocate. :-)

Posted by: Anne at Apr 14, 2005 6:12:04 PM

"It so happens I had to have hemorrhoid surgery when I was two weeks from my due date with my son and was ordered by my OB to have a C-section to minimize the danger of further damage during delivery."

Well you managed to get out of that one Anne...you appear to be very resourceful with the quick retort...that I have to give you...

No matter which subject I post on from child birth to lesbian mothers and collies, you have experienced it and have the quick retort to follow up with...

You're a wonder that's for sure......

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 7:23:47 PM

"I agree with you about this point: Free speech is one thing but harassment and stalking are different things entirely. Fathers' rights activists have tried to find out where I live before, which is one reason I don't post much personal information online. I also don't allow my contact information to be available anywhere. I don't want those morons banging on my door or calling me on the phone. I wouldn't put it past them to attempt to do that. I have had a virulent woman-hater threaten me via e-mail (including a death threat), and I notified the police, who took care of it. Amanda has had trouble with a nasty troll at Pandagon. You never know what loonies are reading, although some of the loonies have come out of the woodwork and are busy slobbering all over my blog's comments."

Well my question is WHY DO THEY KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT... I mean this has been my experience too...at first I thought it was just me but many women on the internet have told me the same thing happened to them...

What right do these idiots have to threaten us...that's my question...and more importantly how do we stop it...


Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 7:29:01 PM

"What right do these idiots have to threaten us...that's my question...and more importantly how do we stop it..."

Stop your war on men and Ill go away.


Posted by: AntiFeminazi at Apr 15, 2005 11:49:39 PM

BTW. If any of you really ARE being harassed or stalked by M.R.A.s, I am sorry that is happening. They shouldn't be doing that. None of the M.R.A.s that I know would do that, but there are crazies in every group, Male or Female. All I can say to those guys is; just cut it out. Don't do it anymore. It's wrong AND counter-productive. But mostly, it's just WRONG.

Posted by: Thundercloud at Apr 16, 2005 5:07:15 AM

Stop your war on men and Ill go away

Classic. We're defending our rigths and our bodies and our honors from these nutjobs and they feel like being defended against is an assault because they're so spoiled rotten.

I had a kid try and grab me between the legs in an Army chow hall, in uniform, in full view of God and the Drill SGT. "KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF RIGHT NOW!"

"Why?"

Why?! I mean, WTF, why? I don't have to give a reason why, dickhead, I just have to say no. I don't have to make up excuses as to why you don't get to assault me. Same thing with what's his face up above. Oh,a nd by the way? My father fought the Nazis in WWII. Using the word that way invalidates your position, and I won't be further engaging you.

Gee, stalking is wrong. I saw an overwrought poster on another thread take NYMOM to task for putting her stuff out there. Just because you can do something, evidently, is reason enough to do it. It's that kind of attitude that leadxs to the priveleged attitude exhibited by WHF up above, and by that kid in the chow hall. Any defense against them is an assault.

Poor babies. They don't get any better in real life: I know guys like this in real life and they say exactly the same thing. Then they wonder why no woman will come near them.

Posted by: ginmar at Apr 16, 2005 11:56:28 AM