Not sure I've ever been to Jezebel before.

Does their entire editorial posture work something like this?:

You won't believe what _____ said/did!!!

They didn't!

Yes, they did!!!

Well, I never....!!!

…And real frickin' dumb? Is that really what feminine nature is all about?

That pretty much describes every post at Jezebel. And too much of what is now feminism.

I get cranky at anyone who presumes to tell me what my primary interest should be. Piss off and go get your own damn interests!

I've never been the least bit interested in getting married or becoming a mother.

I'm not wrapped up in my "career," either. The whole career meme seems like total nonsense to me. Work is what I have to do to get paid, and sometimes it sucks and sometimes it doesn't. At any rate, I aspire to do less of it, not more.

I called myself a feminist until fairly recently. I still agree with them a lot of the time, but I had to step away for four reasons.

1) Feminists fail to acknowledge how much progress they've made over the last few decades. They behave as though America is still a place where a woman can't get a bank account without her husband's signature. Failing to acknowledge their success poses two problems. If they're wrong, then they're just a bunch of whiny asshats. If they're right, then what the hell use are they?

2) They react to the specific challenges of women as though men don't face their own unique set of challenges. Some things ARE harder for women because of gender bias, but some things are harder for men for the same reason.

3) They have little respect for women who opt to not embrace every possible opportunity. I am a stay-at-home mom. My husband and I consider ourselves equal partners with a different set of responsibilities. But as far as too many feminists are concerned, I have bowed down to the will of "The Man." They can kiss my ass.

4. I got tired of hearing middle class and upper middle class white women attributing their lack of success to their vaginas. Never mind that they have had more opportunity to succeed than poor men and women, and especially poor black men. If they've failed to achieve their goals, it must be a man's fault.

I think it's important to remember that EVERY group has its humorless, lunatic fringe. Not just feminists. Besides, while there are gentler, more polite ways of publicly reminding teen girls from conservative communities not to trash their options after graduating high school, that doesn't mean the more dense girls are going to hear them, always. (I swear, conservatives STILL refuse to acknowledge that it's not safe for a married woman with kids to have weak marketable skills - what if one disaster or more happens at once, aside from divorce?)
_____________________________________

Ask most women what's the most important thing they've done with their lives, and they'll answer: raising their families.
___________________________________

As I've mentioned before, one's actions mold one's attitudes more often than the other way around, and having children - before or after marriage - is often an accident, so it's no wonder that those men and women who choose to keep, raise and support those children - an exhausting endeavor, obviously - will call raising their families the most important thing. It does NOT mean that they truly feel that way on all levels. Even those people who always planned on having children often end up regretting it - but they still need to praise themselves for sticking with the job.
___________________________________

But what I really don't want to be seen as is grim and humorless. Luckily, I'm neither of those things, and, accordingly, nor am I a feminist.
_____________________________________

Judith Martin (Miss Manners) is always funny, and she's a self-described feminist.

I don't keep up with modern young stand-up comics or humorists, so I don't know how many of them would call themselves feminists - or get referred to that way. (Especially by MRAs with chips on their shoulders - they might call Louis C.K. a feminist.)

I DO know that plenty of old-time feminists have had a great sense of humor - see that book I've mentioned, "Pulling Our Own Strings." It had satirical pieces such as excerpts from "Are Children Neglecting Their Mothers?" and, from the late Sheila Ballantyne, a chapter from "Norma Jean the Termite Queen," which, to my mind, was as good as any of Dave Barry's columns. Well, OK, a bit more subtle, but not much. It was about sewing. And yes, it includes those who believe in self-mocking humor, such as Nora Ephron and civil-rights lawyer Flo Kennedy.

One Amazon reviewer said:

"I've read perhaps twenty different Feminist humor collections...and this is the best one."

There's a sequel. It's "In Stitches."

Description: "Contributors include Toni Cade Bambara, Dave Barry, Alison Bechdel, Mary Kay Blakely, Kate Clinton, Barbara Ehrenreich, Jules Feiffer, Ellen Goodman, Guerilla Girls, Nicole Hollander, Zora Neale Hurston, Jane Wagner, and many, many more."

Finally: In 2002, I got to ask Judith Martin why we still use the term "feminist" so much still when black people have never felt the need for a word to describe black people who believe in racial equality, and she said, in effect, that it's simply a matter of wanting to preserve the memory of those who fought for our current rights, paying them tribute, and remembering when women who thought like that were in fact the exception.

Speaking of which, here's a thread from Bratfree:

http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,366415

It includes a CNN link: "5 things women couldn't do in the 1960s."

Some of the stories about backward young women of today ARE scary.

BTW, MonicaP, yes, you make good points.

" In 2002, I got to ask Judith Martin why we still use the term "feminist" so much still when black people have never felt the need for a word to describe black people who believe in racial equality, "

Except they did, "Black Power". Of course then you run into the problem, is "Asian Power" racist or equality, "Hispanic Power" is that racist or equality, "Red Power" is that racist or equality, "White Power" "definitely racist".

It all boils down to Feminism effectively has a dual definitions: 1. Promoting the rights, power, and interest of women and 2. Equality.

The problems, those two definitions conflict often, and equality doesn't take into account that people don't want or need the same things.

You don't refer to an individual person that way. That was my point.

"It all boils down to Feminism effectively has a dual definitions: 1. Promoting the rights, power, and interest of women and 2. Equality. "

In other words, "All genders are equal, but some are more equal than others."

You're missing the important news: apparently, Megan Fox has announced to her guy that there's to be no sex for a year.

Just stopped your brain, didn't I?

I'm starting to think the worst feminists are the "women of color" ones.

The cool thing is that no "man of color" will marry them.

And to that I say:

Thank you white guys for taking one for the team!

Re: Megan Fox

Remember guys, no matter how hot she looks, there is some guy out there somewhere who's tired of her shit.

Plus, I don't think she's all that hot. Maybe that's just me.

The best test for feminist idea, or for that matter racial ones, is always word substitution. Take the word the group uses for itself, and replace it with "white male".

If the result makes you cringe, then the original idea ought to be just as cringe worthy.

Here are a few:

From the Jezebel front page:

- "Michigan white male music festival"

- "National White Male Task Force"

- "White male soldiers can have braids"

What, you mean special rule for white, male soldiers would be wrong? We shouldn't have a "White Male Task Force" or a music festival either?

Well, then...

"If there's a fringe in feminism, it's the reasonable, rational fringe."

This. The "lunatic fringe" is firmly in charge of the agenda, and they have forced all more rational philosophies out. Like most of the civil rights movements, it's now very much a cult. I've said before that Wendy McElroy is a very rational feminist, but she doensn't stand a chance in hell of influencing the feminist leadership.

Regarding "humorless" people: My observation is that there are few people who are truly humorless. A lot of "humorless" people are actually narcissists, and one characteristic of narcissists is that what they regard as funny is cruelty. They regard ordinary humor as a waste of time, but they'll laugh uproariously at a story about someone who doesn't share their beliefs being tortured or harmed.

How to spot a narcissist: Tell them a joke that pivots on a particularly egregious pun. Some people will find it funny; most people will groan. But if the person reacts aggressively -- "Why are you wasting my time with this shit?" -- they're a narcissist.

If there's a fringe in feminism, it's the reasonable, rational fringe.
___________________________________

Seems to me you could say the same thing about Republicans and their chronically embarrassing statements to the media on science and medical issues. Or maybe the media (surprise) just don't like to focus on the moderates in any group.

How to spot a narcissist: Tell them a joke that pivots on a particularly egregious pun. Some people will find it funny; most people will groan. But if the person reacts aggressively -- "Why are you wasting my time with this shit?" -- they're a narcissist.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at August 15, 2014 6:45 AM
________________________________

Sometimes, that MAY be a reliable test (I knew a narcissist who was like that, occasionally).

However, while that sort of attitude is clearly rude to express openly, just HAVING it is not, IMO, narcissist. A lot of adults are sick of the dumbing-down of society and the increasingly childish habits of adults around them (think of the movie "Idiocracy"), and they're getting tired of having to struggle to find the company of adults who consistently talk and act like intelligent, dignified adults. Not to mention that, why should teens strive to change THEIR childish habits and demeanor as they get older, since the adults around them didn't? Can you say "vicious circle"?

"Seems to me you could say the same thing about Republicans and their chronically embarrassing statements to the media on science and medical issues. "

There are just as many stories about Democrats doing the same thing... except that you don't see them because the media are in their corner and make sure those stories get covered up. Politicians are politicians, but the media are tribal.

"A lot of adults are sick of the dumbing-down of society and the increasingly childish habits of adults around them..."

So pun jokes are "childish"? Are you really standing up for the narcissists on this?

Yes, puns are childish in most cases, unless you're Shakespeare.

No, I'm not standing up for narcissism. Or rudeness, of course.

"Yes, puns are childish in most cases, unless you're Shakespeare."

I think you have spotted a narcissist, CD.

If Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Mary Wollstonecraft could have foreseen what organized feminism has become today, they'd have shut the movement down in its infancy, convinced that women were not serious enough to deserve the vote.

Organized feminism today is a pathetic attempt by a small group of frivolous women struggling to remain the gatekeepers of women's issues and concerns. Without the power the movement (and its embrace by equally frivolous politicians) gives them, they'd be reduced to stuffing envelopes at home to make bread money.

I think one can easily infer from CD's scenario that MOST people just don't like puns much, and so it's really not polite to inflict them on people on a regular basis. Just as you, as an adult, wouldn't go around telling knock-knock jokes all the time. Even little kids have to be gently discouraged from boring adults to tears with that habit - and even other kids can get annoyed. Any teacher will tell you that to be popular, when making conversation, you have to talk first about what OTHER people are interested in. (This etiquette rule is used to great effect in chapter 15 of "To Kill a Mockingbird.")

To Conan: Seems to me that there's still plenty of work for feminists still to be done in the U.S. alone, so long as women, with or without children, have to worry about their ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands stalking and killing them, for starters. Not to mention how to deal with, in a no-nonsense manner, global "traditions" such as forced marriages, FGM, and honor killings, whether inside or outside the U.S., without having it turn into an excuse for nuclear war. (If Sam Harris' implications in "The End of Faith" are correct, that's not so implausible.)

To Conan: Seems to me that there's still plenty of work for feminists still to be done in the U.S. alone, so long as women, with or without children, have to worry about their ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands stalking and killing them, for starters.

So murder only effect women and is only commited by exes?

Not to mention how to deal with, in a no-nonsense manner, global "traditions" such as forced marriages, FGM, and honor killings, whether inside or outside the U.S.

Sure, sure. But they dont focus on these issues. The focus on the "wage gap" and "visual rape" and castigating women for making the "wrong choices"

Are you worried about american society not teaching men to not rape? Cause that is classic third wave feminism.

First and second wave feminism had actual issues to fight against and made positive improvements to society. But once you win all the sane people leave. And then you are left with third wave feminism. A bunch of angry misandrists yelling and screaming about non-issues.

Seems to me that there's still plenty of work for feminists still to be done in the U.S. alone, so long as women, with or without children, have to worry about their ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands stalking and killing them, for starters. ~ Posted by: lenona at August 16, 2014 9:42 AM

That's a criminal issue. Society as a whole does not condone that. Many of the police officers, prosecutors, judges, and jurors who work to protect women from that and convict the men who do that are men.

Besides, that's not what's keeping organization feminists up at night. Taxpayer-funded contraception and abortion is. That someone criticized a woman politician is. That someone told an off-color joke is. That men and women have (and desire to have) sex with each other is.

Organization feminists won't be happy until they've neutered men, removed men from college campuses, and installed like-mided women (or subservient men) at every level of power.

This isn't what Anthony, Stanton, and Wollstonecraft were fighting for. They wanted social and legal equality, not some fantasy version of the planet Amazon.

Modern organized feminism is not serious. It has become trivial.

(Of course, the organization feminists scream "sexism" if you point out that most of the women they've so far installed in the corridors of power got there through their husbands' influence, riches, or connections.)

==============================

Not to mention how to deal with, in a no-nonsense manner, global "traditions" such as forced marriages, FGM, and honor killings, whether inside or outside the U.S., without having it turn into an excuse for nuclear war. (If Sam Harris' implications in "The End of Faith" are correct, that's not so implausible.)

That's an actual issue, and one on which organization feminists are strangely silent as they chose instead to fritter away their time and political capital accusing Republican men of waging a "war on women."

All while fawning over Democrat politicians who stand accused of rape or real sexual harassment - simply because those politicians regularly vote in favor of taxpayer-funded birth control and abortions.

So murder only effect women and is only commited by exes?
_________________________________

No. But it may be safe to say that, comparatively speaking, when a male-female couple breaks up - even if the woman was the only violent one - she's willing to leave well enough alone and not stalk him.

Are you worried about american society not teaching men to not rape? Cause that is classic third wave feminism.

Posted by: Ben at August 17, 2014 6:29 AM
___________________________________

It's not just about teaching angry, naive young men that rape is rape even under conditions X, Y, or Z. (Such as when the couple has had consensual sex previously - many teens still have trouble believing this.) It's also about the very difficult, but important task of uprooting psychopathy in young people before it becomes permanent - of course, that applies to young women as well. (This is hardly a "non-issue.")

Forty years ago, we used to act as though it was too much trouble to focus on prevention and close supervision of disturbed children/teens rather than on locking them up after they committed crimes, and that's partly how we got Jeffrey Dahmer (who was showing signs at 7 and began murdering men at age 18 but who was found legally sane in court). Now, thankfully, we order parents and teachers to keep a close eye on kids when they hurt animals - or show other serious signs of lack of empathy.

What's the difference?

I should have said "we order parents and teachers to keep a close eye on kids when they hurt animals - or show other serious signs of lack of empathy - and to get them as much TREATMENT as needed and that can be enforced before they turn 18 and are free to refuse it."

Taxpayer-funded contraception and abortion is.
__________________________________

Contraception and abortion are hardly trivial matters, for multiple reasons - such as needing to be able to have control of one's life. (That includes long-term couples, BTW - I don't know why husbands/boyfriends aren't more concerned when their wives/girlfriends have trouble getting access to certain contraceptives - such as having to drive for a hundred miles or so to find a cooperative doctor.)

I like to imagine a billboard aimed at boys and men:

"Not ready to be a father?

"Guys...get Vasalgel. Take control of your future."

Search at RH Reality Check for the 2013 article "Better Birth Control for Men: 8 Promising Possibilities." It mentioned 3 methods (drugs) I didn't know about.

Also, for a nice long FAQ list on Vasalgel see here:

http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-faqs/

You have to click on the questions to see the answers.
______________________________________

Not to mention how to deal with, in a no-nonsense manner, global "traditions" such as forced marriages, FGM, and honor killings, whether inside or outside the U.S., without having it turn into an excuse for nuclear war. (If Sam Harris' implications in "The End of Faith" are correct, that's not so implausible.)
__________________________________

That's an actual issue, and one on which organization feminists are strangely silent as they chose instead to fritter away their time and political capital accusing Republican men of waging a "war on women."

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at August 17, 2014 9:38 AM
____________________________________

And how would YOU go about tackling the problem as a politician without being overly accused of religious bigotry - as in, to the point where you weren't getting enough voters to keep you in office?

Also, I think the fact that an anti-contraception type like Rick Santorum got as far as he did in 2012 is a strong sign that there is, at least, a pretty harsh war on contraception, at the very least. (Of course, you could call that a war on BOTH men and women.)

No. But it may be safe to say that, comparatively speaking, when a male-female couple breaks up - even if the woman was the only violent one - she's willing to leave well enough alone and not stalk him. ~ Posted by: lenona at August 18, 2014 8:01 AM

It may be safe to say, but such a statement is based on reported cases.

While statistics say that men are 80% of the stalkers out there, how many men don't report women stalkers? According to men who have reported women for stalking them, the police are less likely to take a man reporting a woman stalker seriously. As a result, how much that goes under-reported?

And at what point does her post-break-up harassment (late night hang-up calls, breaking into his e-mails, etc.) legally become stalking? His does immediately because society is afraid that he's going to become violent. But how many of those men really would have become violent? How many would have eventually moved on? Best not to find out, but it's an interesting question.

Like spousal violence, the reporting and handling of the different cases alters the nature of the crime statistics.

Contraception and abortion are hardly trivial matters, for multiple reasons - such as needing to be able to have control of one's life. ~ Posted by: lenona at August 18, 2014 9:01 AM

Julia was not the poster child for taking control of one's life. She was the poster child for taxpayer-funded permanent adolescence.

Modern organized feminism is not concerned that Julia is not growing up and taking control of her life. Modern organized feminism is concerned that Julia is not getting enough goodies on the taxpayer's dime.

==============================

I like to imagine a billboard aimed at boys and men: ~ Posted by: lenona at August 18, 2014 9:01 AM

When that day comes, the forced child support racket's paradigm is going to shift without a clutch.

==============================

And how would YOU go about tackling the problem as a politician without being overly accused of religious bigotry - as in, to the point where you weren't getting enough voters to keep you in office? ~ Posted by: lenona at August 18, 2014 9:01 AM

Politicians, religious and otherwise, have already spoken out against FGM, arranged marriages, and honor killings without losing votes.

However, organized feminism is not an elected institution. Just like the NRA, the ACLU, NARAL, NORMAL, and others, they're supposed to speak up and defend their positions, even if it costs them popularity and a seat at the cool kids' table. But modern organized feminists don't speak out about issues that won't get them pats on the back from the Democratic Party. They've allowed themselves to become tools; pawns in a game.

==============================

Also, I think the fact that an anti-contraception type like Rick Santorum got as far as he did in 2012 is a strong sign that there is, at least, a pretty harsh war on contraception, at the very least. ~ Posted by: lenona at August 18, 2014 9:01 AM

There's no "war on contraception" - just a large number of people opposed to it (rightly or wrongly) and opposed to taxpayer-funding for it.

Santorum's probably a smart guy. He has an MBA and a JD (with honors). He also seems to be honest - he was a member of the Gang of Seven that helped expose the House banking scandal and House Post Office scandal.

However, there were enough non-religious issues with Rick Santorum's candidacy for the presidency:
- his inexperience in ever actually running anything
- his lack of non-government work history before becoming a Congressman (he had only been a lobbyist before his election)
- his advocacy on behalf of professional wrestling's exemption from federal anabolic steroid regulations)
- his consistently big-government voting record

It's not just about teaching angry, naive young men that rape is rape even under conditions X, Y, or Z.

X being they both had half a beer and that magically makes him a rapist, but not her?

Y being she asked him to stop and he did, but the law makes it so that every consensual act up to that point is retroactively rape?

Z being she decided the next day or 9 months later that she didnt "really" want to so now its rape?

Time was feminists pushed the notion that a woman was responsible for her own decisions and could make her own choices. And that No meant No.

Now thy push the notion that a capfull of mouthwash has enough alcohol to invalidate a womans choices cause shes too fucking stupid to make her own decisions. Not only no means no anymore. These days 'I didnt say no, but I didnt say yes' means no. These days 'I didnt want to but I didnt tell him and said yes' means no.

These day yes means no if a woman decides to change her mind after the fact, even if its years after the fact

(Such as when the couple has had consensual sex previously - many teens still have trouble believing this.)

So, how much alcohol do you have to drink to turn your husband/boyfriend into a rapist, exactly?

It's also about the very difficult, but important task of uprooting psychopathy in young people before it becomes permanent -

How is that a feminist issue and not a societal issue?

of course, that applies to young women as well. (This is hardly a "non-issue.")

Yes, but feminists are the ones who cry sexism when anyone points out that women are just as violent as men, so again, what is the point of feminism as it never addresses the issue you want it to address and only addresses fake issues like the wage gap and rape culture?

It's also about the very difficult, but important task of uprooting psychopathy in young people before it becomes permanent -
____________________________________

How is that a feminist issue and not a societal issue?
____________________________________

Well, I'm guessing that animal torture is now seen as a clear-cut call for long-term action on the part of a child's parent or teacher - as are other signs of lack of empathy toward people in general. However, if a boy DOESN'T exhibit such signs - just verbal hostility toward girls and women - the common assumption is "he'll outgrow it." Just as they used to say about boys who tortured animals - until people realized that boys who do that could end up being dangerous to anyone. Whereas many men are only dangerous to women.

It reminds me of what Richard Pryor once said:

"They're calling it an epidemic now. That means it's happening to white folks."

I notice you failed to even answer the one tried to